The Sources of the Kontakion

as Evidence of a Contradictory
History of Reception

The sources, their context and their research

During the last two years many sources of the kontakarion have been
made available online which allow a new view and to question (often
confusing) commonplaces established by earlier research. 1 The research
since 1960 can be characterised by different subjects which had been in
most cases studied separately:
 philological text editions of Romanos the Melode’s kontakia
whose editors have so far ignored the musical aspect of those
sources they have used (kondakaria-tropologia); 2

1
The first Greek kontakarion online was F-Pn grec. 397 whose black-and-white
microfilm has been published in November 2015 by Gallica. On year later, the
Library of Congress published microfilms of almost 1700 manuscripts of Saint
Catherine’s Monastery at the Mount Sinai which have once been made during an
expedition in 1950 (among them seven Greek kontakaria, four with musical
notation). In 2017, two Old Church Slavonic kondakar’s preserved at Russian
libraries had been published: the Blagoveščensky kondakar’ at the National Library
of Saint Petersburg and the Lavrsky-Troitsky kondakar’ at the Russian State Library
of Moscow.
2
Grosdidier de Matons (1964-1981), Maas/Trypanes (1963).

1
  facsimile editions of certain manuscripts (Slavic kondakar’s as
well as Greek kontakaria-psaltika) for monumental edition
series;3
 philological editions or comparative descriptions of the Greek
kontakaria-psaltika which has only been done in a systematic
way and based on an amazing amount of sources by Constantin
Floros, while Christian Thodberg who studied not less
manuscripts, focussed on the whole content of the book; 4
 especially on the particular tonal system of the cathedral rite
which should not be confused with the Hagiopolitan oktoechos
described by Oliver Strunk as “the Byzantine tonal system”
(which is only true for the late Byzantine sources introduced by
the Papadike);5
 the more or less kryptic studies of Old Church Slavonic
kondar’s and the Greek Asmatikon known as “Kastoria 8”
which had been studied all from manifold aspects; 6
 studies which tried to discuss the exact ritual context, how and
when the kontakion has been celebrated during different periods
of the history of Orthodox chant. 7
It was José Grosdidier de Matons’ advice not to project any
preconceptions with respect to the kontakion and its ritual place,
actually the same is true for the function and form of the book
kontakarion which had existed in manyfold varieties.
3
Høeg (1956), Bugge (1960), Dostál etc. (1976), Myers (1994), Uspensky (2006).
4
Floros (1961), Thodberg (1966).
5
Thodberg (1960), Husmann (1971), Thodberg (1972, 2001).
6
Many studies of a still unknown Old Byzantine notation known as “Kondakarian
notation” which has not yet been “deciphered”, despite the fact that it was often and
regularly claimed by many scholars of different provenance. What all these studies
have methodologically in common is the comparison with the Greek manuscripts
which contain the more familiar Middle Byzantine round notation. This comparison
was first suggested by Stepan Vasil’evič Smolensky during the 1870s. Kenneth Levy
and Constantin Floros finally tried this method about the same year (1963). Analisa
Doneda improved this method by a database of the cheironomic signs entirely based
on the comparison of the Old Byzantine notation in Slavic kondakar’s and the 14th-
century notation of the Greek Asmatikon (Kastoria 8).
7
Floros (1960), Lingas (1995), Koder (2008).

2
I would like to describe these books just as they are, and this is basically
what this essay is about.
This “typology” of the kontakaria is based on a comparison on different
levels:
 the organisation of the manuscripts which includes the question,
whether the kontakarion contains also other genres of chant or
just the kontakia;
 the specific use of musical notation in the widest sense or
simply the total absence of it, but also the scholarly perception
of this notation (the byzantinists’ ignorance of musical notation
as well as the musicologists’ ignorance of unnotated sources);
 the question about the musical style of kontakion melodies
concerning their melodic elaboration;
 the question about the text, whether a kontakion was left
complete or became truncated;
 the repertoire of the kontakia collection, if it was oriented
towards the cathedral rite of Constantinople or rather an
overregional collection;
 the question of function and form of a certain manuscript and
the question of its provenance: where has it been written and for
which purpose?
If we have a closer look at the kontakaria, the earliest sources can be
dated back not earlier than to the 10th century and they document an
early monastic interest in the genre kontakion, related to a limited
repertoire of kontakia-models which had been used for the composition
of new kontakia of the sanctoral known as menaion. Centres for the
contemporary kontakion reception had been monasteries such as the
Monastery of Saint John the Theologian on the island of Patmos 8, the
Mone Hagios Sabbas at Jerusalem and Saint Catherine’s at Mount
Sinai.9 Other monastic centres which also cared about kontakarion-

8
The historical background was described by Derek Krueger and Thomas Arentzen
(2016).
9
For a current list of sources in comparison to those by Floros and Thodberg, see
Grinchenko (2012).

3
psaltikon were Mount Athos and Southern Italy during the Norman and
Staufer period, after the Byzantine catepanate of Italy with residence at
Bari (Apulia) had already collapsed. Among them especially the
scriptoria of the Archimandritate SS. Salvatore at Messina, a royal
foundation of Roger II, king of Sicily, which had an own cathedral, and
Grottaferrata Abbey near Rome did create asmatika, kontakaria-
psaltika, but also combined forms. Grottaferrata was the last foundation
of Saint Neilos of Rossano, when he finally arrived in Latium some
years before 1000—the year during which the Abbey had been
inaugurated.

The different types of the kontakarion

The kondakarion-tropologion has not attracted much interest among
musicologists, rather among byzantinists who were interested in text
editions, especially of those kontakia attributed to Romanos the Melode.
The expectation of musicologists was focussed on notated chant books,
especially on a melismatic style which has been identified with the
Constantinopolitan cathedral rite.
The other side of the same problem is that the approach to the ritual
context has been rather ahistorical. Most musicological encyclopaedia
treat the subject “Orthros” (morning service) in an ahistorical way,
because they usually described a form which came into use quite late
with the so-called mixed rite, after the cathedral rite had already
dissapeared in Constantinople. There is no description of the Orthros
according to the typikon of the Great Church.
It was finally Alexander Lingas who considered the possibility that the
ritual context of the kontakion within the cathedral rite could have been
the festal celebration of the mesoniktikon also known as pannychis, even
for a quite longer period than generally assumed. 10
Related to this discussion is the evidence for the earlier assumption, that
the kontakion was celebrated during orthros between the sixth and the
seventh ode of the kanon. It is confirmed by Old Church Slavonic
10
Lingas (1995).

4
menaia of the 12th-century Rus’, where all the prosomoia (podobni) and
akrosticha have been provided with musical notation, while the book
kontakarion-psaltikon does not offer any information about the ritual
context of the melismatic kontakia, nor is there any evidence that these
books had a practical use for Constantinople, except for the nostalgic
function of monastic scriptoria to document a “lost” tradition.
It is possible that there were two different contexts, the one of the
traditional cathedral rite as it was documented by the Slavic kondakar’s
and a second monastic one documented by the menaia. Also these
menaia in their notated form had obviously a less practical function than
the one to control changes within the complex system of melodies
which were caused by a more literal Slavonic translation of the Greek
hymns.
The monastic one obviously relied on an oral tradition to remember at
least 14 kontakia, which had been favoured to compose new kontakia as
a kind of prosomoia.11 Now the open question is, whether the truncated
form did really belong to the monastic orthros context, since it was also
favoured by the poets, while the melismatic elaboration was part of an
earlier mixed rite among ambitious reformers associated with the
Stoudites?
With respect to Slavonic sources one must admit, that the truncated
form of the kondakar’ was radically reduced to the prooimion without
any oikos unlike the Greek kontakarion-psaltikon, while the miney just
included one ikos, but not more.

Kontakaria without musical notation

These questions are crucial for the understanding of the kondakarion-
tropologion which can be dated back to the 10th century and which are
the earliest sources of Romanos’ contribution. The alternative
orthography was obviously chosen by the scribes who entitled these

11
Yulia Artamonova (2013, 4-5) counts 21 models for the territories of the Rus’, while
Floros (2015, i:137) counted 14 kontakia-idiomela within the classical Greek
repertoire.

5
books as “Κονδακάριον” and classified the kontakia by the abbreviation
or ligature κο[ν]δ.
Although rarely preserved as manuscript, there was already an older
type: the kontakion roll or scroll which might also have been meant with
the Greek term “kontakion”.

Kontakion roll
This form is rather found in illustrations which depict singers with a roll
standing on the ambo, than preserved as source. 12 Especially in Southern
Italy, liturgical rolls had been quite common. The Byzantine use of rolls
did also inspire the local Latin rite, especially a particular custom for the
celebration of Holy Saturday which is documented by some
illuminations of these Exultet rolls. These rolls were richly decorated
and often the illuminations were upside-down with respect to the texts,
so that a diacon could recite the texts from an ambo, while the
illuminations on the part of the roll hanging down from the ambo could
be seen within the church and not upside-down. A huge pyramidal-
shaped votive candle gave light to the scene, at least this was the custom
which is evidenced by some of the self-reflective illuminations which
can be found on some of these liturgical rolls.
Obviously similar rolls, although rather modest in decoration, had been
used in Constantinople and were also mentioned in Romanos’ vita,
where the Theotokos appeared to him, after he failed to recite the
kathismata at the Blachernae chapel, and fed him with a kontakion roll.
Thus, he recited instead his own Nativity kontakion Ἡ παρθένος.

