This book details the heated debate about the identity of Greek-Orthodox ecclesiastical music (broadly known as “Byzantine music” or “Byzantine chant”), which dominated the cultural life of the Greek Istanbulite communities during the last phase of Ottoman history (1856-1922). Simplifying Erol's account, the debate can be thinned down into one main question: whether Greek-Orthodox ecclesiastical music should follow western polyphonic models, or whether it should retain its monophonic, modal, and microtonal character. Followers of polyphony stressed its connection with western modernity and perceived microtonal modality as Ottoman secular influence and therefore as culturally and spiritually degenerating. Followers of monophony emphasized its historical continuity with Greek-Orthodox chanting and the connection of microtonality with Ancient Greek music theory. Both sides agreed on the necessity for a systematization of Orthodox liturgical music, arguing their positions in nationalist, orientalist, and modernist terms. Erol offers a detailed analysis of this debate by delineating a succession of discursive formations, theories, disputes, policies, and agencies. Her main argument is that although the debate predates the 1856-1922 period (41), the spread of nationalism, and upward mobility and the emergence of new social identities as a result of the 1856 Ottoman reforms were instrumental in the intensification of the debate and the consequent systematization and institutionalization of Greek-Orthodox ecclesiastical music. In short, Erol provides a historical account of how “Byzantine music” emerged as an ethnically and spiritually emblematic genre.

Erol covers all the protagonists of the debate, both individuals (cantors/musicians, musicologists, Church officials, and laymen) and institutions (the Ottoman state, cultural associations, schools, and the Patriarchate). Chapter One provides a short overview of the Istanbulite Greeks’ demography and identity. The second chapter, by following a class-based approach, demonstrates that the demand for reform of ecclesiastical music resulted from the adoption of the bourgeois distinction between spiritual and material (50). This distinction was introduced by the emerging Greek Istanbulite urban class and was expressed as a recognition of a decay of the chanting art, and a demand for stylistic clarity, music training, and standardization.

In Chapter Three, Erol examines the influence of historiography. She first juxtaposes the self-identification of Istanbulite Greeks as continuators of the Orthodox traditions with the problematic status of Byzantium in early Greek nationalism. In this context, she examines the concept of yphos (style) a “memorial accumulation” (82) that refers to the continuity between Byzantine and post-Byzantine music. She then accounts for the re-interpretation of yphos via theories of temperament, rhythm, and language as stemming from ancient Greek music (90-1), and hence as Greek musical essence that ensures the historical continuity of the nation against polyphonic westernization (92-6). This re-interpretation testifies to the transference of Constantine Paparregopoulos’ (d. 1891) foundational historiographic vision of Greek national continuity to music (70-1). In Chapter Four, Erol details the efforts of the Patriarchate's 1888 Musical Commission: the “cleansing” of chanting tradition from secular Ottoman influences, the rejection of polyphony, and the systematization of the temperament into thirty-six intervals (122-7). These policies responded to the demand for systematization against polyphonic westernization. The fifth chapter completes the discourse analysis, by examining the debate in the context of early twentieth-century nationalism, by detailing the theories of the leading Greek musicologist Georgios Pacthikos (1819-1916) (131-3 and 142-4). In this chapter Erol presents how the concept of “Byzantine music” emerged as a culmination and completion of the debate. Chapter Six examines Greek music as act of political allegation and addresses the reactions of the Ottoman regime.

Chapters Three through Five provide a kaleidoscopic account of the debate. Erol demonstrates the interweaving between modernity, orientalism, and nationalism through the practice of musical discourse. For example, Chapter Three focuses on the recognition of a Greek ecclesiastical music style (yphos) and therefore of a music tradition. While this recognition frames the modernist dichotomy of progress versus modernity, the validation of the style through Greek nationalist historiography as pre-Ottoman, brings to the fore nationalism and orientalism. Similar points can be made for Chapters Four and Five. In every instance, Erol by examining one discourse and dispute moment allows for the emergence of the other two as meta-discourses, offering a Foucauldian archaeological analysis of the debate. Hence, the debate emerges as a field for the negotiation of modernity, nationalism, and orientalism, exemplifying the discursive significance of music.

The book also offers an analysis of late Ottoman Greek cosmopolitanism. Based on Thomas Turino's theory of cosmopolitanism (29),Footnote ¹ Erol demonstrates how the debate negotiates an Ottoman Greek cosmopolitanism that combines visions of the Greek nation with Ottoman multiculturalism. In this context, Erol presents the non-irredentist cultural nationalism of the Ottoman Greeks—offering an analysis beyond nationalist interpretations of the Empire's religious minorities as either subversive or revolutionary. Regarding Byzantine musicology, the book provides a refreshing account of the initial questions that led to the emergence of the sub-discipline in a fruitful dialogue with relevant scholarship (e.g. Alexader Khalil 2009)Footnote ². Finally, the book contributes to an understanding of the Greek Ottoman past beyond the traumas of the 1922 events and the nostalgic lens of the “unforgettable homelands.”

This book is not for the broader audience. It requires a solid knowledge of late Ottoman history, Greek Orthodoxy, and Byzantine music. Minor weaknesses stem from Erol's scope: the focus on Istanbul, the historical approach, and the exclusion of music analysis. The book deals with the musical, but not with music itself. This weakens her analysis of discourse as practice (13), by evoking questions regarding performance. However, a book cannot possibly exhaust all the complications of its subject. Moreover, these minor weaknesses are remedied significantly by the online audio examples, an essential part of the book, and by citations of relevant literature.

Erol provides an exemplary, sensitive, and profound account of a debate that shaped Greek-Orthodox religious consciousness, Greek national identity, and late Ottoman society. Her work is formidable as a musicological and historical study, illuminating neglected aspects of Ottoman history, and making a powerful argument for tolerance and multiculturalism.