Tradition and Innovation in the Musical Compositions

of Dimitrie Cantemir

Constantin Răileanu1
[email protected]

Prince Cantemir’s theoretical musical creations aroused interest to musicologists 2 in

particular, but also to other categories of musicians3, historiographers4 and anthropologists5
etc. A large number of articles, studies and books have been published since the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries, their authors surprising more or less, aspects concerning the original
creations of the Moldavian Prince6 but also aspects of his biography like some mismatch of
the events presented by the latter in his works7 compared to the reality of his era.
If the approach of the music theory treated by eminent scholars as Eugenia Popescu -
Judetz, Owen Wright, Walter Feldman8 was conducted head-on related to the Ottoman
cultural context of Turkish tradition, Arabic and Persian, however, the approach with other
musical traditions such as the Greek one, the one belonging to Romanian Principalities or the
Byzantine are lapidary.

1
Musicologist PhD, researcher of early music, composer, conductor, coordinator and founder of the Anton Pann
Ensemble, a member of the European Association "Cantemir".
2
Popescu-Judetz Eugenia, Dimitrie Cantemir. Cartea ştiinţei muzicii, Editura Muzicală a Uniunii
Compozitorilor, Bucureşti, 1973; Owen Wright: Demetrius Cantemir, The Collection of Notations. Part II:
Commentary. (SOAS Musicology Series. Vol: 2.). London, School of Oriental and African Studies, University
of London, 2000; Owen Wright: Demetrius Cantemir: The collection of notations. Part 1: Text. Transcribed and
annotated by Owen Wright. (SOAS Musicology Series, Vol 1.) xxvii, London: School of Oriental and African
Studies, University of London, 1992.
3
Jordi Savall, http://www.rootsworld.com/reviews/savall10.shtml, Kudsi Erguner, ș.a
4
*** Academia de Științe a Moldovei, Dinastia Cantemireștilor, (sec. XVII-XVIII), Coordonator, redactor
ştiinţific, acad. Andrei Eşanu, ed. Știința, Chișinău, 2008.
5
Marin Constantin, Anthropological worldview in Dimitrie Cantemir’s Descriptio Moldavae, în Antropologie și
Cultură, Colecția Zilele Rainer, Ed. Niculescu, București 2014, pp. 87-95.
6
Costin N., Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei de la Ştefan sin Vasile-Vodă […] (1662–1711), în Cronicile României
sau Letopiseţele Moldovei şi Valahiei, vol. II, ed. a II-a, Bucureşti, 1872.
7
Ibidem, Dinastia Cantemireștilor, (sec. XVII-XVIII).
8
Walter Feldman, Music of the Ottoman Court: makam, composition and the early Ottoman instrumental
repertoire, Volumul 10 din Intercultural Music Studies, VWB-Verlag für Wissenschaft und Bildung, 1996.

1
 This multi-traditional aspect that characterized the Ottoman culture of the XVIIth-
XVIIIth centuries is specific to what we incorrectly call the "classical Turkish music" and
generates the reason of this study in which are exposed some common elements with the
theories of "Byzantine" music and taking over and processing of Romanian musical tradition.
Firstly, it is necessary to remember the very education of the Moldavian Prince and the
identification of the concepts borrowed and developed in his theoretical treatises, the
following steps consisting in comparing the heights of sound listed in his treatise connected
with the modern Turkish system and the Byzantine music notation and the analysis of a vocal
music composition alleged to be composed by Cantemir.

The period of gathering and settling information

According to opinions expressed in specialized publications9, it is likely that Dimitrie

Cantemir started his early years of education in the Princely Academy from Iaşi, he definitely
continued that continued his studies with the erudite monk and tutor from Cyprus Jeremiah
Kakavela, which was brought by his father, Constantin Cantemir Vodă to teach both his son
and other children of noblemen.
In the work, the subjects are mentioned (trivium and quadrivium) including also an
unconfirmed information that the young prince learnt the Gregorian chant10 as well. This
speculation is not supported by existing evidence, nor by any of the possible use of this music
(out of use from the Catholic liturgical tradition of that time).
An interesting detail is provided by Franz Joseph Sulzer in Geschichte des
transalpinischen Daciens... [... transalpine Dacia History, 1781] concerning Constantin Vodă,
Cantemir’s father, who played well at caval, the long shepherd's pipe11.
As the desire for knowledge and self-education of the young Dimitrie Cantemir is
observable from childhood (considered by scholars as the inheritance from his mother)12, it is
likely that the prince learned from his father the art of playing the long shepherd's pipe that

9
Academia de Științe a Moldovei, Dinastia Cantemireștilor, p. 160.
10
Ibidem, Dinastia Cantemireștilor, p. 391.
11
Sulzer Fr. J., Geschichte des transalpinischen Daciens, das ist: der Walachey, Moldau und Bessarabiens, in
Zusammenhange mit der Geschichte des übrigen Daciens als ein Versuch einer allgemeinen dacischen
Geschichte, vol. I; Wien, Rudolf Gräffer, 1781, S. 395–399; apud: Dimitrie Cantemir şi muzica orientală, în
Tiberiu Al., Folcloristică. Organologie. Muzicologie. Studii, Bucureşti, 1980, p. 236; Idem, în „Revista de
etnografie şi folclor”, tom.18, nr. 5, Bucureşti, 1973, p. 336.
12
Ibidem, Dinastia Cantemireștilor, p. 159.

2
could be a logical explanation for the rapid learning of the interpretative technique of ney (an
Oriental aerophone reed instrument without stoppers which requires long years of study).
Even if the young prince didn’t play the long shepherd's pipe, being always around his
father, certainly the tonality, the musical form, and the audible technique were printed in his
subconscious, helping as I mentioned in the learning technique of the Turkish instrument.
During his time in Constantinople, the young Dimitrie Cantemir "…greedy being to
know and learn both common and outstanding things…."13 studied at the Academy of
Ecumenical Patriarchate in Fanar with teachers as Iacomi of Moreea and Anastasios Nausios
for Greek and Latin grammar, Meletios for Art, Anastasios Kondoidi for Literature, Rhetoric
and Canons of the Orthodox Church with the Peripatetic philosophers Antonie and
Spandoniu.
He studied at Humayun Ederum (an educational institution for children of wealthy
foreigners of Christian religion), where he studied thoroughly the Islamic sciences, Turkish,
Persian and Arabic languages and Muslim theology with representatives of the Oriental
culture such as the mathematician - philosopher Saadi or the linguist scholar Nefi – oghlu14.
Simultaneously, he studies contemporary music (at the Patriarchal Academy – the so
called ,,Byzantine music”, actually the Psaltic music practiced in the rituals of the Eastern
Orthodox Greek rite Church) with some of the most famous masters of the era: the Greek
renegade Keman Ahmed (kemençe and ney performer) and the Orthodox Greek Angeli
(tanbur performer) for almost 15 years, according to his own testimonials15, becoming in his
turn an acclaimed connoisseur of his contemporary music.
Along this initiatory journey concerning the knowledge of the contemporary sciences,
he cultivated the relationship with his teacher Ieremia Kakavela who exhorted the scholar
prince to proceed in writing and printing his own social and cultural concepts16.
It can be concluded that Cantemir had the technical musical knowledge to kemençe,
ney, caval (long shepherd's pipe), tanbur (music instruments) but, according to certain
testimonials, he is recognized in the Turkish musical historiography as a great tanbur musical
performer.
As a practitioner he found a lack of coherent theoretical principles, principles which
could allow novices a deeper understanding of the studied musical systems in accordance

13
Dimitrie Cantemir, Viața lui Constantin Vodă Cantemir (Vita Constantini Cantemyrii), traducere românească
de N. Iorga, ediție nouă, îngrijită de Liliana Iorga, Editura Scrisul Românesc, Craiova, p. 112.
14
Popescu-Judetz Eugenia, p. 13.
15
Ibid., p. 13.
16
Academia de Științe a Moldovei, Dinastia Cantemireștilor, p.180-183.

3
with the reality of his contemporary music17.
This shortcoming is noticed by some of Cantemir’s disciples, Ismail Efendi Davul -
high haznedar (finance manager) and capuchehaie (representative) of Devlet Giray Tatar
khan the II-nd (1707-1713) - and Latif Celebi, who would manage to convince their master to
publish his personal observations in the idea of facilitating music learning.
Thus, Cantemir would create his own instrumental analysis method of the modal-
instrumental universe belonging to the Ottoman Empire, inventing a semiografic system with
which he could note both his own and the collected compositions.

