Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T07:46:21.062Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Greek and Latin Cherubikon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2017

NINA-MARIA WANEK
NINA-MARIA WANEK*
Affiliation:
nina-maria.wanek@univie.ac.at
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article focuses on the so-called ordinary Cherubikon/Cherubic hymn (Οἱ τὰ χερουβίμ/Oi ta Cherubim) found in Byzantine manuscripts in connection with the Divine Liturgies of St John Chrysostomos and St Basil throughout the church year except for Lent and Easter. The Cherubikon is not, however, restricted to Byzantine codices, but can be found in various Latin manuscripts transliterated into Western letters and written with Western neumes.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Plainsong & Medieval Music , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , October 2017 , pp. 95 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press, 2017 

The singing of Greek chants in the medieval Latin West was quite widespread, and scholarly research concerning these chants goes back at least to the nineteenth century. An important milestone was, however, reached in 1947 with the publication of Egon Wellesz's Eastern Elements in Western Chant.Footnote 1 Soon afterwards Jacques Handschin and Michel Huglo dealt with the so-called Missa graeca,Footnote 2 although mainly from a Western point of view. More recently Charles M. Atkinson has written extensively on the subject.Footnote 3 Questions of why and how these chants found their way into Western manuscripts remain unanswered. Neither do we know what the origins of these compositions were. Were the Byzantine melodies imported into the West through the agency of monks, singers, diplomats and their like? Or are they instead clever imitations by Western monks and Grecophile scholars? These questions will not in all likelihood be answered soon inasmuch as we are still dealing with too many unknowns and they will not be addressed here. Instead, because the Cherubikon is seldom considered in the context of such bilingual chants, it has been chosen as a suitable object of research in hopes of reassessing the historical, theological, liturgical and melodic aspects in question.

Definition and text of the Cherubikon

The Cherubikon, also called the Cherubic or mystic hymn, is a troparion – a short composition used as a refrain for psalm verses – normally sung at the Great Entrance in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy.Footnote 4 Figure 1 compares the Byzantine and Latin texts and provides an English translation.Footnote 5

Fig. 1

Byzantine and Latin texts of the Cherubikon, with English translation.

As to its liturgical place and early historical development in the East, the Cherubikon was inserted into the Divine Liturgy as an offertory chant probably in the sixth century.Footnote 6 According to the historian Georgios Kedrenos (fl. 11th cent.),Footnote 7 Emperor Iustinus II (565–78) allegedly ordered it and the Τοῦ δείπνου σου (Cenae tuae) to be sung during the Divine Liturgy for Maundy Thursday, although Kedrenos neither indicates the composer's name nor the exact liturgical placement of the Cherubikon. Eutychios, a sixth-century patriarch of Constantinople, lends support to the dating, informing us of a precursor to the Cherubikon (as we know it from later centuries) in a homily condemning the worship of the non-consecrated gifts in which he talks about the ‘King of Glory’ (‘Ο βασιλεὺς τῆς δόξης’).Footnote 8 This points not to the Cherubikon (which speaks of the ‘King of All’) but a psalm that must have been sung during the Eucharistic offering or anaphora,Footnote 9 likely psalm 24, in which the expression ‘King of Glory’ is used five times in verses 7–10.Footnote 10 It is reasonable to infer that, prior to the insertion of the Cherubikon into the liturgy, the cantors would have sung this psalm, probably with Alleluia as the responsorial refrain by the congregation. The Cherubikon may at first have been added as a refrain to the psalm, as was the usage of troparia.Footnote 11 Over the centuries the Cherubikon first replaced the Alleluia, then the complete psalm, probably because its text was deemed more appropriate to the Great Entrance.

The Cherubikon was at first sung without interruption, but apparently in the fourteenth century the ceremony for bringing the gifts to the altar was extended, necessitating not just the interruption of the Cherubikon, but also a change to its text. Instead of τῶν ὅλων ὑποδεξάμενοι (the aorist participle) the passage reads τῶν ὅλων ὑποδεξόμενοι (the future participle), the latter form being found in nearly all musical manuscripts from the fifteenth century on.Footnote 12 Originally there was only one Alleluia at the end of the Cherubikon (Alleluia being a common ending to Byzantine troparia) but three Alleluias became customary in the fifteenth or sixteenth centuries.Footnote 13 At first, the triple Alleluia was intended solely for Easter, but Kenneth Levy posits that it may have been the result of a misunderstanding of a direction to sing the Cherubikon three times, which came to be applied to the Alleluia alone.Footnote 14 Perhaps because the Alleluia was sung at a very special moment, namely the placing of the gifts on the altar at very end of the Great Entrance, the Byzantines might have regarded the Alleluia as the equivalent of heavenly chanting, such as John describes in Revelation 19:1–6.Footnote 15

The history of the Great Entrance and its theological meaning have been widely discussed, thus only a brief summary will be offered here.Footnote 16 From earliest times the Byzantine Divine Liturgy seems to have known some kind of Great Entrance even if the ceremonial was less elaborate than we find in later descriptions. The procession developed chiefly on account of practical necessity, namely the carrying of the gifts to the altar, which happened at first without much ceremony and apparently without symbolism. This simple act took on increasing significance due mainly to developing theological interpretations, but also the expanding symbolism of the Divine Liturgy, particularly at this point in the service. The development of the ritual happened gradually over time, although as early as the fourth century a homily by Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 426) describes a procession that has the dimensions of a Great Entrance.Footnote 17

Since there is no evidence that the faithful took part in the procession, it is assumed that the Great Entrance developed from an earlier ceremony in which the deacons carried the gifts to the priest who then placed them on the altar.Footnote 18 In fact, most extant accounts of the Great Entrance describe just this.Footnote 19 Thus we know who participated but not the exact procession route: sources tell us only that it started from a so-called skeuophylakion, where the chalices and books for the Divine Liturgy were kept.Footnote 20 The gifts were prepared there before Mass and brought back there afterwards. The psalmists, whose usual place was the ambo, sang the Cherubikon from the solea, the portion of the bema (raised floor or platform) that extended beyond the sanctuary from the iconostasis into the nave. As the procession passed the solea the psalmists may have changed their location, although Neil K. Moran suggests that it might have been an expression of humility that the soloists chanted the Cherubikon from the solea rather than the ambo.Footnote 21

Liturgically as well as theologically the Cherubikon serves as a kind of preparation for the faithful for the next part of the Mass, especially the eucharistic sacrifice. As Dimitri Conomos explains, the ‘hymn symbolises the heavenly procession of Christ majestically escorted by hosts of angels “bearing” spears and crying “allelouia”. The heavenly King proceeds to the bloodless sacrifice to offer Himself to all those faithful who lay aside the things of the world and who join the Cheroubim in their unending praise.’Footnote 22 The faithful represent the Cherubim and their service, whereby the earthly liturgy imitates and reflects the celestial.Footnote 23 Yet the Cherubikon is also seen in a paschal context, in which the faithful ‘see’ again the suffering of Christ, an interpretation already found in eighth-century Byzantine sources including the writings of Patriarch Germanos. According to this interpretation, it would be insufficient to understand the Cherubikon only as a chant for the procession of the Holy Gifts. Its meaning is much more significant because during their entrance the Holy Gifts become a symbol for Christ himself and are worshipped by the faithful in regard to their consecration and communion.Footnote 24