Kondakarion-tropologion
With respect to the kontakion roll it is evident that the function of the
kondakarion-tropologion was rather the opposite to dedicate a whole
book to this particular genre and to collect as many kontakia as possible,
and if possible, in full length with all its oikoi.

12
See, for instance, the illumination of a Gospel preserved at the Athonite Mone
Dionysiou as Ms. 587m (Moran 2002, 103).

6
As such the book was less dedicated to the limited classical repertoire of
the cathedral rite, but rather to the current monastic role the kontakion
must have played between the 11th and 13th centuries, when two thirds
of these huge collections had been composed.
There is a very common confusion which was caused by Thodberg’s
distinction of the “short” and of the “long psaltikon-style”. Did “long”
point at the length of the musical realisation or to the length of the
kontakion text? Similar to the practice of psalmody there was the rule,
that the shorter the text the more elaborated was its recitation. If short
refers to the text form of the “truncated kontakion”, then this monastic
form of kondakarion-tropologion was definitely meant with long
psaltikon-style, but if it did refer to the musical form (of the kontakia,
the prokeimena and the allelouiaria), exactly the unnotated tropologion-
type of kontakarion did not offer any reliable information, how these
long texts had been recited. They did not offer any more information
which prooimion and which oikos did provide the model for the
recitation of a certain kontakion. It is generally assumed that such a long
text and the instructive intention of certain authors did require a rather
simple form without hiding the semantic aspect of the language behind
the phonetic one. But it is nothing more than a guess, and also most
notations used for kontakarion, especially the idiomatic one has only
reached a very poor understanding, even among experts!
The earliest kontakarion of the Sinai collection offers an example, how
the simplest form of musical notation did work, while the kontakion roll
just had the texts. Between folios 2 and 3 verso, the text of a kontakion
dedicated to the memory of Saint Anthimus (3 September) has been
written. According to this manuscript it consists of a prooimion
(introductory stanza) with three oikoi (stanzas) which are all connected
by one refrain called ephymnion (ἐφύµνιον) which concludes each
stanza: ταὶς σαῖς πρεσβεῖαις πῆρ ἡµῶν, Ἄνθηµε. It did directly address
the saint, as can be deduced from the vocative declination of his name.
The prooimion as well as the first oikos did refer to two different
kontakia as recitation models. The prooimion ἐν ἱερεῦσιν εὐσεβῶς
διαπρέψας used the prooimion ὁ ὑψωθεῖς ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ taken from the

7
kontakion for the feast of cross elevation (14 September). All three
oikoi used the model of the oikos τῇ γαλιλαίᾳ τῶν ἐθνῶν which was
taken from another very prominent kontakion of the echos tetartos,
although its modal signature was not written here by the scribe: the
kontakion for Theophany (6 January) Ἐπεφάνης σήµερον.13

Fig. 1: kontakion-prosomoion ἐν ἱερεῦσιν εὐσεβῶς διαπρέψας for Saint Anthemos

(ET-MSsc Sin. gr. 925, f.2v)

The practice that prooimion and the oikoi used model stanzas taken from
two different kontakia was quite common and Constantin Floros wrote,
that among 42 kontakia-idiomela just 14 prooimia had been used as
model stanza for prooimia of kontakia-prosomoia, while 13 oikoi served
as models for their oikoi.14 Concerning the classical repertoire given by
Floros’ edition, I counted 16 models for the prooimion, and two

13
Although the understanding of Kondakarian notation is still insufficient, a
comparison of both kontakia in Slavic kondakar’s revealed that the gestic neumes or
cheironomiai of the ephymnion were identical and obviously meant the same melody
belonging both to Glas 4 or echos tetartos. Artamanova (2013).
14
Yulia Artamonova (2013) pointed at the melodic system which was slightly
modified with respect to the Greek kontakia, for the translated kondaks the number
of models had been increased from 14 to 21, alone 5 models for Glas 1, also because
one of them has been classified differently by Greek scribes.

8
additional ones which were probably added later to the repertoire (see
table 1 and 2 of the appendix).
The melodic system of iki can only be studied based on the unnotated
part of Slavic chant books like the Tipografsky Ustav or the unnotated
kondaks in the office menaia (mineya služebnaya) of Novgorod (12th
century), and one might find further modifications. For instance, the
ikos of Glas 2 Сумеѡҥе (unlike the prooimion of the same kondak) is
not regarded as part of the idiomela, but as podoben (prosomoion) of
another ikos Ѹꙗсни ми ꙗзыкъ (τράνωσόν µου τὴν γλῶτταν) which
belonged to the truncated form of the kondak for Peter and Paul (29
June) and which was also chosen as model to compose the ikos of the
resurrection kondak in the same Glas. Within the melodic system of
kondaks of the Slavic kondakar’, this kondak was among the prototypes
of Glas 2, while most Greek notators defined here the devteros mesos as
a plagios devteros diphonon (coming from plagios phthongos). Even the
anonymous author of the Hagiopolites mentioned that devteros mele
could conclude on the plagios phthongos.
In his habilitation of 1961, Constantin Floros mentioned two new
idiomela which had been introduced in the time of Theodore Stoudites
(about 800) to the existing repertoire, and also remarked that some of
the model kontakia had a prosomoion as oikos like the kontakion for
Hypapante ὁ µήτραν παρθενικὴν in echos protos whose oikos τῇ
θεοτόκῳ was a prosomoion of the oikos τὸ φοβερόν σου which
belonged to the kontakion for Sunday of Meatfare:
Hierbei fällt einerseits die große Anzahl der Proshomoia auf,
andererseits der Umstand, daß 15 Kontakien lediglich ein
idiomelon Prooimion haben, während ihre Oikoi Kontrafakta
sind.15
A study of the whole manuscript reveals that the triodion (first part of
the movable cycle) of this kondakarion-tropologion was still included
within the menaion, beginning with February. Usually after the feast of
Ηypapante on 2 February (Sin. gr. 925, f.51v), the kontakion for
Saturday of Apokreos was inserted after the 24 February (Sin. gr. 925,
15
Floros (2015, i:137).

9
f.73r) in this kontakarion. Some missing kontakia of the triodion and
pentekostarion (f.103r) had been added in an appendix after August
(Sin. gr. 925, f.96v-116r).
The other two kondakaria-tropologia of the Sinai collection (Sin. gr.
926 & 927) prove that this form was still written and used until the end
of the 13th century, but by the 11th century a separation between the
immovable and movable cycle had been definitely established. The third
(Sin. gr. 927) was written in 1285 and had about 770 pages with plenty
kontakia dedicated to very rare saints. It has more than 500 pages just
for the menaion alone.

Fig. 2: Kondak proimya for Sv. Anthim (3 September) Подвигъ твоихъ in Glas 4
(RUS-Mim Sin. 159, f.22v)

There is a Slavic counterpart for the Greek kondakarion-tropologion, it

is the notated mineya služebnaya of the 12th century, a kind of menaion
whose scribes did provide all the stichera idiomela, the prosomoia
(related to the stichera avtomela) and akrosticha (related to the heirmoi)
with notation. Their function was obviously to control the impact on the
melodic system that a recent literal re-translation of the Greek hymns
had. Obviously, the kondaks were not regarded as part of the problem,
because they still remained without notation, but in case of the
kontakia-prosomoia (podobni), they had a modal signature and the
incipit of that kondak which had served as a model for its composition

10
just as the Greek collection which were just dedicated to the “kondakion
genre”.16
There is in fact one chant (not even rubrified as a kondak), but the
podoben refers to the incipit of the Slavonic translation of the kondak
for cross elevation, which means that just the prooimion alone was sung
as a kind of proper hymn for St Anthimus on 3 September. In
comparison with other hymns surrounding it, there was no other
notation than the modal signature and the incipit of the idiomelon
prototype. It is sung before the canon of Orthros and not within it, like
other kondaks rubrified as such which can be found for other feast of the
September mineya.

Kontakaria with musical notation

The “new view” on the subject, if one is ready to understand all the
sources described in this section as part of a long reception history of
the cathedral rite (either separated in time and / or by their place of
provenance and by the resulting context), is close to Troelsgård’s
suggestion to abandon a distinction between Middle and Late Byzantine
round notation. The synthesis of Middle Byzantine round notation,
incorporating different chant books and their own notation systems, was
already done earlier—even more precisely by exactly those notators of
the monastic scriptoria who transcribed the system of gestic signs
known as Kondakarion notation within the notation system of the
sticherarion. In the former case, because the Slavic kondakar’s had
already a notation in two rows which offered a transcription in itself,
one should take into account that at least three of them had been already
written before the Constantinopolitan cathedral rite disappeared in 1204.
It was still the period of Old Byzantine notation. There is no Greek
source left which documents, how the contemporary Old Byzantine

16
Also the miney služebnih at the State Historical Museum of Moscow (RUS-Mim sin.
159-168, all months except of March and July), the sources of the forthcoming Bonn
edition, have become recently available online, including two additional manuscripts
with for movable cycle: the Fasten triod (Sin. 319) and the Flower triod (Voskr.
pergament 27). See also the Krivko’s study (2012) of office menaia.

