DOI: 10.

2478/ajm-2018-0001

Artes. Journal of Musicology no. 17-18 2018 1-23

The “spirit” of the old communion chants

ADRIAN SÎRBU
“George Enescu” National University of the Arts Iași
ROMANIA ∗

Abstract: Byzantine music is the chanted prayer of the Orthodox Church left to us as a
spiritual legacy by the holy masters of hymnography and hymnology ever since the
early centuries. This music serves a precise purpose, i.e. to enhance the mood of
prayer and to lift man closer to God. The Holy Liturgy, the mystical centre and the
reference point of a man’s entire existence, represents man’s private meeting and
communion with Christ, and the moment of this meeting is steeped in an atmosphere
of meditation and inwardness created by a series of ample, slow, and vocalization-rich
chants, called koinonika. It is a moment of ultimate inner appeasement and
preparation. Early composers managed to capture this meditation effect in their
koinonika, both through their compositional techniques and, especially, through an
inner state of grace. However, in the 19th century, two phenomena became apparent:
on the one hand, some of the new composers no longer succeeded in attaining the
same ethos as the old masters, and, on the other hand (particularly from Ioan Popescu-
Pasărea on), the music tastes of the time caused these ample chants to be replaced with
simpler melodies, which, often, were even harmonized. This study has a threefold aim:
first, it reasserts the fundamental role played by the koinonikon in the Holy Liturgy, by
arguments that underline the ancientness of this practice as well as its survival in other
Orthodox areas (such as Mount Athos and Greece). Second, the paper signals the
publication, next year, of the first Romanian collection of koinonika signed by
Byzantine and post-Byzantine composers (13th-19th centuries). Third, our study aims
to show that these ancient chants have a special ethos, representing melodic as well as
aesthetic archetypes and, par excellence, the true Classicism of Byzantine melos.

Keywords: Byzantine, music, koinonikon, communion chants.

1. Introduction
The communion chant or koinonikon (from Gr. “κοινωνικόν” = “that
which is common”) is usually a psalm verse chanted while the clergymen and
the faithful receive the communion during the Holy Liturgy. It aims to create
an atmosphere propitious to the soulful introspection of those who will
commune with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
In the Early Church, this moment was marked by the singing of a psalm
(Troelsgård, 2002, p. 744), either in its entirety (such as Psalm 50/51 at Matins)
or divided into verses, each sentence being followed by a koinonikon, i.e. the
main verse (Foundoulis, 2009, p. 87) (such as the weekly or the feast

∗
[email protected]

1
antiphons, the prokeimena, Ἀναστήτω ὁ Θεός [May God Resurrect] on Holy
Saturday, etc. 1) sung as a chorus.
The content of the koinonika was meant to induce the faithful to receive
the Holy Eucharist, so the oldest known texts are Γεύσασθε καὶ ἴδετε ὅτι
χρηστὸς ὁ Κύριος [O taste and see that the Lord is good!] 2 (Ps. 33:9) or
Ποτήριον σωτηρίου λήψομαι καὶ τὸ ὄνομα Κυρίου ἐπικαλέσομαι [I will lift up
the cup of salvation and call on the name of the Lord] 3 (Ps. 115:4). They were
sung during all the liturgies, regardless of the feast. Gradually, the texts grew
more and more diverse, with themes that were directly linked to the type of
feast at hand 4. Besides the koinonika selected from the psalms, hymnography
also records three verses from scriptural texts and two hymns (see the table
below) 5.
Through this diversification of texts (after the 19th century), the koinonika
received the role of highlighting the theme of each feast. Thus, there may be
Sunday, weekly, or feast koinonika, or chants for other feasts in the religious
year (Cf. Barbu-Bucur, 1992), covering the entire interval allotted to
communion (not only of the priests but of the faithful as well 6).

1
This historical evolution is used by the liturgist Ioannis Foundoulis as an argument to provide
a solution to the church choirs who find it impossible to chant the koinonikon. The replacement
variant supposes singing the original psalm, from which the text of the koinonikon has been
extracted. When the extended chant cannot be sung, Foundoulis suggests returning to the
tradition of singing the psalms in their entirety, stressing that “once more, people will learn the
psalms and will feed on the biblical spiritual food that they provide” (Foundoulis, 2009, p. 88).
2
Here and henceforth the English versions of the quoted psalm verses were taken from King
James Version of the Bible after the use of the Orthodox Church (Asser, 2005).
3
Foundoulis mentions other koinonika which are no longer in use today: Προσέλθετε πρὸς
αὐτὸν καὶ φωτίσθητε, καὶ τὰ πρόσωπα ὑμῶν οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ [O come unto him, and be
lightened; and your faces shall not be ashamed] (Ps. 34:5), Ητοίμασας ἐνώπιόν μου
τράπεζαν[Thou hast prepared a table before me] (Ps. 23:5) and Οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ πάντων εἰς σὲ
ἐλπίζουσι, καὶ σὺ δίδως τὴν τροφὴν αὐτῶν ἐν εὐκαιρίᾳ. Ανοίγεις σὺ τὰς χεῖράς σου καὶ ἐμπιπλᾷς
πᾶν ζῷον εὐδοκίας [The eyes of all look unto Thee in hope, and Thou givest them their meat in
due season] (Ps. 145:15) (Foundoulis, 2009, p. 88).
4
Thus, for Sundays there is the verse Αἰνεῖτε τὸν Κύριον ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν [Praise ye the Lord
from the heavens] (Ps. 148:1), while for the beginning of the church year (1st of September),
there is the verse Εὐλογήσεις τὸν στέφανον τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ τῆς χρηστότητός σου [Thou shalt bless
the crown of the year of Thy goodness] (Ps. 64:12) etc.
5
Christian Troelsgård mentions the existence in the 7th century (in the Constantinople
standard) of the troparion Πληρωθήτωτὸ στόμα ἡμῶν [Let our mouths be filled] with the final
part, Alleluia, playing the role of a koinonikon. Gradually, the psalm was probably reduced to a
single verse (original chorus followed by Alleluia), while the troparion Πληρωθήτωτὸ στόμα
ἡμῶν was separated from it, becoming a chant programmed after the moment of the koinonikon
(Troelsgård, 2002, p. 744).
6
The great liturgist Ioannis Foundoulis points out to the erroneous practices in which the
koinonikon is no longer chanted as a continuation of and during the moments when the
believers receive the communion, emphasizing that this habit “overlooks the purpose of the
Sacrament and ignores a cardinal aspect of the entire rite. Continuing the koinonikon is the only

2
 As early as the 9th century, a complete koinonika repertoire for the great
feasts in the church year is already available. Until the early 15th century, the
standard tradition records the presence of 22 texts which underlay the evolution
and sedimentation of this genus (Gheorghiță, 2009, p. 15-18) 7. The table below
lists the koinonikon texts that are still used in current liturgical practice,
structured by the moment when they are sung in the liturgy (Sunday, weekly
and feast koinonika) as well as by their source texts (verses from psalms or
hymns and other scriptural sources).

