Phthora nenano (Medieval Greek:φθορὰ νενανῶ, alsoνενανὼ) is the name of one of the two "extra" modes in theByzantineOctoechos—an eight-mode system, which was proclaimed by a synod of 792 (1234 years ago) (792). The phthorai nenano andnana were favoured by composers at theMonastery Agios Sabas, near Jerusalem, while hymnographers at theStoudiou-Monastery obviously preferred the diatonic mele.

Today the system of eight diatonic modes and twophthorai ("destroyers") is regarded as the modal system ofByzantine chant, and during the eighth century it became also model for the Latintonaries—introductions into a proper diatonic eight mode system and its psalmody, created by Frankish cantores during the Carolinigian reform.^[1] Whileφθορά νενανῶ was often called "chromatic", the secondphthora was named "nana" (gr.φθορά νανὰ) and called "enharmonic", the names were simply taken from the syllables used for the intonation (enechema). The twophthorai were regarded as two proper modes, but also used astransposition oralteration signs. Within the diatonic modes of theoctoechos they cause a change into another (chromatic orenharmonic) genus (metavoli kata genos).^[2]

The earliest description ofphthora nenano and of the eight mode system (octoechos) can be found in theHagiopolites treatise which is known in a complete form through a fourteenth-century manuscript.^[3] The treatise itself can be dated back to the ninth century, when it introduced the book oftropologion, a collection oftroparic andheirmologic hymns which was ordered according to the eight-week cycle of theoctoechos.^[4] The first paragraph of the treatise maintains, that it was written byJohn of Damascus.^[5] The hymns of thetropologion provided the melodic models of one mode calledechos (gr.ἦχος), and models for thephthora nenano appeared in some mele of certainechoi likeprotos andplagios devteros.

The author of the treatise wrote obviously during or after the time ofJoseph and his brotherTheodore the Studite, when the use the mesos forms, phthorai nenano andnana were no longer popular. The word "mousike" (μουσική) referred an autochthonous theory during the 8th century used by the generation of John of Damascus andCosmas of Maiuma atMar Saba, because it was independent from ancient Greek music.^[7] But it seems that it was regarded as inappropriate to use thesephthorai for the hymn melodies composed by Joseph and other hymns composed since the ninth century, since they must have preferred the diatonic octoechos based on thekyrios and theplagios instead of themesoi.

The concept ofphthora in the Hagiopolites was less concerned that the Nenano andNana were somehow bridges between the modes. As an introduction of the tropologion it had to integrate the mele composed in thesephthorai within the octoechos order and its weekly cycles. Since they had their own mele and compositions like the other echoi, they were subordinated to the eight diatonicechoi according to the pitches or degrees of the mode (phthongoi) of their cadences.

{{Text and translationφθοραὶ δὲ ὠνομασθήσαν, ὅτι ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ἤχων  πᾶρχονται, τελειοῦνται δὲ εἰς ἑτέρων ἤχων φθογγὰς αἱ θέσεις αὐτῶν καὶ τὰ  ποτελέσματα.|They were called Phthorai (i.e. destroyers), because they begin from their own Echoi, but the thesis of their cadences and formulas are on notes (phthongoi) from other Echoi.^[8]|Hagiopolites (§34)}}

They had to be classified according to a certain echos of the eight-week cycle by adding the intonation "nenano" to the intonation of the main diatonic echos (usually abbreviated by a modal signature). For example, the intonation formula ofechos plagios devteros (E) could be followed by the intonation ofnenano which leads to theechos protos (a), as a kind of "mesos devteros", which lies in between the finalis of the kyrios (b natural) and the one of itsplagios (E). Usually the diatonickyrios protos (a) could end on itsplagios (D) in the diatonic genus, but the chromaticphthora nenano makes it end in theplagios devteros (E).

In the period of thepsaltic art (gr. ψαλτικὴ τέχνη, "the art of chant", 1261–1750) the Late Byzantine Notation used four additional phthorai for each mode, including the eight diatonicechoi, in order to indicate the precise moment of a transposition (metavoli kata tonon).^[9] The former system of sixteen echoi (4kyrioi, 4plagioi, 4mesoi, and 4phthorai) which was still used in the old books of the cathedral rite (asmatikon,kontakarion, etc.), was replaced by the Hagiopolitan octoechos and its twophthorai. The new bookakolouthiai which replaced the former book and established a mixed rite in Constantinople, introduced into eight diatonic echoi and two phthorai. In rather soloistic chant genres, thedevteros echoi were turned into the chromatic genus by an abundant use of thephthora nenano.^[10] Hence, it became necessary to distinguish between the proper echos and its phthora, nenano and nana as "extra modes", and their use for temporary changes within the melos of a certain diatonic echos.