The Cherubikon in the West

Little is known about the early history of the Cherubikon in Western Europe, in part because it was never a proper part of the Roman Mass.Footnote 25 It is assumed that the Cherubikon was introduced in the early ninth century, when it served as the Offertory of the so-called Missa graeca,Footnote 26 although James McKinnon dates its appearance some three hundred years earlier.Footnote 27 The Cherubikon migrated to a temporary position among the verses of the Offertory for Trinity Sunday, ‘Benedictus sit’, in northern Europe. An independent Latin translation appears among the antiphons in a southern Italian processionalFootnote 28 and, according to The New Harvard Dictionary of Music, a Latin translation of the Cherubikon (Qui cherubim mystice) is also found without notation as a processional antiphon for the Dedication.Footnote 29 Michel Huglo discovered that it was customary at St Denis until the seventeenth century to sing it in Greek at such special feasts as Christmas, Easter, Pentecost and the feast of the patron saint.Footnote 30

In any event, it remains unclear why the Cherubikon was used in the West at all. Ewald Jammers was of the opinion that it was not a Latin invention but rather was based on a Greek source, questioning how a Western monk could have composed a new text that was incomprehensible to him and that was not of immediate use in the liturgy.Footnote 31 Gerlach concurs in suspecting that the Cherubikon was an ‘import’ transcribed from Greek into Latin.Footnote 32

Eastern and Western manuscripts containing Cherubika

Cherubika can be found in a great many Byzantine sources. Among the earliest neumed diastematic manuscripts are two from the Library in Grottaferrata and two from the Greek National Library in Athens.

  1. 1. Grottaferrata, Cod. crypt. graec. 156 (Γ.γ. I), fols. 34–5 (dated 1225),Footnote 33 is an Asmatikon manuscript from Messina that employs Middle Byzantine neumes.Footnote 34

  2. 2. Grottaferrata, Cod. crypt. graec. 62 (Γ.γ. VII), fol. 149 (13th cent.),Footnote 35 in which the Cherubikon is a later addition in late Byzantine neumes c.1400. Interestingly, this version is syllabic in outline while the older Cherubikon is highly melismatic. Neil K. Moran, who transcribed it, writes that it ‘manifests two musical styles. The first section Οἱ τὰ χερουβὶμ μυστικῶς εἰκονζοντες . . . τριάδι is in the style of the Sticherarion; the following section represents the purely kalophonic style . . . Neither the first nor the second part of the composition exist in parallel versions.’Footnote 36

  3. 3. Athens, EBE 2458, fols. 161v–167r, 173v–176r (dated 1336), in Middle Byzantine notation from the Monastery of the Forerunner in Serres.Footnote 37 According to Levy, the ‘Cherubikon asmatikon’ on fol. 161v is the earliest copy of this type, ‘an extended, composite work, with mixed choral and solo sections, again in the deuteros plagal; its initial section is related in basic material . . . to the corresponding section of the ordinary Cherubikon in the Asmatikon.’Footnote 38

  4. 4. Athens, EBE 2622, 369r–377r (dated 1341–c.1360) was also copied at the Monastery of the Forerunner in Serres and employs Middle Byzantine notation. It is a Papadike manuscript with mixed repertory similar to the anthology-type collection EBE 2458.Footnote 39

Three later manuscripts in the Vienna Austrian National Library will also be considered here:

  1. 5. Phil. gr. 194, fols. 29v–136r, 155r–161v (15th cent., first half), an anthology manuscript which contains chants for the Orthros and Hesperinos, among others.Footnote 40

  2. 6. Theol. gr. 185, fol. 255v–264r (c.1400), a music-liturgical anthology that seems to have come from Thessalonica and includes chants for the Orthros, Hesperinos and other liturgies.Footnote 41

  3. 7. Suppl. gr. 190, fol. 43r–81r (late 18th cent.), a music-liturgical anthology of unknown origin with late Byzantine notation.Footnote 42

Finally, the remainder of this article will examine four relatively early Western manuscripts that contain the Cherubikon.Footnote 43

  1. 1. Düsseldorf, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, Ms. D2, fol. 203v (10th cent.), is a sacramentary from Corvey, the only source of the Missa graeca to include the Cherubikon.Footnote 44 According to Handschin it is also the earliest adiastematic source and contains a more richly ornamented version of the melody than the other codices surveyed here. The Cherubikon is designated as the offertory for PentecostFootnote 45 and has a Greek text copied in the Latin alphabet.Footnote 46

  2. 2. London, British Library, Harley 3095, fol. 111v (10th cent., 2nd or 3rd quarter), a manuscript mainly devoted to the works of Boethius, contains as an early eleventh-century addition a richly ornamented Cherubikon with Latin text copied in German neumes.Footnote 47 The liturgical place for the Cherubikon here is after the feast of the Resurrection and before Pentecost.Footnote 48

  3. 3. Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, Ms. 384, fol. 153 (11th cent.), a gradual from St Denis, contains a Latin-texted Cherubikon designated as an offertory for Trinity Sunday (rather than Pentecost, as in Düsseldorf D2).

  4. 4. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, fonds lat. ms. 9436, fol. 57 (11th cent.), is a missal from St Denis with a Latin-texted Cherubikon.Footnote 49

The melodic style of the Eastern Cherubika

As previously noted, in the earliest sources apparently only the Cherubikon melody for the choir, preserved in the so-called Asmatikon, comes down to us, not the soloistʼs version, which would have been written down in the Psaltikon, the book for soloists.Footnote 50 Because only the first line and final Alleluia of Οἱ τὰ χερουβίμ is given in the Asmatikon, Oliver Strunk proposed that ‘Either this setting was regarded in its day as too well known to require copying or the intervening lines were sung by a soloist whose melody the Psaltikon has not preserved.’Footnote 51 We now know from Anthony of Novgorodʼs description of the Divine Liturgy at Hagia Sophia (c.1200) that eunuchs sang the Cherubikon and a monk was assigned some solo parts.Footnote 52

An almost countless number of Eastern manuscripts containing Cherubika preserve a great many different melodic settings that varied considerably over the course of time.Footnote 53 Even the earliest sources transmit rather elaborate versions.Footnote 54 The earliest preserved Asmatika containing the Cherubic Hymn, namely Mount Athos, Codex Laura Γ 3 and Vatican Library, Vat. gr. 1606, both from the thirteenth century, yield but a single version of the chant melody;Footnote 55 manuscripts of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries transmit seventeen, seven by known hymnographers of the fourteenth century, eight by hymnographers of the fifteenth along with two older melodies. The Cherubika in these sources are arranged chronologicallyFootnote 56 and the hymnographers’ names are almost always given at the beginning (see Fig. 2a and 2b).Footnote 57 Moreover, fourteenth- and fifteenth-century manuscripts, including Vienna Phil. gr. 194 and Theol. gr. 185 (Fig. 2a and 2b), contain references to the origin of the hymnographers or the execution of the hymn.Footnote 58

Fig. 2a and 2b

Comparison of Vienna, Austrian National Library, Mss. Phil gr. 194 (132r) and Theol. gr. 185 (259r) with indications of hymnographers’ names at the beginnings of Cherubika. © Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek.

