Please have a seat, take a fruit or what you like, and after some repose tell me something, whatever comes into your mind...

The uncited quotation on your user page reminds me of Tristram Shandy, Ch. XII: "Trust me, dear Yorick … for every ten jokes, — thou hast got an hundred enemies…." Lestrade (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

As far as I can see, you know your chicken... Your memory is much better than mine :) Platonykiss (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It is a very nice present. Platonykiss (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And please do not forget this allusion: "Yorick, however, fought it out with all imaginable gallantry for some time [...] — he threw down the sword; and though he kept up his spirits in appearance to the last, he died, nevertheless, as was generally thought, quite broken-hearted." Platonykiss (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should specify gallantry in front of some churchy folks among wikipedians. Just two words should be enough: "Hot chestnuts!" Platonykiss (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Platonykiss. With the See also section, I removed all links that were a) red, b) linked to another site, or c) already linked in the article (WP:SEEALSO). I think the section about the Papadic Octoechos is probably the most difficult to follow at this point, if you'd like to work on that. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the following: "Greek and foreign historians agree that the ecclesiastical tones and in general the whole system of Byzantine music is closely related to the ancient Greek system"?

It is found in the lead of Byzantine music and it's been there since November 10 2007 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byzantine_music&direction=next&oldid=170566496).

As far as I know this is nonsense, but I thought I'd check with you. So what do you think? Thanks for any insight.

Contact Basemetal here 00:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help at my talk page. I hope you continue to enrich WP with material about the music of the Eastern Churches. WP sorely needs it. For example there's almost zero material on the music of the Georgian Orthodox Church. BTW, I don't now if you've noticed but your articles on the Oktoechos do not mention the Georgian church as one which uses the Oktoechos: "eight-mode system used for the composition of religious chant in Byzantine, Syrian, Coptic, Armenian, Latin and Slavic churches since the Middle Ages" (excerpted from the lead of your articles). See? No mention of the Georgian church? But maybe that list was not meant to be comprehensive? Contact Basemetal here 00:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I doubt that Romanians and many others will feel really represented by it (despite they had a Greek influence in the South and a Slavic in the North), but since Frøyshov's essay about Iadgari is there, the Georgian evidence has definitely been mentioned. Nevertheless, I followed your suggestion.

In general Georgian music is definitely worth to have an own article, have you tried this one?—Platonykiss (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have, but as far as religious music I only found the first paragraph in this section. Georgian Church music should have its own article but you are so busy on so many fronts (for example I saw you contributed a huge amount of material to Saint Martial school also, besides the articles on the Oktoechos) that one wonders when you would have the time to treat the Georgian topic on top of everything else you're already doing. Besides are the sources on Georgian church music so easily accessible? Some years ago I took a look at a New Grove article regarding Georgian Church music and almost all the references were either in Russian or Georgian. Do you read Russian or Georgian? But maybe that situation has changed. Another thing that would be useful is a review of the discography for the eastern Churches. As you may have noticed there's a lot of offerings e.g. on YouTube but one does not know how scholarly informed those offerings are. I'm sure WP readers would be interested not only to read about these matters but also to hear what those works sound like, and so an assessment of the scientific value of the interpretations would be useful. Sometimes they're very beautiful, e.g. this recording of the Georgian Easter Troparion by Nana Peradze. But what is it worth from the liturgical point of view? Does the Georgian church really allow the use of mixed choirs in the liturgy? I don't know of course but I'm sceptical. Contact Basemetal here 21:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many users here, some of them definitely more competent in the field Georgian church music, that it makes no sense to wait for me to write all the articles relevant to Orthodox church music. I leave it to you, whether you prefer to open there a section about church music or to write a separate article. If I take some time to write here for you, it is to encourage you to contribute and to recommend some articles for your preparation.

I'll try. But I have to become more proficient with this intricate topic before I can reliably contribute. I still have lots to learn. I will be very thankful for your bibliographic help: so what articles do you recommend? Would you consider Frøyshov's article as part of a bibliography of the music of the Georgian church? Contact Basemetal here 19:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It is one of the most recent publications concerning the Iadgari together with the Bulgarian book about the papyrus sources of octoechos which Svetlana Kujumdzieva published last year. There is also a recently founded International Research Center for Traditional Polyphony at Tiflis, which became very engaged also for topics concerning liturgical music of Georgia:

http://polyphony.ge/index.php?m=555

especially "Sacred polyphony": http://polyphony.ge/index.php?m=566 —Platonykiss (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On another topic, would you happen to know how Henry Julius Wetenhall Tillyard (1881-1968) (who, though he probably should, does not have his own article yet, as you can tell from the beautiful bright red color of his link) would be related to the Shakespeare scholar Eustace Mandeville Wetenhall Tillyard (1889-1962)? Contact Basemetal here 19:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

H.J.W. Tillyard is definitely worth an article, but I rather do not say that this has the first priority, since the few articles about Greek protopsaltes are very poor (including Chrysanthos and Petros Peloponnesios), there is still no article about Gregorios the Protopsaltes, Chourmouzios the Archivist, Iakovos Peloponnesios/the Protopsaltes and Konstantinos the Protopsaltes/Byzantios (no articles about most of the great teachers of the other national schools, nor articles about the Athonite schools), and the same is true for many other musicians of the Byzantine and the Ottoman Empire. There is no article about all the different forms of Byzantine and Orthodox Music Notation (please have a look in my sandbox). It is hard to say, where to start. But you just do the topics, where you need anyway a preparation, so others can profit of an article with an updated bibliography (please use the templates, so that other users can easily grasp them with bibliography plugins). —Platonykiss (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How are H.J.W.T. and E.M.W.T. related (if they are and if you'd happen to know)? Just curious. Contact Basemetal here 14:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. —Platonykiss (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just wrote in the octoechos article about Georgian sources, because they are the oldest layer. For linguists (and this is far from my limited knowledge), it is evident that these early sources are rather less refined translations of the Greek texts comparable to early Latin translations of the canticles. Nevertheless, the Iadgari is the most complete chant book which has survived as papyrus.

Concerning the living tradition of Georgian chant, there is no strict separation, since male ensembles like "Rustavi" and "Georgika" (the preceding generation) used secular, paraliturgical and liturgical songs in their programs, just because they have a very unique form of polyphony which is in this context rather regarded as a national heritage than as part of a church ceremony. This is possible, because some male voices are supposed to sing in a very high register within this tradition. But I see no reason to regard a mixed choir as less authentic. The same is true for the monodic tradition which has been always performed by nuns as well (usually it is not mixed, except during those rare occasions when a female and male community meet together for certain processions). In the context of Byzantine court music the higher register might have been reserved for Eunochs, but honestly, we knew very few names like Philanthropinos the Eunoch Protopsaltes, and not much more than just this name, not even any precise date of his lifetime.

Concerning youtube, I just quoted examples with traditional singers. The rights belong usually to Manolis Hatzegiakoumis, the editor of the Mnemeia and Symmeikta series. For a long time, you could buy these precious editions only in book shops of the Greek Orthodox church, but they are obviously very tolerant with the copyright in order to let spread the knowledge about the tradition of Athos and Istanbul in the whole world (meanwhile you can also order it online with discount conditions). But I know even very small communities in the whole world, whose ceremonies have been filmed by locals. Some material is very precious, but you have to know it and you should be aware, that youtube links usually vanish soon. —Platonykiss (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Platonykiss. Congratulations for your hard work. Please take a look at this and this. --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your orthographical support. I agree with all, but concerning trochos, researchers usually agree on this form τροχὸς (also in the index), but there are different ways depending on the manuscript. Concerning sticheron I agree with your decision to use the modern orthography.—Platonykiss (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also [1]. See: Grave accent rule. The rules are pretty clear [2][3]. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not mess it up. If there is written koiné or Constantinopolitan Greek we use the old orthography. For the rest of the article you might use the modern form, but consequently, not like now. Platonykiss (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for using VisualEditor! Having editors use it is the best way for the Wikimedia Foundation to develop it into the best tool it can be.