Koinonikon texts in current liturgical practice

Text in Romanian Text in English Text in Greek Moment of celebration

Sunday Koinonikon
1 Lăudaţi pe Domnul Praise ye the Lord from Αινείτε τον Κύριον Sundays and Forefeasts,
din ceruri. Aliluia. the heavens. Alliluia εκ των ουρανών. Mid-Pentecost, Lazarus
Ps. 148:1 Aλληλούια. Sunday, Holy Saturday

Weekly Koinonika
2 Cel ce face pe Who maketh His angels Ὁ ποιῶν τοὺς Mondays and Feast of
îngerii Săi duhuri spirits, and His ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ the Holy Angels
şi pe slugile Sale ministers a flaming πνεύματα καὶ τοὺς
pară de foc. fire. λειτουργοὺς αὐτοῦ
Aliluia. Ps. 103:5 πυρὸς φλόγα.
Ἀλληλούια.
3 Întru pomenire The righteous shall be Εἰς μνημόσυνον Tuesdays, the Nativity
veşnică va fi in everlasting αἰώνιον ἔσται of St. John the Baptist,
dreptul. Aliluia. remembrance. Alliluia. δίκαιος. Ἀλληλούια. Hierarchs, Righteous,
Ps. 111:6 Indiction (1 September)
4 Paharul mântuirii I will take the cup of Ποτήριον σωτηρίου Wednesdays and on the
voi lua şi numele salvation, and call λήψομαι και τὸ feasts of the Holy
Domnului voi upon the name of the ὄνομα Κυρίου Virgin, Akathistos,
chema. Aliluia. Ps. Lord. Alliluia. ἐπικαλέσομαι. Saturday
115:4 Ἀλληλούια.
5 În tot pământul a Their sound is gone out Εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν Thursdays and on
ieşit vestirea lor şi into all the earth, and ἐξῆλθεν ὁ φθόγγος Apostles Feasts
la marginile lumii their words to αὐτῶν καὶ εἰς τὰ
cuvintele lor. the ends of the world. πέρατα τῆς
Aliluia. Ps. 18:4 Alliluia. οἰκουμένης τὰ
ῥήματα αὐτῶν.
Ἀλληλούια.
6 Mântuire ai făcut He hath worked Σωτηρίαν εἰργάσω Fridays
în mijlocul salvation ἐν μέσῳ τῆς γῆς,
pământului. in the midst of the Χριστέ ὁ Θεός.
Aliluia. Ps. 73:13 earth. Alliluia. Ἀλληλούια.

correct solution that also supports tradition”, concludes the researcher (Foundoulis, 2009, pp.
84-85).
7
Another list of koinonika may be found in Dimitri E. Conomos (1985a, pp. 48-51).

3
 7 Fericiţi sunt cei pe Blessed is he whom Μακάριοι οὓς Saturdays and when
care i-ai ales şi i- Thou hast chosen, and ἐξελέξω καὶ remembering the dead
ai primit Doamne, taken unto Thee; προσελάβου, Κύριε,
şi pomenirea lor în he shall dwell in Thy καὶ τὸ μνημόσυνον
neam și în neam. courts. Alliluia. αὐτῶν εἰς γενεὰν καὶ
Aliluia. Ps. 64:4 γενεὰν. Ἀλληλούια.
Feast Koinonika (I) with texts from the psalms 8
8 Binecuvânta-vei Thou shalt bless the Εὐλόγησον τὸν Indiction (1 September)
cununa anului crown of the year of στέφανον τοῦ
bunătății Tale, Thy goodness. Alliluia. ἐνιαυτοῦ τῆς
Doamne. Aliluia. χρηστότητός σου,
Ps. 64:12 Κύριε. Ἀλληλούια.
9 Însemnatu-s-a The light of Thy Ἐσημειώθη ἐφ’ The Elevation of the
peste noi lumina countenance is signed ἡμᾶς τὸ φῶς τοῦ Holy Cross (14
feței Tale, upon us, O Lord. προσώπου σου, September), Sunday of
Doamne. Aliluia. Alliluia. Κύριε. Ἀλληλούια. the Holy Cross (Third
Ps. 4:6 Sunday of Lent)
10 Mântuire trimis-a He sent redemption to Λύτρωσιν ἀπέστειλε The Nativity of Our
Domnul poporului His people. Alliluia. Κύριος τῷ λαῷ Lord and Saviour
Său, în pace. αὐτοῦ. Ἀλληλούια.
Aliluia. Ps. 110:9
11 A ales Domnul For the Lord hath Ἐξελέξατο Κύριος The Annunciation
Sionul, l-a dorit chosen Zion, He hath τὴν Σιών, ᾑρετίσατο
ca locuință Lui. chosen it for His αὐτὴν εἰς κατοικίαν
Aliluia. Ps. 131:13 habitation. Alliluia. ἑαυτῷ. Ἀλληλούια.
12 Din gura pruncilor Out of the mouths of Ἐκ στόματος νηπίων Lazarus Saturday
și a celor ce sug, babes and sucklings καὶ θηλαζόντων
săvârșit-ai laudă. hast Thou perfected κατηρτίσω αἶνον.
Aliluia. Ps. 8:3 praise. Alliluia. Ἀλληλούια.
13 Bine este cuvântat Blessed is he that Εὐλογημένος ὁ Palm Sunday
cel ce vine întru cometh in the name of ἐρχόμενος ἐν
numele Domnului. the Lord. Alliluia. ὀνόματι Κυρίου.
Aliluia.Ps. 117:26 Ἀλληλούια.
14 Sculatu-S-a ca Then the Lord awaked Ἐξηγέρθη ὡς ὁ Holy Saturday
dintr-un somn as one out of sleep, and ὑπνῶν Κύριος και
Domnul, și a înviat saved us. Alliluia. ανέστη σῴζων ἡμάς.
mântuindu-ne pre Ἀλληλούια.
noi. Aliluia. Ps.
77:65
15 Laudă Ierusalime Praise the Lord, O Ἐπαίνει, Thomas Sunday
pe Domnul, laudă Jerusalem; praise thy Ἱερουσαλήμ, τὸν
pe Dumnezeul tău God, O Zion. Alliluia. Κύριον, αἴνει τὸν
Sioane. Aliluia. Ps. Θεὸν σου, Σιών.
147:1 Ἀλληλούια.
16 Suitu-s-a God is gone up with Ἀνέβη ὁ Θεός ἐν Holy Ascension
Dumnezeu întru jubilation, the Lord αλαλαγμῷ, Κύριος
strigare, Domnul with the sound of the ἐν φωνῇ σάλπιγγος.
în glas de trumpet. Alliluia. Ἀλληλούια.
trâmbiță. Aliluia.
Ps. 46:5

8
The list of communion chants presented by Gheorghiță (2009, p. 18-22) also includes Sfințit-a
lăcașul Său cel preaînalt [Lord, I have loved the beauty of Thy house, and the place where Thy
glory dwelleth] (Ps. 25:8), which is chanted upon the anniversary of the Great Church of
Constantinople (23 December).