Until the mid-fifteenth century only the second and fourth modes authentic and plagal were used for the Cherubikon with the sole exception of the version by Xenos Korones (14th cent.), written in the first plagal mode.Footnote 59 (In later manuscripts, and mainly in post-Byzantine times, Cherubika are found in all eight modes.) Nonetheless Cherubika of the fourteenth century differ distinctly from those of the fifteenth in their melodic outlines. The earlier consist of seemingly random sequences of melodic elements, of which some are identical, but others are repeated in varied forms. The fifteenth-century Cherubika show a somewhat looser compositional structure. Some later hymnographers worked mainly with units between two medial signatures, whose melodic line is formed freely and independently throughout.Footnote 60 The Alleluia is of particular musical interest in this regard because it was still part of the main body of the Cherubikon in the fourteenth century. In the fifteenth century, the Alleluia gains more independence and displays a free melodic outline, having almost no formulas or melodic elements in common with the other parts of the Cherubikon. Alleluia melodies became ever longer over the centuries due to the prolongation of the Divine Liturgy at the point at which the clergy entered the sanctuary and the priest and the deacon exchanged a final dialogue.Footnote 61 In post-Byzantine times, the Alleluia became extremely elaborate and artistic in outline and does not show any formulas at all (Fig. 3).Footnote 62

Fig. 3

Alleluia section of a Cherubikon by Ioannes Glykys, Ms. Phil. gr. 194 (133r).

The middle section of the Cherubikon (beginning πᾶσαν τὴν βιωτικὴν bis ἀλληλούϊα), sung by the soloistsFootnote 63 constitutes the culmination of the hymn (see Fig. 4). At the words ὡς τὸν βασιλέα τῶν ὅλων ὑποδεξόμενοι (‘that we may receive the King of All’) ‘the music stops and a procession of clergy takes place’Footnote 64 and the so-called commemorations are said. After this the clergy returns to the sanctuary and the Cherubikon concludes. As Conomos has demonstrated, the melody at its midpoint is practically the same in all the fourteenth-century Cherubika, comprising the repetition of one single note (mainly a') and a short embellishment. Fifteenth-century Cherubika sometimes transpose this up a fifth,Footnote 65 the climbing motif perhaps suggesting that a high point in the Divine Liturgy had been reached.

Fig. 4

Middle section (ὡς τὸν βασιλέα τῶν ὅλων ὑποδεξόμενοι / that we may receive the King of All) of a Cherubikon by Ioannes Glykys, Ms. Phil. gr. 194 (132v).

Often the ὡς τὸν βασιλέα section is flanked by so-called teretismata. As the Cherubika are very melismatic chants, the words of this section were stretched to make room for the various melismata or vocalises into which were inserted meaningless syllables, often on -te-te- or -te-re-, -to-to-, -ri-ri-ri- or such like. These teretismata can already be found in compositions of the fourteenth century, and were meant to represent the ceaseless chanting of the angels (see Fig. 5).Footnote 66

Fig. 5

Teretismata (vocalises) from a Cherubikon by Agallianos, Ms. Phil. gr. 194 (131v).

An important characteristic of the Eastern Cherubika is their versatility. In this respect they are unlike other Byzantine compositions, which did not usually undergo significant changes in melodic outline over time, adherence to the old forms and formulas having been considered much too important. Many such chants were only slightly reworked by younger generations of hymnographers and thus remained stable until the eighteenth century. The Cherubikon, however, inspired many melodes to create new compositions, probably on account of its frequent liturgical use as well as to its text, which is highly suitable for choral music.

Changes to the melodies of the Cherubika are already evident in fourteenth and fifteenth-century sources. Taking a Cherubikon by Ioannes Glykys as an example,Footnote 67 one may discern that it appears in different versions in later manuscripts, including Theol. gr. 185 (fol. 259r) and Phil. gr. 194 (fol. 132r). There are many places where the melodies do not overlap and where Phil. gr. 194, the younger source, contains melismata not found in Theol. gr. 185 (compare Fig. 6a and 6b).

Fig. 6a and 6b

Comparison of melismata in Mss. Phil gr. 194 (132r) and Theol. gr. 185 (259r).

Quite often just the beginning of a new colon has the same sequence of neumes, but then the younger manuscript follows its own course (Fig. 7a and 7b).

Fig. 7a and 7b

Comparison of colon beginnings in Mss. Phil gr. 194 (132r) and Theol. gr. 185 (259r).

There are also a few cases in which Theol. gr. 185 contains a small melisma which Phil. gr. 194 does not include in its version (Fig. 8a and 8b).

Fig. 8a and 8b

Comparison of short melismata in Theol. gr. 185 (259r) and Mss. Phil gr. 194 (132v).

Comparing the Cherubikon from Theol. gr. 185 with the one in Athens EBE 2458 (fol. 164v), it is apparent that they are the same melody except for some short passages mostly in the Alleluia section. EBE 2458 differs at the same points from Phil. gr. 194, as does Theol. gr. 185, so it is safe to conclude that the Cherubikon in the younger codex has already been reworked (Fig. 9).

Fig. 9

Short melismata in Athens, National Library, Ms. EBE 2458 (165v), cf. Fig. 8a and 8b.

The Cherubika of post-Byzantine times differ even more from the oldest examples than did those of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Referring again to the Cherubikon by Glykys, but comparing it to one found in a late eighteenth-century manuscript, Vienna, Austrian National Library, Suppl. gr. 190, fol. 74r, it is evident that it bears hardly any resemblance to older Cherubika (see Fig. 10a–c).

Fig. 10a, 10b and 10c

Comparison of μυστικῶς εἰκονίζοντες / mystically represent, Vienna, National Library, Mss. Suppl. gr. 190 (74r), Theo. gr. 185 (259r) and Phil. gr. 194 (132r). © Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek.

In only a few places does the old melody from Theol. gr. 185 seem to have been preserved as a kind of framework; for example, on the word εἰκονίζοντες, whose beginning is similar to Theol. gr. 185, but which is then developed in a much more extended way, or at the phrase καὶ τῇ ζωοποιῷ, which also takes up the beginning from the old Cherubikon, but goes on to use the repertory of eighteenth-century formulas (Fig. 11a–c). At τριάδι the beginning (until the first medial signature) is the same in Suppl. gr. 190 and Theol. gr. 185, but the former takes up a melisma on the last syllable of τριάδι, which cannot be found in Theol. gr. 185, but is already present in Phil. g. 194.