While we always welcome general feedback (please report any issues in Bugzilla in the "VisualEditor" product or drop your feedback on the central feedback page on MediaWiki.org), the developers are especially interested right now in feedback on the special character inserter. This new tool is used for inserting special characters (including symbols like ₥, IPA pronunciation symbols, mathematics symbols, and characters with diacritics). It is intended to help people whose computers do not have good character inserters. For example, many Mac users prefer to use the extensive "Special Characters..." tool present at the bottom of the Edit menu in all applications or to learn the keyboard shortcuts for characters like ñ and ü.

The current version of the special characters tool in VisualEditor is very simple and very basic. It will be getting a lot of work in the coming weeks and months. It does not contain very many character sets at this time. (The specific character sets can be customized at each Wikipedia, so that each project could have a local version with the characters it wants.) But the developers want your ideas at this early stage about ways that the overall concept could be improved. I would appreciate your input on this question, so please try out the character inserter and tell me what changes to the design would (or would not!) best work for you.

Issues you might consider:

• How often do you normally use Wikipedia's character inserters?
• Which character sets are useful to you? Should it include all 18 of the character sets provided in the wikitext editor's newer toolbar at the English Wikipedia, the 10 present in the older editor toolbar, or some other combination of character sets?
• How many special characters would you like to see at one time?
  • Should there be a "priority" or "favorites" section for the 10 or 12 characters that most editors need most often? Is it okay if you need an extra click to go beyond the limited priority set?
  • How should the sections be split up? Should they be nested? Ordered?
  • How should the sections be navigated? Should there be a drop-down? A nested menu?
• The wikitext editor has never included many symbols and characters, like ℗ and ♀. Do you find that you need these missing characters? If the character inserter in VisualEditor includes hundreds or thousands of special characters, will it be overwhelming? How will you find the character you want? What should be done for users without enough space to display more than a few dozen characters?
• Should the character inserter be statically available until dismissed? Should it hover near the mouse? Should it go away on every selection or 10 seconds after a selection with no subsequent ones?
• Some people believe that the toolbar already has too many options—how would you simplify it?

The developers are open to any thoughts on how the special character inserter can best be developed, even if this requires significant changes. Please leave your views on the central feedback page, or, if you'd prefer, you can contact me directly on my talk page. It would be really helpful if you can tell me how frequently you need to use special characters in your typical editing and what languages or other special characters are important to you.

Thank you again for your work with VisualEditor and for any feedback you can provide. I really do appreciate it.

P.S. You might be interested in the current ideas about improving citations, too. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VisualEditor’s special character inserter has been re-designed. Because you previously shared your opinions on the old “floating box” version, I would like your feedback on the new, full-width design. Click here to open the Sandbox at mediawiki.org. As of this morning, this sandbox only shows a small, basic set of special characters. However, the list of characters can be customized at each wiki. Please test it out, and leave your feedback at the VisualEditor/Feedback page on mediawiki.org. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Platonykiss,

The Editing team is asking very experienced editors like you for your help with VisualEditor. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too.

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend. You may don't speak the Greek language. Please turn all the "κατὰ γένον" to "κατὰ γένος". --Francois-Pier (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Greek language the right is "κατὰ γένος", all other in books is only some errors. Try to see some Greek books about this. --Francois-Pier (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mais je parle au moins le Français... Vous preférez cette langue?

Ça dépend des nos sources, on fait comme là, même s'il y a une autre flexion dans le grecque moderne. Qu'est-ce que la forme usée par Manouèle Chrysaphe? Platonykiss (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked, it has been all the time τὸ γένος. I thank you and excuse the inconvenience. Platonykiss (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will make an effort to help you about melos (pl. mele) which itself is not a plural form:

• τὸ μέλος or τὸ μέλισμα (pl. τὰ μέλη or τὰ μελίσματα): a harmony "view" of an echo (from ancient Greek horizontal harmony/music)
• [a meaning] τοῦ μέλους (pl. [a meaning] τῶν μελῶν): [a meaning] belonging to the melos
• ἡ μελωδία (pl. αἱ μελωδίαι): the melody (from melos/μέλος and ὠδὴ/ode) an ode with one or more mele (melody itself can be a plural form)
• ὀ μελωδικὸς, ἡ μελωδικὴ, τὸ μελωδικὸ (pl. οἰ μελωδικοὶ, αἱ μελωδικαἱ, τὰ μελωδικὰ): those belonging to the melody
• ἡ μελοποιία (pl. αἱ μελοποιίαι): the process to build a melos (from melos/μέλος and build/ποιῶ)
• ἡ μελοποίηση (pl. αἱ μελοποιήσεις): the product of a μελοποιία process (from melos/μέλος and poetry/ποίηση)

--Francois-Pier (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) τὸ μέλος

Μεθοδική διδασκαλία: Methodical teaching

θεωρητική τε και πρακτική: theoretical (teaching) and practice (of this teaching)

προς εκμάθησιν και διάδοσιν του γνησίου εξωτερικού μέλους: for learning and dissemination of the genuine exoteric melos

της καθ' ημάς Ελληνικής Μουσικής κατ' αντιπαράθεσιν προς την Αραβοπερσικήν: of our (view of) Greek Music in juxtaposition with (the view of) Arab-Persian one

συναρμολογηθείσα υπό του Μουσ[ικού] Π. Γ. Κηλτζανίδου Προυσσαέως: assembled by the musician P. G. Kiltzanides of Proussa

2) ἡ ᾀσματική ἀκολουθία

• ὀ ᾀσματικὸς, ἡ ᾀσματικὴ, τὸ ᾀσματικὸ (pl. οἰ ᾀσματικοὶ, αἱ ᾀσματικαἱ, τὰ ᾀσματικὰ): those belonging to the ᾄσματα/songs/chants
• ἡ ἀκολουθία (pl. αἱ ἀκολουθίαι): usually translated into service but really means a sequence (but also a sequence/αλληλουχία → alleluia)
• ἡ ᾀσματική ἀκολουθία (pl. αἱ ᾀσματικαἱ ἀκολουθίαι): a sequence (comprised) of (some) chants

3) τοῦ μέλους

The phrase "τὰ εἴδη τοῦ μέλου" is also wrong. The right is "τὰ εἴδη τοῦ μέλους" and means: the species of (every) melos. In Greek language the genitive can be used with "a hidden every" only in single form (never in plural one).

--Francois-Pier (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Büzürk Peşrev is πλ δ' (using Rast). --Francois-Pier (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A very nice Interpretation! Of course, the kinship between makam büzürk and rast, this is a Phanariot's point of view or with Keltzanides' words της καθ' ημάς Ελληνικής Μουσικής κατ' αντιπαράθεσιν προς την Αραβοπερσικήν. Platonykiss (talk) 09:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask a translation (because I don't exactly understand you) then:

αἱ μέθοδοι (plural = methods) τῶν θέσεων (plural = of theseis/positions) τοῦ μέλους (not plural = of melos) --Francois-Pier (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the complexity of this issue, however, you did a very good job with those articles, congratulations. --Francois-Pier (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I translate these articles because I requested by some of my friends, for that, I also get advices about some terminologies. I am a connoisseur of the Latin notation and theory, as mathematician found enough help in Greek and Byzantine one. I am trying to learn all these, to help one of my friends (student of Ioannis Arvanitis) in his research in Neobyzantine. Regarding the mathematical aspect of ancient Greek theory in Byzantine music, by my side. I have a different view on some of the writings, but I made these translations without my interventions.