11
notation had looked, which did transcribe the gestic notation in the
second row.

The Old Russian kondakar’ and the Asmatikon of Kastoria

In comparison with the later Greek asmatikon of Kastoria the Easter
koinonikon shows a resemblance with the gestic notation used in the
Blagoveščensky Kondakar’.17
The same use of short sections separated by kola, the same use of
asmatic syllables despite of the difference in language, as well as the
similarity between the cheironomiai had been already observed in
various cases by Levy, Floros, Myers and Doneda. 18
This comparison already reveals that both versions offer in itself a
transcription, even if a careful consideration about 180 years between
the date of both manuscripts might convince a reader not to draw the
conclusion that both versions might be identical (in the sense that the
Middle Byzantine notation of Kastoria 8 “deciphers” the other more or
less unfamiliar notation systems). Nevertheless, these sources obviously
treat the same musical heritage of the Constantinopolitan cathedral rite.
The oldest source of Kondakarian notation is the Tipografsky Ustav
which dates roughly back to the year 1100. It is one of the earliest
documents, how the cathedral rite of the Constantinopolitan Hagia
Sophia has been adapted to local needs of the Rus’ and in direct
exchange with Constantinople, including the creation or contrafacture
(prosomoia) of kontakia dedicated to local saints such as Boris and Gleb
(24 July).19
17
For an identification of the cheironomiai, see Floros (1967), Myers (1998, 34-44) or
Vladyševskaya (2006, 126-129).
18
Levy (1966), Floros (1970, iii), Myers (2012, ex.5), Doneda (2011).
19
Unfortunately, only the end of the prooimion and the ikos of the kondak-podoben in
Glas 3 (RUS-Mgt K-5349, f.73r) is still visible in the manuscript. Both parts were
left without notation, but the first was made after the prooimion of the Christmas
kondak in Glas 3 which was left unnotated in the manuscript. Nothing can be said,
whether there was already a second kondak-prosomoion made after the Easter
kondak in Glas 8 written on the missing folio. Some of the later kondakar’s provide
both kondaks for this occasion.

12
 Fig. 3: Easter koinonikon σῶµα χριστοῦ (тѣло христово) in echos plagios protos
(RUS-SPsc Ms. Q.п.I.32, f.97v; GR-KA Ms. 8, f.36v)

The difference to other Slavic kondakar’s which date at least 100 years
later, is that this manuscript is the only one which includes the first
oikos after the prooimion, although none of those is provided with
notation, but with an incipit of the model oikos. Another characteristic is
that the scribe obviously did write the prooimion if it was notated twice,
probably because of the melismatic treatment of the text. With the
second time all asmatic syllables were included and space was left for
the notator which in rare cases were also never filled by the notator. Not
all of the kondaks written in the manuscript had been notated, just a
selection of them. Later kondakar’s only had the notated introductory
part and all of them had notation, podobni ( prosomoia) as well as
samoglasni (idiomela). The scribes of most of the kondakar’s did

13
classify a kondak explicitely according to one of both categories, but
they never classified a model as a samopodoben ( avtomelon) and this
includes also Greek scribes of the kondakarion-tropologion.
Obviously an oral transmission to perform them did not survive for a
long time, because even the ikos texts did simply disappear in the later
manuscripts. Nevertheless, the Tipografsky Ustav still has the iki
“notated” in the same way like in kondakarion-tropologion or in the
notated mineya služebnaya of the 12th century: without neumes, but
with the incipit of the model and its glas.20
It seems that the truncated form as it developed during the 13th century
within the territory of the Kievan Rus’, consisted just in the melismatic
elaboration of the prooimion without any oikos.

The Greek kontakarion-psaltikon and its notation

Unlike the Slavic kondakar’ which used the gestic notation of the
cathedral rite (strongly connected with cheironomia), the Greek
kontakaria-psaltika have been written with the notation of the
sticherarion. The sticherarion was the project of monastic reformers and
unlike the psaltikon an overregional collection which fitted to the
scriptoria of Sinai and Jerusalem (Coislin), Constantinople and Athos
(Chartres). Most of the kontakaria-psaltika are written in Middle
Byzantine notation which developed out of the sticherarion, but during
a period, when there was no longer a cathedral rite in Constantinople.
For this reason, the book kontakarion-psaltikon is not less a reception of
the cathedral rite like the Slavic kondakar’s, the difference is that the
latter was a transfer into another language and an adaptation to local
liturgical needs, while the transcription of Kondakarion notation into
Middle Byzantine notation became highly relevant for the continuation
of the Byzantine rite in the medium Middle Byzantine round notation.
The synthesis present in the kontakarion-psaltikon and its notation is
20
There is one exception, for the kondak дѹше моꙗ (ψυχή µου) for the Great Kanon
of the Fasten triod (5th Sunday of Lent and the feast in honour of Andrew of Crete)
has its ikos written twice, the second time prepared for the notator who never filled
the space left (Tipografsky Ustav, ff.83v-84r).

14
crucial for the understanding of the particular tonal system of the
cathedral rite, which should not be confused with the Hagiopolitan
oktoechos which dominated in the later treatises called “Papadikai”.
Nevertheless, all three books asmatikon, kontakarion-psaltikon and
kondakar’ are dedicated to the local tradition of the Constantinopolitan
cathedral rite and in case of the latter books to its limited repertoire of
kontakia.
The papadic concept of great signs established directly out of the
integration of the Constantinopolitan cheironomiai, but the synthesis
was not done in the Polis, but outside in the monastic scriptoria engaged
to save the tradition of the cathedral rite, after it had got lost in
Constantinople: Sinai, Patmos, Athos and Italy. Since the only Greek
source with the original notation is a late copy of the Asmatikon which
transcribes in the second row the gestic signs into Middle Byzantine
notation, the Middle Byzantine transcription of kontakia must be
directly compared with Slavic sources of Kondakarian notation. 21
The example chosen here is the Easter kontakion Εἰ καὶ ἐν τάφῳ (Аще
и въ гробъ) whose ikos is not present in the Tipografsky Ustav, because
the page is missing.
On the first look, one might observe that the Slavic reception even used
asmatic syllables within the kondak which was obviously not the Greek
way to perform kontakia. The same asmatic syllables and their place
were respected within the composition of a new kondak for Boris and
Gleb. Within the Blagoveščensky Kondakar’ there were even two
kondaks for these martyre princes of the Rus, one in Glas 3 made after
the Nativity kondak and the second in Glas 8 (RUS-SPsc Q. п.I.32,
ff.52r-53v). A comparison of the kontakaria-psaltika of Paris and Sinai
reveals that both versions did not end the first apoderma on the same
phthongos, but the Parisian version one step lower on varys. The
cadence on κατῆλθες on the tetartos phthongos in the Parisian
kontakarion has the medial signature of phthora nana which indicated
21
The only exception is the kontakion for the dedication of the church of the Holy
Sepulchre at Jerusalem, which can be found in the Slavic kondakar’s as well as in
the Kastoria Asmatikon (Myers 2012).

15
that the plagios tetartos melos was regarded as enharmonic and
organised in triphonia. This means that the sticherarion notation and its
metrophonia is based on tetraphonia, except triphonia is indicated by
the use of phthora nana. Thodberg’s hypothesis that the tonal system of
the cathedral rite is entirely based on triphonia must be verified by the
use of Middle Byzantine notation to transcribe the repertoire of the
asmatic rite. In this case, it can be confirmed for the melos of this
particular prototype which is one of three for echos plagios tetartos.

Fig. 4: comparison of the Easter kontakion and its contrafact for Boris and Gleb
(RUS-SPsc Q.п.I.32, ET-MSsc Sin. gr. 1280, F-Pn grec 397)

Concerning the concept of great signs (τὰ µεγάλα σῃµάδια) and the
transformation of cheironomiai within Middle Byzantine notation, the
comparison demonstrates that much more kola had been used by the
scribes of the Kievan Rus’ than by the Greek scribes. 22 These kola were
obviously not related to the text, although they were written as
interpunction within the text, but to the cheironomiai in the first row of
the notation. Thus, a reader could understand, where the transcription of

22
It coincides with Tatiana Shvets’ observation that kola and sometimes even medial
signatures do not represent the syntactic structure of the text as it is the convention
of Greek scribes of the sticherarion.