4
17 Duhul Tău Cel Cause me to know, O Τὸ Πνεῦμά σου τὸ Holy Pentecost Sunday
Bun, să mă Lord, the way wherein ἀγαθὸν, μὴ
povățuiască la I should walk. ἀντανέλῃς ἀφ’
pământul ἡμῶν δεόμεθα,
dreptății. Ps. φιλάνθρωπε.
142:10 Ἀλληλούια.
Duhul Tău Cel Thy good Spirit shall Τὸ Πνεῦμά σου τὸ
Bun nu-L lua de lead me into the land ἅγιον, μὴ ἀντανέλῃς
la noi, rugămu- of uprightness. ἀφ’ ἡμῶν δεόμεθα,
ne, Iubitorule de Alliluia. φιλάνθρωπε.
oameni. Aliluia. Ἀλληλούια.
18 Bucurați-vă Rejoice in the Lord, O Ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, δίκαιοι, Martyrs, prophets,
drepților în ye righteous. Alliluia. ἐν Κυρίῳ, τοῖς Sunday of All Saints
Domnul. Aliluia. εὐθέσι πρέπει
Ps. 32:1 αἴνεσις. Ἀλληλούια.
19 Întru lumina slavei They shall walk, O Ἐν τῷ φωτί τῆς The Transfiguration
feţei Tale, Lord, in the light of Thy δόξης τοῦ προσώπου
Doamne, vom countenance, and σου, Κύριε,
umbla în veci. in Thy name shall they πορευσόμεθα εἰς τὸν
Aliluia. Ps. 88:16- rejoice all the day. αἰῶνα. Ἀλληλούια.
17 Alliluia.
20 Aduce-se-vor The virgins that follow Απενεχθήσοωται τω The Holy Mother’s
Împăratului her shall be brought βασιλεί παρθένοι Entrance into the
fecioare în urma unto the king; οπίσω αυτής, Temple (21 November)
ei, aduce-se-vor în those that are near to αχθήσονται είς ναόν
templul her shall be brought Βασιλέως.
Împăratului. unto thee. Alliluia. Aλληλούια.
Aliluia. Ps 44:16-
18
21 Gustați și vedeți că O taste and see that the Γεύσασθε καὶ ἴδετε, Divine Liturgy of the
bun este Domnul. Lord is good. Alliluia. ὅτι χρηστός ὁ Presanctified Gifts
Aliluia. Ps. 33:9 Κύριος. Ἀλληλούια.
22 Pomenirea But Thou, O Lord, Μνήμη δικαίων Remembrance of the
drepților cu laude endurest for ever, and μετ’εγκωμίων έσται Dead, Beheading of St.
și pomenirea lor în Thy remembrance και το μνημόσυνον John the Baptist
neam și în neam. from generation to αυτών είς γενεάν και
Aliluia. Ps. 101:13 generation. Alliluia. γενεάν. Aλληλούια.

Feast Koinonika (II) from other scriptural texts or hymns

23 Arătatu-s-a darul For the grace of God Ἐπεφάνη ἡ χάρις The Theophany of Our
lui Dumnezeu cel has appeared for the τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ Lord and Saviour Jesus
mântuitor tuturor salvation of all men. σωτήριος πᾶσιν Christ
oamenilor. Aliluia. Alliluia. ἀνθρώποις.
Titus2:11 Ἀλληλούια.
24 Cel ce mănâncă He who eats my flesh Ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν Mid-Pentecost
Trupul Meu și bea and drinks my blood σάρκα καὶ πίνων
Sângele Meu, întru abides in me, and I in μου τὸ αἷμα ἐν ἐμοὶ
Mine rămâne și Eu him. Alliluia. μένει κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ,
întru dânsul, spus- εἷπεν ὁ Κύριος.
a Domnul. Aliluia. Ἀλληλούια.
John 6:56
25 Trupul lui Hristos Partake the body of Σῶμα Χριστοῦ Resurrection of Christ
primiți și din Christ and taste the μεταλάβετε, πηγῆς
izvorul cel fără de source of immortality. ἀθανάτου γεύσασθε.
moarte gustați. Alliluia.
Aliluia.(hymn)

5
 26 Cinei Tale celei de O Son of God, let me Τοῦ δείπνου σου τοῦ Holy Thursday
Taină, astăzi Fiule take part in Thy Last μυστικοῦ σήμερον,
a lui Dumnezeu Supper, I will not tell Υἱὲ Θεοῦ, κοινωνόν
părtaș mă Thy enemies Thy με παράλαβε· οὐ μὴ
primește, că nu voi Secret, and I will not γὰρ τοῖς εχθροῖς σου
spune vrăjmașilor kiss Thee as Judas did. τὸ μυστήριον εἴπω·
Tăi taina Ta, nici And as the thief did, I οὐ φίλημά σοι
sărutare îți voi da too confess all of my δώσω, καθάπερ ὁ
ca Iuda. Ci ca sins to Thee, remember Ἰούδας· ἀλλ’ ὡς ὁ
tâlharul mă me, God, in Thy λῃστὴς ὁμολογῶ
mărturisesc Ție, kingdom. σοι· Μνήσθητί μου,
pomenește-mă Κύριε, ἐν τῇ
Doamne întru βασιλείᾳ σου.
Împărăția
Ta.(hymn)

The prokeimenon Μνήμη δικαίων [Remembrance of the dead] is also a verse in Proverbs 10:7
(Gheorghiță, 2009, p. 21).

2. Chourmouzios Chartophylax’ exegesis work. The phenomenon of

exegeseis
As we may read from the study in the Greek edition, Chourmouzios
Chartophylax’ exegeseis work (archived in the series “Metochion of the Holy
Sepulchre” from the Greek National Library) saved from oblivion an
impressive repertoire of the old masters’ works.
The term exegeseis/exegesis (from Gr. εξήγηση), explanation or
interpretation, designates the more analytical notation system (using mainly
quantitative signs 9) that aimed to provide a more detailed record of the melody.
The first accounts of exegeseis date from 1670 10. The notation available at that
time, i.e. late middle Byzantine notation, was a complex system in which
psaltic signs could not be interpreted in isolation (as they are today), but only
in context. Thus, the same notation fragment could be sung in different
manners (melos) depending on several factors (voice, pitch, genre, form and
style of singing, degree of celebratory mood, place, mode of interpretation –
choir or solo, etc.) 11. As a result, in 1670 (in ms. 1250, the Iviron Monastery),
Balasios the Priest produced a more elaborate transcription of Ioannis
Kladas’Trisagion in phthora nenano for the Funeral Service (see fig. 1), which
is considered the first attempt at exegeseis.

9
i.e. of black neumes, at the expense of the great hypostases (red neumes).
10
In the early 16th century, the work of Akakios Halkeópoulos left us several written accounts
of musical exegeseis.
11
Taking all these factors into account, professor Giannou referred to the old notation as a
„context sensitive notation”. See Maria Alexandru, Paleography Course III.

6
 Late middle
Byzantine notation -
composition by Ioannis
Kladas (14th - 15th century)

The first account of

exegesis - Balasios the
Priest, 1670, exegetic
middle Byzantine notation.

A more developed
stage of exegesis - Petros the
Peloponnesian (late 18th
century)

Exegesis in
Chrysanthic notation -
Chourmouzios Chartophylax
(early 19th century)

Fig. 1 Trisagion for the Funeral Service, illustrated

in several ways, from original semiography to the last stage of exegesis
(Psachos, 1978, p. 68)

The complexity of exegeseis as a process that took into account all the
aforementioned factors reveals the monumental nature of Chourmouzios
Chartophylax’s works. The old notation (see fig. 2), much more codified, was
impossible to decipher in the absence of a direct connection to oral tradition.

Fig. 2 The koinonikon Γεύσασθε καὶ ἴδετε [O Taste and See], plagal of the Second, by St. John
of Damascus (late middle Byzantine notation), in ms. BAR 27820, f. 256r.

7
 Chourmouzios Chartophylax’ exegeses reveal the hidden beauty of the
melodies underlying the theseis 12 of late middle Byzantine notation. As a
matter of fact, these archetypal melodic formulas ground the entire
compositional paradigm of psaltic art. Thus, music kept its formulaic nature,
because semiography (no matter how analytical it might have become)
remained a mnemotechnical graphic system whose decoding was inconceivable
without the oral tradition.