Yes, pathos is neutral:

• τὸ πάθος/pathos (pl. τὰ πάθη/pathe): like μέλος-μέλη/melos-mele, or γένος-γένη/genos-gene

Not male:

• ὀ ἦχος/echos (pl. οἰ ἦχοι/echoi): like μέσος-μέσοι/mesos-mesoi, or πλάγιος-πλάγιοι/plagios-plagioi

So, I turned "oi pathoi" to "ta pathe". Also, the "destroyer" is "καταστροφέας" and "corruption" is "διαφθορὰ" (as depravity), but "corruption" also used as "φθορὰ", better are "spoilage" and "spoiling". I think "spoil" is the right keyword for the use of "φθορὰ" in music, but really I don't know the right terminology in English language. It's up to you by now... --Francois-Pier (talk) 05:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have also some advices for the Greek translation of Greek terms which are sometimes a little bit too translated (the Byzantine term for alleluia verse is ἀλληλουϊάριον, the responsorium gradual is προκείμενον), but I will do these suggestions as soon as you are through, in order not to distract you in your work.

I realised that you are very fit in Latin neumes and I appreciate a certain emphasize in your choice of pictures, like this it is a real dialogue on Greek wikipedia.

Hence, whenever you have a question or a critical remark, please have a seat here, if you like. I always appreciate different or contrary opinions and I am quite aware of all the controversial issues which we are touching here. I have also Greek friends who seem to have deep roots in Turkey or to other countries of the Eastern Mediterranean (one is even Orthodox and a dervish at the same time), and a few Turkish friends. There is no doubt that Greeks played a very active role in the Ottoman past and in the Orient, but this history is very complex and full of traumata. It takes a long time to discover those hidden treasures hunted by their memory. Platonykiss (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Αλλελουιάρια is the plural form in new-Greek language which used on Greek Wikipedia. Despite this, feel free to make any change you want. --Francois-Pier (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:THREAT. Whilst your threat may carry no legal weight (as there is not statutory "commission against government censorship") its reads like deliberate attempts at intimidation (see wp:NPA).Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just said the article does lack neutrality. And even if you felt intimidated, do you feel the same might happen to those, to whom you dedicate such articles? Platonykiss (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is now a warning, if you make threats like this [[4]] followed by this [[5]] are a clear sign you will report users to some outside authority (if you wish to report users here for misconduct that would be wp:ANI, I would strongly advise against you taking that course of action). You them posted this [[6]] which can be seen as a threat to write a negative article about a user. No you did not just say the article lacks neutrlaity. You tried to bully and intimidate users with... something I will no say any thing about before I breach wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems rather to me you talk about your behaviour in front of me. See the alert you arranged with Mr. X.

You can check my contributions here and you will see that I am not interested in these issues. But when I add a subsection about neutrality, it means it concerns neutrality, and that is even more the problem, since you even censored the discussion! Platonykiss (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, how does that justify threats of taking this to some... body that has no authority over us?Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I arranged no alert with MrX (read wp:agf), and if you keep on with this attitude you are gona get blocked without anyone reporting you.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean you think it is not justified? Platonykiss (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What (ohh and what do you mean by "since you even censored the discussion!?") are you talking about?.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine! Please leave it to the readers. Platonykiss (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking what you meant by "Does that mean you think it is not justified", what are you referring to? And what did you mean by my censorship, where and what did I censor? I am asking you to explain.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the community guidelines how to write an article, can answer perfectly all your questions.

People who might come here to inform about Judy Mikovits might be interested in certain controversies that you failed to mention. The article is written out of a partial monoperspective which is as boring as if she herself would just write such an article to advertise her work. But if harassment, defamation and edit wars are your business, this is not the forum for you. Platonykiss (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't you have made a direct accusation that I have "censored the discussion" what censoring of what discussion have I done? you asked "Does that mean you think it is not justified?" What what do you think, I think is not justified?Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the question mark at the very end I understand that you are not so sure. Platonykiss (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is why I am asking, I do not know what you are referring to by "censored the discussion" or "Does that mean you think it is not justified?". But it is way too much effort to try and second guess what you might really be trying to say or to get to to explain it. So I am bowing our now.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I do not think you have any reason to complain about me. Whenever you tried to do it, it was never addressed to me. Go in yourself, and you will find an inner voice that will guide you. I have no business here! Platonykiss (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? Do you even have any idea what you are saying? With that word salad that is it, I will not respond to you anymore. Frankly this is either deliberate obfuscation, or due to incompetence, either way I cannot be bothered anymore.Slatersteven (talk)

- MrX 🖋 12:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain this? Platonykiss (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer questions. The explanation is the blue boxes. - MrX 🖋 13:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Platonykiss, I can. The article on Judy Mikovits is included in the discretionary sanctions for both American politics post-12932, and pseudoscience. That means any uninvolved administrator can ban you from the article and from the entire topic area more broadly if they consider you are advancing a fringe point of view or violating any other policy.

So: stick to what is supported in reliable sources and you should be fine, but stray into personal advocacy and you might find yourself in difficulties. Guy (help!) 22:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Guy. Thank you for your answer. As I already wrote here, for several reasons (which concern teamwork, I also ask colleagues for assisting an article to improve it) it is in vain to tell me to stay out off the article and to threaten me with sanctions, because it has never been my intention. Nevertheless, the entry as it stands merits the template of missing neutrality, it is even visible for someone who cannot offer expertise here. I added the template according to my best knowledge and you have no right to sanction me for that. I gave several times detailed suggestions to improve it (I strictly avoided to touch subjects beyond my knowledge), because I know fundamental principles of the free encyclopedia had been violated by it. This is what I meant, when I wrote Mr.X that he placed this alert on the wrong user page. Platonykiss (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think your specific way to answer my question on your discussion page is more answer as I could ever imagine. I thank you! Platonykiss (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you make a complaint on a talk page, please accompany it with specific suggestions for improvement. Your vague complaints about "neutrality" are useless. Such a complaint is usually an indication that the person complaining does not understand NPOV. Our articles are supposed to include properly-sourced criticism, and if an editor opposes such inclusion, they are not being "neutral" in their editing. That is a violation of NPOV, which requires editors to be neutral in their editing. Your complaint tends toward violating WP:TPG as it serves no constructive purpose. -- Valjean (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Valjean, I was specific enough!

I just trust that you rewrite this article as a public act according to the categorical imperative. I understand from your first reactions that there is a profound bad conscience. This is all I have to say about it. Platonykiss (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to AGF that all these communication difficulties are a language issue, because, I can assure you, you are not communicating clearly in English or answering the concerns of other editors. Maybe you should only make controversial edits and comments in a Wikipedia of your own native language.

I still don't know what is wrong with the article. You have not made that plain. You haven't been specific enough by quoting the exact words in the article which you believe to be wrong. -- Valjean (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read wp:cir its not a policy but non adherence can often be seen as a Waring sign.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So far about language skills within the author collective of the entry Judy Mikovits... Platonykiss (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your sentence is word salad that makes no sense. -- 21:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It was a wonderful experience to speak with you. Your Platonykiss (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Platonykiss, I've been looking closer into Byzantine music, trying to get this page: User:Aza24/List of Byzantine composers ready to be moved to the main space. You seem to be far better versed in Byzantine music so I'm wondering a couple things:

1. Am I missing anyone? Who am I missing? – I'm confident that I didn't get everyone lol
2. What would be some good sources that cover a lot of these people? I'm using mostly grove articles but would rather expand to some scholarly books, plus some don't have Grove articles
3. People from 1453 on should still be included since their music runs in the tradition of Byzantine music, even though it became the Ottoman empire?