Determinative historical and socio-cultural prerequisites

The motivation that generated the drafting of this music theory treatise can be
considered as a result of several key factors originated both from music and the socio-cultural
and historical context of Constantinople at the turn of the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries.
In order to understand the cultural circumstances it is necessary to present a brief foray
into the past of the Bosphorus-situated city in order to recall important steps in the
transformation of the civil society in the capital.
Even since the IVth Crusade (1204) and after the conquest of Constantinople by Sultan
Mehmed the IInd Conqueror (also known as The Conqueror) (1453), migration of Byzantine
intellectuals to Christian countries situated in western and south-eastern parts of Europe is a
reality confirmed by studies conducted up until now.
After closing the last philosophy school in Athens18 and the emancipation of the
University of Constantinople19, the capital becomes the most important cultural center
throughout the Roman Empire. The political direction adopted by the Byzantine emperors
was one of uniformity and centralization of the civil society in the state they governed,
culture being an effective tool in this regard through its two emanations of: the religious and
the secular; this step being achieved in a long time.
Thus, if in the first six centuries philosophical schools of Athens and Alexandria
educated generations of Christian and non-Christian scholars, while following the closure of
the last redoubt of ancient philosophy (Athens 529 AD.) the University of Constantinople

17
Dimitrie Cantemir, Sistema religiei mahomedane, apud Eugenia Popescu-Judetz, pp. 36-37.
18
http://www.bede.org.uk/justinian.htm, consulted on 07.12.2015.
19
A.A. Vasiliev, Istoria Imperiului Bizantin, Ed. Polirom, București, 2010, 150-214.

4
(425 AD.) becomes the featured attraction of the entire Mediterranean basin.
Although, since approximately the fourth century and until the late tenth century,
hymnographers and theologians coming from the Greek and Syriac cultural space were in the
first line of Christian culture representatives (the Cappadocian Fathers Basil, Gregory and
John, Ephrem the Syrian, Isaac the Syrian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria,
Roman Melodus, Sophronius of Jerusalem, Andrew of Crete, etc.), however, Eastern imperial
capital had become an outstanding "supplier" of centralized education.
Ephrem the Syrian, a theologian and Christian writer (IVth century AD.) has the merit
of having composed hymns-madrasa, heptasyllabic folk tunes to combat Bardesan’s heretic
hymns, written on the same kind of songs.
Roman Melodus (VI-VII century AD.) of Jewish origin, Syrian after his birthplace (was
born in Emesa, Northern Phoenicia), became a deacon in the church of Berit, in Syria.
Talented and pious, Roman went to Constantinople, to the Church of Our Lady of Kir. He is
the author of the liturgical poem, the kontakion, a melodic-poetic form that would dominate
the liturgical compositions for about three centuries. Author of the kontakion Today the
Virgin, he is also recognized as being the author of other important kontakia dedicated to
different festivities.
Andrei, Archbishop of Crete († 726 AD.), had a thriving poetic activity. He composed
canons to celebrate the Christian holidays - Sunday of the Myrrh-bearing Women, Birth of
the Virgin, Saint John the Baptist etc. His most important creation is the Great Canon, from
the Easter period of Lent, impressive by the large number of hymns (over 250), and its poetic
and emotional quality, full of humility and piety.
The "Golden Age" of the Byzantine culture is the reign of Justinian the Great (518-610
AD.), who ordered for the Hagia Sophia Cathedral to be built in Contantinople.
After his reign one could observe a cultural decay in the evolution of the Byzantine society,
partly due to loss of territory, but also the migration of big business to rural or more remote
areas of the Empire. Greek was the language used for the majority of the written operas of the
time, as being the official language of the Byzantine Empire.
During this period, Jerusalem with the so-called "Sabaitic School" from the monastery
of St. Sava and Damascus, through the intellectual elite, were the centers from where these
philosophers of Eastern Christianity succeeded in offering solutions and directions in times of
religious and cultural crisis20.

20
Pr. Petre Vintilescu, Despre poezia imnografică din cărţile de ritual şi cântarea bisericească, tipărită cu
binecuvântarea IPS Bartolomeu Arhiepiscopul Vadului, Feleacului şi Clujului, Ediţia a II – a, Cluj – Napoca,
2005.

5
 This stage is marked by the personality of St. John of Damascus († 749AD) 21, the great
organizer of musical thinking of his time and one of the most important Christian
philosophers in Byzantium.
Dogmatist, poet, fighter against iconoclasm, he marked this period through his operas
which became of utmost importance for latter writers.
He was the one who completed the hymns corpus, Octoechos, and reformed poetics and
musical thinking of the Empire. His hymns are found in liturgical writings under different
names- John the Monk, John of Arcla, John of Damascus. He took the veil in the monastery
of St. Sava, together with his step-brother Cosmas of Maiuma.
Along with Saint John of Damascus, Saint Cosmas Melodus, his stepbrother, also
known as Cosma of Jerusalem or Hagiopolitos Cosma the Monk, bishop of Maïuma -
Phoenicia († 781AD.). He is known, along with John of Damascus, for having composed a
large number of canons (for almost all the Christian holidays of the year, for the liturgical
moments of Sundays) and for having achieved the corpus of hymns Octoechos. Author of the
Palm Canon, the Nativity Canon, etc. he became a monk with John of Damascus at St. Sava
monastery near Jerusalem. They both belong to the "Sabaitic School" from the monastery of
St. Sava of Jerusalem, whose poetic liturgical principles have improved and promoted
throughout the Byzantine Empire.
The monastery was founded in 483 AD. by St. Sava, becoming an important cultural
center and a bastion of Christendom. It was here where many of the Byzantine writers of the
IXth century were schooled and they composed their works. Here also, Saint John of
Damascus, Cosmas of Maiuma, Teofanes Graptos, Ephraem of Karia, etc. were schooled as
well. It was the time of the reform of the Octoechos22 by establishing a corpus of liturgical
hymns necessary for the religious Christian rite to take place.
From the late ninth century, the Studion monastery of Constantinople became a strong
cultural establishment by its school studies, and together with the University of the capital
and other institutions, project the Byzantine Polis as the supreme model for the other cities of
the Empire and for the surrounding states23.
Studion monastery in Constantinople, was an important center of culture, built in the
late fifth century by an imperial dignitary named Studius, and dedicated to St. John the
Baptist24.

21
Ibidem. pp. 71-73.
22
Ibidem. pp. 72-73.
23
Pr. Petre Vintilescu, Despre poezia imnografică din cărţile de ritual şi cântarea bisericească, pp. 73-79.
24
Ibidem. pp. 73-79.

6
Although it was a stronghold of the Christians who fought against the iconoclasm, Studion
monastery would become important only between VIIIth - XIth centuries when, under the
abbot Theodore the Studite, it became a genuine theological school and a cultural center that
would school important personalities such as Joseph the Studite, Clement the Studite, St.
Nicholas the Confessor, Ciprian the Studite etc. Studites period is represented by brothers
Theodore the Studite († 826) the abbot of Studion monastery in Constantinople and Joseph
the Studite († approx. 830) who became later bishop of Thessaloniki25.
This university has undergone transformations throughout the history of the Eastern
Roman Empire, being during the Latin conquest (1204) under the protection of the Church
until the fall of Constantinople (1453) when Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror reopened it as a
higher education institution that will survive until today - the University of Istanbul26.
From the Xth-XIth centuries, the cultural society of Byzantium gathers around the idea
of rediscovering and Christianization of the ancient Greek heritage through the renaissance of
philosophy (Plato, Aristotle, etc.) arts and literature.
This Byzantine Renaissance is associated with the reign of the Paleologos and it will be
the seed that will peddle and infuse the western society through the exodus of Byzantine
scholars, a real factor in the emergence of Humanism and the Italian Renaissance 27. We can
observe the exodus since the conquest of the capital by the Crusaders (1204) and it increased
with the arrival of the Turks in the occupied territories of the Empire that was going to fall28.
In what concerns the theoretical aspect of this specific music, it was equally dominated
by Byzantine, Persian and Arab musicians. Al-Farabi’s treatise29 will mark his entire
medieval period, serving as a source of inspiration for the reforms of music in the nineteenth
century30.
In the Byzantine area, since the tenth century, diastematic notation became obsolete in
favor of the ornamentation, due to the development of the semiografic systems, on the
lookout for new interpretive means of expression.

25
Ibidem. pp. 73-79.
26
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Constantinople, consulted on 07.12.2015.
27
Nicolae Iorga, Bizanţ după Bizanţ, Traducere după originalul în limba franceză intitulat „Byzance apres
Byzance” de Liliana Iorga –Pippidi, Bucureşti, Editura 100+1 GRAMAR, 2002.
28
A.A. Vasiliev, pp. 375-681.
29
Rodolphe D’Erlanger, La Musique Arabe, Tome I, Al-Fārābi, Grand Traité de la Musique (Kitābu al-mūsīqī
al-kabīr livres I et II), traduction fraçaise, Paris, Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1930..
30
Χρυσανθου Αρχιεπισψοπου Διρραχιου τοθ εκ Μαδυτων, «Θεορητικον Μεγα της Μουσικης», (The Great
Theory Book of Music), eν Τεργεστη, εν της τυπογραφιας Μιχαηλ Βαις ( Michele Weis ), 1832.