12
Thesis (from Gr. θέσης) is the term used in Psaltic Art to refer to the melodic formulas of
each tone, which encompass the archetypal melodic units that underlie the structure of a psaltic
melody. In middle Byzantine notation theseis are written synoptically (in a synthetic,
summarizing manner) but in actual practice their interpretation is a complex, dynamic
phenomenon that takes into account various factors (voice, pitch, genre, form and style of
singing, degree of celebratory mood, genre, place, mode of interpretation – choir or solo, etc.).
Manuel Chrysaphes (whose activity peaks from 1440 to 1463) emphasizes the complexity of
interpreting the theseis based on compositional genres:
“Thesis means the union of signs which forms the melody. As in grammar the union of the
twenty-four letters forms words in syllables, in the same way the signs of the sounds are united
scientifically and form the melody. This then is called thesis. But, O my friend, do not think
that the manner of the whole musical art and its practice is so simple and uniform that the
composer of a kalophonic sticheron with appropriate theseis who does not adhere to the
manner of the old sticheron can think that he has done that which he has written quite good and
free from every condemnation – since, if what he has composed does not include the method of
the old sticheron, it is not correct. Do not think that the performance is simple, but rather that is
complex and of many forms. Know that the stichera and the oikoi differ greatly from each
other according to their use and in other matters about which the art is concerned. For one kind
of manner and practice pertains to the sticheron, another to the katanyktikon, another to the
kratema, another to the megalynarion, another to the oikoi, another to the cherubikon and
another to the alleluarion” (Conomos, 1985, pp. 42, 43). Below, an example of thesis (kylisma)
exegesis, according to the manuscripts of Xeropotamou 357 and Docheiariou 389 (Stathis,
1998, p. 65):

8
Fig. 3 The koinonikon Γεύσασθε καὶ ἴδετε [O Taste and See], plagal of the Second, by St. John
of Damascus transcribed by Chourmouzios Chartophylax in autographed Chrysanthic ΜΠΤ
705, f. 221v.

3. On the “spirit” of the old chants

There are very few writings on the compositional style of the old masters.
In general, the works on this subject adopted a historical, biographic, or
codicographic perspective, and offered few details on the style of each
composer. In fact, a general stylistic analysis outlining the compositional traits
of individual styles would require sound knowledge about each master’s entire
oeuvre, regardless of whether it encompasses exegetical or middle Byzantine
notation works.
Macarie the Hieromonk is, without any doubt, one of the most illustrious
figures in Byzantine music, an excellent master of all the psaltic repertoires
(from the Anastasimatar [Anastasimatarion] to Irmologhion Calofonicon
[Eirmologion Kalophonikon] or Papadichie [Papadike]), a “clasic” by
definition, a restless promoter of classical authors and genuine psaltic style.
Macarie also witnessed the entire process of reform taking place in the notation
system during the early 19th century and he supported the Romanianization of
chants while preserving the “spirit” of the old, original, ones.
In the Preface to Irmologhion Catavasier [Eirmologion-Katabasies], the
great Wallachian composer mentioned several valuable ideas that summarize

9
his views on the way in which compositional style had evolved in time. Below,
the fragment in its entirety 13:
“As to the binding of these holy chants, they were very deep in meaning, difficult
and burdensome, and all of the succeeding creators, preserving the godliness of
their forerunners, would leave behind their heavy and burdensome makings as
well.
But then came Chrysaphes the New Protopsaltis and Balasios the Priest, who left
their Teachings, pleasant and less burdensome, to the Holy Church.
And after them, his beatitude Petros the Sweet Bereketis made his makings even
less taxing, even more adequate, sweeter and wonderful. He too, most reverend
and holy, did not alter the meaning of the ways of the holy fathers. […] And after
his beatitude Petros the Sweet, Ioannis and Daniel, the protopsaltes of the Great
Church of Christ, showed us the way to a leaner writing, creating new,
exceedingly beautiful Teachings. It is only after them that we could distinguish
the new chants from the old. But in all things, they too, in all their holiness,
guarded the old as their most precious gift.
Then Petros the Lampadarios Peloponnesios, more gifted in the ways of
writing 14, a very clever and knowledgeable man in all Church matters and all
things Persian 15 as well, multiplied the new chants more than any other maistor;
the differences between the old and new became great indeed.
And, following the ways of his writing, all his successors increased even more
the easiness of their creations, and added even more outside elements in them 16.
However, with all the easiness effected by this way of writing, there was no
founding, the scheme and its entirety could not be enclosed, and all that
sweetness within was inappropriate.
So, looking at this with a philosopher’s eyes, Chrysanthos of Madytos, Gregory
the Protopsaltis and Chourmouzios Chartophylax of the Great Church of
Christ 17, […] devised this new system (the New Method o.n.), enclosing it in
immutable canons, alleviating it in all its ways, and philosophically including it
among the scientific disciplines. And they reformed all of the books according to
this system, those of the first holy fathers and those of the old and new masters
too, without damaging in the slightest neither the melos of the new nor of the
old 18. To this day, God’s gift has therefore watched over and guarded the holy
chants of our Church and will forever keep them unaltered in the days to come”
(Macarie Ieromonahul, 1823, pp. 7-9).

Macarie’s thoughts allow us to draw the following conclusions:

• The ancient chants were deep in meaning, difficult and burdensome. As a
result, they were not difficult as far as their melos was concerned but

13
Our emphasis.
14
Because he devised a more exegetical, analytical notation.
15
Arabo-Persian musical culture.
16
The analytical notation promoted by Petros the Peloponnesian was, for some, an open door
for the insertion of melodies that did not belong to the genuine style.
17
Ecumenical Patriarchy of Constantinople.
18
Meaning that their exegeseis did not alter the melos of older chants.

10
 rather difficult to understand in their “deeper” meaning and accessible only
to the initiated few, not only musically, but also spiritually.
• Chrysaphes the Protopsaltis and Balasios the Priest open a new
compositional era, proposing a style that was more accessible (to their
contemporaries) but preserving the “spirit” of the old works.
• As it is well known now, Petros Bereketis excels in large compositions,
enriching the existing repertoire, with his exceptional talent, with works
“more adequate, sweeter and wonderful”, without straying, however, from
the “meaning of the ways of the holy fathers”.
• Ioannis and Daniel “guarded” the old chants “as their most precious gifts”,
but their compositions start to be distinguishable from the old ones. Here
Macarie is likely to refer to the fact that the two introduced new theseis
(melodic formulae) but without changing classical compositional
structures and rules in the slightest.
• Being “clever” and “gifted”, Petros the Peloponnesian enriched the psalter
repertoire to a great extent, using a more analytical, more exegetical
notation system (aiming to provide a more detailed account of the melos).
This semiography allowed many composers to insert in the chants outside
elements that disagreed with the old psaltic style.
• The three teachers, Chrysanthos, Chourmouzios and Gregory, laid the
theoretical foundations of the new notation system (which is rooted in
Petros the Peloponnesian’s notation), defending through their exegeses and
theoretical writings the “classicism” of Church music, the established
theseis and a unitary style. Chourmouzios and Gregory’s exegetical work
constitutes a living proof of the unity of style gathering within the same
crucible,unitary in its diversity, an entire host of masters, from John of
Damascus to Nikephoros Ithikos, Ioannis Koukouzelis andPetros the
Peloponnesian.
• Macarie adopts a very critical stance against the unwelcome infiltrations
taking place in his time at the compositional and interpretive level. Beyond
the great teacher’s manifest for a much desired Romanianization of the
chants from the Preface of the Irmologhion, his words should be a warning
(just as valid today) against the risk of introducing in the Church practice
chants that no longer adhere to the “deep meaning” and the profound
experience of the “spirit” and “meaning” of the Holy Fathers, diverting the
mind and soul of the faithful from the word to the melody and from the
spirit to the voice.