The list is in a rather rough state at the moment so there are probably various errors, any thoughts would be appreciated. Aza24 (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if you wish to concentrate only on Byzantine composers in the narrow sense that is quite correct! I like your list. If you like to continue it for the Ottoman period you can call it "List of post-Byzantine composers" (although I am not a fan of the adjective "post-Byzantine", here it just means they had a background with Greek church music among other Ottoman composers).

What is missing are definitely those composers of the tropologion before the school of Andrew of Crete (those who actually created the tropologion, see Octoechos), but also contemporaries in Constantinople like the iconodule Patriarch Germanos who founded a very important school for canon poetry whose contribution is not well-known today, but it was very well-known in Byzantium. You should also insert the Slavic Apostles and their students who were not less Byzantine and who founded the literary schools of Ohrid and Preslav. I do not want to say too much, because discovering them will be part of your pleasure. There are many other composers (also Eunoch protopsaltes) of the Palaiologan period that you did not mention, the last Protopsaltes was definitely Gregorios Bounes Alyates who also continued after 1453, and other contemporaries of the first generation around Ioannes Glykys like Michael Aneotos the Protopsaltes, Nikolaos Kampanes etc. I also wonder why you did mention Manuel Chrysaphes, Lampadarios at the Court, but not Gabriel Hieromonachos. It is a shame that the manuscript collection of the National Library of Greece is currently offline, their Akolouthiai are full with names! Concerning the kontakia you did only mention the most famous contributor Romanos, but there are many others. Also here you could check the kontakaria. Among the contemporaries of Romanos, we know names such as Kyriakos and Anastasios, then later during the 7th century there were two Patriarchs Sergios and Sophronios, I also suggest that Joseph the Confessor follows Theodore Stoudites, because he was his brother. Platonykiss (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also Byzantine hymnographers, Hatzigiakoumis' research centre for Byzantine church music, Archon cantors of the Great Church of Christ, the tag Byzantine hymnographers at academia.edu. Platonykiss (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate the insight you've provided – I'll be sure to look into all of those composers. It is indeed tricky to go beyond 1453 since while it's tempting to list figures such as Petros Bereketis, I just don't know where the list would stop then. To the point I'm unsure about including Isaiah the Serb, Nikola the Serb or the other serbs, but perhaps drawing the line before them would be most appropriate? In any case, the names and resources you've mentioned are exactly what I need to continue working on this list. I do admit that it is somewhat of a "pleasure" – as you say – discovering all of these people; reading about their place in history and listening to their music is quite intriguing. Aza24 (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like the disciplined idea of a list of Byzantine composers, because this story is long enough and sufficiently complex, but I do understand that you would like to continue (which is justified as well, because you can also hardly understand Ottoman history without the thorough study of what was before, at the same time the Ottoman tradition is the key for the living tradition, often people involved in the living tradition talk about Byzantine chant, but actually only know the Ottoman or post-Byzantine compositions). My suggestion is to make two separated lists, but they should be linked among each other.

One last thing: if the overview of these lists might motivate you to add missing articles dedicated to one composer or improve an existing one, I would like to encourage such a continuation, because there are plenty of gaps here. The article about Isaiah the Serb is nice, but the picture needs a precise source indication (even if the link to EBE is not working right now), and the article could be improved, already by a study of this manuscript. Anyway, if your particular interest is the Serbian tradition, the Slavic Apostels are definitely an interesting topic, because there is already a distinction in Byzantine sources between Serbian and other South-Slavic redactions within the Greek terminology. Platonykiss (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that two separate lists would be ideal... I'll see what I can do and probably report back when I make some progress on the Byzantine list :) Thanks again for your help so far! Aza24 (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are always welcome! I am looking forward to it! Platonykiss (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Platony, hope you're well. I was reading through the Grove article on Romanos (a rather solid overview!) but was struck by some names. The authors contend that the Akathist hymn has been variously attributed to Romanos, Germanos, Sergios and Photios. The first two names I know, but I'm not sure of the other two (Sergius I of Constantinople and George of Pisidia?). In any case, are Sergios and Photios implied to have been composers? Or perhaps they're attributed the hymn's text, but not music?–I'm a bit confused here. Aza24 (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What a coincidence to find your question right on the same day, after having been away here for so many months!

The Romanos entry at New Grove is by Alexander Lingas. He is actually at academia.edu where you can also download his contribution about the liturgical place of the kontakion and its celebration at the Blachernae chapel:

https://www.academia.edu/3643142/

It is a very useful publication concerning your question of authorship (which kontakion was correctly attributed to Romanos and which one rather unlikely). Between the hymnographers of the fifth century there had been many fights, not just dogmatic, but even political ones. It started with the very first tropologion (which was actually a Syriac tropligin) by Paul of Edessa and Severus of Antioch (today the Patriarchate belongs to Southern Turkey, very close to the Syrian frontier). These two were contemporary with Romanos who also was of Syrian origin, but their genre was early canon poetry, not kontakion (as far as I know). But Romanos did not invent the Syriac genre kontakion, its origin is again homiletic poetry by Meliton of Sardes (2nd century) whose Easter homily was a kind of inspiration, and Ephraim the Syrian (early 4th century). In the seventh century we have the Syriac redaction of Jacob of Edessa and Sophronius (rather based at the Patriarchate of Jerusalem) as the opponents to Sergius I (Patriarch in Constantinople), this school at Palestine focussed on canon poetry, but a canon had three or four odes (not more) and they were usually not composed as a cycle developing one mode or echos, each ode could have an own mode (only documented in the Georgian translation of the iadgari). I am not convinced that Sergius was the composer of the Akathist, because I do not see the connection between the acrostics employing 24 oikoi, each one beginning with a letter of the Greek alphabet in the prescribed order, and his ecthesis. Finally we come to the schools of eighth century canon poetry and hexameter poetry (the meter of the psalmoi or psalms) of the sticheron (another homiletic commentary to the psalms): the Palestine school of the monastery Hagios Sabbas with several generations beginning with Andrew of Crete, and the Constantinopolitan school of Patriarch Germanus I whose poetry is much better documented than those by the Stoudites (9th and 10th centuries): both schools regard the whole canon as a sequence of 8 or 9 odes, but the number can occasionally be reduced. Unfortunately, Alexander Lingas emphasised the exclusion of canon poetry in Constantinople, but the older medieval heirmologia prove the presence of Germanus' canon poetry against the redaction today, where his contribution is completely omitted (Kassia's poetry was influenced by his school!). This is a weak and ahistorical aspect of Lingas' essay who seriously believes canon poetry did not belong to Constantinople (I guess the topic was more complex due to the crises of iconoclasm), and you should be well aware of it, but nevertheless, I completely agree with him that kontakia and canon poetry existed simultaneously with a hypakoē after the third ode and the shortened kontakion after the sixth ode!