7
 Two theorists of Byzantine music stand out in the field of diastematic notation:
Georgios Pachymeres (1242 - c. 1310), author of a Quadrivium (complex work that deals
with Arithmetic, Music, Geometry, Astronomy)31 and Manouēl Bryennios (who lived in
Constantinople around 1300)32, the author of the theoretical work Harmonika, in three
volumes, conceives the medieval theories on the principles of Hellenic antiquity.
Up until the XIIth - XIVth centuries Byzantine musicians will be focused on
developing the poetical-melodic principles on dogmatic themes, more than on the theoretical
side of music (as a way to combat heretical concepts that would arise in the Church).
After the conquest of Constantinople by Sultan Mehmed the II-nd, the Christian culture
was under the protection of the Ecumenical Patriarchate trying to preserve their religious
traditions at the expense of secular trends of the new government. Neither for the culture of
the conquerors were happier times as the clash of the two worlds, different in terms of
philosophy and religion, has generated a stillness and a reluctance that turned into a long
period of mutual searching and probing, that ended in a mixture specific to the melting pot
city on the Bosphorus.
For both musical cultures a common path of fall-crisis and rise could be observed to be
understood only in terms of shared history that the two worlds had begun to reshape after the
XVth century.
If we look through the prism of the music theory treatises written until the times of
Cantemir, we can notice that in the period between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
everything that had been written aimed to prove the existing relationship between music and
the Universe – an interdependence between Mathematics, Music, and Astrology without a
coherent practical application.
The result of this attitude was that both in the post-Byzantine and Ottoman area,
practice was not based on solid theoretical arguments any longer becoming more blurred at
the expense of a non-constructive empiricism33.

31
Georgios Pachymeres, Syntagma tōn tessarōn mathēmatōn, arithmētikēs, mousikēs, geōmetrias kai
astronomias, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/437552/George-Pachymeres (consulted on
15.04.2011), The New Grove - Dictionary of Music and Musicians, second edition, edited by Stanley Sadie,
Executive Editor John Tyrrell, Grove, 2001, P.
32
The New Grove - Dictionary of Music and Musicians, second edition, edited by Stanley Sadie, Executive
Editor John Tyrrell, Grove, 2001, B.
33
Manuel Chrysaphes – On the theory of the Art of Chanting and on certain Erroneous Views That Some Hold
About it. Text, Translation and Commentary by D. E. Conomos (CSRM vol. II), Wien, 1985; Gabriel
Hieromonachos – Abhandlung uber den Kirchengesang. Herausgegeben von Christian Hannick und Gerda
Wolfram (CSRM vol. I), Wien, 1985.

8
 What is worth mentioning is that since the first music theory treatises, Arab authors
stated that the roots of their ideas stemmed from the ancient Greek principles (common
Byzantine elements) and systematized their own musical languages according to these rules34.

Figure 1. Notes and musical symbols of the Ancient Greeks

Thus, the music literature could be considered a messenger of the innovative ideas
written in the Greek antiquity or in the Xth -XVth centuries, continuing on a downward path
completely opposite to the realities of the contemporary music.
It should be understood that there were also other musical notation systems in Oriental
music (conceived under the influence of the Greek alphabetical semiografic musical system
used until the Vth century from Egypt35 to Constantinople, and even abroad) but they either
became obsolete throughout time, were forgotten or those who had the knowledge to read
them died without any disciples.

34
Eugenia Popescu-Judetz, p. 57-65.
35
http://www.papyrology.ox.ac.uk/POxy/, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyrhynchus_Papyri, consulted on
07.12.2015.

9
 Figure 2. Synoptic table of musical notes after Al Farabi

The Byzantine and post-Byzantine music followed a slightly different path, where
neumatic graphic systems existed for musical notation but, according to Gabriel
Hyeromonachos36 and Chrisafos the Elder37 they were either forgotten or misunderstood
(XVth century). It was about the idea of a semiografic sound system giving birth even to
languages and their own adaptations that could damage more than to develop38.
The period of VIIIth-IXth centuries is important in establishing a Byzantine
semiografic musical system, the ekphonetic notation39 used to mark the liturgical recitative in
evangelical or biblical pericopes reading until the XIIIth century.
This type of musical notation comes from the signs stressing accents and the moments
of pause for the reader. It is a way of reading "with high voice", similar to that used in the
Church by priests and deacons, during the evangelical and apostolic reading of the pericopes.

36
Gabriel Hieromonachos – Abhandlung uber den Kirchengesang. Herausgegeben von Christian Hannick und
Gerda Wolfram (CSRM vol. I), Wien, 1985.
37
Manuel Chrysaphes – On the theory of the Art of Chanting and on certain Erroneous Views That Some Hold
About it. Text, Translation and Commentary by D. E. Conomos (CSRM vol. II), Wien, 1985.
38
Anton Pann, Bazul Teoretic şi Practic al Muzicii Bisericeşti sau Gramatica Melodică, Bucureşti, Tipărit
întru a sa tipografie de muzică bisericească, 1845, introduction part.
39
Grigore Panţiru, Notaţia şi Ehurile Muzicii Bizantine, Bucureşti, Editura Muzicală a Uniunii Compozitorilor,
1971, p. 9-16.

10
Meanwhile, it was developed a more complex musical notation system used in the melismatic
melodies that embellished the Christian ritual.
For seven centuries, references to musical theories used by the Byzantines are sporadic,
most theorists indicating a continuous reporting to Antiquity. The Quadrivium of Georgios
Pachymeres (~ 1242-1310) and Manuel Bryennios’ Harmonica – the beginning. XIV
(~ 1310) are just two of the most important works of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries,
which cover a range without major differences from that of Boethius and the ancient scholars.
As in the previous periods, the Byzantines preferred to lay emphasis on the musical
development, the melismatic formulas at the expense of an embodiment of the heights of
sound. The period between the XIIth-XIVth centuries is marked by the appearance of the
Cheironomy Great Signs important for the interpretation, and for decrypting correctly the
Byzantine music. This period was under the influence of kalophonisation – a major
breakthrough in music characterized by the melismatic and melody development - and
occurred as a result of the increase of sumptuousness in liturgical and imperial ceremonies.
The trend of the kalophonic chants in Byzantine music will be promoted by important
personalities -Ioannes Glykys, Nikephoros Ethik, Ioannes Koukouzeles, Xenos Korones,
Ioannes Kladas, Ioannes Plousiadenos, Gabriel Hieromonachos, Evstatie the Precentor from
Putna Monastery40, etc. Ioannes Koukouzeles was the most prominent figure (uncertain
period XIIth-XIVth centuries) from Dyrachium-Durazzo, Thrace.
It was on his account that the new Cheironomy Great Signs were introduced allowing
thus a musical development that was going to stand up in music until the nineteenth century.
Ioannes Koukouzeles alongside his generation, would “reform” Byzantine music41, by
introducing new signs that would correspond to the issues raised by the new trend emerged,
the trend of the kalophonic chants (XIIIth-XVIth centuries an extension of IXth- Xth
centuries Man. Γ '. Bible. The Library of Great Lavra Monastery) and allowing more leniency
to performers both in singing and composition.
At the same time, we can see a development of emerging schools outside the Empire, as
Putna school with Eustatie and the others who managed to keep the tradition but also to
create new works without losing the specific stylistic ethos.
After this period of exploration and seclusion, beginning with the second half of the
eighteenth century, one can observe a growing interest in the musical cultural area of
40
38. The most important figure of the School of Putna, which it assigns some of the manuscripts of this
school. Date established to Antologhion's first Evstatie 1511. Constantin Secară, Şcoala muzicală de la Putna în
contextul muzicii bizantine din secolul al XVI-lea, http://www.pitesti.ro (consulted on 10.09.2009).
41
Nicolae Gheorghiţă, Chinonicul duminical în perioada post – bizantină (1453 – 1821) liturgică şi muzică,
Editura Muzicală, Bucureşti, 2007, p. 77 – 79.