Macarie the Hieromonk is not the first to have underlined the importance
of preserving traditional compositional features in order to remain within the
scope of authenticity. In his treatise, while discussing the composers who

11
preceded him 19, Manuel Chrysaphes shows how they had carefully followed
the traditional line of their predecessors.
“Thus even in the kalophonic stichera the composers of these do not
depart from their original melodies but follow them accurately, step by step,
and retain them. Therefore, they take over some melodies unchanged from
tradition and from the music thus preserved […] and they all follow the path
unaltered throughout the entire composition. The second composer always
follows his predecessor and his successor follows him and, to put it simply,
everyone retains the technique or the art. […] We – if we do not wish to distort
the truth and precision of our science – must act in this way, and no one would
with justice reproach us for this action but rather would praise us” (Conomos,
1985b, pp. 45, 47).
There is, of course, an entire dynamic of psaltic tradition, innovating
elements that manage to take hold when the genius of a composer such as St.
Ioannis Koukouzelis is inspired enough to be original without changing the
canons. As G.K. Angelinaras (2009, p. 69, 70) also shows, the great composers
were very aware that any attempt at renewing traditional elements could only
be grounded in the values inherited from the past, which endured and imposed
themselves in time, thus acquiring universal prestige.

***

In recent years, the interest in researching, unearthing, and revaluing the

chants of the great pre-18th-century composers has considerably grown. Psalter
music groups such as the Greek Byzantine Choir (conductor Lykourgos
Angelopoulos) or the Maistors of Psaltic Art (conductor Gregorios Stathis)
“lauched”, in the last decades of the century past, a new approach to the psaltic
repertoire, supported by manuscript research, score publishing, album
recordings, radio and TV shows, etc.
Recently, access to the koinonika of the old teachers transcribed by
Chourmouzios Chartophylax – see the series of autograph manuscripts from
the Metochion of the Holy Sepulchre (“ΜΠΤ”) in the Greek National Library –
have opened new lines of understanding, not only theoretical, but also practical
– in the church choir loft –, of the classic formulaic structures present in these
ancient compositions. For four years, together with the students majoring in
Byzantine Music at the “George Enescu” National University of the Arts we
have been able to sing the communion chants of the old masters (13th-18th
century) during the Divine Liturgy owing to Chourmouzios’ exegeses, a
practice which resulted in an incurable “addiction” to the balanced and unitary

19
Manuel refers here to Ioannis Koukouzelis, Aneotes, Nikiforos Ithikos, Ioannis Glykis and
Ioannis Kladas.

12
style of the old “makings”. Their clear and logical musical form, their settled,
tranquil style, the way in which the melody passes from a thesis to the next
with no passages that stray from the formulaic structure – all these are features
which homogenize stylistically, as a diachronic invariable, the entire legacy left
by these great teachers.
Angelinaras seizes the old masters’ depth of style and its diachronic,
ecumenical and archetypal nature: “Analysing Manuel Chrysaphes’ Σῶμα
Χριστοῦ μεταλάβετε [Receive Ye the Body of Christ] communion chant and
comparing it with newer works for the same feast we see that Chrysaphes’
piece is much richer and so diachronic that we feel it addresses all the Christian
believers, from all times and places, and it envelops and represents all of them
in a truly universal melody, while newer compositions are usually the result of
a momentary, contextual, and often time-framed stroke of genius. I do not
belittle all new creations, though. Each age has its good parts as well”
(Angelinaras, 2009, p. 72).
It is precisely this classical style that Macarie tried to defend through his
exegetical and editorial work, being fully aware of the threats to the process of
chant Romanianization posed by the possibilities of analytical writing brought
about by the New System and the Chrysanthic reform 20. If not as early as
Daniel and Ioannis, then undoubtedly with those who followed Petros
Lampadarios, this style was increasingly endangered.
The formulaic nature of the old chants is not always preserved by the
new compositions. Notation allows the insertion of melody lines that are
difficult to identify with any classical thesis structure, and this, in fact,
represents a deviation from the old and classical compositional concept.
Indeed, preserving these archetypal melodic formulae intact in these
chants has a soothing, calming effect for the mind and soul, because the
melody produces no surprises, does not use unknown, unpredictable elements
that could divert attention from the text to the music. When classical theseis are
at work, the mind recognizes throughout only unitary melodic structures, rests
on them, and even anticipates and expects them – based on the traditional
succession of theseis. Thus, the melodies remain a tranquil and fertile ground

20
The 1814 Chrysanthic reform brings about a change of paradigm. Semiography is no longer
using the large signs which represented, potentially, theseis whose execution (the melos) could
vary considerably according to the context. Chrysanthic notation “dismantles” these large signs
and imposes a “reference” exegesis by an analytical notation which does not focus on
expression signs but, rather, uses vowel and time signs to produce – for the first time in history
– a detailed account both of the way in which the melody progresses and of rhythmic
subdivisions. The new notation has the advantage of reducing to a common denominator –
through Chourmouzios and Gregory’s exegeses – the various ways of interpreting the theseis,
but, on the flip side, there is only one melodic version that prevails, and other variants (from
oral tradition) no longer match the Chrysanthic score which is now seen as a reference.

13
for the internalization of prayer. The Holy Fathers worked wisely on this
compositional element which protects the mind in and through prayer and does
not hypnotize it with “surprising” melodies producing states of mind that are
far from a reconciled, inward spirit.
The superiority of archetypal melodic formulae when compared with
various innovations is directly and clearly emphasized by Angelinaras as well:
“These archetypes hide an incomparable wealth of sensations and ethea, with
their structures of a Dorian simplicity, with their greatness and strength that are
able to express even the transcendental. […] Archetypal forms thin down the
senses, give shape to what is blurred, educate unruly feelings, avoid
exaggeration and do not bother with useless details. The archetype is the cell
generating new creative processes that enrich and perpetuate the tradition.
On the contrary, melodic processing shows a lack of creative drive,
expressive meagreness, spiritual stagnation, and cultural regress. The attempt
to study archetypes is not the result of retrograde attitudes. Returning to origins
shows that modernity cannot isolate itself by limiting itself just to the present,
but should instead turn to the past to learn how to prepare for the future.
We do not study the old chants so as to imitate them blindly, but so as to
find the best way to show our inspiration. […] This return does not mean
giving up creative actions, but turning to the joy of creating and the thirst of
renewal” (Angelinaras, 2009, p. 72).