Romanos was definitely gifted, but his central importance in the classical repertoire (the maximum of 86 kontakia that is documented with musical notation in the Ancient Rus' kondakars since the Tipografskiy Ustav and later in Greek kontakaria-psaltika) is realised in a melismatic way that reduces each kontakion to the prooimion (introduction) in the earlier Slavic books (Tipografskiy Ustav presents the text of the first oikos, but none of them has musical notation, the later manuscripts simply drop all the oikoi) or the prooimion with 1, 2 or 3 oikoi in the Greek books, only the Akathist has 24 oikoi due to its acrostic relation to the alphabet is performed in its full poetic length (according to some manuscripts, but one might wonder how much time a celebration will take...). The attribution to Romanos was obviously motivated by his role concerning the inauguration of Hagia Sophia III which was simply political propaganda in favour of Justinian, needed after the massacre at the hippodrome, the destruction of the whole quarter which made room for such a monumental construction:

Koder, Johannes (2008). "Imperial Propaganda in the Kontakia of Romanos the Melode". Dumbarton Oaks Papers. 62: 275–291, 281. ISSN 0070-7546. JSTOR 20788050.

The author is a professor of Byzantine studies at the University of Vienna, and he is a profound expert, because he had a whole project about Romanos!

But there are two other repertoires of kontakia, obviously completely disconnected from the cathedral rite of the Constantinopolitan Hagia Sophia:

1) 780 kontakia are collected in unnotated manuscripts (kontakaria-tropologia), two thirds have been composed after the eighth century and they are neither propaganda nor homiletic, but hagiographic (dedicated to the Sanctoral which knew much more saints than the official cycle of the menaion from September to August), and they had usually just one oikos!

2) Within the Slavic tradition the model of Akathist (transliterated as "Akafist" by Cyrillic script) has generated a genre of its own, if you like a repertoire of acrostic kontakia and these compositions are all long with plenty of oikoi.

They all refer to a very limited number of about fifteen idiomela which serve as a model for hundreds of kontakia-proshomoia!

The musical discussion is indeed very confusing due to the complexity of the reception history concerning the classical repertoire. I recommend this recent essay:

https://www.academia.edu/38349148/ Platonykiss (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attributions to hymnographers

I understand Lingas' remarks about possible attributions found among colleagues, although he seemed not too convinced or probably even indifferent:

Christian Hannick:

Faßt man die Metrik der Kontakia als Langzeilen auf (und nicht wie José Grosdidier de Matons in kurzen Füßen von höchstens 3–4 Silben), bestätigt sich diese Annahme: Das Kontakion hätte dann in der Epoche des Romanos eine musikalisch relativ anspruchslose Form erhalten, die später von dem üppiger ausgearbeiteten Kanon mit dem Hirmos abgelöst wurde.

Hinzu kommt, daß das Kontakion liturgiegeschichtlich Berührungspunkte mit dem kathisma aufweist. Das Kathisma ist in der gesamten byz. Epoche musikalisch nicht belegt, was darauf hinweist, daß seine Ursprünge auf eine frühe Epoche der Entwicklung der Hymnengattungen zurückgehen.

CHRISTIAN HANNICK, Art. Romanos der Melode in: MGG Online, ed. by Laurenz Lütteken, New York, Kassel, Stuttgart 2016ff., first in print 2005, online 2016, [7]https://www.mgg-online.com/mgg/stable/26763

If the kontakion meter is understood as a long verse tropus (unlike José Grosdidier de Matons who divided them into short metrical feet of 3 or 4 syllables), one might find a confirmation: the kontakion during the time of Romanos would have had a rather simple musical form which had been replaced by the richer, more elaborated canon by troping a heirmos [I would rather say the homiletic canon poetry replaced the simple psalmody/recitation of the biblical odes or cantica, because the evidence is more than poor that the genre canon poetry ever replaced the other one of kontakion].

One might add that the kontakion concerning the liturgical evolution was closely related to the kathisma [the organisation of the psalter in sections]. Throughout the whole Byzantine epoch there is no musical evidence about the kathisma which could be a hint that its origin within the evolution of hymn genres dated back rather early.

Hannick alludes to the hagiographic episode from Romanos' vita that he felt not confident to sing the kathismata, but during a celebration at the Blachernae chapel the Theotokos appeared to him in a kind of vision and fed him with a scroll [the term kontakion derived from it], and thus enabled him to sing the Nativity kontakion ἡ παρθένος σήμερον instead. The vita does not only identify Romanos as the inspired creator of this prominent idiomelon model of many kontakia-proshomoia composed in echos tritos. You see Hannick's assumptions are not less problematic than those found in Lingas' article, but they are somehow complementary. Platonykiss (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The heirmologic acrostics dedicated to St Benedict by St Neilos the Younger

Again Alexander Lingas:

Just by chance I came across to the booklet he wrote for a CD published by Cappella Romana, obviously taking advantage of Ioannis Arvanitis' own studies of Italo-Byzantine sources he made for a concert with his Ansamble Aghiopolitis at the Fondazione Cini of Venice in December 2011:

http://www.cini.it/en/events/voice-and-sound-of-prayer-2

But this booklet was already published in 2007:

https://www.academia.edu/3643000/

It is written very well, but sometimes I am really shocked about all the simple errors which concerns hymnology. This is sometimes very irritating, because you rely on his publications and then by chance you read occasional publications made for a broader audience not familiar with all the terms, maybe he did not have time to check it out, and thus, you discover many misconceptions in the mind of the author.

I begin with the title "Byzantium in Rome", it should be better "Byzantium near/close to Rome", because there was Greek monasticism also there, but Grottaferrata is Grottaferrata and it is fairly outside Rome until the present day. You have to take a regional train to Frascati and then take a bus to get there. Unfortunately, the question of typikon is not clear (I found no mention in the Byzantine foundation documents by Dumbarton Oaks) and hagiographic authors partly attribute Neilos' novice Batholomew as author of Grottaferrata's typikon (San Bartolomeo di Grottaferrata), he refused to follow Neilos as the second Higoumenos and became later fourth Higoumenos after Cyrill. Fact is that each founder of an Orthodox monastery, whether Slavic, Georgian, Armenian or Greek, wrote his own typikon. One must say that this DO publication about typika is pointless for musicologists, because it is only about the parts dedicated to the life of the monastic community, but not the other one about liturgy. Lingas mentions "Theodore Stoudites' typikon", but in DO is written about the subject (p.84):

The present document and the preceding (3) Theodore Studites[' testament] provide only a very incomplete and—to some extent—misleading picture of Studite monasticism. Moreover, the monastic reform launched by Theodore the Studite was to dominate Byzantine monasticism until a new monastic reform, typified by (22) Evergetis, swept its usages away in the course of the twelfth century except in peripheral areas like Southern Italy, Sicily, and Cyprus.

https://archive.org/details/thomas-hero-byzantine-monastic-foundation-documents/page/84/mode/2up

We use the terminology avtomelon-proshomoia for many hymns, even kontakia (but the models in that genre are called and rubrified as idiomela), while canon poetry has own terms (it employs the complex ode meter), the avtomelon in case of a certain ode must be called like "first ode of the heirmos" and the proshomoia "aposticha", in the rare case of those composed for St Benedict (which he celebrated on occasion of the arrival of his own community at Montecassino), Neilos really tried to show his skills as hymnographer. He composed four stanzas for six odes of the canon, so that he had 24 stanzas, each one beginning with a letter of the Greek alphabet following the alphabetical order. Thus, the menaion (Grottaferrata, 12th century) had rubrified it "akrosticha" and the heirmos Κύματι θαλάσσης as its fundament was composed in echos plagios devteros. Lingas wrote:

The single largest item in the office is a Kanon for St Benedict, a complex hymn consisting of eight major sections known as odes, each of which consists of a set of metrically identical stanzas (troparia) that are sung to the same model melody (heirmos). The larger division into odes reflects the fact that kanons were first composed to be—and, in unabbreviated monastic services, today still are—sung in between the verses of the eight invariable biblical canticles (‘ᾠδαί’) of festal Orthros (the penitential form of the morning service possesses an additional ode for a total of nine). The heirmoi chosen by St Neilos for his odes praising St Benedict are all from the Kanon for Holy Saturday, transcribed here from the thirteenth-century Heirmologion Grottaferrata E. γ. II.

