Echos
Echos (Greek: "sound", pl. echoi ; Old Church Slavonic: "voice, sound") is the name in Byzantine music theory for a mode within the eight-mode system (oktoechos), each of them ruling several melody types, and it is used in the melodic and rhythmic composition of Byzantine chant ("thesis of the melos"), differentiated according to the chant genre and according to the performance style ("method of the thesis"). It is akin to a Western medieval tonus, an Andalusian tab', an Arab naġam (since 1400 "maqam"), or a Persian parde (since 18th-century dastgah). Overview and semantics. The noun "echos" in Greek  means "sound" in general. It acquired the specialized meaning of "mode" early on in the development of Byzantine music theory since the Octoechos reform in 692. In general, the concept of echos denotes a certain octave species, its intervallic structure as well as a set of more or less explicitly formulated melodic rules and formulae that represent a certain category of melodies within the musical genre. As such, echos is the basis for composing or improvising new melodies that belong to it, as well as for properly performing existing pieces that have been written in it. These rules include the  distinction of a hierarchy of degrees (tones, notes), where certain degrees figure as cadence notes (ἑστώτες) around which the melody will revolve prominently, or on which the melody will end most of the time. However, only very late stages of the theory (19th-20th century) actually provide systematic descriptions of echoi, while earlier stages use mostly diagrams, indirect descriptions and examples. Explicit detailed descriptions must still be provided based on extensive analysis, as is the case with modal phenomena in numerous other cultures. History and reconstruction. Early treatises only state the initial or "base" degree (η βασή) which is the tone  sung as a burden (ἴσον) by certain singers of the choir called "isokrates" in order to support any melody composed in a certain echos. By this support singers (psaltes) could easily recognise the relative position of each note as it was organised by tetrachords based on the basis note of each echos. This base degree of the mode was communicated by an intonation formula of a foresinger, known as enechema. There are different styles by which to notate enechema which are crucial to the understanding of the different chant books and their notation. All these forms were written in red  ink. The explicit long form was called by Jørgen Raasted intonation, but only the books of the cathedral rite used such explicit intonations, also between the sections, where these intonations were called medial intonation. This explicit form made sense, since the intonation also communicated the changes between the left and the right choir and their leaders performed these intonations to coordinate these changes. There was a short form as well which was called modal signature. It indicated the echos by the numeral like πλα' for "plagios protos," while the neumes sung with the last syllable of the enechema were written  above right to the numeral. This short form was used in two different ways, as main signature it indicated the echos of a whole composition, but especially in sticheraria notators also wrote medial signatures between the neumes above a kolon of the text, in order to indicate that the melos changed here into another echos. The traditional Greek term for these medial signatures was "martyria" (), since the medial signature also "testified" the phthongos of the cadence made at the kolon. Echemata of the dialogue treatise. Within the dialogue treatise ("erotapokriseis") a catalogue of short formulas memorizes each echos of the  Hagiopolitan octoechos and its two phthorai (νενανῶ and νανὰ). These formulas are also called "echemata" (ἠχήματα)—or more often "enechemata" (ἐνηχήματα) or "apechemata" (ἀπηχήματα). The use echemata was also imitated by Carolingian cantors who used similar intonation formulas and collected them in a separate book called tonary. Περὶ πλαγίων Ἀπο τοῦ πλαγίου πρώτου ἤχου πάλιν καταβαίνεις τέσσαρας φωνάς, καὶ εὑρίσκεται πάλιν πλάγιος πρώτου· ὅυτως δὲ / ἄνανε ἄνες ἀνὲ ἄνες· Ὁμοίως καὶ ὁ β' ἤχος καταβαίνων φωνάς δ', εὑρίσκεις τὸν πλάγιον αὐτοῦ, ἤγουν τὸν πλάγιον τοῦ δευτέρου. πλ Β οὕτως δέ. Ὁμοίως πάλιν ὁ τρίτος καταβαίνεις φωνὰς τέσσαρας, καὶ εὑρίσκεται ὁ πλάγιος  αὐτοῦ, ἤγουν ὁ βαρύς, οὕτως· Ὁμοίως καὶ ἀπὸ τὸν τέταρτον καταβαίνων φωνὰς τέσσαρας, εὑρίσκεις τὸν πλάγιον αὐτοῦ, ὡς ἐστὶ ὁ πλ δ'οὕτως· The enechemata of the medieval eight diatonic echoi already present a fundamental difference to the Carolingian octoechos: Echemata of the Papadikai and their modern interpretation. More information on the structure of echoi is only indicated in a very rudimentary way through diagrams involving neumes—the Byzantine round notation. The details of the actual intervallic and melodic structure of echoi are virtually impossible to deduce from theoretical treatises prior to the 18th century. In fact, only relatively late systematic  comparisons of the echoi with the makamlar of Ottoman court music, such as those by the Kyrillos Marmarinos, Archbishop of Tinos, in his manuscript dated 1747, and the