Fig. 4 Example of a melody written in a hyper analytical manner, where the time-
honoured melodic theseis cannot be identified (Τρία κοινωνικά των κυριακών Ανθίμου
Αρχιδιακόνου +1879, in www.psalmodia.blogspot.gr, p. 2)

4. The role of the Koinonikon in the liturgical context

The liturgy is, par excellence, the central moment in the liturgical life of
a community. All the services in a day converge towards this most uplifting
14
moment, the union with Christ through the Eucharist, while the Sunday
Liturgy, that of the Resurrection, is the culmination of the entire weekly cycle.
The Liturgy, the highest spiritual embodiment of the meeting between the
human and the divine, is a collection of various forms of prayer, from
thanksgiving to supplication and praise, all of them marked by the mystical
element of the bread and wine turning into the Saviour’s Body and Blood and
the believers’ communing with Him through the Eucharist. Thus, the liturgy
becomes a communion, a koinonia, and this is why most of the choir’s
responses (which form a fixed repertoire, outside the cycle of the Octoechos)
should also be chanted by all the faithful taking part in the service 21. However,
there are three jubilation moments, three pieces of musical “virtuosity”, of
melodic climax through which the inward experiences of the believers are
transformed into instants of exaltation: the Trisagionhymn (the Sanctus), the
Cherubic hymn and the Koinonikon (See Conomos, 1974 and Karagkounis,
2003). They are chants devoted par excellence to the psaltis, the specialist,
because they require a great amount of vocal virtuosity. Just like the
iconographers, the architects and the sculptors who devoted all of their best and
their greatest artistic expressions to the Holy Church, the psaltes should spare
no effort in expressing all of their best talents and gifts when singing the
extended chants. The well-known protopsaltis Panagiotis Neochoritis stated in
an interview that “it is in extended chants that the ethos of the modes is best
experienced”. Here, the mind descends to the heart, the soul calms down and
rests, settles in this state marked by the ethos of sounds and begins resonating
with the psaltes and the isokrates. It is the moment that prepares the great
encounter of the Eucharist. Everything is suspended, the mind recollects and,
even more, the prayer manages to transcend the words as the choir echoes the
sounds of a kratima that seems to follow an ever ascending spiral. A mood of
appeasement and exaltation is thus created, a mood that the old teachers knew
how to use only for the spiritual purpose of prayer.
Wanting to find out what the specialists think of the importance of
chanting the koinonikon, we asked father Filotheu Bălan from “Petru Vodă”
Monastery why it is important for the communion chant not to be removed
from the Divine Liturgy. His answer was revealing: “Because it has to do with
the education of the spirit. Being supported by these extended formulae and
this musical conception, prayer is much easier to internalize. The
syntomosdromos is enticing you to join in the singing, but in the case of the

21
Liturgical chants are meant to keep a balance between a state of spiritual alertness
(ενγρήγορση, as Athanasios Vourlis calls it in Vourlis, 1994, p. 95) and a mystical state of
introversion, without encouraging the showy side of the ritual or cheesy tunes. The great
proportion of litanies in the ecphonetic, recitative style (to which one may add the Great
Responses and many other responses) is an element that impresses on the liturgy this dynamic,
alert and at the same time mystical mood.

15
koinonikon you either sing in the choir or you utter the prayer Κύριε Ιησού
Χριστέ, ελέησόν με [Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me] with great attention”.
In the same vein, the Byzantium scholar Georgios Konstantinou is of the
opinion that replacing the koinonikon with shorter chants, troparia, etc. is risky:
“These replacement chants have no support. It is the moment of the
koinonikon, no other chant is suited there. Other chants are used only because
the psaltes do not know how to sing communion chants. We saw how the
Athonite fathers perceive the liturgical and spiritual role of the koinonikon.
They prepare for the Holy Eucharist. Picture all the people taking part in the
service starting to pay their respects to the icons, to get ready for the
communion. Even the people who do not wish to commune follow the same
impressive ritual. We cannot experience this in a secular environment. It plays
an important liturgical role! A special preparation mood is created. This is the
purpose of the koinonikon. And this also explains the role of the kratema” 22.
Consequently, the communion chant should not and cannot be replaced
by other chants with the sole purpose of “animating” or “not boring” the
people. We cannot “reform” the liturgy because of the psaltes’ lack of training.
Often, the cantors’ education is deprived of investments (not only financial, but

22
Additionally, here are some other important answers in which M. Konstantinou stresses the
importance of the koinonikon (private discussion):
Question: What do you think about the solution proposed by M. Foundoulis that the psalm
engendering the koinonikon should be sung instead when the choir cannot interpret a
communion chant?
Answer: I do agree with it, but it must remain an exception and not become a rule. The psaltis
must necessarily sing the cherubikon, and in the exact same fashion he is also compelled to
chant the koinonikon.
Q: Should the koinonikon continue while the believers receive the communion?
A: Either it continues, or the Σῶμα Χριστοῦ μεταλάβετε should be sung instead if the first
koinonikon has ended. Some monasteries are in the habit of chanting the text of the koinonikon
as a song that they afterwards repeat adding a second voice according to harmonic principles.
These chants diminish the spirit of the koinonikon, even if, for instance, the katabasia would be
also sung in extenso.
Q: In many parishes prayers are read now before the communion. Does this happen at Mount
Athos as well?
A: Yes, it is customary to do that in Greece as well. But many also read thanksgiving prayers
(after the Eucharist) when the koinonikon should be chanted, and this is wrong. It is just as
unnatural for the priest to preach when the koinonikon should normally be chanted.
Q: In the Monasteries of Mount Athos is the koinonikon sung by a soloist or by the entire
choir?
A: It depends on the monastery. If there are only a few monks living there... Even at Vatopaidi
Monastery, where there are enough hieromonks and psaltes, the choir often empties because
the fathers leave it long enough before the moment to go and venerate the icons, according to a
well-established order. The entire moment gets very dynamic, the believers start moving
around the church venerating the icons, as an integral part of a long vigil. Everything has its
role and importance.

16
also as far as the image and the “institution” of the psaltis are concerned). An
incorrect, modest performance of the choir should make the priests react and
invest all available means in order to correct and embellish the chanting. Often,
the choir is the “first label” of a parish, the “first impression” offered to
parishioners and passers-by, because, from all the arts embellishing a church, it
has the most direct impact on the human soul. A beautiful painting or
iconostasis cannot “compensate” for a negligent, out-of-tune, or simplistic
chant.

5. The need for a collection of old koinonika in Romanian

In the Romanian principalities, as far as the psaltic art is concerned, the
early 19th century is marked by both the Chrysanthic reform (Constantinople,
1814), which was immediately implemented here with the help of the
clergymen and the musicians of that time, and the first printed editions of
psaltic music scores (See also Bălan, Lista cronologică).
Looking back at the Romanian printed editions which also include
communion chants, chronologically, the first works of this kind belong to
Nectarie Frimu (1846), who edits koinonika by Petros Lampadarios, Daniel the
Protopsaltis, Petros Byzantios, Georgios the Cretan, Constantinos the
Protopsaltis, Gregorios the Protopsaltis and Chourmouzios Chartophylax.
Not before long Anton Pann publishes his Heruvico-chinonicar
[Collection of Cherubika and Koinonika]. The first volume (Pann, 1847a)
encompasses three series of communion chants: the first comprises his own
compositions, the second is made up of short versions of Dionysios Fotino’s
pieces, and the third includes short versions of Petros Byzantios’ works. The
second volume (Pann, 1847b) comprises Romanian adaptations of communion
chants by Petros Lampadarios, Daniel the Protopsaltis, Dionysios Fotino,
Iakobos the Protopsaltis, Georgios the Cretan, Petros the Byzantine and
Chourmouzios Chartophylax.
In 1856, Seraphim the Hieromonk publishes a Liturghier [Liturgy
Chants] comprising “communion chants for the entire year and Lent from the
Liturgy of Saint Basil the Great and from the Liturgy of Saint Gregory the
Great” (Serafim, 1856).
In 1873, Oprea Demetrescu edits a Liturghier comprising several weekly
koinonika (with the exception of Saturday), Γεύσασθε καὶ ἴδετε [O Taste and
see] and a Sunday koinonikon.
Ioan Zmeu edits the work Utrenier şi Liturghier [Matins and Liturgy
services] (the first edition dates from 1892), which includes Petros
Lampadarios’ weekly koinonika adapted into Romanian by Nectarie Frimu,
Daniel the Protopsaltis’ Sunday koinonika (First and Plagal of the First, Plagal
of the Second, Plagal of the Fourth, and varis) and feast koinonika by Daniel
the Protopsaltis, Petros Lampadarios and Gregory Lampadarios adapted by