A slight confusion between canticle recitation (which definitely did exist concerning the cathedral rite, even later) and heirmologic poetry which might sometimes quote the scriptural text, but this is Lingas' way to get it right. Another misperception, but actually not his, he refers to Thodberg who had this lunatic distinction between short and long psaltikon style which partly referred to the music, partly to the manuscripts. Thodberg called the Messina type of kontakarion-asmatikon which are just four manuscripts all written at the scriptorium of the Archimandritate SS. Salvatore, "short style", although (because in fact) they contain more kontakia than the usual kontakaria-psaltika from elsewhere. His argument was, their realisations were shorter in comparison with the kontakarion-psaltikon of Grottaferrata (I-Fm Ashburn 64). It is all nonsense, every kontakion written with notation (only existent in these two types of manuscript) was a unique realisation of a certain protopsaltis, some were longer, some were shorter for various reasons, but they all belonged as realisations to the cathedral rite, because both monasteries had cathedrals. If you have a look at the (liturgical) typikon of Messina which was written by another Bartholomew (San Bartolomeo da Simeri, founder of Nea Hodegetria near Rossano, the edition of the liturgical typikon was made by Arrantz), which is not even mentioned in the chapter about Messina in DO, you come easily to the same conclusion like Evangelia Spyrakou that a distinction between monastic and asmatic orthros and hesperinos might be useful, but not concerning the celebration of divine liturgies or mass celebrations (not every day in this context, but only on Sundays and during feasts). I fear this is something that Thodberg did not understand (unaware that he studied the monastic sources of a diaspora reception), it disapproves his classification as a whole, but his observations are useful for the local customs at Messina and Rossano. His stylistic argument was also supported by Jørgen Raasted's analysis published at CIMAGL,

Raasted, Jørgen (1989). "Zur Melodie des Kontakions Ἡ παρθένος σήμερον" (PDF). Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-Âge Grec et Latin. 59: 233-246.

and Floros' study of the same "short-style" source even classified its melos as "sticheraric". It is all nonsense. The simple realisation was hardly ever notated, because it was not florid and well-known, because we just deal with 14 (prooimion) and 13 idiomela (oikoi) which had been really used as models to compose new kontakia as proshomoia (Floros found 42 idiomela and 46 proshomoia in notated manuscripts as classical repertoire of the cathedral rite, but most of the idiomela has never been used as models). That is all.

Thodberg, Christian (1966). Der byzantinische Alleluiarionzyklus: Studien im kurzen Psaltikonstil (PDF). Monumenta musicae Byzantinae, Subsidia. Vol. 8. Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard. Platonykiss (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did Photios compose the Akáthistos Hýmnos?

Now Photios!

Please have a look on page 17 at the top:

https://www.academia.edu/37091715

Joseph the Hymnographer followed Bishop Photios to the exile in the thema of Cherson at the Northern coast of the Black Sea to escape the end of the second crisis of iconoclasm. If Photios was the author of the Akathist (and inspired the Slavic reception of Akafist poetry), such a late and extraordinary career of his composition within the classical repertoire of the kontakarion-psaltikon would be truly remarkable! Not impossible though since we have kontakia of the triodion which are also dedicated to the memory of Theodore Stoudites from the older generation.

Yes, they all were likely active as hymnographers, it was nothing strange within Greek monasticism. Most of them just composed hymns by troping well-known melodic models (the more prominent kontakia idiomela, stichera avtomela, sometimes even stichera idiomela to re-organise the triodion with new hymns, or in case of Saint Neilos the Younger akrosticha about a well-known heirmos in honour of the patron saint of Montecassino—Benedict of Nursia, usually not celebrated within the Orthodox menaion, but Neilos and his later foundations like Grottaferrata made an exception—to introduce there his own community). Platonykiss (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of this—I thought I had watchlisted your page, but seem to have not, so am just now seeing this. The Koder article was particularly interesting; I feel that Byzantine music is too often forced into a narrow definition which doesn't encourage it to be seen in other ways outside of religious contexts.

I was also glad to see you mention Ephrem the Syrian and Severus of Antioch—I actually began researching on the latter a while back to write a section on his hymns, but got distracted. I must admit, in reading about Byzantine music, I've been having much trouble trying to understand how figures like Severus, Ephrem, fit into the tradition. Indeed I have an even less clear understanding of earlier figures like Bardaisan and Valentinus—do these two even connect to later traditions or are they more isolated? Aza24 (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In case of Valentinus whom I mainly associate with Valentine's day to be honest (but that is not bad indeed for a saint), we have an exceptional early source, concerning Romanos and this is also true for the Georgian evidence about the 7th-century Sabbaite school which has been carried from Mar Saba to Mount Sinai, the sources are rather late (similar to Boethius' case which forces us to rely on the copies made during the Carolingian Renaissance of the 9th century). Platonykiss (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that makes sense—I know even for Andrew of Crete and Kassia the surviving sources are must later. It's a shame so little survives from Bardaisan; apparently Ephrem wrote many of his hymns to counter what he declared inappropriate about Bardaisan's work, but given the lack of surviving material we can't see what exactly Ephrem had a problem with. Ephrem's influence on Romanos is really interesting, though.

By the way—if I could steal one more second of your time—do we know of Byzantine composers being familiar with ancient Greek theory at all? Aristoxenus, Ptolemy and the like? Aza24 (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greek and Latin monasticism in Italy and their knowledge of harmonics

Just look at the top, you are always welcome to have a break and a chat here.

Most certainly for southern Italy where Greek monasticism started with Boethius' follower Aurelius Cassiodorus who soon retired and founded the monastery Vivarium in Calabria where many Greek treatises had been translated into Latin (so that even the Romans could understand, not just the Rhomaioi). The following generations had other problems than collecting so-called "pagan" philosophy, but there was another reason than simply ascetic ideals (which were crucial), why they were hiding in the woods on the mountains of Calabria: they had to hide from slave-trading berbers who obviously knew about their knowledge and their literacy and these were the most precious slaves on the market. Even a patristic author like John of Damascus learnt his Greek, because he was instructed by the Calabrian monk Kosmas (he should not be confused with his "brother" Kosmas who was adopted by the father, after he had lost his parents) who worked at the household of his father (I am sure I already wrote you this). This broader interest in philosophy and science (the mathemata) was still documented for the 12th century, when the Royal foundation archimandritate St. Saviour of Messina ordered manuscripts of pagan philosophers which were not really needed to run the monastery. It was just a question of money to order such books at a scriptorium in Constantinople. Concerning the knowledge of Latin monks (since the 9th century "Benedictines"), Michel Huglo showed that the number of treatises was relatively small, while Cassiodorus was still able to translate from Greek without being limited. They did know Ptolemy through the very creative "translation" by Boethius.