In his theoretical treatise aboutpsaltic art and in response to the "wrong ideas" that some singers already had some years after the conquest ofConstantinople (1458), the famous MaïstorosManuel Chrysaphes introduced not only into the twophthorai nenano and nana, but also into fourphthorai which bind themelos to the diatonic echoi ofprotos, devteros, tritos, andtetartos.

All sixphthora, two of them belonged to thephthora nenano (the phthora ofnenano and the one ofplagios devteros), could dissolve the former melos and bind it to themelos of the following echos defined by the next medial signature. The diatonicphthora was no longer the destruction of the diatonic modes and its genus,melos, and its tonal system, it could change each mode and itsfinalis into another echos by a simple transposition. Hence, the list ofphthorai mentioned in each Papadikai, was simply a catalogue of transposition signs, which were written over thatneume where the transposition has to be done.

In that respectphthora nenano, as well asnana, stuck out, because within their ownmelos they were both directed to certain otherechoi:

It was the psaltic art itself which moved thephthongos ofplagios devteros to the one ofplagios protos. It is possible, that thephthora ofplagios devteros was needed to change again into diatonic genus. According to the New Method (since 1814)echos plagios devteros was always chromatic and based on thephthongos ofechos protos, memorised asπα. This was Chrysanthos' way to understand Manuel Chrysaphes—probably a contemporary way, since the 17th-century Papadike introduced a seventhphthora forplagios protos.

According to the rules of psaltic artphthora nenano could connect thephthongoi devteros andprotos as well asprotos andtetartos, as can be seen from the solfège diagram called the "parallage of John Plousiadenos" (see the first X in the first row around the centre of the enechema ofphthora nenano).

Despite this possibility Manuel Chrysaphes insisted, thatphthora nenano and its chromaticmelos has always to be resolved asplagios devteros, any other echos would be against the rules of psaltic art. The living tradition today still respects this rule, sincephthongos of theplagios devteros (πλβ᾽) has become the same likeplagios protos (πλα᾽):πα (D).

Already in the thirteenth century, there were interval descriptions in Latin and Arabic treatises which proved that the use of the chromaticphthora was common not only among Greek singers.

Quţb al-Dīn al-Shīrīz distinguished two ways of using the chromatic genus inparde hiğāzī, named after a region of the Arabian Peninsula.^[12] The exact proportions were used during changes to the diatonic genus. In both diatonic and chromatic divisions, the ring finger fret of theoud keyboard was used. It had the proportion 22:21—between middle and ring finger fret—and was called after the Baghdadioud player Zalzal. These are the proportions, presented as a division of a tetrachord using the proportions of 22:21 and 7:6:

12:11 x 7:6 x 22:21 = 4:3 (approximate intervals in cents: 151, 267, 80 = 498)

This Persian treatise is the earliest source which tried to measure the exact proportions of a chromatic mode, which can be compared with historical descriptions ofphthora nenano.

In his voluminous music treatiseJerome of Moravia described that "Gallian cantores" used to mix the diatonic genus with chromatic and the enharmonic, despite the use of the two latter were excluded according to Latin theorists:^[13]

During the 1270s Jerome met the famous singers in Paris who were well skilled in the artistic performance ofars organi, which is evident by the chant manuscripts of theAbbey Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, of the Abbey Saint-Denis, and of theNotre Dame school. Despite the fact that no other Latin treatise ever mentioned that the singers were allowed to use enharmonic or chromatic intervals, and certainly not the transposition practice which was used sometimes by Greek singers, they obviously felt free enough to use both during the improvisation oforganum—and probably, they became so familiar with the described enharmonic chromaticism, that they even used it during the monophonic performance of plainchant. Jerome as an educated listener regarded it as a "confusion" between monophonic and polyphonic performance style. Whatever his opinion about the performance style of Parisian cantores, the detailed description fit well to the use of thephthora nenano as anechos kratema, as it was mentioned in the later Greek treatises after theend of the Byzantine Empire.