11
Constantinople regarding the adaptation of theory and practice as far as it concerned the ethos
and the aesthetics of the civil society.
In the field of Christian religious music new approaches and composers 42 appeared that
would lead this art to the reformation from the early nineteenth century while in the field of
secular music appeared new performers who managed to reconcile theory with practice.
Another important aspect should be mentioned: that of the wrong opinions that the
music of Constantinople was within the Persian music orbit (of which it was influenced for a
long time).
During the stagnation period of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries Turkish musicians
tried to look back at the Islamic musical traditions from the geographical areas which they
considered to have been of paramount importance for them.
Herat, the capital of the sultans and Persia, where Islamic culture was defined and
developed were the main sources of models. This specific city was from where musicians
were brought (guests or slaves) to embellish everyday life of Constantinople's seraglio.
These artists were called acemler - foreigners – and they strongly influenced music in
the Ottoman capital of the sixteenth century. Although there were differences between the
two cultural spaces as far as it concerned music and even separate entities, however, the
collective mentality of the capitalist society on the Bosphorus authentic music was still
considered an emanation of the Persian, ideology that lasted until the first half of the
upcoming century (XVIIth century).
The most important personality in the second half of the eighteenth century, was the
prince Dimitrie Cantemir, who, benefiting, from a strong musical education, managed to
identify and express from a scientific point of view the theoretical principles of sound and
music of his time.
Although the secular music was an irreplaceable element of the Constantinopolitan
society of the time, it was not taught in public schools but if one was eager to learn such
theory, it would have to pay private tutors in order to do so43. Cantemir says that "in the vast
city of Constantinople, where lies the greatest court in the world, among many amateur and
trained musicians, you'll find only three or four accomplished musicians with a thorough
knowledge of this art"44.
It seems that the young prince was one of those who mastered the principles of the

42
Anton Pann, Bazul Teoretic şi Practic, op.cit.
43
Eugenia Popescu-Judetz, p. 36, apud. Dimitrie Cantemir, Istoria Imperiului Otoman, creșterea și scăderea
lui, trad. Dr. Ios. Hodosiu, Ediția Societății Academice Române, București, 1876, p. 217, note 17.
44
Ibidem.

12
sound systems in use in his time managing to synthesize completely in a work that would be
required not only in the world of Turkish musicians but also of Greeks, and in the colorful
society of the Ottoman capital.
It should be mentioned that music and styles created in Constantinople are specific to
this city only and they do not have anything to do with the traditional Turkish music that has
a different compositional character and style; only a few cities in the Ottoman Empire as
Izmir, Thessaloniki and the cities around the capital, have taken and preserved the beauty of
the sound up until now.
At the same time, we draw attention to a reality: although the Moldavian prince had
strong ties in the imperial capital, he was not close to any of the sultans, his relations with the
leaders who lived in Constantinople being only formal.
It is important to understand these aspects so we can have a correct opinion about the
real environment where the Moldavian prince lived.
Cantemir was very familiar with all aspects of sociocultural life in the imperial capital
and was a beloved and appreciated character within the intellectual circles of the time45 and
he had disciples in the art of music.
Therefore, by the time he completed his own way of understanding the Turkish musical
universe, he already had students like the Greek nobleman Ralaki Eupragiotes, the Turkish
Tasci - oğlu Sinek Mehmed and Bardakci Mehmet Celebi (they studied music with Kanbosu
Mehmed Aga, a famous master, and they were later perfected by Cantemir) and other
previously named Ismail Efendi and Latif Davul Çelebi46.
Cantemir’s treatise comes, as we have stated above, on a background of crisis in the
field of theory and it was actually created at the request of his disciples, operating only in a
narrow circle of connoisseurs.

Kitâb-ü ‘ilmi’l mûsikî’ala vechi’l hurûfât47

The book “Cartea științei muzicii după felul literelor” is the very first treatise of
musical theory of the XVIth-XVIIIth centuries which focuses on a scientific and rigorous
agreement between theory and practice without speculation and philosophical analogies.
We can say, according to the testimonials, that Cantemir became, in the 15 years of
assiduous study, a master of secular music language specific to Constantinople and a

45
Academia de Științe a Moldovei, Dinastia Cantemireștilor, pp. 166-169.
46
Eugenia Popescu-Judetz, p. 17.
47
Eugenia Popescu-Judetz, Cartea științei muzicii după felul literelor, p. 157-265.

13
benchmark for future generations both in the area of Ottoman musicians and within the non -
Muslim communities (Greek, Romanian, etc.)48.
In support of this assertion we may mention the works of Romanian chroniclers as that
of Ion Neculce where the author says about the Moldavian Prince "he was so gifted playing
the tanbura that no other citizen from Constantinople could compete with him"49 or the
church music theoretical treatise written by Chrysanthos of Madytos in the first half of the
nineteenth century, where, among the eight books of paramount importance for any aspiring
master the tome of Cantemir50 was mentioned – the written evidence of the impact of this
scholar on the Constantinopolitan culture.
According to most researchers, the theory book was written by Cantemir somewhere
between 1703 and 170551 and it is structured in two parts: the first part concerning theoretical
aspects of music and the second one being a compendium of songs (covering 354 songs).
The theoretical part starts with the presentation of the musical sounds (33 signs – a
combination of figures and the Arabic alphabet) used on the fingerboard of the tanbur and
considered by the prince musician enough to play any musical composition.

Figure 3. Synoptic table of musical notes after Cantemir (from Eugenia Popescu - Judetz, Music science
book by the way letters)

48
Χρυσανθου, p. XXXVIII, note γ.
49
Ion Neculce, Letopisețul Moldovei (1662-1743) în: Mihail Kogălniceanu, Cronicele României sau
Letopisețele Moldaviei și Valahiei, op.cit. p.300.
50
Χρυσανθου, p. XXXVIII, note γ.
51
Eugenia Popescu-Judetz, p. 70; Owen Wright: Demetrius Cantemir, The Collection of Notations. Part II:
Commentary, p. 4-8.

14
 Figure 4. Synoptic table of musical notes after Cantemir (from Eugenia Popescu - Judetz, Music science
book by the way letters)

The previous tables are extracts from the work of Eugenia Popescu-Judetz and are
made with reference to modern Turkish music notation system but don’t correspond to those
set forth Cantemir’s treatise.
The first thing that comes to our mind, reading those displayed in the treatise, is to
consider that the Prince has shown a tetrachord structure of Pythagorean type

T T ST

and dividing a whole tone according to the pattern

531441
limma + comma + limma
524288

15
 However, from the very first pages, Cantemir emphasized the fact that the sounds he
proposed fall into two categories: perfect and imperfect; the first ones have as landmark the
string of the natural harmonics while those from the second category are calculated in
accordance with the indications the author offered.
There arises the problem of chosing the octave division system in accordance with the
praxis of the period considered in this study. As we have no written information to assist in
solving this issue we should be able to understand the previous or subsequent periods in order
to find a plausible variant. The most important treatise was published by Chrysanthos of
Madytos in Trieste in 1832 and includes the divisional system proposed by Al Farabi in
the.Xth century. This system is quite similar to the modern Arabic musical intervals being
divided into 68 sections and the intervallic interaction is the following one:

Tempting as it may seem, this divisional system is not as the one described by Cantemir
in his treatise as it does not allow a division of the intervallic proportions to respect the chain
of ~ limma + ~ comma + ~ limma.
Neither the version of the cutoff according to the Pythagorean model is a coherent and
viable solution because the treatise lays emphasis upon the fact that not all sounds have a
correspondent in the upper octave52.
Another system of division of the octave may be that indicated by the natural
harmonics pattern:

1 9 5 4 3 32 15 2
1 8 4 3 2 27 8 1
9 10 16 9 9 10 16
8 9 15 8 8 9 15

52
Eugenia Popescu-Judetz, p. 199.

16
 The observation is that, following the directions provided by the author, the 53 section-
octave system is insufficient to play all the melodic scale positions. Possible divisional
solutions will be identified but certainly a system of additional signs of alteration is needed
apart from the one used in modern Turkish music and preferred, by Eugenia Popescu - Judetz
as well53.

53
Eugenia Popescu-Judetz, p. 84-87.

17
 For this study, we shall highlight the sounds given by Cantemir (not to be found in
studies so far) with arrows pointing an ascending or descending alteration from an
approximated high pitch sound (the perfect tone for 13 sections and the octave system of 77)
making use of the signs from the Turkish musical notation.

Thus, in the following table the sounds mentioned by the Moldavian prince in the
chapter on perfect and imperfect sounds can be with the version proposed in Eugenia Popescu
– Judetz’s study.