Thus, if you have a look at treatises which introduced chant books like the Hagiopolites in case of the tropologion, the dialogue treatise (erotapokriseis) and the later papadikai of notated chant books (heirmologion, sticherarion, akolouthiai or post-Byzantine anthologies) or further explanations by Manuel Chrysaphes, Gabriel Hieromonachos and many others, they were not supposed to be introductions into harmonics (even they were concerned with autochthonous music theory, and the Greek term was mousikē, not harmonikai), but they relied on this terminology and genus, system, echos (in Latin translated as sonus), tonus (the corresponding Latin term and in connection with the book tonary) etc. were fundamental to understand church music, whether it was Western plainchant (Carthago and Sardinia, Milan, Rome, Benevento/Montecassino/Abbruzzo/Croatia, Ravenna, or Carolingian traditions which were also present in northern Italy and through the Normans as well in Sicily) as well as in Orthodox churches and monasteries (since 1201 the latter were in charge to preserve the cathedral rite, while the tradition was lost in Constantinople and many Italian monasteries like Messina, Rossano and Grottaferrata had cathedrals to celebrate for an urban community). And the few who might have known Aristoxenos (his morai for intervals are mentioned in a compilation corpus called "alia musica"), might also have understood that any kind of neume notation was the answer to Aristoxenos' problem with Ancient Greek letter notation. The LPS was mentioned by Cassiodorus and treated more profoundly by Martianus Capella, but unlike the Greek, Latin cantors never used the Alypian letter notation (they likely did not know it and we have also no practical evidence in Western chant unlike the Byzantine phthora nana), although the former case proves that cantors could have used a precise notation from the very beginning, if they had any use for it. Fact is they had not, but both Romes used cheironomiai (conducted their choirs with gestic communication). The more important was music theory and its terms for a musical art of memory. It went so far that Latin tonaries ascribed to Hucbald even used (alternative to Hucbald's use of the Boethian letter system) the Greek terminology like «lychanos ypaton» to classify pitch classes as the elements of the tone system. Platonykiss (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Platony, I wondered how much you knew about Notker the Stammerer. I rewrote his article entirely, though it is still lacking a lot in content on his Musical works. I'm having trouble understanding his place in music history—do you know anything that could clarify?

Also, I'm curious how you know so much about medieval and Byzantine music. If its not too intrusive, would you mind sharing how you got into these topics and perhaps what books you read that you find most enlightening? Aza24 (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In general the article is rather rich of references. You should not worry about that. I definitely recommend to quote the digitised sources mentioned in the links below and identify the one, where the illumination is taken from.

You might be interested in this entry with plenty of references:

https://www.geschichtsquellen.de/autor/4054

Here for the "Liber ymnorum" (you have also some early manuscripts which do not belong to Notker's monastery, you might be particularly interested in a manuscript written 1001 at Reichenau, another Lake Constance monastery which also has a tonary and the most numerous collection of the region):

https://www.geschichtsquellen.de/werk/3793

It was not just a collection of own sequences, but a collection of sequences of the local school (including compositions of Tuotilo, Ratpert and others).

As far as I remember there is also a preface by Notker which is part of the liber. He explains (obviously also as a kind of justification) that the sequences had the didactic purpose to memorise the long melismatic melodies of the melodiae longissimae (the second repetition of the alleluia refrain which had sometimes elaborated melodies), better known as "jubilus" which was already mentioned by Aurelian of Réômé. But in fact, Gregorian chant (the Carolingian chant after the reforms under Pippin the Short and his son Charlemagne) had the custom of a sequence which was expected after the alleluia and its Gospel which means it was a regular part of mass chant and part of proper chant (proprium missae, it very likely replaced the Gallican "antiphonum post evangelium"). The troping cantor had to address in his or her poems the daily feast. Notker also mentions different local schools and that he tried to improve something with his way of memorising the alleluia chant. Sequences should not be confused with prosulae, which is the troping of the soloistic psalm verses (between the refrains) with new texts!

Notker has also written a kind of introduction for the "litterae significativae" used with the neume notation of his monastery. It is a kind of dialogue treatise with a monk called "Lantbert" who asks about their meaning:

https://www.geschichtsquellen.de/werk/3790

There is Stefan Morent at the University of Tübingen who is an expert for Hildegard von Bingen, but also for less specific monastic chant in German speaking monasteries. He has made an edition of Notker's sequences according to the needs of musicians which you find in the German version of this article (German wikipedia). His focus is entirely the sources of Notker's monastery, but his liber hymnorum was also known beyond its walls and written down by other scriptoria.

For more information with an example of his edition and an extract with the foreword (unfortunately only in German):

https://uni-tuebingen.de/fakultaeten/philosophische-fakultaet/fachbereiche/altertums-und-kunstwissenschaften/musikwissenschaftliches-institut/forschung/archiv-drittmittelprojekte/edition-der-sequenzen-notkers-stiftsbibliothek-st-gallen/

He is a musicologist with experience as a professional musician, he began in collaboration with Andrea von Ramm (who started at Basel with Binkley's "Studio der frühen Musik" and who later became a rhetorics teacher at the Schola cantorum) and founded an ensemble called "Ordo virtutum", named after the liturgical play by Hildegard.

There is also a multimedia version for Notker's sequences, since many years there are just 5 examples which you can listen to while following a sequentiary written at Sankt Gallen:

https://www.e-sequence.eu

Unfortunately there is not yet an English translation of the project transcription,

https://www.e-sequence.eu/de/about

There he also mentions a recent critical and linguistic edition by Calvin Bower which I did not find in your references (Hiley could not know it, because it did not yet exist, when he wrote his article for New Grove, and since they both know each other personally, it might be likely him who encouraged Morent to do a "missing edition" for musicians).

but you can follow one of those sequences according to eight different manuscripts and study different techniques of notators at St Gallen. If you move the cursor of the icon of a manuscript, you get the datation and some information about the scribe of each manuscript (also with other poets are present in the collection except of Notker):

https://www.e-sequence.eu/en/digital-edition

1) There is the technique of marginal notation, when the verses are written out with the agogic information of the neumes at the margin (due to the grouping in notation the coordination with the text is not so complicated).

2) There is the earlier sequentiary technique (like Cod. Sang. 484) where the Jubilus is written out with all repetitions of each section, but without text. It was useful for monks who wanted to compose own sequences. Sometimes also the verses of the sequences made about it were written afterwards. More frequently at least the incipits of well known sequences over the same tune had been written at the margin and could be thus identified, if the poems were written elsewhere within the manuscript.

3) The combination of both techniques like in the forementioned manuscript of Reichenau (Msc. Lit. 5 at the State Library of Barmberg). The "Liber hymnorum" (sequentiary without Notker's preface) begins with the Christmas alleluia «Dies sanctificatus» and has the sequence «Natus ante seculum» and for the illuminated front page of the libellum you have exceptionally the neumes over the text (like in a Gradual) and at the margin the untroped alleluia written in golden ink. The following page continues the marginal technique which separates the neumes from the text.

4) The marginal technique adapted to gothic ("horse shoe nail") notation used during the early 16th century with the text under staff notation.

Notker is also an important source for hymnography and medieval German studies (but he is the later Notker, you refered to Gushee's article), because he composed also poems in Old High German ("high" means Southern with respect to the geographic line between "Appel>Apfel", since the British islands are North of it, they spell "apple") or at least translated some Latin poems into German for the teaching of novices.

Also the Gesta have some relevance for music history, because against accusations concerning Frankish cantors falsifying Roman chant made by another chronist John of Montecassino (he argued that their voices simply lacked subtlety), he defended the Frankish cantors with the hypothesis that some of the teaching cantors sent from Rome had fooled the local cantors. The whole discussion is about the fact that neume notation and the transfer testified by tonaries were a peripheral development within the Frankish empire(s), while all this had not existed in Rome until the 12th century (earlier manuscripts had been written in the scriptorium of Montecassino). The reason is that both Romes used cheironomiai, hand signs of the choir leaders, to coordinate the singers of a choir, and the notation was not really needed. It changed rather late, when cardinals educated in French or German monasteries (who had learnt to use notation, if they were educated as cantors) became elected as pope.

There is an edition of the Gesta online by dMGH:

https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_rer_germ_n_s_12/index.htm#page/(1)/mode/1up

The editor was Hans F. Haefele:

https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_rer_germ_n_s_12/index.htm#page/(III)/mode/1up

I guess from his name that he was Swiss, unfortunately his commentaries and introduction are also in German.