16
one cheironomia started and ended within the second row. Nevertheless,
already in the notation used in the first row the cheironomiai were not
notated throughout the kontakia unlike the koinonikon, it was necessary
to compare the same kondak in many kondakar’s to reconstruct the
missing signs. 23 The gestic notation was obviously closely connected to
the oktoechos melopœia of the cathedral rite and with it the melodic
idiom of the kontakion, independent from the length or elaboration of its
melos. A comparison with the Middle Byzantine transcription proves,
that very few great signs had been really used, the notation simply
analysed the melody of the kontakion without referring to the
cheironomiai—with exception of the end of a melodic phrase, where
great signs not common with those used for the sticherarion had been
usually written.
In comparison with the evolution of sticherarion notation which
developed out of theta or fita notation, the Old Byzantine system of the
Kondakarian notation was already very sophisticated and specific in its
earliest source: the Tipografsky Ustav written about 1100. Although the
models for other kontakia had been rubrified as idiomelon or
samoglasen, they were described by Constantin Floros who made the
edition for the kontakia documented in the Greek kontakaria-psaltika, as
follows:
Untersucht man auch die Melodien, so ändert sich das Bild. Es
stellt sich nämlich heraus, daß viele der sog. Idiomela trotz ihrer
eigenen metrischen Struktur keine eigene Melodie zugrunde
liegt. Vielmehr werden dem Text eines Idiomelons meist die
Phrasen und Formeln eines Modells angepaßt – ein Prozeß, der je
nach den Erfordernissen des Textes zur Erweiterung, Kontraktion
oder Variierung jener an sich elastischen, mannigfache
Ausführung erlaubenden Phrasen und Formeln führt.24

23
A look at folio 87 verso of the Tipografsky Ustav, where only the first line of the
notated kondak was left, reveals that the first cheironomia of the Easter kondak,
missing in the Blagoveščensky kondakar’, was a kind of thema haploun (θέµα
ἁπλοὺν) or fita written under an antikenoma (ἀντικένοµα), its melos was adapted to
a greater number of syllables within the kondak-podoben for Boris and Gleb.
24
Floros 2015, i:137-138.

17
He also hinted that the order of these formulas (the cheironomiai) was
strictly obeyed, which is in fact a description of a soloist’s role who
performed a melismatic kontakion, following the model of an idiomelon
step by step. What was not mentioned by Floros, is that the syllables of
the text were sometimes arranged with the melodic model, that the
melodic structure went against the verse structure, although the length
of the first melodic phrase which was repeated, was basically the same.
Usually, the first two verses were arranged with two melodic phrases
whose cheironomiai were more or less the same. It means, that they had
to be arranged to a repetition of the same melody, but it was also
possible to arrange twenty syllables with the first phrase, and the shorter
rest of the second verse with the repetition of the melodic phrase,
sometimes prolonging the shorter verse with asmatic or other filling
syllables.
Similar observations can be done with asmatic koinonika which were
also sometimes used as contrafact for other psalm verses. Its melismatic
style made an adaption to another text easy and the monophonaris (how
the soloist on the ambo was usually called) could even insert asmatic
syllables at precisely the same place like in the prototype (something
which can only observed in Slavic kondakar’s, because the kontakion,
except of the ephymnion (refrain), was written the book of the soloist,
the psaltikon, while the asmatic syllables were an idiom which belonged
to the choir book). This discussion also touches another controversial
aspect of the kontakarion-psaltikon which is Thodberg’s distinction of a
short from a long psaltikon style. 25 Jørgen Raasted who still relied on it,
did choose Romanos’ Nativity kontakion Ἡ παρθένος σήµερον to
challenge the difference of a more and a less elaborated version of the
kontakion’s prooimion.26 In fact, the version of an Italian kontakarion (I-
25
Thodberg (1966). The psaltika described in the German translation of Thodberg’s
doctoral thesis present all the melismatic elaboration of the kontakia as it was
transcribed into staff notation by Constantin Floros, but not the kalophonic
elaboration. The distinction somehow developed in an exchange with Egon Wellesz
and his edition of the Akathistos hymn who also dealt with kalophonic versions of
the Akathistos hymn.
26
Raasted (1981), actually a late publication of a paper which was held during a
conference in 1971.

18
Fl Ms. Ashburnam 64) which was supposed to represent the “short
psaltikon style”, was the longest version which convinced the author to
take Thodberg’s term into quotation marks. Also Constantin Floros, the
only scholar who did an entire transcription of the kontakarion-
psaltikon, could not confirm a constant difference between a “short” and
a “long psaltikon style”, but he found two groups which follow a
different (but not very different) redaction of the same repertoire. 27
But he characterised the redaction of Codex petropolitanus 674, the
same manuscript whose version of Ἡ παρθένος was compared by
Raasted, as “sticheraric style”. He found at least in four prooimia with
an almost syllabic setting of the mesos devteros echos: two steps under
the kyrios devteros on the tetartos phthongos. As argument for his
classification of a “sticheraric style”, the wrong idiom for the kontakion
genre, Constantin Floros mentions neume coincidences in cadence
formulas with stichera of the devteros echos, but also the fact that three
of the kontakia use the same ephymnion: “the final verses, although they
all differ in meter, have the identical melody.” 28 It is difficult to decide,
whether this is a sufficient evidence that the kontakion idiom was
abandoned in this version. A melodic coincidence within the ephymnion,
not only within one kontakion, where the prooimion and the oikoi shared
the same verse, but within all kontakia of the same echos, is very well a
part of the kontakion idiom. 29 Also Raasted’s comparison revealed
remarkable coincidences between the melismatic “short” version and the
much shorter version which Floros characterised as sticheraric.
Nevertheless, his point to look for a change in the idiomatic oktoechos
melopœia is very valuable.
It can be already observed in his edition, that the Italian version, a
kontakarion-psaltikon written at Grottaferrata Abbey, because it
celebrates feasts for Neilos and Bartholomew, both monks of the Abbey,
has already traces to adapt to the idiom of the sticherarion, also here
27
Floros (2015, i:75-77).
28
Floros (2015, i:82).
29
Yulia Artamonova (2013) demonstrated this coincidence by a simple comparison of
the Kondakarian notation used within two different kondaks of Glas 4 which had no
prosomoion-relation.

19
especially visible concerning the devteros mele and its kontakia-
idiomela. The second group (M group) has a very particular echema
which cannot be found in any sticherarion, it is a kyrios devteros
echema which ends on a lower mesos on the tritos phthongos.
Nevertheless, many kontakaria use phthora nana within its melos which
is not common for the Hagiopolitan oktoechos. The mele prove that the
role of the phthorai is completely different from the Hagiopolitan
oktoechos, where nana has never been used within devteros mele, while
the chromatic nenano is rather rarely used.
The group A defined by Floros is usually presented by transcriptions
made from the kontakarion-psaltikon of Grottaferrata (I-Fl Ms.
Ashburnham 64) and it uses the phthora nenano, which was probably an
adaptation to the Hagiopolitan oktoechos and moved the mesos about
two steps from the tritos to the protos phthongos. Concerning an
adaptation to the oktoechos melopœia of the sticherarion which is
inherent with regard to a reception within the notation of this book, the
use of phthorai is one aspect, another one are cadence formulas. Unlike
the current melopœia according to the New Method, where each genre
of chant is defined by its own tempo and its own oktoechos melopœia,
the medieval sticherarion and the heirmologion did share common
cadence formulas within compositions of the same echos. It seems that
the heirmologion whose heirmoi were clearly composed in one echos,
defined by the melos of an echos, while the stichera idiomela as rather
complex compositions can change between the echoi. This means that
only a more profound knowledge of the tonal system of the Asma is
required to judge about a possible adaptation to the Hagiopolitan
oktoechos.30
The question is, whether Thodberg’s distinction between a melismatic
(short psaltikon style) and a kalophonic style (long psaltikon style) does
make sense, or should it not be replaced by another synchronic

30
A confrontation of Floros’ habilitation and its complete edition of the classical
kontakion repertoire with Thodberg’s (1960) and Husmann’s (1971) ideas about the
tonal system of the kontakarion is already present in Andreas Pfisterer’s contribution
to the Monody conference in 2016.

20
distinction between a simple monastic style in the unnotated
kondakarion-tropologion (up to 740 kondakia) and a melismatic style of
the cathedral rite in the notated books kondakar’ and kontakarion-
psaltikon (up to 86 kontakia). The characteristic of the melismatic style
was, it could be long, but not necessarily long. The decision was left to
the soloist and the various degrees of length are well documented by the
various kontakaria-psaltika.
The author of the Hagiopolites who must have lived between the 10th
and 12th century, mentions the Constantinopolitan oktoechos and
compared it with the ten echoi of the Hagiopolitan oktoechos:
Οἱ µὲν οὖν τέσσαρρεις πρῶτοι οὐκ ἐξ ἄλλων τινων ἀλλ’ἐξ
αὐτῶν γινονται. οἱ δὲ τέσσαρεις δεύτεροι, ἤγουν οἱ πλάγιοι, ὁ
µὲν πλάγιος πρῶτος ἐκ τῆς ὑπορροῆς τοῦ πρώτου γέγονε. καὶ
ἀπὸ τῆς ὑπορροῆς τοῦ πληρώµατος τοῦ δευτέρου γέγονεν ὁ
πλάγιος δευτέρου· ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖστον δὲ καὶ τὰ πληρώµατα τοῦ
δευτέρου [εἰς τὸν πλάγιον δευτέρου] τελειοῖ. ὁ βαρὺς ὁµοίως καὶ
ἀπὸ τοῦ τρίτοῦ· καὶ γὰρ εἰς τὸ ἆσµα ἡ ὑ ποβολὴ τοῦ βαρέως
τρίτος ψάλλεται ἅµα τοῦ τέλους αὐτοῦ. καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ τετάρτου
γέγονεν ὁ πλάγιος τέταρτος. καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τεσσάρων πλαγίων
ἐγεννήθησαν τέσσαρεις µέσοι· καὶ ἀπ’αὐτῶν αἱ τέσσαρες
φθοραί. καί ἀνεβιβάσθησαν ἦχοι ις’, οἵτινες ψάλλονται εἰς τὸ
ἆσµα, οἱ δὲ δέκα ὡς προείποµεν εἰς τὸν Ἁγιοπολίτην.
The 4 Echoi which come first are generated from themselves, not
from others. As to the four which come next, i.e. the Plagal ones,
Plagios Prōtos is derived from Prōtos, and Plagios Deuteros from
Deuteros – normally Deuteros melodies end in Plagios Deuteros.
Similarly, Barys from Tritos – “for in the Asma Hypobole of
Barys is sung as Tritos together with its ending”. From the 4 Pla-
gioi originate the 4 Mesoi, and from these the 4 Phthorai. This
makes up the 16 Echoi which are sung in the Asma – as already
mentioned, there are sung only 10 in the Hagiopolites.31
If one follows this trace, how many different echemata prove a
difference between sixteen echoi, the result is fourteen, while there are
sixteen models for the whole kontakion repertoire (which is the same