17
Ghelasie the Bessarabian. Communion chants are also present in the printings
of Ștefanache Popescu.
This impressive editorial activity shows that the editors were trying to
meet the need of publishing koinonika that had been previously recorded in the
pages of musical manuscripts. Thus, the first printed editions promote works
by 18th and 19th-century composers as well as some new Romanian creations
that carry on the spirit of the psaltic tradition.
Early18th-century Romanian psaltic manuscripts in the Chrysanthic
notation reveal a preference, at that time, for composers such as Petros
Lampadarios, Daniel the Protopsaltis, Gregorios the Protopsaltis,
Chourmouzios, Constantinos the Protopsaltis, Petros the Byzantine or
Dionysios Fotino. These composers (out of whom Daniel was given a
prominent place in the Neamţ manuscripts) represent, therefore, the classical
standard of Byzantine composition, as there are no older compositions with
which they could be compared. As a result, in the absence of the exegeses of
older koinonika from the 13th-17thcenturies 23 (produced by Chourmouzios and
preserved in the manuscripts archived in the Greek National Library), the
notion of classical style refers only to the works of more recent composers.
Macarie the Hieromonk emphasizes the differences that distinguished
Ioannis and Daniel the Protopsaltes’ works from the classical repertoire. He
becomes even more explicit in this respect when he mentions Petros
Lampadarios, whom he calls “a very clever and knowledgeable man” but of
whom he says that “he strayed a little from the ways of the old” and that he
“sowed” outside matters “in his lessons”. Thus, Macarie left us an objective
analysis of the evolution of compositional style in church music, showing an
evident preference for the classical element represented by Koukouzelis,
Chrysaphes, Balasios, Petros Bereketis, etc. Even if Macarie’s interpretations
focused mainly on the works of more recent composers (Petros Lampadarios,
Daniel and Ioannis, Petros the Byzantine, Chourmouzios and Gregory), “in
agreement with the developments taking place in the Greek world” (Moisil,
2016, p. 14), he also tried to promote classical, reference works (Petros
Bereketis, Balasios the Priest, Germanos Neon Patron, Iakobos the
Protopsaltis, Georgios the Cretan, Filothei sin Agăi Jipei 24, Mihalache the
Moldowallachian, Șărban the Protopsaltis, Radu the Protopsaltis, Arsenios the
Vatopedian, Damian the Vatopedian and others). A proof in this respect are his
collections of chants (most of them still unpublished), such as Stihirarul
[Sticherarion], Papadichia [Papadike], Irmologhion Calofonicon [Eirmologion

23
Some of the koinonika transcribed by Chourmouzios Chartophylax are attributed, by
tradition, to John of Damascus (7th-8th century).
24
On Macarie’s exegeses of 18th-century Romanian composers see also Bălan, 2013, pp. 54-
94.

18
Kalophonikon], Pricesniarul 25 [Collection of koinonika] or Anthologia
[Anthology]. Thus Macarie is the last Romanian composer and interpreter to
have shownan interest in promoting chants composed before Ioannis and
Daniel, and alongside Visarion the Confessor he is the last promoter of the
chants written in the newly embellished sticheraric style.
After Ioan Popescu-Pasărea’s generation, Romanian editors have
gradually given up this compositional genre, a phenomenon which reflects a
general tendency among Romanian church choirs; there emerge replacement
chants, most of them using the syntomos dromos or a moderate (argosyntomo)
one, psalms, cherubika, verse chants, praises and, sometimes, the psaltic chants
are even harmonized for two or three voices (fig. 4).

As early as the reign of Al. I. Cuza, choral performances are strongly

encouraged so that the mixed choirs from many urban parishes have gradually
developed a repertoire made up of various choral works (named „concertos”),
devoted especially to the moment of the koinonikon.
We are witnessing a major shift, which is also reflected by musical
editions. Koinonika or cherubika are no longer presented as complete portions
of the Octoechos, but in an incomplete fashion, according to the editor’s
preferences. Extended chants are gradually replaced; the cherubikon is the “last
redoubt”, but it is already half-conquered by new compositions which also
encourage the removal of some tones of the church Octoechos, such as the
chromatic ones, the Fourth, or the Plagal of the Third 26. The new cherubika,
much shorter in length, which destroy the classical forms of the theseis, have
been taking hold, as the church choir practice prefers repeating the same line

25
On the contents of the unpublished collections, see Popescu, 1908, pp. 81-92.
26
As a matter of fact, tones such as the Fourth, or the Papadic Plagal of the Third are rarely
heard in church choirs nowadays.

19
several times (e.g. Πᾶσαν τὴν βιοτικὴν...[All worldly care]) to fill the time
needed for the priest’s ritual 27. Naturally, the clerics turn against extended
chants and the aforementioned modes, performed, in all likelihood, clumsily by
psaltes who, in turn, cannot profit from an oral tradition that has been damaged
by anti-ecclesiastical reforms. This chain of weaknesses has led to the
establishment of a repertoire simple enough to be chanted by all the believers.
In rural areas, the new psaltic repertoire simplified and harmonized by Ioan-
Popescu Pasărea (and strongly encouraged by authorities through very large
print-runs) encourages the creation of children’s choirs that have been
gradually replacing professional psaltes. Deprived of the fine execution of
attractions and micro-intervals, the modes become major and minor scales 28
and thus a “standardized” type of chanting is born as an open door to harmonic
singing. Musical tastes have been going through a process of intense
“Westernisation” which has advanced hand in hand with the dilution of choir
models and the anti-ecclesiastical political and social reforms launched by Al.
I. Cuza and continued during communism.
In recent years, the ever increasing interest of the younger generations of
Romanian psaltes has led to a renewal of the Psaltic Art, not only at the
interpretive, but also at the editorial level, through new editions or translations.
The effort to adapt into Romanian the old masters’ koinonika transcribed and
interpreted by Chourmouzios Chartophylax is part of the same trend. The book
- to be launched this spring in Iași with the blessing of His Eminence, the Most
Reverend Father Theophanes, the Metropolitan of Moldova and Bukovina - is
the first publication through which the masterpieces of the old teachers
transcribed by Chourmouzios Chartophylax “are reborn” in the Romanian
language 29.

6. Conclusions
The koinonikon is one of the compositional instantiations of the
Byzantine melos which should not be given up in liturgical practice, despite the
“tastes of the time”. Most of the liturgical repertoire is characterised by a
specific dynamic which is meant to showcase the chanted texts and to engage
the audience in a state of mind and soul “alertness”, but some pieces, like the
koinonikon or the cherubikon, are meant to “suspend” the listener’s mind in a
state of jubilation high above the words of the liturgy. The latter require a
higher level of musical knowledge and vocal virtuosity and, above all, the

27
Paradoxically, since the old cherubika covered the entire duration of this ritual.
28
Indeed, psaltic music grammars from the early 19th century describe diatonic tones as major
or minor scales.
29
This text was translated from Romanian into English by Sorina Postolea.