I was educated as a musicologist in Switzerland, and they introduced us during the first semesters in music palaeography into these sources. I taught already as a student Aquitanian and Notre-Dame polyphony to students (together with a professional singer educated in this field). We had to teach them, how to study real medieval manuscripts and also the notation in a way, that they understand, how it works and that its role is quite different from a partition used by musicians today.

Orthodox chant I learnt much later, going to a Bulgarian monastery. Together with my ensemble we had already become familiar with modern (Neo-Byzantine) notation (according to Chrysanthos' New Method) using Bulgarian exercise books, so that we could get further instructions by those monks who were responsible for the monastic celebrations. We documented their celebrations and also made some private recordings outside the church.

Concerning the topic, there are also sequences which are Latin translations of Greek kontakia. Michel Huglo had published about it.

You can try musicological databases like cantus:

Einsiedeln 121;

https://cantus.uwaterloo.ca/source/666647

Index of all pieces:

https://cantus.uwaterloo.ca/index?source=666647

The Nativity Sequence:

https://cantus.uwaterloo.ca/node/671413

If you click down at the list of concordances you get all registered sources which have the sequence. Platonykiss (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is all extraordinarily helpful! As usually, I'm tremendously grateful for your generous responses. A few more (very different) questions if you have a moment: 1. I see that most scholars group plainchant into syllabic, neumatic, and melismatic (which is the categorization I'm used to). Some, however, add a fourth type: recitation. I'm struggling understanding how recitation-style is different than neumatic? Although, I know these are all rather anachronistic categorizations anyways 2. Are people like Odo of Cluny, Heriger of Lobbes, Odo of Arezzo or Fulbert of Chartres particulalry important as musicians? Or are they merely relevant for being among the few known early medieval music personalities (i.e. are they no more than typical composers of their time)? 3. Are there any Arab or Persian influences observable in early Byzantine music? Considering golden age of Sasanian music and the Abbasid music, I would assume so, but I do not know much about this. Thank you again, and my apologies for the rush of queries (no rush!). Happy holidays! – Aza24 (talk) 09:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Terminological question: in hymnography you make the distinction between syllabic, pneumatic [!] (deriving from the Greek term τὸ πνεύμα) and melismatic (deriving from the Greek term τὸ μέλισμα) which has been replaced in the living tradition of Orthodox chant by the distinction between troparic, sticheraric and papadic melos. It is not fully identical, because there is also a distinction between a short and a long style used in the printed anastasimatarion (first printed book was the long anastasimatarion where the kekragarion, Ps 140, was sung in a sticheraric melos, the short version published later the same psalm was sung in a troparic melos), in the printed heirmologion (2 parts: the long stands usually for Petros Peloponnesios' katavasies which we know nowadays as a revision of Balasios the Priest's heirmologion, actually a Romanian composer, the short is the contribution by Petros Vyzantios, Petros' alumnus and protegé who was announced by him domestikos), then there are three Doxastikaria for the sticheraric melos (the short is by Petros Peloponnesios, the middle called argosyntomon by Konstantinos Vyzantios and the long by Iakovos, Petros Peloponnesios' rival because he intrigued to become Lampadarios instead of Iakovos). Iakovos despised notation and his style deeply rooted in an oral traditon was characterised by a very deliberate use of rhythm, his alumnus was Georgios of Crete who used considerable more signs than the exegetic notation of the patriarchal hyphos like Petros' school. It was almost impossible to transcribe into the rhythmic style of the New Method, but these transcriptions just look like the way, how the papadic melos was transcribed. The argosyntomon sticheraric melos was created some decades later by Konstantinos Vyzantios, who did not refuse notation as a whole like Iakovos, but the New Method, but his approach to Middle Byzantine notation which he used, while he continued to write manuscripts, was even simpler than the exegetic notation used by Petros' school. The analogy developed out of the evolution of notation, the earliest notation used in the sticherarion was theta notation, because the letter θ was written over syllables which had a melisma, thus, the stichera became the pneumatic genre, while melismatic is a mix of the so-called "chant of the Asma" (elaborated choir chant like in genres such as koinonikon), "papadic" rather points to the kalophonic style which could even switch between different styles. Recitative is an opera term which is even a genre by itself, a similar term in church music would be psalmody (ἡ ψαλμωδία) which refers to hexameter used in the psalms and involved refrains (troparion), thus, troparic melos and the formulas and accentuation patterns of psalmody are connected to it, while stichera were also usually composed in hexameter, but independent compositions which only in certain cases paraphrased biblical texts. But this would be still a narrow sense (even excluding heirmologic chant which is based on a far more complex ode meter, while other definitions understand heirmoi as a complex form of troparion since troparia were sung with each ode, and nowadays kontakia are often characterised belonging to the heirmologic genre, the correct medieval classification would be likely that kontakia were a psaltic genre at least in the context of the cathedral rite and kontakaria-psaltika), because psalmody was also applied to the recitation of biblical odes or cantica (which were written after the 150 psalms in the psalter) and as such it refers to all poetic sections of the Old Testament which point at a relation with Jewish Tanakh cantillation which was also based on cheironomia, at least in the Aleppo tradition.

2. I am not familiar with Heriger who rather seemed to be a hagiographer, Odo of Cluny was often confused with Odo of Arezzo, but we have testimonies at the Abbey Saint-Maur-des-Fossés near Paris, that the monastic community rebelled against innovations under an abbot Odo who was obviously sent from Cluny. Under abbot Mayeul who had connections to King Otto I, Cluny and its monastic association, originally a laic ordo founded by William of Aquitaine, became a centre of liturgical reform and educated important cantors like William of Volpiano. I do not think it was your Odo, because there were many Odos and as well Odons at Cluny, but it was not by chance, that monks educated in Cluny as cantors became later (founding) abbots. It was their policy and not every monastic community which had been re-organised by a former cantor of Cluny, was happy about the change. A monk shouted that they were not here to sing "adinventiones by a certain Odo" [additional chant "of Odo's invention", obviously perceived as beyond the local customs and its school]. But Fleury was another monastery which came under Cluniac influence, and had a distinctive tradition of singing chant in polyphony (a kind of organum, where the organal voice sometimes supported the cantus by singing a kind of ison which slowly emancipated from the cantus in a kind of heterophony singing the same notes like the cantus but no longer simultaneously, while the rhythm of monodic chant remained untouched unlike in florid organum). Fulbert de Chartres is assumed to be the composer of a very popular tune for «Benedicamus domino» which had been later used for early and since the 12th century florid organum in Cluny, Aquitaine and Paris (including the Notre-Dame school). Of course, most of the contributors were not just cantors, because as monks they had to carry out many duties.

3. The other way round although Persian music was sometimes notated into Byzantine neumes, Persian culture is not older (if you think of Mykene and the river Nile in Egypt as the cradle of Greek civilisation), but has many Sanskrit transfers with India, but later Arab-Islamic music culture is openly defined in Arabic divan literature as a fusion of the best of Persian music of Medina and of Byzantine music of Damascus, traced back to Ibn Misǧah or his alumnus Ibn Muhriz. In general Islamic civilisation had a reception of Hellenic culture which was more profound and knew much more Greek sources than the Carolingian reception and later Latin receptions which translated Arabic sources, but also another one of Persian culture as well. Arabic as an own language uses the Persian letter system and depends in many respects on Persian culture, science, mysticism, calligraphy, pottery, music and poetry. Platonykiss (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most helpful as always. Thank you for your time! Best – Aza24 (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]