31
Raasted (1983, §6, p.14).

21
number like the echoi mentioned here)… There is definitely not a
symmetric distribution of 4 mele for the each echos (including kyrios
and plagios), but two for protos echoi (kyrios and plagios), four for
devteros echoi, three for tritos echoi, and five for tetartos echoi (see the
list of echemata in table 3).
It should be mentioned that there is no absolute identical relationship
between the idiomela and these intonations (the echemata might change
for the same idiomelon, depending on a certain manuscript and its
scribe), but it is nevertheless very close, so that there is in practice a
distinction of fourteen mele used for the kontakaria within the
Constantinopolitan oktoechos of the cathedral right, each one
represented by a fixed order of gestic signs ( cheironomiai) which have
been used to compose kontakia like the kondak for Boris and Gleb
within the Kievan Rus’.
With respect to Thodberg’s distinction between “a short” and “a long
psaltikon style”, one can say that it is outdated. The cathedral rite had a
melismatic way to perform kontakia which was understood or
misunderstood by Thodberg as “short psaltikon style”, it was definitely
not short in comparison with a simple performance of the kontakion
with more than one oikos. A longer kalophonic style to perform the
kontakia developed by the end of the 13th century after the return from
the exile in Nikaia, when the former cathedral rite was continued
elsewhere (not only in the Hagia Sophia of Thessalonica, even in
representative Greek Archimandritates in Southern Italy and larger
monasteries on the Holy Mount Athos). Unlike the melismatic style of
the cathedral rite which mainly focussed on the prooimion and within
representative Greek celebrations also on the first oikos which followed,
the kalophonic style was mainly focussed on the oikos, in the
exceptional case of the Akathist hymn even on all oikoi, but this practice
changed radically the ritual celebration of the whole genre.

The kalophonic oikematarion

Unlike the kontakarion-psaltikon the oikematarion was not so much
dedicated to the repertoire of the cathedral rite (including prokeimena

22
and allelouiaria), in its organised form it was rather close to the
kondakarion-tropologion with its separation between menaion, the
triodion and the pentekostarion. In case that there were not many
kontakia, there was at least one and it was the Akathist hymn,
sometimes with one oikos, sometimes complete with all twenty-four
oikoi, sometimes even different compositions made about it.
Already in the Tipografsky Ustav this kontakion, fixed to the Marianic
feast of Annunciation (25 March), was treated as an exception and
written down with the text of all the oikoi. Unfortunately, large part of
the notated prooimion and the three first oikoi had been written on a
folio which is missing in the current manuscript. But there are not only
kalophonic settings, but also a melismatic one according to the classical
style of the kontakarion-psaltikon. At the collection of Saint Catherine’s
Monastery, there is a second one next to the already quoted Sin. gr.
1280. The notation of Sin. gr. 1314 seems to be written later, unlike the
older book the notator did use medial signatures (rather than medial
intonations which are characteristic for the books of the cathedral rite),
concerning the selection of kontakia, of prokeimena and allelouiaria, it
was very likely copied from the earlier manuscript, although Constantin
Floros already mentioned that the notator who copied 1280, did so many
mistakes that one might question, how much he really did understand,
when he copied the earlier kontakarion-psaltikon. What follows is a
second complete setting of the whole Akathist hymn in the same
melismatic style:
 prokeimena (slightly different)
 allelouiaria (without refrain)
 hypakoai anastasima
 kontakaria (identical, later notation type)
 complete Akathistos hymn
 kontakia anastasima
 eleven stichera heothina
 psalmodic allelouiarion
 appendix with three other prokeimena

23
Also for the added oktoechos cycle of eight kontakia anastasima the
scribe did copy in a way which reveals a rather mechanic approach than
a profound knowledge which would have allowed him to add missing
parts with respect to the original. His copy of the kontakion anastasimon
in echos tritos, a kontakion-prosomoion made after the Nativity
kontakion, has an odd redaction of its text and plenty of free space left
on some pages (ET-MSsc Sin. gr. 1314, f.212r, see also f.210v and
211r), as if the page of the copied original was rotten in some of its
parts. The series of eleven heothina was sometimes added in a psaltikon
or kondakar’, but it rather belonged to the book oktoechos (the last part
of the sticherarion).
Also concerning the kalophonic kontakarion the Sinai collection is one
of the most important in the world, so that one might ask, whether it was
really Constantinopolitan genre or rather a monastic training programme
for monks or skete communities specialised in eclesiastic chant.
The common opinion is that mainly Ioannes Kladas was interested in
kalophonic arrangements of the other kontakia, but Sin. gr. 1262 reveals
an earlier interest for the whole classical repertoire among the first
generation of maistores around Ioannes Glykys and Michael Aneotos.
Unlike the Tipografsky Ustav the Akathistos does not appear within the
menaion section, but within the triodion, which means that it was rather
fixed within Lent, either on Saturday of the 5th week or in portions
during the whole Lenten tide.
Like in Sin. gr. 1314 the Akathist hymn appeared twice in the truncated
and in the complete form. Arranged according to the kalophonic style
the truncated form was composed by Ioannes Glykys (ET-MSsc Sin. Gr.
1262, ff.61v-67v). It was a modest kalophonic arrangement of just the
first kolon of the prooimion, the rest is just a kalopismos made of
phthora nana as echos kratema with the melos of plagios, the following
first oikos is already composed in another echos than the one of the
Annunciation kontakion, the nenano phthora of plagios devteros which
switched only back to the nana phthora and from there to plagios
tetartos at the very end of the chairetismoi.

24
 Fig. 5: Resolution to φθορά νανὰ at the very end (ΕΤ-MSsc Sin. gr. 1262, f.67v)

The kalophonic setting of the complete Akathistos (ET-MSsc Sin. Gr.

1262, ff.67v-131r) followed basically the same modal design with the
first oikos as a plagios devteros triphonon, but this version was created
by the Domestikos Michael Aneotos, but “beautified” by Ioannes
Koukouzeles (which meant according to his method he illustrated in his
exercise Mega Ison). At the end phthora nenano is resolved by a mesos
devteros, a way which had been ascribed to Ioannes Koukouzeles and
which clearly belonged to the Papadic re-definition of the oktoechos.
The continuation of the second oikos was composed by Nikephoros
Ethikos again in phthora nenano, while the teretismos before the
ephymnion of the choir ( ἀπὸ χοροῦ) modulated back to the main echos
of plagios tetartos. The following oikoi in echos plagios tetartos became
ascribed Ioannes Koukouzeles again with the famous ligature which was
commonly used for a kalophonic treatment according to the method of
Mega Ison.

Fig. 6: Koukouzelian resolution of φθορά νενανῶ before the χαιρετισµός refrain

(ET-MSsc Sin. gr. 1262, f.70v)

Conclusion
The re-examination of the kontakion genre as it is now possible thanks
to the web publication of various Greek and Old Church Slavonic
sources allows a comparison of notated and unnotated kontakaria since
the end of the 9th century.

25
On the level of modality, it is possible now to approve the Hagiopolites’
comparison between a Constantinopolitan (“system of the Asma”) and a
Hagiopolitan oktoechos. According to its verification the “sixteen echoi
of Asma” can be verified as a system of fourteen echemata used within
the repertoire of kontakia or simply kontakarion which do roughly
correspond to a system of sixteen idiomela which had been used as
models for kontakia-prosomoia which combined different models for
the prooimion and the oikoi belonging to the same echos and its
ephymnion.
As already proposed by Alexander Lingas, the misleading distinction
between a melismatic “short psaltikon style” and a kalophonic “long
psaltikon style” must be replaced by the simple form of recitation which
was also continued for new kondakia composed for a monastic context
and the melismatic festive kontakion within a limited repertoire in the
context of the cathedral rite. Both forms were based on a gestic notation
which has been only preserved in the Slavic kondakar’s and its own
oktoechos and one Greek asmatikon of the 14th century. Its melismatic
performance was possible due to a soloistic recitation.
A 13th-century reception in Middle Byzantine sticherarion notation
developed in monastic scriptoria, after the cathedral rite had dissapeared
in Constantinople. Its medium allows the reconstruction of fourteen
echoi and their echemata and the integration of cheironomiai as “great
signs” (τὰ µεγάλα σῃµάδια).
A 14th-century reception is the kalophonic elaboration of the kontakia
within the framework of the Papadic oktoechos. It is connected with a
new practice reduced to the weekly recitation of the kalophonic
Akathistos hymn during Lent, which has nowadays been replaced by a
heirmologic idiom according to the New Method.