reform of the Byzantine notation by Chrysanthos of Madytos at the first half of the 19th century make it possible to understand the structure of echoi and to attempt reconstructions of melodies from earlier manuscripts. He already introduced his readers into the "diatonic genus" and its "phthongoi" in the 5th chapter of the first book, called "About the "parallage" of the diatonic genus" (Περὶ Παραλλαγῆς τοῦ Διατονικοῦ Γένους). In the 8th chapter  he demonstrates, how the intervals can be found on the fingerboard of the tambur. Hence, the "phthongoi" of the "diatonic genus" had been defined according to the proportions, as they were later called the "soft chroa of the diatonic genus" (τὸ γένος μαλακὸν διατονικὸν). For Chrysanthos this was the only diatonic genus, as far as it had been used since the early church musicians, who memorised the "phthongoi" by the intonation formulas ("enechemata") of the Papadic Octoechos. In fact, he did not use the historical intonations, he rather translated them in the Koukouzelian wheel in the 9th chapter (Περὶ τοῦ  Τροχοῦ) according to a current practice of parallage, which was common to 18th-century versions of "Papadike": Τὸ δὲ Πεντάχορδον, τὸ ὁποῖον λέγεται καὶ Τροχὸς, περιέχει διαστήματα τέσσαρα, τὰ ὁποῖα καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς μὲν εἶναι τόνοι. Περιορίζονται δὲ τὰ τέσσαρα διαστήματα ταῦτα ἀπὸ φθόγγους πέντε. The pentachord which was also called wheel (τροχὸς), contains four intervals which we regard as certain tones [ἐλάσσων τόνος, ἐλάχιστος τόνος, and 2 μείζονες τόνοι]. The four intervals spanned five phthongoi: πα βου γα δι Πα ["Πα" means here the fifth-equivalent for the protos: α']These five stations of the pentachord could be memorised by the  echemata of the kyrioi echoi in ascending direction or by those of the plagioi echoi in descending direction (see Chrysanthos' explanation of the trochos parallage). Each of these echemata had the potential to develop an own melos within its melody types: Each echema is followed by the incipit of a sticheron idiomelon which illustrates a certain melos of the echos. The following book Kekragarion illustrates, how the hesperinos psalm κύριε ἐκέκραξα has to be sung according to the sticheraric melos of each echos. The Kekragarion was later included in the printed editions of the Anastasimatarion or Voskresnik. Chrysanthos' exegesis of  the papadic enechemata. In the chapter "On the apechemata" () of his "Great Theoretikon", Chrysanthos translated the Byzantine octoechos and its intonation formulas (apechemata, or enechemata), as they could be found in the Papadikai, by offering an exegesis of the papadic apechemata in comparison to the simpler forms used by Orthodox chanters today. They served as kind of model for the composition within a certain melos, similar to the seyirler of an Ottoman makam. Protos echos. For the diatonic echos protos, the medieval enechema had the finalis on the top of the protos pentachord, while the enechema passes through it: Chrysanthos  made this exegesis to explain the melos of the whole echos: In the first descending half he made the usual cadence on D (, phthongos ) which corresponds to the finalis of the modern melos, while it was once the finalis and the basis of the plagios protos. The second half, when the melos raises again, but within the papadic melos (used with a cherubikon or koinonikon) it prepared a change to another base tone on the upper tetrachord like a (, phthongos ). Hence, according to the current practice of Orthodox chant the protos mele were rather based on the lower tetrachord, but  the formula could be used a fifth higher likewise. The step between the phthongoi of () and () could be C—D (—) or G—a (—). Concerning the enechema of the , it had not changed during the centuries. Unlike the tradition which always used register changes, the modern interpretation did not fix the base degree of echos plagios protos to the bottom of the pentachord, it could appear regularly at the top like in the troparic and heirmologic melos: a ()—c ()—b ()—a () or D ()—F ()—E ()—D (). Chrysanthos' exegesis just passed the protos pentachord D ()—a () in an ascending movement, before using  the cadence pattern to the base degree of the mode. Deuteros echos. Chrysanthos' bridges between the diatonic of the Byzantine past and the chromatic melos of the present Orthodox traditions. The latter is characterised by the constant use of the mesos form, which is not on the of —b natural (, β') and E (, phthongos πλβ'), but between them on G (, πλδ'). The usual diatonic form was this , but only the descending part would lead to the base tone of the . As a consequence, Chrysanthos' exegesis starts and ends on this mesos, but it follows the Hagiopolitan convention to pass through  the former pentachord, but he even passes through the pentachord C (, πλδ')—G (, phthongos δ'), as it used by the current melos of . Concerning the chromatic melos of the in the current octoechos, the papadic had become "soft chromatic" under the influence of the . Nevertheless, according to the very particular interpretation of Chrysanthos the melos and scale of is ruled by a diphonic organisation based on just two diatonic