20
collective capacity to turn to meditation and introversion - which is challenging
indeed.
Liturgical practice allowed us to observe that older communion chants
are sometimes more successful than those of newer authors in capturing this
“appeasement”, meditation mood, precisely because they remain more faithful
to their formulaic nature. It is this feature that confers to these melodies the
quality of sound archetypes, which, no matter how original, do not alienate the
classic melodic formulae.
Almost all the ample compositions in Romanian printings are signed by
late 18th or 19th-century authors, so these composers ended up being considered
“classics”, even if their works were never compared to those by earlier
composers (on the other hand, it goes without saying that this period is a truly
“classic” one in light of the unfortunate innovations that emerged in it
especially in the late 19th century).
A comparison with koinonika from the 13-18th centuries (Chourmouzios
Chartophylax’ exegeses kept in autograph manuscripts at the National Library
of Greece) reveals a series of differences at the compositional level between
various ages, and some trends which, starting from the 19th century, no longer
follow the old patterns to the letter. These stylistic phenomena have not been
completely analysed yet through comparative studies which could contribute to
a clearer definition of the term “classical”, in the case of koinonika, at least. In
conclusion, there is an acute need to revive psaltic art in Romania, in at least
two directions: liturgical practice, which should preserve and guard musical-
liturgical typikon, and printings, which should promote the classic repertoire
above all.

References

a. Manuscripts
BAR 27820 (Lybrary of Romanian Academy)
ΜΠΤ 705 (National Library of Greece, “Metochion of Saint Sepulchre” Collection).
b. Books
Alexandru, Maria, Paleography Course III – course materials (unpublished).
Thessaloniki: “Aristotelis” University.
Angelinaras, G. K. (2009). Έκφρασης της Ψαλτικής Τέχνης [Musical expression in
Psaltic Art]. Atena: Athos.
Anthimos Arhideacon. Τρία κοινωνικά των κυριακών. Retrieved from
http://www/psalmodia.blogspot.gr.

21
Asser, M. (Ed.) 2005. Psalter of the Prophet and King David • According to the
Septuagint, England: Shrewsbury. Retrieved from
http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/pdf/kjvsept.pdf
Bălan, F. Lista cronologică a cărţilor de muzică psaltică în limba română, tipărite în
România între 1820 şi 2014 [The chronologic list of the psaltic books edited in
Romania between 1820 and 2014]. Retrieved from
http://www.byzantion.ro/articole/176.html.
Bălan, F. (2013). Câteva exegeze în notație hrisantică ale Ieromonahului Macarie din
Psaltichia Ieromonahului Filothei [Some exegeseis of Makarie the Hieromonk în
chrysanthic notation from Filothei΄s Psaltichia]. In Simpozionul Internațional de
Muzicologie Bizantină. 300 de ani de românire (1713 – 2013), 54-94. București:
Editura Universității Naționale de Muzică.
Barbu-Bucur, S. (1992). Filothei sin Agăi Jipei. Psaltichie Rumânească. IV Stihirar -
Penticostar, seria Izvoare ale muzicii românești, VII D. București: Editura Episcopiei
Buzăului.
Conomos, D. E. (1974). Byzantine Trisagia and Cherubika of the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Centuries. A study in Late Byzantine Liturgical Chant. Thessaloniki.
Conomos, D. E. (1985a). The Late Byzantine and Slavonic Communion Cycle: Liturgy
and Music. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
Conomos, D. E. (Ed.) (1985b). The treatise of Manuel Chrysaphes, the Lampadarios:
on the Theory of the Art of Chanting and on Certain Erroneus Views That Some Hold
About it, colecția Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae, seria Corpus Scriptorum de Re
Musica. Viena: VÖAW.
Foundoulis, I. (2009). Dialoguri liturgice [Liturgical dialogues] III, translated into
Romanian by Sabin Preda. București: Editura Bizantină.
Gheorghiță, N. (2009). Chinonicul duminical în perioada postbizantină (1453-1821)
[The Sunday Koinonikon during the Post-Byzantine Age (1453-1821)]. București:
Sophia.
Karagkounis, K. (2003). Η παράδοση και εξήγηση του μέλους των χερουβικών της
βυζαντινής και μεταβυζαντινής μελοποιἶας. Athens: Centre of Byzantine Musicology.
Macarie the Hieromonk (1823). Irmologhion sau Catavasieriu musicesc. Wien.
Moisil, C. (2016). Geniu românesc vs. tradiție bizantină [Romanian genius vs.
Byzantine tradition]. București: Editura Muzicală.
Nectarie Frimu. (1846). Carte de cântări bisericești, traduse din originalurile grecești
în limba Moldovinească și dată la lumină acum întâiaș dată în zilele ocârmuirii
prealuminatului și preaînălțatului nostru Domn, Mihail Grigoriu Sturza Voievod,
tome I and II, Neamț.
Pann, A. (1847a). Heruvico-chinonicar care cuprinde în sine trei rînduri heruvice şi
chinonice duminicale pe toate glasurile, afară de ale săptămînii, lîngă care s-au
adăugat şi axioane 22 [Collection of Cherubika and Koinonika which includes three
22
series of Cherubika and Koinonika in all tones, with the exception of the weekly ones,
to which 22 axions were also added], I. Bucureşti.
Pann, A. (1847b). Heruvico-chinonicar anual care cuprinde în sine deosebite heruvice
şi chinonice pentru toate sărbătorile anului, lîngă care s-au adăugat şi antiaxioanele
lor [Collection of Cherubika and Koinonika which includes Cherubika and Koinonika
for all the feasts in the year, to which their anti-axions were also added], II. Bucureşti.
Popescu, N. M. (1908). Viața și activitatea dascălului de cântări Macarie
Ieromonahul [The Life and work of the music teacher Macarie the Hieromonk].
București: Instit. de Arte Grafice Carol Göbl.
Popescu-Pasărea, Ioan. (1925). Liturghierul de strană. București.
Psachos, K (1978). Η παρασημαντική της βυζαντινής μουσικής. Athens: Dionysos.
Serafim Ieromonahul (1856) Rînduiala Sfintei şi Dumnezeieştii Liturghii care
cuprinde în sine: Binecuvintează şi celelalte antifoane, heruvicele, axioanele şi
chinonicele de peste tot anul şi ale Postului Mare de la Liturghia Sfîntului Vasile şi de
la Liturghia mai-nainte sfinţită a Sfîntului Grigorie Dialogul, [The Service of the
Divine and Holy Liturgy which includes: Bless the Lord and the other antiphons,
cherubika, axions and koinonika for the entire year and for Lent from the Liturgy of
Saint Basil the Great and the Liturgy of Saint Gregory the Great] II. Buzău.
Stathis, G. (1998). H εξήγηση της παλαιάς βυζαντινής σημειογραφίας, Αthens: Institute
of Byzantine Musicology.
Troelsgård, C. (2001). “Koinōnikon”. In Stanley Sadie & John Tyrrell (Ed.), New
Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, XIII. London: Oxford University Press,
second edition.
Vourlis, A. (1994). Δογματοηθικαί όψεις της ορθοδόξου ψαλμωδίας. Athens:
Koultoura.

23