26
Tables
Table 1: The models of the prooimia
No. Incipit in Greek (OCS) Echos (Gl.) feast (date)

1 ὁ µήτραν παρθενικὴν* α᾽ ἔξω (1) Hypapante (2 Feb)

(Ѹтробѹ дьвичю)

2 ὅταν ἔλθης ὁ Θεός πλα᾽ (1) Sunday of Meatfare

(Ѥгда придеши Боже)

3 µιµητὴς ὑπάρχων πλα᾽ (5) St Panteleimon

(Подобьникъ сы (27 Jul)
милостивѹмѹ)

4 τὰ ἄνω ζητῶν (Вышьнихъ β᾽ µέσος (2) Symeon Stylites

ища) (1 Sep)

5 χειρόγραφον εἰκόνα β᾽ µέσος (2) Three Adolescents

(Рѹкописанаго ѡбраза) (17 Dec)

6 τὴν ἐν πρεσβείαις ἀκοίµητον β᾽ µέσος νανὰ (2) Dormition Theotokos

(Въ молитвахъ (15 Aug)
неѹсыпающю)

7 τῷ θρόνῳ ἐν οὐρανῷ πλβ᾽ ἐνάφωνον (6) Palm Sunday

(На прѣстолѣ на небесе)

8 τὴν ὑπερ ἡµῶν πληρώσας πλβ᾽ (6) Ascension

(Ѥже о насъ съвьрши)

9 ἡ παρθένος σήµερον γ᾽ µέσος (3) Nativity (25 Dec)

(Дѣва дньсь пребогата
ражаѥть)

10 ἐπὶ τοῦ ὄρους µετεµορφώθης υαρ (7) Transfiguration

(На горѣ прѣобрази сѧ) (6 Aug)

11 ὁ ὑψωθεῖς ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ δ᾽ µέσος (4) Exaltation of the Cross

(Възнесꙗи сѧ на крестъ) (14 Sep)

12 ἐπεφάνης σήµερον δ᾽ ἔξω (4) Theophany (6 Jan)

(Ꙗви сѧ дньсь вьселенѣи)

27
No. Incipit in Greek (OCS) Echos (Gl.) feast (date)

13 πίστιν χριστοῦ πλδ᾽ νανὰ (8) Saturday of Orthodoxy

(Вѣрѹ Христовѹ)

14 ὡς ἀπαρχὰς τῆς φύσεως πλδ᾽ ἐνάφωνον (8) Sunday of All Saints

(Ꙗко начатъкы родѹ)

15 τῇ ὑπερµάχῳ στρατιγῷ πλδ᾽ (8) Annunciation (25 Mar)

(Възбраньнѹмѹ воѥводѣ
побѣдьнаꙗ)

16 εἰ καὶ ἐν τάφῳ πλδ᾽ (8) Easter

(Аще и въ гробъ)
Table 2: Models for the oikoi

No. Incipit in Greek (OCS) Echos (Gl.) feast & date

1 τὸ φοβερόν σου (Страшьнаго πλα᾽ (1) Sunday of Meatfare

сѹдища твоѥго)

2 τοῦ ἀναργύρου τὴν µνήµην πλα᾽ (5) St Panteleimon

(Безмьздьнаго памѧть) (27 Jul)

3 τοῦ συµεὼν τὸν ἄµεµπτον πλβ᾽ δίφωνον (2) St Symeon (1 Sep)

(Сумеѡҥе непорочьноѥ
житиѥ)

4 τράνωσόν µου τὴν γλῶτταν πλβ᾽ δίφωνον (2) Peter and Paul
(Ѹꙗсни ми ꙗзыкъ) (29 Jun)

5 τείχισόν µου τὰς φρένας πλβ᾽ δίφωνον (2) Dormition (15 Aug)
(Огради ми ѹмъ)

6 ἐπαιδή ᾳδην ἔδησα πλβ᾽ (6) Palm Sunday

(Поҥеже ада съвѧза)

7 τὰ τῆς γῆς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς πλβ᾽ (6) Ascension

28
No. Incipit in Greek (OCS) Echos (Gl.) feast & date

(Земльнаꙗ на земли)

8 τὴν ἐδὲµ Βηθλεεµ γ᾽ µέσος (3) Nativity (25 Dec)

(Едема виѳлеомъ)

9 ἐγέρθητε οἱ νωθεῖς υαρ (7) Transfiguration

(Въстанѣте лѣнивии) (6 Aug)

10 ὁ µετὰ τρίτον οὐρανὸν (Иже δ᾽ ἔξω (4) Exaltation of the Cross

по третиимь небеси) (14 Sep)

11 τῇ γαλιλαίᾳ τῶν ἐθνῶν δ᾽ ἔξω (4) Theophany (6 Jan)

(Галилѣискѹ ꙗзыкѹ)

12 ὁ ἐν θρόνῳ φωτός πλδ᾽ (8) Saturday of Orthodoxy

(На прѣстолѣ свѣтьлѣ сѣдѧ)

13 ἄγγελος πρωτοστάτης πλδ᾽ (8) Annunciation

(Ангелъ предстатель) (25 Mar)

Table 3: List of echemata

No. description phthongos echema

1 kyrios / kyrios exo α᾽ / πλα᾽

2 plagios πλα᾽

3 kyrios (mesos echema) δ᾽

29
No. description phthongos echema

4 own phthora echema (nana) γ᾽

5 plagios enaphonon (own) γ᾽

6 plagios (temp. phthora nenano) πλβ᾽

7 kyrios (mesos echema derived α᾽ / πλα᾽

from standard form)

8 varys (own mesos echema!), υαρ

this melos starts on D

9 phthora (this melos starts on C) υαρ

10 kyrios δ᾽

11 kyrios exo πλ δ᾽

12 enharmonic mesos (phthora) γ᾽

13 plagios enaphonon (own) πλα᾽

14 plagios (melos going down a πλδ᾽

fourth until Γ)

30
Sources

Kondakaria-Tropologia
ET-MSsc Sin. gr. 925
https://www.loc.gov/item/00271074724-ms/
X • Kondakarion without notation organised as menaion (September-August ff.1r-96v,
part between July and August is missing between f.94v and 95r), triodion beginning
with Sunday of the Prodigal son (ff.96v-103r), preceding the one of Meatfare (Apokreo)
which is still written within the menaion of February like all the other kondakia of the
triodion except that of Lazarus Saturday until Palm Sunday (f.73r-89v) and
pentekostarion beginning with Easter and ending with All Saints (ff.103r-114v) and
followed by acrostics made over the prooimion of the kondakion, which was later used
for Palm Sunday (but not in this kondakarion). The manuscript has an appendix with
pages of on older kondakarion-tropologion witten in majuscule script (ff.117r-118v),
while the empty verso page of folio 116 has an alternative kondakion for Symeon,
probably a prosomoion of common kondakion in the same echos.
ET-MSsc Sin. gr. 926
https://www.loc.gov/item/00271074712-ms/
XI • Compilation of various kondakaria-tropologia without notation:
Incomplete kondakarion (each kondakion truncated to one oikos, important feasts 4
oikoi, dormition of the Theotokos 24 oikoi, with many saints for August who are quite
local) without notation beginning with the later part of April of the menaion (April-
August ff.1r-43v), triodion (ff.44r-52v) and pentekostarion (ff.52v-60).
Incomplete kondakarion (probably part of the first half which is lost) without notation
organised as menaion (September-March ff.61r-72v), appendix with two kondakia
parakletika and a kondakion for John Chrysostom (ff.72v-75v).
Tropologion by another hand with “exaposteilaria” (troparia) for the menaion (ff.76r-
98r), triodion (ff.98r-101r) and pentekostarion (ff.101r-104r), appendix with theotokia
(ff.104v-106v) and exaposteilaria preceding the eleven stichera heothina (ff.107r-110r),
scriptural lessons (ff.110v-111r), troparia (ff.111v-113v), a sequence of prosomoia about
a certain oikos (f.114).
ET-MSsc Sin. gr. 927
https://www.loc.gov/item/00271074700-ms/
1285 • Kondakarion-tropologion with an exhausting (obviously over-regional) collection
of kondakia organised as menaion (September-August ff.1v-249v), triodion (ff. 250r-
282v), pentekostarion (ff.283r-314r) and parakletike (ff.314r-322v); an appendix with
later added kondakia (ff.322v-335v).