Nr. Turkish names of pitch cf

Pitch cf EPJ Proposed name
Crt. Cantemir
1 Re1(d1) yegiah Sol
2 Mi1(e1) ašîrân La

3 Fa1(f1) ’adjem ašîrânî Si f

adjunctive (leading-tone) of
’irak tone
La Ž/ (Si J)
4 Fa1 r (fis1) 4 komma up ’irak Si k
unused pitch ≠ (Si ±)/ Do t
5 …
Fa1 (fis1) 5 komma up the new Rehavî Si

6 Sol1(g1) rast Do

transpozition of sabâ pitch Re ł

7 r
Sol1 (gis1) 4 komma up zirgüle Do … (ReA)
8 La1(a1) dügiah Re

9 Si1 F (b1) 5 komma down nihâvend Mi f

18
 adjunctive (leading-tone) of
segiah tone;gevešt-maye
Re Ž/ (Mi J)
10 k
Si1 (b1) 1 komma down segiah Mi k
the old Rehavî (Mi ±)/ Re t
11 Si1(h1) bûselik/nišabur Mi
12 Do2(c2) cargiah Fa

13 F
Re2 (des2) 5 komma down sabâ Sol ł
14 Re2 A (des2) 4 komma down ’uzzal Fa …
15 Re2(d2) nevâ Sol

16 F
Mi2 (es2) 5 komma down bâyatî La ł
17 Mi2 A (es2) 4 komma down hisar Sol …
18 Mi2 (e2) hüseynî La

19 Fa2 (f2) ’adjem Si f

adjunctive (leading-tone) of
evč tone
La Ž/ (Si J)
20 r
Fa2 (fis2) 4 komma up evč Si k
unused pitch ≠ (Si ±)/ Do t
21 Fa2 … (fis ) 5 komma up
2 mâhûr Si

22 Sol2 (g2) gerdaniye Do

23 La2 A (as2) 4 komma down šehnaz Do …

24 La2(a2) mukhayyer Re

25 F
Si2 (b2) 5 komma down sünbüle Mi f
26 k
Si2 (b2) 1 komma down tiz segiah Mi k
27 Si2 (h2) tiz bûselik Mi
28 Do3 (c3) tiz cargiah Fa

19
29 F
Re3 (des3) 5 komma down tiz sabâ Sol ł
30 Re3 A (des3) 4 komma down tiz’uzzal Fa …
31 Re3(d3) tiz nevâ Sol

32 F
Mi3 (es3) 5 komma down tiz bâyatî La ł
33 Mi3 (e3) tiz hüseynî La

Observing the sounds noted in the table above as well as the signs of alteration that may
be applied (from ex. above), differences can be observed given that the prince, even if he
considered the tanbur could perform all the range of high sounds used in the music of his
time, from the first subchapters, he mentioned other notes or tones that had already existed in
practice but which were not introduced in his theoretical system.
The words of the author, read in the right system, elucidate what seems
incomprehensible which is that the imperfect high pitch sounds could be approximated based
on perfect tones54 which, in turn, depend on other factors (tuning, the performer’s talent, his
education etc.) and hence resulting a greater number of sound variations and variables.
The proposal to equate yegiah tone with Sol instead of Re was made in line with the
idea of harmonizing with the secular music collections published in the nineteenth century in
Constantinople in neo-Byzantine neumatic notation55.
Cantemir’s treatise continues with chapters on modes (makam), rhythms (Usul), the
implementation of pieces of music according to the three types of tact/fast, slow and very
slow corresponding with the neo-Byzantine tact (hirmological, sticherarion and papadic)56,
ending with the impressive collection of 351 songs marked according to his method.
All these topics based on Cantemir’s music theory treatise demonstrate the complexity
of Cantemir's illustrious historical figure who continues to fascinate researchers in various
fields and to inspire new studies aimed at a deep understanding of its cultural creations.
Regarding the second part of his theoretical work, the collection of songs, it was
frequently discussed if, as tradition assigns, Cantemir composed text songs or instrumental
works only.

54
Eugenia Popescu-Judetz, p. 197-200.
55
Θεοδορου Φωκαεως,„ Κρηπης του Θεορητικου και πρακτικου της Εκκλησιαστικης Μουσικης”, ( The basic
theory book of theoretical and practical church music ), Εν Αθηναις, 1842.
56
Anton Pann, Bazul Teoretic şi Practic, op.cit. p. 32-35.

20
 Theodor Burada, gathering information from the oral tradition of Istanbul at the
beginning of the twentieth century, notes a few compositions, allegedly to have belonged to
the Moldavian prince - one of them taken by Eugenia Popescu – Judetz57.
For an approach to the subject of the possible musical works with text, it is necessary to
include in our research the immediately following period which was important not only for
the Phanariot Rule but also for bringing in the Romanian Principalities the repertoire of
Constantinople that included Cantemir’s compositions.

Phanariot Music in the Romanian Principalities

According to research undertaken so far by musicologists as Th. Stathis58, Lykourgos

Angelopoulos59, Maria Alexandru60, Nicolae Gheorghiţă61, etc., post-imperial Byzantine
music (after 1453) remained essentially unaltered in both the liturgical and in the extra-
ecclesial cultural space.
Even if there was a temptation to state for the appearance of a scission between the
musical culture before 1453 and the ability to preserve through reorganization and adaptation
to the new social and administrative framework of Byzantine art, the specialized treatises and
liturgical hymns compendia or religious representations are clear evidence of continuity
based on oral tradition - the main vehicle of keeping and conveying of these essential truths.
Further developments have formally led to changes (such as the augmentation or
reduction in temporal value of the musical compositions) but as far as it concerned the basic
innovative principles, progress was made based on tradition; any novelty was “constructed
"on the “foundation" of a principle or of a previous composition. Thus, the religious and even
secular music style develops through renewal and beautification of those already in use.

57
Burada T.T., Scrierile muzicale ale lui Dimitrie Cantemir, domnitorul Moldovei, București, 1911, p. 32-34.
58
Gregorios Th. Stathis, An Analysis of the Sticheron Τον ήλιον κρύψαντα by Germanos, Bishop of New Patras
[The Old ‘Synoptic’ and the New ‘Analytical’ Method of Byzantine Notation], în „Studies in Eastern Chant”,
vol. IV (ed. Miloš Velimirović), 1979.
59
Lykourgos Angelopoulos, Vocile Bizanțului, trad. din lb. franceză de prep. univ. drd. Adrian Sârbu, Asociația
Culturală Byzantion, Iași, 2011, p. 28-29.
60
Maria Alexandru, O călătorie spre tezaurul nostru imnografic și muzical: Paleografia cântului bizantin, I.
elemente teoretice, Iași, iulie 2010, p.3.
61
Nicolae Gheorghiță, op.cit., p. 27-40.

21
 In support of these statements there may be mentioned the most important reformative
moments of this musical space in conjunction with the prominent representatives of this
period:
1. St. Ioannes Damaskenos - completed the hymnodic corpus of Oktaichia62 and
selected from the multitude of musical modes in use only eight, four authentic and four
plagal, considered to be the stepping stone for the others.
2. Al Farabi - although apparently not related to the Byzantine music, the reality is that
cultural information circulated, regardless of religious or political affiliation.
In his case, we refer to the new ways of tuning for instruments such as the lute (oud)
and a new way of dividing the octave63.
3. St. Ioannes Koukouzeles - whether a corpus of musical signs belonged to him or not,
it is important to note the innovative aspect, starting from the already existing semiografic
system. The introduction of an upgraded corpus of cheironomic signs allowed a more
complex and permissive emotions in the musical array64.
4. Manuel Chrysaphes65 - to the “lapse of time" between the empires. He conveys
important information about practice and interpretative issues of his time. Lists He lists the
necessary skills and knowledge a musician must possess in order to be considered a
consummate artist.
5. Dimitrie Cantemir - according to Chrysanthos of Madytos, the musical work of the
prince is useful not only to Ottoman singers, but also to the other non-Muslim musicians66.
His treatise contains solutions to the existing issues in the Byzantine music.
6. Petros Peloponnesios67 – considered to be “the main culprit, for introducing makam
structures in the ethos of religious music. In fact, in a period of investigation to find new and
appropriate expression languages according to the aesthetics of the time, he provided new
possibilities and compositional methods, expanding the musical terminology in a syntactic
and morphological manner.
7. Chrysanthos of Madytos68 - proposed Al Farabi’s system of division of the octave
into sections and tried the “harmonization" to the Western octave modes, without estranging
from the traditional musical ethos.

62
Pr. Petre Vintilescu op.cit., p. 72-73.
63
Rodolphe D’Erlanger, op.cit.
64
Nicolae Gheorghiţă, op.cit., p. 77 – 79.
65
Manuel Chrysaphes op.cit.
66
Χρυσανθου, op.cit., p. XXXVIII – nota γ.
67
Anton Pann, op.cit., 1845, p. XVIII – XL.
68
Χρυσανθου op.cit.