intervals: the major and minor tone. As a result, the octave C—c between νη and νη' becomes slightly diminished. Chrysanthos' concept of diphonia was so radical that it found no commonplace  in current chant manuals, instead a lot alternative interpretations proposed various divisions of the chromatic tetrachords between νη—γα (C—F) and δι—νη' (G—c). At the end of his chapter "on the apechemata" Chrysanthos offers a separate exegesis of phthora nenano as a modern deduction of the , whose medieval form was this. But it had moved now with the to the of . Tritos echos. Chrysanthos did not offer any exegesis for the apechema of the diatonic echos tritos. He only mentions the intonation of phthora nana instead, which is still used as the echos tritos intonation formula in  current Orthodox traditions. Hence, his exegesis of this enharmonic phthora is within the enharmonic genus and the triphonic tone system of the phthora nana. The same enharmonic interpretation was done with the plagios called "echos varys" (grave mode), obviously in certain cases, when the was expected of fourth under the base tone. Hence, the enharmonic are not separated by a pentachord, but usually both set on F (, phthongos γ' as well as υαρ), in troparic, sticheraric and heirmologic mele: Within the papadic chant genre (cherubika, koinonika), but also during the composed recitation of Polyeleos psalms and kalophonic heirmoi (Ἄξιον ἐστίν ), the diatonic melos of was chosen. Its base tone was one below the . According to Chrysanthos it diminished the tritos pentachord to a kind of tritone, at least when it was set on fret arak of the Ottoman tambur, but there are also more traditional ways of intonation depending on the local school of a chanter. The have changed between the Byzantine and the Orthodox octoechos today. The original pentachord between and kyrios—C () and G () or likewise G () and d ()—does still exist in the papadic melos of echos , which is known as the "papadic Agia" (). Chrysanthos made for  the papadic melos this exegesis. A commonly used form of might be the one which Chrysanthos mentions as the one used by Petros Peloponnesios. The diatonic plagios of according to the enechema known from the treatises called Papadikai which was interpreted by Chrysanthos, as follows. Since the has moved to the of (πλα'), the original of the diatonic was vacant. In fact, as a diatonic phthora it was represented by a medial signature of the so-called "echos legetos" () which had preserved the diatonic intonation of . The signature was used within the , since heirmoi of were still treated as a  diatonic melos unlike the school of Petros Peloponnesios and his follower Petros Byzantios. According to their school the was part of the , as a it was used for the heirmologic melos, where the base and final degree was a low intoned E (βου), and for the , which had the base degree of the mode and closing cadences on D (πα), but the concluding finalis E (βου). Chrysanthos interpreted also as a diatonic . He also mentioned a common enechema as it was used by Iakovos the Protopsaltes. In this last paragraph of the chapter about the apechemata Chrysanthos referred to ten  echoi within the tradition of Hagiopolites. The echoi of the psalmody are eight. The apechemata preserved though are ten, because the , and the of the , have two apechemata each. But unlike the Hagiopolites, where the was mentioned as a "" and the as "", seemed to have slipped into the role, but it was a diatonic mesos, not an enharmonic like . In fact, Chrysanthos could not longer mention nana and nenano as additional , since their melos had already replaced the diatonic mele of the and . Echos vs. maqam in eponymous compositional practice. In other Ottoman music traditions like the list of composed  Mevlevi dance suites as models of well-known and new makamlar created by eponymous masters resulted in a proliferation of modes (makamlar, maqamat), echoi are not attributed to specific composers, but are rather regarded as belonging to the collective and anonymous heritage of liturgical chant. Eponymous compositions do exist throughout most of the history of Byzantine chant, but their echos is always classified from within the system of existing . Due to an interest for makamlar compositions Phanariotes like Georgios the Protopsaltes, one of the great teachers of Orthodox chant, also became a student of the dervish composer Dede Efendi, after  he had learnt Turkish. Byzantine notation developed as a universal notation system during the 19th century which includes even attempts to integrate makamlar within the mele of the Octoechos, while ornamental details became part of an oral tradition. Cultural "relations". The system of echoi is rich and diverse. Closer study and comparison with modal systems of neighboring cultures reveals a complex network of cultural and ethnic influences throughout the centuries—a vivid exchange between musicians across the borders of ethnic and religious identity (Phanariotes). The basic theory of echoi is formalized in a system of eight modes called the Octoechos . See the article Neobyzantine Octoechos for a discussion of its origins and a critique of this concept vis-a-vis actual practice.