Fig. 11a, 11b and 11c

Comparison of καὶ τῇ ζωοποιῷ τριάδι / to the life-giving Trinity, Mss. Suppl. gr. 190 (74r), Theo. gr. 185 (259r) and Phil. gr. 194 (132r).

On the contrary, the phrase τὸν τρισάγιον (Fig. 12a and 12b) features only certain intervals (the ascending third or the fourth) that are reminiscent of the old basic melody. Otherwise the melodic lines here are completely different.

Fig. 12a and 12b

Comparison of τὸν τρισάγιον / the thrice-holy, Mss. Suppl. gr. 190 (74r) and Theo. gr. 185 (259r).

The same can be said about ὕμνον, where Suppl. gr. 190 has a much longer melody, one that does not even take up the melisma from Phil. gr. 194 (Fig. 13a and 13b). Πᾶσαν τὴν βιωτικήν shares a common beginning with Theol. gr. 185, but is much longer and developed differently compared with the earlier manuscripts (Fig. 14a and 14b).

Fig. 13a and 13b

Comparison of ὕμνον / hymn, Mss. Suppl. gr. 190 (74r) and Theol. gr. 185 (259r).

Fig. 14a and 14b

Comparison of Πᾶσαν τὴν βιωτικήν / all worldly, Mss. Suppl. gr. 190 (74r) and Theol. gr. 185 (259r).

Neither ἀποθώμεθα μέριμναν nor ὡς τὸν βασιλέα shows any resemblances to the old Cherubikon; only at the beginnings of ὑποδεξόμενοι and δορυφορούμενον τάξεσιν, as well as at the Alleluia sequence, can some similarities be found.

The Cherubikon in Suppl. gr. 190 may thus be called a free adaptation of Glykys's original melody. As there are already many differences between Theol. gr. 185 and Phil. gr. 194, so even a hundred years after Glykys the tradition cannot have been stable any more. These changes might be due to the frequent usage of Glykys's Cherubikon, which was embellished with numerous different added melismata or melodic ornaments. By the eighteenth century, the Cherubikon had been altered so much that it hardly bears any resemblance to the old version. There is only one feature that Suppl. gr. 190 takes over from the version found in EBE 2458. Glykys's Cherubikon is divided into five textual sections, where the same melody is always used for a different text: οἱ τὰ χερουβίμ, ζωοποιῷ, τὴν βιωτικήν, ὡς τὸν βασιλέα, τῶν ὅλων and ταῖς ἀγγελικαῖς agree with each other; a second group uses the same melody for εἰκονίζοντες, πᾶσαν, ἀοράτως etc.Footnote 68 In Suppl. gr. 190 this structure is partially taken up in such a way that the phrases οἱ τὰ χερουβίμ, ζωοποιῷ and τὴν βιωτικήν also have identical melodies. Suppl. gr. 190, however, does not make use of this structure as consequently as EBE 2458 and therefore does not employ the same melody for the remaining words or phrases.Footnote 69

The Western melodies

Even though all Western sources under consideration employ adiastematic neumes, it can still be seen in Example 1 that Harley 3059, Paris Bibliothèque Mazarine 384 and Paris BnF 9436 have the same melody.Footnote 70 The Mazarine 384 and BnF 9436 melodies are especially close in structure and employ the same neume shapes. Harley 3059, notated in German neumes, preserves a more ornamented version, with melismata on a number of vowels. The manuscript itself is older than the French ones, making it possible that a melody like that in Harley could have served as basis of the melodies copied in Mazarine 384 and BnF 9436.

Ex. 1

Comparison of Latin Cherubika in four medieval Western sources.

a The manuscript ‘MS-D-2 Liturgische Sammelhandschrift (Sacramentarium Gregorio-Hadrianum)’ is a loan from the city of Düsseldorf to the ‘Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Düsseldorf’. The excerpts of the manuscript are printed by permission of the library.

b © British Library Board, B. M. Harley 3095.

c © Bibliothèque Mazarine.

d © Bibliothèque Nationale de France

The oldest of the four Western versions, Düsseldorf D2, would seem the furthest removed from the others. In Handschin's opinionFootnote 71 it is the most richly ornamented, although it could be argued that Harley 3059 is more melismatic still. Comparing the two more closely reveals traces of similarity, such as the melodic outline of ‘et vivificae Trinitatis’ and ‘καὶ τῇ ζωοποιῷ τριάδι, ‘sanctum’ and ‘(τρισ)άγιον, ‘omnem nunc mundanam’ and ‘πᾶσαν τὴν βιωτικὴν’. Indeed, the closer one looks, the stronger the impression that these are very similar melodies. This is all the more surprising inasmuch as Düsseldorf D2 employs the transliterated Greek text, which not only has a different number of syllables from the Latin, but also has vowels in different places.

We might posit that the Western manuscripts reflect one and the same melodic tradition despite the differences in melismatic vs syllabic density, but we still lack its Byzantine source, let alone one that could bear scrutiny as suitably ‘old’ let alone ‘original’. According to Moran, ‘not a single asmatikon in Palaeo-Byzantine notation [has] come down to us’, meaning that no manuscript of a comparably early date survives.Footnote 72 Turning to the Cherubikon in one of the earliest extant Asmatika,Footnote 73 namely Grottaferrata, Codex crypt. graec. 156 (Γ.γ. I), copied in 1225, we find under the heading ποίημα Συμεὼν τοῦ ΕἱρμολόγουFootnote 74 a highly melismatic chant, indeed one more melismatic than some later versions, including Ioannes Glykysʼs Cherubikon discussed above.Footnote 75 Moran has written that this Cherubikon melody ‘forms part of an extended composition for choir and soloists in Late Byzantine manuscripts . . . [I]n this arrangement the ancient melody is retained for the initial section of the text and the Alleluja; the main part of the composition consists of new melodies composed by Late Byzantine hymnographers.’Footnote 76 Comparing its beginning in Codex crypt. graec. 156 and EBE 2458, one can detect traces of the Grottaferrata melody in the Athens source (Fig. 15a and 15b).Footnote 77

Fig. 15a and 15b

Comparison Grottaferrata, Codex crypt. graec. 156 (Γ.γ. I) (34v) and EBE 2458 (161v).

If there were a syllabic original of the Byzantine Cherubic hymn, if such ever existed, it has not survived. Handschin, in 1954 referring explicitly to the Cherubikon in Grottaferrata, Codex crypt. graec. 156, concluded that no resemblances exist between this melody and ones in the Western manuscripts.Footnote 78 Three decades later Conomos hypothesised that the music of the Cherubikon was likely to have been rather elaborate from earliest times, rendering dubious the prospects for comparing ‘the Byzantine Cherubikon’ with any of the four surviving early Western versions.