22
 In a brief analysis of various compositions of the above mentioned periods, there could
be identified operational parameters that were suitable for the musical ethos of Oriental origin
(whether Byzantine, Ottoman, Persian and Arabic) as part of traditional practice since ancient
times, being mentioned occasionally and incidentally in various treaties over time.
The musical language used, the intervallic structures, the modal genres, the modal
direction, cadences used and modulations, the melodic formulas, texture, rhythm, text,
semiography - are just some of the fundamental principles mentioned in the paragraph above.
Tradition involves the preservation of these, rules "and their oral transmission through
Dascalos (Teacher)-Disciple method that worked successfully so far69.
In the Romanian Principalities, during the Phanariot Rule, musicians of the time – the
oriental music interpreters and the music educated noblemen – by the instrumentality of the
Church (a valuable source of musical inspiration from the early Christian centuries for the
inhabitants of the two geographical areas70) took the theoretical principles and the practical
applications necessary for the contemporary compositional act from the Orient.
The music of the XVIIIth-XIXth centuries composed in both regions is characterized
by a sound syncretism strongly influenced by the one from Constantinople71 in which
Romanian elements are intertwined with the Greek, Turkish and religious alike.
Phanariotes – a generic name for the Greek families from the Phanar district of
Constantinople - ruled the Romanian Principalities on behalf of the Sublime Porte, since 1711
in Moldavia and 1714 in UngroVlahia until 1821. For over a century, 31 princes mainly from
11 families governed the two provinces 75 times and this period was called “Phanariote".
Once with the appointment of each governor by the Ottomans, he received as a gift and
a military band - mechterchane - as a token of the importance with which the Sultan invested
him. Besides the royal court, there were musicians (part of the staff or passing by, having to
solve various issues), usually Christians, connoisseurs of the ifos (style) ecclesiastical style,
but also the secular one. There remained testimonies and documents about vocal virtuosos
and performers of different musical instruments like Ianku Malaxa, Nikephoros
Kantouniares, Dionysios Photeinos72, Arif Aga, Neculai Burcaşu, the “vornic” (chamberlain)
Iordachi Bucşenescu, the “ban” (governor) Iancu Peristeli, the “vornic” (chamberlain) Alecu

69
Eric Bernard Ederer, The Theory and Praxis of Makam in Classical Turkish Music 1910-2011, PhD
dissertation, University of California-Santa Barbara, September 2011, p. 17, nota 15.
70
Nicolae Filimon, Lăutarii și compozițiunile lor,
http://ro.wikisource.org/wiki/Lăutarii_și_compozițiunile_lor#cite_ref-1, (consulted on 28.02.2013).
71
Nicolae Gheorghiță, Byzantine Chant between Constantinople and The Danubian Principalities – Studies in
Byzantine Musicology, editura Σοφια (Sophia), Bucharest, 2010, p. 1-83.
72
Nicolae Gheorghiță, Byzantine Chant…, p. 10-33.

23
Paşcanu, the “postelnic” (seneschal) Manolache Draghici73, etc.
As it can be observed, the musicians of the time came not only from the religious
environment, but also among the noblemen or wealthy townsmen, either studying music with
tutors, or in schools around monasteries or at the Royal Court.
Along with Turkish and Greek musicians, we find Romanian names indicated as well,
proof that not only in the church pew the native element was present, but also in the extra-
ecclesiastical environment, which is an important factor in understanding properly and
consistently the cultural and social framework of the age mentioned in the previous
paragraphs.
The musical repertoire of the Phanariote Age is mostly of “blue heart”, but consists also
of previous compositions - Cantemir's creations, and post - adaptations of various opera arias
and vaudeville, preserving the Oriental “scent”.
Although Phanariot rulers found their appointment in the Romanian Principalities as a
source for fast enrichment, impoverishing the people by taxes, from a cultural point of view,
this age offered a favorable framework for the development and diversification of the literary,
musical and visual arts, out of which rose and stood out representatives of the Romanian
society such as Mihalache Moldovlahul, Benjamin Costaki, Anton Pann, Macarios the Monk,
Dimitrie Suceveanu, Nicolae Filimon and many others74.
The composers of this period, either Greek, Romanian, Turkish or of other nationalities,
created religious and/or secular musical works, using the musical and lexical treasury
preserved by tradition, with the parameters and rules discussed in the previous pages,
developing and/or adapting the components to their own cultural and spiritual values altering
their original meaning.
The symbiosis of sounds was performed simultaneously and yet differently, by
impregnating the same ways used with elements from the original ethos of each nation,
resulting in a melodic and harmonic polysemantism difficult to translate into non- modal
musical languages like the Western type tonality, and in the same time giving the listener an
intelligible information, as real and true for each in turn: Greek, Turkish and Romanian.
The musical creations of this period are customized by their place of birth – the
Romanian Principalities, but also by combining the patterns and musical rhythm from the
three traditions, different from the current practice of the Polis.

73
Mihail Gr. Posluşnicu, Istoria musicei la români, de la Renaştere până-n epoca de consolidare a culturii
artistice, cu o prefaţă a domnului Nicolae Iorga, Cartea Românească, Bucureşti, 1928, p. 521-522.
74
Nicolae Gheorghiță, Byzantine Chant…, p. 37-82.

24
 Thus, we find combined and adjoined in Ottoman suite pattern (fasil) compositions and
usuler75 of beste, semai, yürük semai type specific to the above mentioned pattern, with
rhythmic structures encountered in Romanian dances (hora), and cases of takeover of popular
songs, adapting them to the Romanian language and changing the original shape by reversing
the parts.
In Anton Pann’s collection of songs “Spitalul Amorului/ The hospital of amour” there
can be found musical creations originally composed in Greek or Turkish and by translation
and melodic adaptation they became part of the habitual repertoire of performers and
Romanian fiddlers, as “D’ai şti sufleţelul meu/ If only you would know my little soul” a
possible version after “Usküdar'a gider iken” of the Turkish repertoire of Constantinople.
There are cases when sound elements of Romanian tradition became part of the
repertoire used by the Oriental peoples, a good example being Longa – a Turkish and Arabic
musical form, which was borrowed during the Turkish influence in the Romanian
Principalities - in fact, Hora with a specific rhythmic structure (2/4) but organized in three
chane (parts) the first one having the role of chorus (teslim)76.
In order to understand these ideas and to support these assertions, we have chosen a
musical work taken from the collection of songs by Anton Pann “Spitalul Amorului: Vai, ce
ceas, ce zi, ce jale/ The hospital of amour: oh, such hour, such day, such sadness”77,
comparing it with variants of the Greek and Turkish traditions.
“Ti megali simphora” is traditionally attributed to Prince Cantemir, aspect treated in an
article belonging to the musicologist Gheorghe Ciobanu78. The composition is found in the
collection Pandora79, published by Th. Phokaeos in 1843 with the title of “Beste, makam
Nisaburek, usul Sofian”, and in “Spitalul Amorului”80, a collection of songs by Anton Pann
published in 1852, entitled Cântecul 38 after the Greek composition “Ti megali simphora”.

75
73. Rhythmic cycles, rigorously organized into groups and structures that accompany the songs affinity for
certain forms and makams. Ex. aksak semai and yuruk semai, used only in the form of Saz Semai.
76
Eric Bernard Ederer, op.cit., p. 582; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longa_(Middle_Eastern_music) consulted
on 01.03.2013.
77
Anton Pann, Spitalul Amorului sau Cântătorul Dorului, Ediția a II-a, Broșura VI, în tipografia sa, București,
1852, p. 147-154.
78
Gheorghe Ciobanu, Un cântec al lui Dimitrie Cantemir în Colecția lui Anton Pann, în Studii de
Etnomuzicologie și Bizantinologie, Editura Muzicală a Uniunii Compozitorilor, București, 1974, p. 154-171.
79
Theodorou Parashou Phokaeos, I Pandora, 2 vol., în tipografia Patriarhiei Ecumenice, Constantinopol, 1843,
p. 1-5.
80
Anton Pann, p. 69-73

25
 In order to launch an analysis of alternatives, it is necessary to know the parameters of
functionality that will be the subject of research, in conjunction with establishing the
authorship and identifying the cultural and temporal framework to which the compositions
belong.
As far as it concerns the authorship, in his article, the musicologist Gheorghe Ciobanu
cites the work of T.T. Burada “Scrierile muzicale ale lui Dimitrie Cantemir, domnitorul
Moldovei/The musical writings of Dimitrie Cantemir, the ruler of Moldavia”81, a collection
of compositions attributed to the Moldavian Prince, borrowed during the research in the
Eastern world, from the manuscripts that were in the possession of Rauf Yekta Bey and from
the manuscript no. 4023, in the National Library in Paris. In the above mentioned collection it
is noted a Beste în makam Nisaburek, usul Muhammes82, whose song coincides 90% with the
version published in Pandora, but the poetic content is different from the Greek version.
A different aspect, developed by Gheorghe Ciobanu, is that of the sources used by
Anton Pann in composing the Romanian version.
A first source could be the collection Pandora, published in 1843 in Constantinople, but
the same emeritus researcher identifies another manuscript prior to the publication, written in
Greek, from the Romanian Academy Library in Bucharest, with the number 784, dated earlier
than 1820, where the song is found both in the pre-chrysanthic notation, f. 168r, and in the
chrysantic notation83, f.189v.
The title of the collection is “Poezii şi cântece lirice ale arhon postelnicului Gheorghe
Şuţu/Poems and lirical songs by first seneschal Gheorghe Şuţu” whose music was composed
by Nikephoros of Chios, a disciple of the poet and a Phanariot composer84 and is in the
opinion of Gheorghe Ciobanu, the plausible source that inspired Anton Pann85.
Since both sources, cited by Gheorghe Ciobanu and Nicolae Gheorghiță, are accurate,
the comparative method can be an alternative to analyze and elucidate issues concerning the
composer and the composition.