31
Slavic Kondakar’s with Kondakarian notation
RUS-Mrg Fond 304 Ms. 23
https://dlib.rsl.ru/viewer/01004637794
about 1200 (with later added palimpsests on ff. 44r-v, 94v and 115r-v) • Kondakar
belonging to the collection of Trinity Lavra of Saint Sergius (fond 304), incomplete
miney (December and beginning of January is missing between f. 23v and f. 24r)
likewise the end of the whole manuscript is missing (no parts of the asmatikon):
Miney of the kondakar ff. 2r-55v (on folio 44 the kondaks for Boris and Gleb (24 July)
and 1 August was added, on ff. 55v-56v appendix with added kondaks)
Fasten and Flower triod of the kondakar ff. 56r-77r
Ressurection kondaks in all 8 glasov ff. 77r-84v
Hypakoi in oktoechos order (ff. 85r-93r) and katavasiai (ff. 93r-105v)
Troparia and stichologia of a second hand (ff. 105v-115r)
Appendix with later added kondaks for St Alexey and Archbishop Nicholas (f. 115)
RUS-SPsc Q.п.I.32
http://expositions.nlr.ru/ex_manus/kondakar/_Project/Dir.php
about 1200 • Blagoveščenskiy or Nižegorodskiy Kondakar’ of the Blagoveščensky
[Annunciation] Monastery of Nižniy Novgorod, it was written in Velikiy Novgorod
(kontakia of the miney, immovable cycle, ff. 1-55; kontakia of the triod and pentikostar,
movable cycle, ff. 56-72’; hypakoai and resurrection kontakia in oktoechos order,
Sunday cycle ff. 72’-83; hypakoe of birth of the Theotokos, 8 September, ff. 83-84,
troparia for the elevation of the cross, 14 September, ff. 84-85’; hypakoai of the
katavasiai ff. 86-93’; Lenten troparia ff. 93’-94’; koinonikon cycle ff. 95-104; trisagion
ff. 104-104’; Vsyako’e dihanie in oktoechos order ff. 104’-106’; Asma (choir part) of
the 9th ode (Magnificat) ff. 106’-107; Polyeleos, Ps. 135, in oktoechos order ff. 107-
113’; Easter troparia ff. 113’-114; antiphona of the Asma ff. 114-121’; stichera heothina
ff. 121’-128’; other stichera ff. 129-130’)
RUS-Mim Sin. 777
http://catalog.shm.ru/entity/OBJECT/177676
XIII • Sinodal’ny Kondakar’ (kondakar’: mineya from January to December with
illumination for September, f.28r: ff.1r-52v; appendix with various kondaks for January,
February, May and August ff.53r-69r; kondaks of the triods, Flower triod started f.77r:
ff.69r-94r; Resurrection kondaks for Glas 1-2: ff.94-95v (lacuna); kondaks of the
Paraklitik and kondak of John Chrysostom: ff.96r-99v; troparia of the divine liturgies
including the 3rd antiphon and eisodikon/vhod: ff.100r-105r; kinonicy/koinonika cycle
beginning with Maundy Thursday, Easter, the rest follows arbitrarily, not according to
the calendaric order, the last readable kinonicy are for Allsaints (Glas 6) and for
Transfiguration (Glas 3), 6 August, on folio 112 recto: ff.105r-112v). The last two folios
are worn and buckled. Within the last part modal signatures are usually missing,
sometimes they were added as numeral by a later hand in red ink.

32
Kontakaria-Psaltika with Middle Byzantine notation
ET-MSsc Sin. gr. 1280
https://www.loc.gov/item/00271076083-ms/
about 1275 • Kontakarion-psaltikon with Middle Byzantine round notation with the
prokeimenon (oktoechos cycle ff.1r-15v; lamp lighting cycle ff.15v-30r; stichologia for
Christmas and Theophaneia ff.30r-35r) and the long allelouiarion (oktoechos order: α᾽,
β᾽, δ᾽, δ᾽ νανὰ, πλα᾽, πλβ᾽, πλδ᾽ refrains rubrified in red ink ff.35r-75r) cycle, hypakoai
anastasima (oktoechos order ff.75r-82v), kontakarion organised as menaion with
integrated movable cycle including a few hypakoai / katavasiai (ff.84r-233r).
ET-MSsc Sin. gr. 1314
https://www.loc.gov/item/00271076204-ms/
about 1330 • Kontakarion-psaltikon with Middle Byzantine round notation by monk
Neophyte (during the time when Laurentios was Metropolitan of Damascus) with the
prokeimenon (oktoechos and lamp lighting prokeimena ff.1r-20r; first page is missing)
and the allelouiarion cycle (ff.20r-53v), an identical copy of the kontakarion with some
hypakoai and katavasiai of Sin. gr. 1280 (ff.54r-162r), hypakoai anastasima (ff.162v-
167v) and kolophon indicating the end of the kontakarion-psaltikon; a second part was
added with the complete melismatic realisation of the Akathistos hymnus (ff.168v-209r),
the missing prosomoion cycle of kontakia anastasima (ff.209r-220v), eleven stichera
heothina (ff.220v-228r), and allelouiarion cycle (ff.228r-231)—not the missing refrains,
but about psalmodic use of alleluia endings in oktoechos order. In an appendix three
other prokeimena (Encainia 13 Sep, Sunday after Easter, Sunday of Myrrhbearers) had
been added.
F-Pn fonds grec, ms. 397
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10723130v
late XIII • incomplete Kontakarion in short psaltikon style with Middle Byzantine round
notation (monastic oktoechos notation of the Sticherarion and Heirmologion):
fol. 1: XII • fragment taken from another manuscript with akrosticha over a given
heirmos, extracts between ode 3-5 (Menologion) to bind the Kontakarion.
ff. 2r-17r: Prokeimena (beginning is missing)
ff. 17r-19v: Christmas Stichologia for Hesperinos
ff. 19v-20v: Epiphany Stichologia for Hesperinos
ff. 20v-47v: Allelouiaria
ff. 48r-52r: ἀρχὴ τῶν ἀναστασιµῶν ὑπακοῶν (hypakoe is a refrain, a troparion sung
during the recitation of psalms and the cantica, these Resurrection hypakoai have been
used between Easter and Pentecost)
ff. 52r-129r: ἀρχὴ τῶν κοντακαρίου οἴκων (strophes, oikoi, of the kontakia)
ff. 129r-134v: ἀρχὴ τῶν ἀναστασιµῶν κοντακαρίου οἴκων (strophes of Resurrection
kontakion). f. 135: XIII • Folio of a Menaion of September (Sticherarion with Middle
Byzantine notation), SAV 16-21 (the folio was cut to bind the Kontakarion, only part of
the original folio is preserved)

33
Oikemataria with Middle Byzantine notation
ET-MSsc Sin. gr. 1262
https://www.loc.gov/item/00271076137-ms/
1437 • Oikoimatarion kalophonikon based on papadic compositions by Michael Aneotos
and kalopismoi by Ioannis Glykys. It was copied by Gregorios Monachos at the Mone
Esphigmenou on the Holy Mount Athos. It has the repertoire of the whole kontakarion
organised as menaion (ff.1r-47v), triodion (ff.47v-137v), pentekostarion (ff.137v-151v)
and parakletike (ff.151v-190r). The scribe’s focus was mainly the movable cycle and the
Akathistos hymn is realised with kalophonia in full length, composed by Michael
Aneotos and embellished by Ioannes Koukouzeles (24 oikoi, ff.67v-131r).
ET-MSsc Sin. gr. 1281
https://www.loc.gov/item/00271076095-ms/
XV • “Psaltikon of Ioannikios of the Holy Mount Sabas”. Some chant of the Asma has
been added on its first pages (acclamation τὸν δεσπότην, trisagion, prooimion of the
Akathistos hymn, a repeated passage taken from a doxastikon idiomelon for 15 August,
obviously belonging to a kalophonic realisation of the same) which have been used to
bind two older manuscripts:
Complete Akathistos hymnus in the kalophonic realisation by Ioannis Lampadarios
(Ioannis Kladas?) (ff.5r-80v);
Alternative kalophonic realisations: one of the final Omega-stanza Ὦ πανύµνητε Μῆτερ
in phthora nenano as echos kratema (note that the whole kontakion is composed in echos
plagios tetartos, if the later added signature is right!), and two of the first oikos, one in
echos plagios devteros!, another in the original echos plagios tetartos passing to the mele
of protos echoi within the first teretismata (ff.81r-88v).

Mineya služebnaya and Triod with znamennaya notation

RUS-Mim Sin. 159
http://catalog.shm.ru/entity/OBJECT/165146
XII • Old Church Slavonic Mineya služebnaya for September with troparia, stichera,
kondaks and akrosticha with znamennaya notation.
RUS-Mim Sin. 160
http://catalog.shm.ru/entity/OBJECT/165147
XII • Old Church Slavonic Mineya služebnaya for October with troparia, stichera,
kondaks and akrosticha with znamennaya notation.
RUS-Mim Sin. 161
http://catalog.shm.ru/entity/OBJECT/165148
XII • Old Church Slavonic Mineya služebnaya for November with troparia, stichera,
kondaks and akrosticha with znamennaya notation.