Such comparison remains risky for five reasons: (1) the likelihood that rather than a single original there were several different versions of the Cherubikon from the beginning; (2) the fact that the Western sources were copied centuries before the extant Byzantine ones; (3) the earliest surviving Byzantine Cherubika are more highly melismatic than their Western counterparts; (4) the inherent uncertainty of correctly reconstructing the Western Cherubikon from adiastematic neumes; and (5) one Western source, Düsseldorf D2, transmits Greek text, but the fact that it is in a transliterated form means that the syllable count and the vowels on which melismata might be placed would differ from the ‘original’ Greek.

Thus the prospects for a serious and thorough comparison of the Greek and Western Cherubika are not good. Even if this is an unsatisfactory outcome, one must conclude that such a comparison would be based too much on hypothesis and guesswork. At the moment and until proven otherwise we can only state that the Byzantine and Western sources seem not to have much in common and that it seems doubtful that the Byzantine Cherubikon could really have been taken over in the West. As long as we do not know any more details as to how and who might have transmitted and imported this chant, it is safest to conclude that the text of the Cherubikon was taken over in the West, but probably set to a newly composed melody.

References

1 Monumenta musicae byzantinae, Subsidia 2 (Oxford, 1947).

2 Handschin, Jacques, ‘Sur quelques tropaires grecs traduits en latin’, Annales musicologiques, 2 (1954), 27–60 Google Scholar; Huglo, Michel, ‘Les chants de la Missa graeca de Saint-Denis’, in Essays Presented to Egon Wellesz, ed. Westrup, Jack (Oxford, 1966), 74–83Google Scholar. The term Missa graeca usually refers to the four ordinary chants with Greek texts, Gloria (Doxa/Δόξα), Credo (Pisteuo/Πιστεύω), Sanctus (Hagios/Ἅγιος) and Agnus Dei (Amnos tu theu/Ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ), found in Western manuscripts between the ninth and the eleventh centuries. The Cherubic Hymn, ‘Qui cherubim mystice’ (Oi ta Cherubim/Οἱ τὰ χερουβίμ) is sometimes also included.

3 Atkinson, Charles M., ‘The Earliest Agnus Dei Melody and its Tropes’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 30/1 (1977), 1–19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘O amnos tu theu: The Greek Agnus Dei in the Roman Liturgy from the Eighth to the Eleventh Century’, Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch, 65 (1981), 7–30; idem, ‘Zur Entstehung und Überlieferung der “Missa graeca”’, Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 39/2 (1982), 113–45; idem, ‘The Doxa, the Pisteuo, and the ellinici fratres: Some Anomalies in the Transmission of the Chants of the “Missa graeca”’, Journal of Musicology, 7 (1989), 81–106; idem, ‘Further Thoughts on the Origin of the Missa graeca’, in De Musica et cantu, Studien zur Geschichte der Kirchenmusik und der Oper. Helmut Hucke zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Peter Cahn and Ann-Katrin Heimer, Hochschule für Musik und Darstellende Kunst, Frankfurt am Main: Musikwissenschaftliche Publikationen 2 (Hildesheim, 1993), 75–94.

4 Beside Οἱ τὰ χερουβίμ/Qui Cherubim mystice there are another three Cherubika: (a) The troparion Τοῦ δείπνου σου/Cenae tuae/At your mystical supper replaces the Οἱ τὰ χερουβίμ on Maundy Thursday; (b) the celebration of the Paschal Vigil on Holy Saturday uses the troparion Σιγησάτω πᾶσα σάρξ/Let all mortal flesh keep silence, which originally comes from the liturgy of St Basil and is supposed to represent the oldest text of all the Cherubika; (c) Νῦν αἱ δυνάμεις/Now the powers of heaven is sung at the liturgy of the presanctified gifts, which is celebrated on Wednesdays and Fridays during Lent. For a recent, general study of Cherubika, see Κarangunis, Konstantinos, Ἡ παράδοση καὶ ἐξήγηση τοῦ μέλους τῶν Χερουβικῶν τῆς βυζαντινῆς καὶ μεταβυζαντινῆς μελοποιΐας (Athens, 2003)Google Scholar.

5 The source of the Greek text is Ἱερατικὸν περιέχον τὰς ἀκολουθίας τοῦ Ἑσπερινοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ὄρθρου, τὰς θείας καὶ ἱερὰς λειτουργίας Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου, Βασιλείου τοῦ Μεγάλου καὶ τῶν Προηγιασμένων, μετὰ τῶν συνήθων προσθηκῶν (Rome, 1950), 182. The Latin text has been transcribed from GB-Lbl Harley 3095, fol. 111v. The English translation is by Taft, Robert, The Great Entrance: A History of the Transfer of the Gifts and Other Pre-anaphoral Rites of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (Rome, 1975), 54.Google Scholar

6 The most authoritative book on these topics is still Taft, The Great Entrance. See also Jaklitsch (Wanek), Nina-Maria, ‘Die zehn Cheroubika des Chrysaphes o Neos in der Wiener Handschrift Suppl. gr. 190’, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 49 (1999), 205–38.Google Scholar

7 Georgius Cedrenus, vol. 1, ed. August Immanuel Bekker, Corpus scriptorum historiae byzantinae 8 (Bonn, 1838), 685. See also Barrett, Richard, ‘Let Us Put Away All Earthly Care: Mysticism and the Cherubikon of the Byzantine Rite’, Studia Patristica, 64 (2011), 111–24Google Scholar, at 114; and Κarangunis, Ἡ παράδοση, 40–1.

8 Jean-Paul Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus, series graeca prior (hereafter PG), vol. 86/2 (Paris, 1865), 2400–1. See also Κarangunis, Ἡ παράδοση, 69.

9 Taft, The Great Entrance, 17.

10 Κarangunis, Ἡ παράδοση, 69–70.

11 Leeb, Helmut, Die Gesänge im Gemeindegottesdienst von Jerusalem (vom 5. bis 8. Jahrhundert), Beiträge zur Theologie, Wiener 28 (Vienna, 1970), 119, 40 Google Scholar. See also Conomos, Dimitri E., ‘Communion Chants in Magna Graecia and Byzantium’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 33/2 (1980), 241–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 252–3: ‘The Communion hymn, in its original shape, was not merely a psalm verse with an appended alleluia, but an entire psalm. The alleluia which in later times became attached to the single verse may well have been the old antiphonal response that the congregation chanted after the successive verses of the psalm.’

12 Conomos, Dimitri E., Byzantine Trisagia and Cheroubika of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries: A Study of Late Byzantine Liturgical Chant (Thessalonica, 1974), 33 Google Scholar; Taft, The Great Entrance, 57. Regarding the use of the form ὑποδεξόμενοι, Taft assumes that ‘the true sense of the hymn had been lost, and was no longer understood as referring to the reception of Christ in communion’. On the textual variants of the Cherubikon, see Κarangunis, Ἡ παράδοση, 59–64.

13 Levy, Kenneth, ‘A Hymn for Thursday in Holy Week’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 16 (1963), 127–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 163; Taft, The Great Entrance, 57–8; Κarangunis, Ἡ παράδοση, 64.