81
T. T. Burada, Scrierile muzicale ale lui Dimitrie Cantemir, domnitorul Moldovei, extas din Analele
Academiei Române, seria II - Tom. XXXII, Memoriile Secţiunii Literare, Bucureşti, 1911.
82
T. T. Burada, p. 32-34.
83
Gheorghe Ciobanu, p. 164-165; MS 784 BARB f. 168r – 173v.
84
Nicolae Gheorghiță, Byzantine Chant…, p. 64-65.
85
Gheorghe Ciobanu, p. 154-169.

26
 Regarding thus fact, along with the Manuscript no. 784 of BARB86 and T.T. Burada’s
publication of 1911, it is necessary to extend the materials analysis by incorporating the
Pandora collection published in Constantinople and the volumes by Anton Pann entitled
Spitalul Amorului/The hospital of amour.
Through synoptic exposure of the two variants in Greek and Turkish, we can observe
that there are similarities as far as it concerns the melodic level in more than 90%, while the
text differs thematically and poetically.
All three versions were composed in the pattern of Beste, in Makam Nisaburek, but the
Greek versions have Sofian Usul (4/4), while the Turkish song has Usul Muhammes (16/4 or
32/4).
After analyzing the three variants, Gheorghe Ciobanu concludes that Anton Pann used
as a source of inspiration the Greek variant namely the manuscript 784 BARB, but according
to his opinion, only the first 5 melodic phrases corresponding to the Greek version, the rest
being the result of Anton Pann's creative spirit.
In order to identify the other stanzas apparently existing only in the collection of Anton
Pann, we should take into consideration the publication of Phokaeus and MS 784, where the
Beste Ti Megali simphora is followed by two compositions: Semai-Beste, usul Semai87 and
Yürük Semai in Nakış pattern88, both in Makam Nisaburek. This sequel still does not appear
in the collection made by Burada, for this reason can only be used in the analysis of variants
of the first composition.
The comparative analysis and the synoptic exposure mentioned above can be helpful
tools in the analytical approach of this study. For an effective approach it is recommended to
identify the documents containing the complete version, comparing them to the melody from
Spitalul Amorului. As previously mentioned, the Greek text is different from the Turkish one;
in the first text the death of a young daughter is mourned, while in the second one, the
presence of the beloved lady is invoked, in a formulation reminiscent of King Solomon’s
Song of Songs.
Through schematic pattern there can be identified the melodic structures of the four
versions of the publications presented in the previous pages, mentioning that in this study we
will analyze the Beste composition only, the other two will be reviewed later only through the
collections where they occur - Pandora, MS 784 BARB and The hospital of Love.

86
Nicolae Gheorghiță, Byzantine Chant…, p. 64-65.
87
Theodorou Parashou Phokaeos, p. 6-8.
88
Theodorou Parashou Phokaeos, p. 8-10.

27
 a). Beste, the Greek collection Pandora (1843) – four stanzas

Stanza α + Stanza δ Stanza γ = Miyân (Meyân) Stanza β = Stanza α

b). Beste, the Greek variant- T. T. Burada collection (the second half of the XIXth century) –
1st stanza

c). Beste, manuscript 784 BARB, f. 168-174, in greek (~ 1820) – four stanzas
Stanza α + Stanza β Stanza γ = Miyân (Meyân) Stanza δ = Stanza α

d). Beste, from the collection The hospital of Love (1852) – 4 stanzas
Stanza I = Stanza α Stanza II = Stanza γ Stanza III = Stanza α Stanza III = Stanza γ

It is worth mentioning that all the melodic phrases of the four variants are slightly
different from their counterparts, this effect resulting from the different interpretation of
ornaments - different styles, but also from the construction of the composition as a whole.
In the melodic pattern b, we can notice a cyclicity, in the sense that C returns after each
group of two melodic phrases, while in a and c the development of the composition through
repetition and augmentation is obvious, having the text as a key element; d - translation /
adaptation of a Greek version – has formal similarities with b extended over two stanzas but
similar formulas can be identified only by the instrumentality of the two Greek versions.

28
 In the Ottoman music (classical Turkish), Beste is a secular musical genre like the
Gazel89, usually with lyrics in quatrain, being also called murabba (four verses). The four
lines of the stanza are called Zemin-Hane (foundation, the first part of the composition in
which it is presented and identified the makam), Nakarat-Hane (choir), Miyan-Hane (the
median part, here it can develop and modulate) and again Nakarat-Hane (return to the
original makam).
Rhythmically, for the Beste pattern "major" usûl (large, developed) of Muhammes type
(16/4 or 32/4) are used while the “minor” (small, simple) rhythmic modes as Sofian (4/4)
Semai (3/4) or Nim Sofian (2/4) are used mainly in Şarkı (an art song which became popular
during the reign of Sultan Selim the IIIrd, considered to be a mild form which replaced
Beste).
Following the melodic and formal structures of each version, b is constituted in a
consistent cyclical form without atypical repetitions and corresponds rhythmically to the
Beste pattern described form, while the Greek and Romanian versions are broadly in line
with the structural character mentioned in the title, developed in four stanzas.
It can be concluded that the Turkish song from T.T. Burada’s collection had preceded
the others, serving the latter as part of their creative inspiration to develop a suite for voice,
following the idea of the text. Since the MS 784 BARB is approximated prior to 1820, the
song from Burada's collection was created during the eighteenth century.
We cannot affirm with certainty that the song belongs to Dimitrie Cantemir because in
his collections, all of his compositions are only instrumental, without any text, but it is likely
that this version served as the stepping stone for George Şuţu Postelnicu in composing the
sad Beste devoted to his early deceased daughter.
In the two Greek collections, the complete composition comprises Beste - Usul Sofian,
Beste – usul Semai and Yürük Semai in Nakış pattern90, all in makam Nisaburek, indicating its
positioning in a suite for voice (fasl-i hânende).
The Romanian version follows the formal and the melodic contour of the MS 784
BARB but with ordinal position changes and internal restructuring of the melodic speech.
It is likely that the source of Anton Pann’s version could be another variant in use in the
Romanian Principalities which had not previously been noted, but known by oral tradition – a
genuine disseminator of musical culture in that period.

89
Voice form, semi-iprovisatory - Taxim with voice - with lyrics and free rhythm.
90
Poetical - melodic form in which the first two lines of lyrics follow one after the other, while the third line
consists of terennüm. Follow the fourth verse and then returns terennüm. Thus, this form consists of two parts
(Hane) and two terennüm.

29
Further research will certainly bring more information on this song in particular, but also of
this epoch.
Even if we analyzed schematically and briefly the song Ti Megali simphora, it can be
clearly observed the specificity of Oriental music in terms of form, melody and rhythm and,
especially concerning the ethos.
As mentioned in the previous pages, the music of the Phanariot period, composed in
the Romanian Principalities, features original elements arose by synthesizing the three
traditional sources and presenting a vivid interest to musicologists, but also for the
researchers of the cultural Romanian past be they historians, anthropologists, ethnologists or
scientists belonging to other branches of social sciences.

Conclusions

Dimitrie Cantemir is the author of the most important music treatise from the capital of
the Ottoman Empire in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and in the meantime, he
influenced the upcoming generations of musicians by imposing a concise direction in
harmony with the cultural status quo of the society of his time.
The collection of songs, some belonging to him, has remained to our days as having the
largest number of instrumental pieces, most of them belonging to elite court music (sarai)
and by its theoretical chapters it provides modern musicologists valuable information about
the aesthetics, style and taste of the epoch he lived in and created.
This study represents only a brief research into the musical environment of the XVIIIth
– XIXth centuries, starting from Dimitrie Cantemir, this fascinating Moldavian prince, who
managed to create a huge scientific work in various fields of science of his time leaving
precious information for the researchers keen on South-East European history and the
Ottoman society of that epoch, the topics covered will be developed in a series of articles and
lectures by the author.