34
RUS-Mim Sin. 162
http://catalog.shm.ru/entity/OBJECT/178177
XII • Old Church Slavonic Mineya služebnaya for December with troparia, stichera,
kondaks and akrosticha with znamennaya notation.
RUS-Mim Sin. 163
http://catalog.shm.ru/entity/OBJECT/178178
XII • Old Church Slavonic Mineya služebnaya for January with troparia, stichera,
kondaks and akrosticha with znamennaya notation.
RUS-Mim Sin. 164
http://catalog.shm.ru/entity/OBJECT/178179
XII • Old Church Slavonic Mineya služebnaya for February with troparia, stichera,
kondaks and akrosticha with znamennaya notation.
RUS-Mim Sin. 165
http://catalog.shm.ru/entity/OBJECT/178180
XII • Old Church Slavonic Mineya služebnaya for April with troparia, stichera,
kondaks and akrosticha with znamennaya notation (extract of the edition).
RUS-Mim Sin. 166
http://catalog.shm.ru/entity/OBJECT/178181
XII • Old Church Slavonic Mineya služebnaya for May with troparia, stichera,
kondaks and akrosticha with znamennaya notation.
RUS-Mim Sin. 167
http://catalog.shm.ru/entity/OBJECT/178183
XII • Old Church Slavonic Mineya služebnaya for June with troparia, stichera,
kondaks and akrosticha with znamennaya notation.
RUS-Mim Sin. 168
http://catalog.shm.ru/entity/OBJECT/178184
XII • Old Church Slavonic Mineya služebnaya for August with troparia, stichera,
kondaks and akrosticha with znamennaya notation.
RUS-Mim Sin. 319
http://catalog.shm.ru/entity/OBJECT/177618
XII • Old Church Slavonic Fasten Triod služebnaya with troparia, stichera, kondaks
and akrosticha with znamennaya notation.
RUS-Mim Voskr. perg. 27
http://catalog.shm.ru/entity/OBJECT/178600
XII-XIII • Old Church Slavonic Flower Triod služebnaya (beginning with Palm
Sunday) with troparia, stichera, kondaks and akrosticha with znamennaya notation.

35
Editions
A. Bugge (ed.), Contacarium palaeoslavicum Mosquense, Monumenta musicae
Byzantinae, Série principale 6, Copenhagen 1960.
A. Dostál, H. Rothe, E. Trapp (ed.), Der altrussische Kondakar auf der Grundlage des
Blagoveščenskij Nižegorodskij Kondakar, Bausteine zur Geschichte der Literatur bei den
Slawen : Editionen 3:2-7, Giessen 1976, 1977, 1979, 1980 & Köln, Weimar, Vienna
1990, 2004.
Floros, C., 2015. Das mittelbyzantinische Kontaktienrepertoire. Untersuchungen und
kritische Edition, Habilitation 1961, Universität Hamburg. http://www.fbkultur.uni-
hamburg.de/hm/forschung/publikationen/byzantinische-kontakien.html
J. Grosdidier de Matons (ed.), Romanus le Mélode : Hymnes – introduction, texte
critique, traduction et notes, 5 vol., Paris 1964-1981.
C. Høeg (ed.), Contacarium Ashburnhamense: Codex Bibl. Laurentianae
Ashburnhamensis 64, Monumenta musicae Byzantinae, Série principale 4, Copenhagen
1956.
P. Maas & J. Trypanes (ed.), Sancti Romani Melodi cantica, Oxford 1963.
J. Raasted (ed.), The Hagiopolites: A Byzantine Treatise on Musical Theory, Cahiers de
l’Institut du Moyen-Âge grec et latin 45 (1983), 1-99.
http://cimagl.saxo.ku.dk/download/45/45Raasted1-99.pdf
A. B. Uspensky (ed.), Типографский Устав: Устав с кондакарем конца XI — начала
XII века [Tipografskiy Ustav: Ustav with Kondakar end 11th-beginning 12th c. (vol. 1:
facsimile, vol. 2: edition of the texts, vol. 3: monographic essays)], Moscow 2006.

References
Y. Artamonova, Kondakarion Chant: Trying to Restore the Modal Patterns, Musicology
today 16, 2013. http://www.musicologytoday.ro/BackIssues/Nr.16/studies2.php
A. Doneda, Computer Applications to Byzantin e Chant: A Relational Database for the
Koinonika of the Asmatikon, 2011. http://www.scribeserver.com/doneda/DBDoneda.pdf
C. Floros, Das Kontakion, Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und
Geistesgeschichte 34, 1960, 84–106.
C. Floros, Universale Neumenkunde, vol. 1: Die byzantinischen, slavischen und
gregorianischen Tonfiguren und Formeln & vol. 3: Entzifferung der ältesten
byzantinischen Neumenschriften und der altslavischen sematischen Notation, Kassel-
Wilhelmshöhe 1970.

36
C. Floros, Die Entzifferung der Kondakarien-Notation I, Musik des Ostens 3 (1965), 7–
71.
C. Floros, Die Entzifferung der Kondakarien-Notation II, Musik des Ostens 4 (1967),
12–44.
C. Floros & N. K. Moran, The Origins of Russian Music - Introduction to the
Kondakarian Notation, Frankfurt/Main etc. 2009.
O. Grinchenko, Slavonic Kondakaria and Their Byzantine Counterparts: Discrepancies
and Similarities, Българско музикознание 2012(3-4), 57–70.
http://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=18363
H. Husmann, Modalitätsprobleme des psaltischen Stils, Archiv für Musikwissenschaft
28:1 (1971), 44–72. doi:10.2307/930363.
J. Koder, Imperial Propaganda in the Kontakia of Romanos the Melode, Dumbarton
Oaks Papers 62 (2008), 275–291. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20788050
R. Krivko, A Typology of Byzantine Office Menaia of the 9th - 14th cc. Scrinium.
Journal of Patrology, Critical Hagiography, and Ecclesiastical History 8 (2012), 3–68.
D. Krueger & Th. Arentzen, Romanos in Manuscript: Some Observations on the Patmos
Kontakarion, Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress of Byzantine Studies,
Belgrade, 22-27 August 2016: Round Tables, Belgrade 2016, 648–654.
http://www.byzinst-sasa.rs/srp/uploaded/PDF%20izdanja/round%20tables.pdf
K. Levy, A Hymn for Thursday in Holy Week, JAMS 16,2 (1963), 127–175.
doi:10.2307/829939.
K. Levy, Die slavische Kondakarien-Notation, Anfänge der slavischen Musik
[Kongressbericht (Bratislava August 1964)], Bratislava 1966, 77–92.
A. Lingas, The Liturgical Place of the Kontakion in Constantinople, Liturgy,
Architecture and Art of the Byzantine World: Papers of the XVIII International
Byzantine Congress (Moscow, 8–15 August 1991) and Other Essays Dedicated to the
Memory of Fr. John Meyendorff, Byzantino Rossica, St. Petersburg 1995, 50–57.
N. K. Moran, Byzantine castrati, Plainsong and Medieval Music 11,2 (2002), 99–112.
doi:10.1017/S0961137102002073.
G. Myers, The medieval Russian Kondakar and the Choirbook from Kastoria: a
Palaeographic Study in Byzantine and Slavic Musical Relations, Plainsong and
Medieval Music 7,1 (1998), 21-46. doi:10.1017/S0961137100001406.
G. Myers, The Ritual and Music for the Dedication of a Church among the Medieval
Slavs: Byzantine Cathedral Practice Transplanted, Българско музикознание 2012,3-4,
35–56. http://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=18376

37
A. Pfisterer, Beobachtungen zum mittelbyzantinischen Kontakion, Theorie und
Geschichte der Monodie – Bericht der Internationalen Tagung Wien 2016 , Theorie und
Geschichte der Monodie 9/2, Brno 2018, 759–774.
J. Raasted, Zur Melodie des Kontakions Ἡ παρθένος σήµερον, Cahiers de l’Institut du
Moyen-Âge grec et latin 59 (1989), 233–246.
https://cimagl.saxo.ku.dk/download/59/59Raasted233-246.pdf
Ch. Thodberg, The Tonal System of the Kontakarium: Studies in Byzantine Psalticon
Style, Historisk-filosofiske meddelelser 37,7, Copenhagen 1960.
Ch. Thodberg, Der byzantinische Alleluiarionzyklus: Studien im kurzen Psaltikonstil,
Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae, Subsidia 8, Copenhagen 1966.
Ch. Thodberg, Kontakion, Grove Music Online, Oxford 2001.
doi:10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.15341.
H. J. W. Tillyard, Handbook of the Middle Byzantine Musical Notation, Monumenta
Musicae Byzantinae, Subsidia 1, Copenhagen 1935.
Ch. Troelsgård, Byzantine Neumes : A New Introduction to the Middle Byzantine
Musical Notation, Monumenta musicae byzantinae, Subsidia 9, Copenhagen 2011.
T. F. Vladyševskaya, Типографский Устав и музыкальная культура Древней Руси
XI–XII веков [Tipografskiy Ustav and the Old Rus’ music culture (11th-12th century)],
Типографский Устав: Устав с кондакарем конца XI — начала XII века, Moscow
2006, vol. 3, 111–201.

38