14 Levy, ‘A Hymn for Thursday in Holy Week’, 166.

15 Ibid .

16 See Taft, The Great Entrance. Κarangunis, Ἡ παράδοση, 71–4, provides an overview. On the mystical aspect, see in particular Barrett, ‘Let Us Put Away All Earthly Care’, 111–24.

17 Les Homélies Catéchétiques de Théodore de Mopsueste, ed. and trans. Raymond Tonneau and Robert Devreesse (Rome, 1949), 503–9. See also Mathews, Thomas F., The Early Churches of Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy (London, 1971), 157 Google Scholar.

18 Taft, The Great Entrance, 11; Mathews, The Early Churches, 156–7.

19 Such as those as early as the sixth-century Patriarch Eutychios (PG 4, 136) and the seventh-century Pseudo-Sophronios (PG 87/3, 4001) through fourteenth-century informants, including Nikolaos Kabasilas (Nicolaos Cabasilas, Explication de la Divine Liturgie, ed. Sévérien Salaville, Sources Chretiennes 4 (Paris, 1967), 164) and Symeon of Thessaloniki (PG 155, 728).

20 Taft, The Great Entrance, 196, 198–9.

21 Moran, Neil K., Singers in Late Byzantine and Slavonic Painting (Leiden, 1986), 28 Google Scholar; and idem, The Ordinary Chants of the Byzantine Mass, 2 vols. (Hamburg, 1975), 1: 102–3, where he details the liturgical actions that accompany the Cherubikon in the modern Mass.

22 Conomos, Byzantine Trisagia, 31–2.

23 Brightman, Frank E. and Hammond, Charles E., Liturgies, Eastern and Western, Being the Texts Original or Translated of the Principal Liturgies of the Church, vol. 1, Eastern liturgies (1896; repr. Oxford, 1965), 312.Google Scholar

24 St. Germanus of Constantinople on the Divine Liturgy, ed. P. Meyendorff (New York, 1984), 86.

25 McKinnon, James, The Advent Project: The Later-Seventh-Century Creation of the Roman Mass Proper (Berkeley, 2000), 73 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Much scholarship has been devoted to the Missa graeca over the past century, beginning with that of Amédée Gastoué, ‘Grecs et Latins. Le chant du Gloria in excelsis’, Tribune de St. Gervais, 3 (1897) 6–74; ‘Le Trisagion’, Tribune de St. Gervais, 3 (1897), 166–8; and ‘Le Sanctus et le Benedictus’, Revue du chant grégorien, 38 (1934), 163–8, and 39 (1935), 12–17, 35–9. More recently Charles M. Atkinson has contributed an important series of articles (see above, note 3).

27 ‘That the Trisagion, and probably the Cheroubikon, was borrowed from the Byzantine rite raises the question of when such Byzantine influence upon the Gallican rite might have been exercised. The most appropriate time would seem to be the later sixth century, particularly if the Expositioʼs [Expositio brevis antiquae liturgicae gallicane] newly proposed dating to that period is sound . . . The general historical background also favors the later sixth century. The eastern empire was well established then in its exarchate at Ravenna and the southernmost reaches of Italy.’ McKinnon, The Advent Project, 72. The first part of the so-called Expositio brevis antiquae liturgiae gallicane of Pseudo-Germanus is a full description of a Gallican Mass. According to McKinnon, ‘There is good reason to believe . . . that the “sonum”, the offertory chant described in the Expositio, is the Cheroubikon. The text is not given, but the sonum is spoken of as an ʻangelic song, which has a first, second and third alleluiaʼ (ibid., 71–2). See also Johannes Quasten, ‘Oriental Influences in the Gallican Liturgy’, Traditio, 1 (1943), 55–78, at 70–1.

28 Levy, ‘A Hymn for Thursday in Holy Week’, 127. According to Oliver Gerlach, ‘Mein Befund ergab, daß das Ordinarium der Missa greca, das den Gesang des Cherouvikon als Offertorium in lateinischen Handschriften der Region corbeio-dionysienne aus dem 10. und 11. Jahrhundert überliefert, tatsächlich das älteste erhaltene Korpus ist’, ‘Im Labyrinth der Oktōīchos – Über die Rekonstruktion einer mittelalterlichen Improvisationspraxis in der Musik der Ost- und Westkirche’, Ph.D. diss., Humboldt University of Berlin (2006), 328.

29 The New Harvard Dictionary of Music, ed. Don Randel (Cambridge, MA, 1986), 154, s.v. ‘Cherubikon’.

30 Huglo, ‘Les chants de la Missa graeca’, 80–2.

31 Ewald Jammers, Die Essener Neumenhandschriften der Landes- und Stadtbibliothek Düsseldorf, Veröffentlichungen der Landes- und Stadtbibliothek Düsseldorf 1 (Ratingen, 1952), 21.

32 Gerlach, ‘Im Labyrinth’, 328.

33 The dating is Strunk, Oliver’s. See ‘S. Salvatore di Messina and the Musical Tradition of Magna Graecia’, in Essays on Music in the Byzantine World (New York, 1977), 48 Google Scholar.

34 According to Conomos, ‘Communion Chants in Magna Graecia’, 251, ‘it is a well compiled Asmatikon, whose generous repertory of Koinonika is transmitted in a clear and reliable notation’. Gerlach, ‘Im Labyrinth’, 328, states that the Cherubikon in this manuscript bears the rubric ‘Τὸ χ(ε)ρουβικ(ὸν) ποίημ(α) συμ(εὼν) τοῦ εἰρμολ(ό)γ(ου)’. See also Moran, Ordinary Chants, 1: 106 and 2: 104.

35 This manuscript, like Cod. crypt. graec. 156 (Γ.γ. I), originated in Messina. See Conomos, ‘Communion Chants in Magna Graecia’, 252; and Strunk, ‘S. Salvatore di Messina’, 48. Conomos describes the notation of Cod. crypt. graec. 62 (Γ.γ. VII) as ‘less trustworthy than that in . . . Γ.γ. I . . . but it does have the advantage of being the only source, other than Γ.γ. I, with two complete oktoechal cycles’.

36 Moran, Ordinary Chants, 1: 118, and 2: 129–34 (table XV).

37 For a detailed description, see Touliatos-Miles, Diane, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Music Collection of the National Library of Greece: Byzantine Chant and Other Music Repertory Recovered (Aldershot, 2010), 400–7Google Scholar. The manuscript is the earliest dated Akoluthia (‘order of services’), dated 4 March 1336. It contains a didactic section at the beginning, the evening and morning Offices (Hesperinos and Orthros), the Divine Liturgy of St Basil as well as the one for the Presanctified Gifts.