30
 Bibliography

1. Popescu-Judetz, Eugenia, Dimitrie Cantemir. Cartea ştiinţei muzicii, Editura Muzicală a

Uniunii Compozitorilor, Bucureşti, 1973.
2. Wright, Owen Wright, Demetrius Cantemir, The Collection of Notations. Part II:
Commentary. (SOAS Musicology Series. Vol: 2.). London, School of Oriental and African
Studies, University of London, 2000;
3. Wright, Owen, Demetrius Cantemir: The collection of notations. Part 1: Text. Transcribed
and annotated by Owen Wright. (SOAS Musicology Series, Vol 1.) xxvii, London: School of
Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1992.
4. *** Academia de Științe a Moldovei, Dinastia Cantemireștilor, (sec. XVII-XVIII),
Coordonator, redactor ştiinţific, acad. Andrei Eşanu, ed. Știința, Chișinău, 2008.
5. Marin Constantin, Anthropological worldview in Dimitrie Cantemir’s Descriptio Moldavae,
in Antropologie și Cultură, Colecția Zilele Rainer, Ed. Niculescu, București 2014.
6. Costin N., Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei de la Ştefan sin Vasile-Vodă […] (1662–1711), in
Cronicile României sau Letopiseţele Moldovei şi Valahiei, vol. II, ed. a II-a, Bucureşti, 1872.
7. Feldman, Walter, Music of the Ottoman Court: makam, composition and the early Ottoman
instrumental repertoire, tom. 10 from Intercultural Music Studies, VWB-Verlag für
Wissenschaft und Bildung, 1996.
8. Sulzer Fr. J., Geschichte des transalpinischen Daciens, das ist: der Walachey, Moldau und
Bessarabiens, in Zusammenhange mit der Geschichte des übrigen Daciens als ein Versuch
einer allgemeinen dacischen Geschichte, vol. I; Wien, Rudolf Gräffer, 1781.
9. Tiberiu Al., Folcloristică. Organologie. Muzicologie. Studii, Bucureşti, 1980, Dimitrie
Cantemir şi muzica orientală.
10. Cantemir, Dimitrie, Viața lui Constantin Vodă Cantemir (Vita Constantini Cantemyrii),
traducere românească de N. Iorga, ediție nouă, îngrijită de Liliana Iorga, Editura Scrisul
Românesc, Craiova.
11. A.A. Vasiliev, Istoria Imperiului Bizantin, Ed. Polirom, București, 2010.
12. Pr. Vintilescu Petre, Despre poezia imnografică din cărţile de ritual şi cântarea bisericească,
tipărită cu binecuvântarea IPS Bartolomeu Arhiepiscopul Vadului, Feleacului şi Clujului,
Ediţia a II – a, Cluj – Napoca, 2005.
13. Iorga, Nicolae, Bizanţ după Bizanţ, Traducere după originalul în limba franceză intitulat
„Byzance apres Byzance” de Liliana Iorga –Pippidi, Bucureşti, Editura 100+1 GRAMAR,
2002.

31
14. Georgios Pachymeres, Syntagma tōn tessarōn mathēmatōn, arithmētikēs, mousikēs,
geōmetrias kai astronomias, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/437552/George-
Pachymeres (viewed at 15.04.2011).
15. The New Grove - Dictionary of Music and Musicians, second edition, edited by Stanley
Sadie, Executive Editor John Tyrrell, Grove, 2001, P.
16. Manuel Chrysaphes – On the theory of the Art of Chanting and on certain Erroneous Views
That Some Hold About it. Text, Translation and Commentary by D. E. Conomos (CSRM vol.
II), Wien, 1985.
17. Gabriel Hieromonachos – Abhandlung uber den Kirchengesang. Herausgegeben von
Christian Hannick und Gerda Wolfram (CSRM vol. I), Wien, 1985.
18. http://www.papyrology.ox.ac.uk/POxy/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyrhynchus_Papyri
viewed at 07.12.2015.
19. Pann, Anton, Bazul Teoretic şi Practic al Muzicii Bisericeşti sau Gramatica Melodică,
Bucureşti, Tipărit întru a sa tipografie de muzică bisericească, 1845.
20. Panţiru, Grigore, Notaţia şi Ehurile Muzicii Bizantine, Bucureşti, Editura Muzicală a Uniunii
Compozitorilor, 1971.
21. Secară, Constantin, Şcoala muzicală de la Putna în contextul muzicii bizantine din secolul al
XVI-lea, http://www.pitesti.ro (viewed at 10.09.2009).
22. Dimitrie Cantemir, Istoria Imperiului Otoman, creșterea și scăderea lui, trad. Dr. Ios.
Hodosiu, Ediția Societății Academice Române, București, 1876.
23. Θεοδορου Φωκαεως „Κρηπης του Θεορητικου και πρακτικου της Εκκλησιαστικης
Μουσικης”, Εν Αθηναις, 1842.
24. Burada T.T., Scrierile muzicale ale lui Dimitrie Cantemir, domnitorul Moldovei, București,
1911, p. 32-34.
25. Stathis, Gregorios Th., An Analysis of the Sticheron Τον ήλιον κρύψαντα by Germanos,
Bishop of New Patras [The Old ‘Synoptic’ and the New ‘Analytical’ Method of Byzantine
Notation], in „Studies in Eastern Chant”, vol. IV (ed. Miloš Velimirović), 1979.
26. Angelopoulos, Lykourgos, Vocile Bizanțului, trad. din lb. franceză de prep. univ. drd. Adrian
Sârbu, Asociația Culturală Byzantion, Iași, 2011.
27. Alexandru, Maria, O călătorie spre tezaurul nostru imnografic și muzical: Paleografia
cântului bizantin, I. elemente teoretice, Iași, iulie 2010.
28. Gheorghiță, Nicolae, Chinonicul duminical în perioada post – bizantină (1453 – 1821)
liturgică şi muzică, Editura Sophia, Bucureşti, 2009.

32
29. Rodolphe D’Erlanger, La Musique Arabe, Tome I, Al-Fārābi, Grand Traité de la Musique
(Kitābu al-mūsīqī al-kabīr livres I et II), traduction fraçaise, Paris, Librairie Orientaliste Paul
Geuthner, 1930.
30. Gheorghiţă, Nicolae, Chinonicul duminical în perioada post – bizantină (1453 – 1821)
liturgică şi muzică, Editura Muzicală, Bucureşti, 2007.
31. Χρυσανθου Αρχιεπισψοπου Διρραχιου τοθ εκ Μαδυτων, «Θεορητικον Μεγα της Μουσικης»,
(Marele Theoretikon al Muzicii), eν Τεργεστη, εν της τυπογραφιας Μιχαηλ Βαις (Michele
Weis), 1832.
32. Filimon, Nicolae, Lăutarii și compozițiunile lor,
http://ro.wikisource.org/wiki/Lăutarii_și_compozițiunile_lor#cite_ref-1 (viewed at
28.02.2013).
33. Gheorghiță, Nicolae, Byzantine Chant between Constantinople and The Danubian
Principalities – Studies in Byzantine Musicology, editura Σοφια (Sophia), Bucharest, 2010.
34. Mihail Gr. Posluşnicu, Istoria musicei la români, de la Renaştere până-n epoca de
consolidare a culturii artistice, cu o prefaţă a domnului Nicolae Iorga, Cartea Românească,
Bucureşti, 1928.
35. Eric Bernard Ederer, The Theory and Praxis of Makam in Classical Turkish Music 1910-
2010, a dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor
in Philosophy in Music, University of California, Santa Barbara, September 2011.
36. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longa_(Middle_Eastern_music) viewed at 01.03.2013.
37. Pann, Anton, Spitalul Amorului sau Cântătorul Dorului, Ediția a II-a, Broșura VI, în
tipografia sa, București, 1852.
38. Ciobanu, Gheorghe, Un cântec al lui Dimitrie Cantemir în Colecția lui Anton Pann, în Studii
de Etnomuzicologie și Bizantinologie, Editura Muzicală a Uniunii Compozitorilor, București,
1974, p. 154-171.
39. Theodorou Parashou Phokaeos, I Pandora, 2 vol., în tipografia Patriarhiei Ecumenice,
Constantinopol, 1843, p. 1-5.
40. MS 784 BARB f. 168r – 173v.

33