38 Levy, ‘A Hymn for Thursday in Holy Week’, 166 and fn. 65: ‘The term ἀσματικόν may be used adjectivally, with the meaning “very florid”, rather than as a reference to the Asmatic collection. The opening section is a kalophonic elaboration ascribed to Michael Aneotes; other sections have embellishments by more recent men, among them Joannes Glykes.’ Conomos, Byzantine Trisagia, 123, also comments on this version: ‘According to the accumulated rubrication from the numerous sources which transmit the Cheroubikon setting, at least five composers have contributed to its final assemblage. What may have been quite an early setting . . . has emerged in the 14th and 15th-century Byzantine musical manuscripts as a kalophonic potpourri with internal alternatives, interpolated kratemata and soloistic coloratura. Whether this chant was or was not performed in its entirety, it remains as the most festive and the most complex of the Cherubic hymns in the repertory.’ See Conomos, Byzantine Trisagia, 124–37, for a transcription of this Cherubikon without neumes. This version can also be found in Phil. gr. 194, fol. 161v.

39 Stathes, Gregorios Th., ‘Ἡ σματική διαφοροποίηση ὅπως καταγράφεται στόν κώδικα ΕΒΕ 2458 τοῦ ἔτους 1336’, in Χριστιανικὴ Θεσσαλονίκη: Παλαιολογεῖος ἐποχή. Πατριαρχικὸν Ἵδρυμα Πατερικῶν Μελετῶν, Ἱερὰ Μονὴ Βλατάδων, 29–31 Οκτωβρίου 1987 (Thessalonica, 1989), 167–241 Google Scholar; Touliatos-Miles, Descriptive Catalogue, 474–8.

40 The manuscript is described in Hunger, Herbert, Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek 1: Codices historici, codices philosophici et philologici (Vienna, 1961), 304–5Google Scholar. Phil. gr. 194 contains seven versions of Οἱ τὰ χερουβίμ: an elaborate ‘asmatikon’ on fol. 255v, where no hymnographer is indicated but where directions are given as to when the Domestikos and the choirs sing (this information is also provided in EBE 2458, fol. 161v; see Conomos, Byzantine Trisagia, 123–37); one by Ioannes Glykys (fol. 259r), two by Agallianos (260v, 261r), one by Xenos Korones (262r) and an anonymous one (260r).

41 Hunger, Herbert, Kresten, Otto and Hannick, Christian, Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek 3, 2: Codices theologici 101–200 (Vienna, 1984), 370–4Google Scholar. Theol. gr. 185 contains Cherubika for the various feast days. The ordinary Cherubikon, Οἱ τὰ χερουβίμ, can be found in five different versions by Ioannes Damaskenos (fol. 129v), Agallianos (130v), Ioannes Glykys (132r), Xenos Korones (133r) and Markos Hieromonachos (158r).

42 Hannick, Christian, ‘Cod. suppl. gr. 190’, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 17 (1968), 194 Google Scholar. The manuscript contains Cherubika by Chrysaphes the Younger, Germanos Neon Patron, Paulos Hiereus, Balasios, Damianos Hieromonachos, Karykes, Joachim Bizyes and Ioannes Glykys or Bereketes, among others.

43 A fifth manuscript, Vatican City, Bibl. Apost. Vat., Reg. lat. 334 (fol. 78), which contains an unnotated Cherubikon, will not be considered here. See Handschin, ‘Sur quelques tropaires’, 46.

44 Opelt, Ilona, ‘Die Essener “Missa greca” der liturgischen Handschrift Düsseldorf D2’, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 23 (1974), 77–88 Google Scholar, at 78–80 and 88.

45 Handschin, ‘Sur quelques tropaires’, 46.

46 Ita cherubin mysticos Iconi zontes ketizopion tria diton tris a gyon ymnon propha gentes passanin bio tikin apothometa merinnan oston basile on tonolon. Ipodoxo menites angelikes aoraton doriforu menon ta xa sin alleluia.

47 www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/record.asp?MSID=7329. See also Michel Huglo, ‘Remarques sur un manuscrit de la “Consolatio Philosophiae” (Londres, British Library, Harleian 3095)’, Scriptorium: Revue internationale des études relatives aux manuscrits, 45 (1991), 288–94, at 291.

48 Gerlach, ‘Im Labyrinth’, 384.

49 The Cherubikon in this manuscript is listed in Walters Robertson, Anne, The Service-Books of the Royal Abbey of Saint-Denis: Images of Ritual and Music in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1991)Google Scholar, table 11. My thanks go to Oliver Gerlach for pointing this book out to me.

50 Gerlach, ‘Im Labyrinth’, 221. See also http://ensembleison.de/publications/oktoichos/III/4.

51 Strunk, ‘Chants of the Byzantine-Greek Liturgy’, in Essays on Music in the Byzantine World, 325.

52 Conomos, Byzantine Trisagia, 37. Moran, Neil K., ‘Byzantine Castrati’, Plainsong and Medieval Music, 11/2 (2002), 99–112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 108, cites Anthony of Novgorod as follows: ‘At the Transfer the castrati chant, however, beforehand the subdeacons [sing] and afterwards a single monk chants. And at that time many priests and deacons carry in the Divine Gifts. At that same time there takes place a great weeping and emotion and humility among all the people, not only in the Hagia Sophia, but also in the galleries.’ See also Moran, Neil K., ‘The musical “Gestaltung” of the Great Entrance Ceremony in the 12th Century in Accordance with the Rite of Hagia Sophia’, Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik, 28 (1979), 167–93Google Scholar.

53 On the melodic history of the Cherubikon, see Κarangunis, Ἡ παράδοση, the second part in particular.

54 Conomos, Byzantine Trisagia, 37. For his part Levy, ‘A Hymn for Thursday in Holy Week’, 163, observes that ‘nearly two dozen melodies for the ordinary Cheroubikon, Οἱ τὰ χερουβίμ, are preserved in sources before the year 1400. The first impression that can be gleaned from these is one of great diversity. There is not a single syllabic version, and the broad use to which the text was put evidently encouraged elaborations.’

55 Strunk, ‘Chants of the Byzantine-Greek Liturgy’, 324–5. See also Harris, Simon, ed., The Communion Chants of the Thirteenth-Century Byzantine Asmatikon (Amsterdam, 1999), 51 Google Scholar: ‘Unlike the music for the Roman Mass, these chants are not arranged in cycles of ordinary and proper chants; in fact, for the Eisodikon, Trisagion, and Cheroubikon the Asmatikon provides only a single unvarying chant.’ Again, according to Levy, ‘A Hymn for Thursday in Holy Week’, 130–1 and note 19: ‘The preserved melodies begin with the 12th century, and the three earliest chants – one each in Greek, Latin and Slavic – form a particularly interesting group . . . The Slavic chant, which appears as part of a cycle of Communions, is transmitted by a dated manuscript of 1207, the Uspensky Kondakar of the Historical Museum in Moscow, but it may also have been copied in the Blagoveshchensky Kondakar at Leningrad, a slightly earlier manuscript . . . and it is preserved in the Synodalny Kondakar, a manuscript of the 13th century now at Moscow. Last of all, the Greek melody, again a Communion, appears in a number of manuscripts of the 13th century.’

56 Conomos, Byzantine Trisagia, 121; Κarangunis, Ἡ παράδοση, 168–9. Later manuscripts no longer apply this chronological principle.

57 The figures are reproduced with kind permission of the Manuscript Department of the Austrian National Library.

58 Conomos, Byzantine Trisagia, 121.

59 Ibid . In Phil. gr. 194 and Theol. gr. 185, for instance, versions by Ioannes Damaskenos (7th/8th cent.), Manuel Agallianos (14th cent.) and Ioannes Glykys (13th/14th cent.) employ the second mode plagal, and the one by Markos Hieromonachos (15th cent.) the fourth plagal. The Cherubikon by Xenos Korones (14th cent.) is the only one in the first plagal mode.

60 Ibid ., 35–6, ‘New demands were continually being made on the composers and by the 14th and 15th centuries these were satisfied with the advent of new musical books which reveal unprecedented techniques of professional composition and, with the Cheroubikon on particular, new expressions of interplay between dramatic and musical forces . . . From the earliest times, however, the music for the Cheroubikon must have been quite elaborate.’ See also ibid., 121.

61 Ibid ., 123.

62 Jaklitsch (Wanek), ‘Die zehn Cheroubika des Chrysaphes o Neos’, 223–5.

63 Moran, Ordinary Chants, 1: 103.

64 Conomos, Byzantine Trisagia, 123.

65 Ibid .

66 Conomos, Byzantine Trisagia, 274, 280; Jaklitsch (Wanek), ‘Die zehn Cheroubika des Chrysaphes o Neos’, 222–3.

67 About Glykysʼs Cherubikon, Conomos writes: ‘A setting which appears in almost all 14th and 15th-century Akolouthiai is that by Ioannes Glykes, the protopsaltes . . . [Glykysʼs setting] certainly identifies the work of an individual intent on creating a completely organised musical composition with regularly recurring musical phrases. At the same time the melody is simple, without excessive melismata and ornamental devices. Quite probably it was performed on Ordinary liturgical days.’ Byzantine Trisagia, 146–50.

68 See Conomos, Byzantine Trisagia and Cheroubika, 146, 150.

69 About Cherubika in the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries, see Wanek, Nina-Maria, Nachbyzantinischer Liturgischer Gesang im Wandel: Studien zu den Musikhandschriften des Supplementum Graecum der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek (Vienna, 2007), 162–88.Google Scholar

70 Handschin, ‘Sur quelques tropaires’, 45–6, as well as Gerlach, ‘Im Labyrinth’, 386, are of the same opinion.

71 Handschin, ‘Sur quelques tropaires’, 46.

72 Moran, Neil K., ‘A List of Greek Music Palimpsests’, Acta musicologica, 57/1 (1985), 50–72 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 50.

73 Strunk, ‘S. Salvatore di Messina’, 48; Moran, Ordinary Chants, 1: 106–10, 2: 131 (Table XII).

74 Moran, Ordinary Chants, 1: 106, mentions this inscription and that Antonio Rocchi (in Codices Cryptenses seu Abbatiae Cryptae Ferratae in Tusculano (Tusculani, 1883), 432) suggests that Symeon the Heirmolog might be one and the same with Symeon Studites.

75 The example is taken from Gerlach, ‘Im Labyrinth’, 328.

76 Moran, Ordinary Chants, 1: 106.

77 See also Moran's transcriptions and comparisons of the melodies of this asmatic Cherubikon in Ordinary Chants, 2: 86–113, 120–8 (Tables XII, XIII and XIV), where versions in Codex crypt. graec. 156, Laura Γ 3, Sinai 1257, Sinai 1276, Sinai 1293 and Messina 161 are compared.

78 Handschin, ‘Sur quelques tropaires’, 46.

Figure 0

Fig. 1 Byzantine and Latin texts of the Cherubikon, with English translation.

Figure 1

Fig. 2a and 2b Comparison of Vienna, Austrian National Library, Mss. Phil gr. 194 (132r) and Theol. gr. 185 (259r) with indications of hymnographers’ names at the beginnings of Cherubika. © Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek.

Figure 2

Fig. 3 Alleluia section of a Cherubikon by Ioannes Glykys, Ms. Phil. gr. 194 (133r).

Figure 3

Fig. 4 Middle section (ὡς τὸν βασιλέα τῶν ὅλων ὑποδεξόμενοι / that we may receive the King of All) of a Cherubikon by Ioannes Glykys, Ms. Phil. gr. 194 (132v).

Figure 4

Fig. 5 Teretismata (vocalises) from a Cherubikon by Agallianos, Ms. Phil. gr. 194 (131v).

Figure 5

Fig. 6a and 6b Comparison of melismata in Mss. Phil gr. 194 (132r) and Theol. gr. 185 (259r).

Figure 6

Fig. 7a and 7b Comparison of colon beginnings in Mss. Phil gr. 194 (132r) and Theol. gr. 185 (259r).

Figure 7

Fig. 8a and 8b Comparison of short melismata in Theol. gr. 185 (259r) and Mss. Phil gr. 194 (132v).

Figure 8

Fig. 9 Short melismata in Athens, National Library, Ms. EBE 2458 (165v), cf. Fig. 8a and 8b.

Figure 9

Fig. 10a, 10b and 10c Comparison of μυστικῶς εἰκονίζοντες / mystically represent, Vienna, National Library, Mss. Suppl. gr. 190 (74r), Theo. gr. 185 (259r) and Phil. gr. 194 (132r). © Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek.

Figure 10

Fig. 11a, 11b and 11c Comparison of καὶ τῇ ζωοποιῷ τριάδι / to the life-giving Trinity, Mss. Suppl. gr. 190 (74r), Theo. gr. 185 (259r) and Phil. gr. 194 (132r).

Figure 11

Fig. 12a and 12b Comparison of τὸν τρισάγιον / the thrice-holy, Mss. Suppl. gr. 190 (74r) and Theo. gr. 185 (259r).

Figure 12

Fig. 13a and 13b Comparison of ὕμνον / hymn, Mss. Suppl. gr. 190 (74r) and Theol. gr. 185 (259r).

Figure 13

Fig. 14a and 14b Comparison of Πᾶσαν τὴν βιωτικήν / all worldly, Mss. Suppl. gr. 190 (74r) and Theol. gr. 185 (259r).

Figure 14

Ex. 1 Comparison of Latin Cherubika in four medieval Western sources.a The manuscript ‘MS-D-2 Liturgische Sammelhandschrift (Sacramentarium Gregorio-Hadrianum)’ is a loan from the city of Düsseldorf to the ‘Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Düsseldorf’. The excerpts of the manuscript are printed by permission of the library.b © British Library Board, B. M. Harley 3095.c © Bibliothèque Mazarine.d © Bibliothèque Nationale de France

Figure 15

Fig. 15a and 15b Comparison Grottaferrata, Codex crypt. graec. 156 (Γ.γ. I) (34v) and EBE 2458 (161v).