According to aPapadikē treatise in a sixteenth-century manuscript (Athens,National Library, Ms. 899 [EBE 899], fol.3f), the anonymous author even argues thatphthorai nenano andnana are rather independent modes thanphthorai, because singers as well as composers can create wholekratemata out of them:

Kratemata were longer sections sung with abstract syllables in a faster tempo. As a disgression used within other forms in papadic orkalophonic chant genres—soloistic likecherubim chant or asticheron kalophonikon. From a composer's point of view who composed within themele of theoctoechos, akratema could not only recapitulate the modal structure of its model, but also create a change into another (chromatic or enharmonic) genus. If a composer orprotopsaltes realised a traditional model of acherubikon orkoinonikon within themelos ofechos protos, thephthora nenano will always end the form of thekratema inechos plagios devteros, only then the singer could find a way back to the mainechos. In the later case thekratema was composed so perfectly in the propermelos ofphthora nenano, that it could be performed as a separate composition of its own, as they were already separated compositions in the simpler genres like thetroparion and the heirmologic odes of the canon since the 9th century.^[16]

Gabriel Hieromonachus (mid fifteenth century) already mentioned that the "nenano phone"—the characteristic step (interval) ofnenano—seemed to be in some way halved. On folio 5 verso of the quoted treatise (EBE 899), the author gave a similar description of the intervals used with the intonation formulaνε–να–νὼ, and it fitted very well to the description that Jerome gave 300 years ago while he was listening to Parisian singers:

The upper small tone leading to the final note of theprotos, has a slightly different intonation with respect to the melodic movement, at least according to the practice among educated singers of theOttoman Empire during the eighteenth century. But Gabriel Hieromonachos described already in the fifteenth century, that the singers tend to stray away from their original intonation while they were singing themelos ofphthora nenano:

Later use of theenechema (initial intonation formula) ofnenano as well as thephthora (alteration and transposition sign) ofnenano in manuscripts makes it clear that it is associated with the main form of the second plagal mode as it survives in the current practice of Byzantine (Greek Orthodox) chant. Furthermore, thephthora sign ofnenano has survived in the nineteenth-century neo-Byzantine notation system which is still used to switch between a diatonic and chromatic intonation of the tetrachord one fourth below.

In the chapter "About apechemata" (gr.τὸ ἀπήχημα was simply an alternative term toenechema,τὸ ἐνήχημα), Chrysanthos quoted the medievalapechema of thephthora nenano as a chromatic tetrachord between the pitch (phthongos) ofplagios devteros andprotos:

This intonation formulas avoids the enharmonic step (diesis) which is expected betweentetartos (δ') andprotos (α').

His exegesis of this shortapechema sets the chromatic or enharmonic tetrachord betweenplagios protos (πλ α') andtetartos (δ'), so that the diesis lies between tritos (γ') andtetartos (δ'):

The common modern enechema places the tetrachord likewise:

Chrysanthos of Madytos offered following exegesis of the traditionalechemaνεανες which was originally diatonic, but it is currently sung with the chromatic nenano intonation (seeνεχὲ ανὲς inChrysanthos' parallage):

Chrysanthos' exegesis employed the concluding cadence formula of the chromaticplagios devteros which was obviously an exegesis based on psaltic rules, as Manuel Chrysaphes had once mentioned them.

He described the correct intonation as follows:

Despite this tradition, modern music teachers tried to translate this sophisticated intonation on a modern piano keyboard as "a kind of gipsy-minor."^[21]

In a very similar way—like the classicalphthora nenano intonation—also the soft chromatic intonation of theechos devteros is represented as a kind ofmesos devteros. Here according to Chrysanthos of Madytos the exegesis of the traditionaldevteros intonation can be sung like this:

He explained that the intonation of the modernechos devteros was not based on tetraphonia, but on trichords or diphonia:

Because of its early status as one of the two mysterious extra modes in the system, nenano has been subject of much attention in Byzantine and post-Byzantine music theory. Papadikai like the manuscript EBE 899 and other late Byzantine manuscripts associate nenano and nana with the chromatic and theenharmonic genus, one of the threegenera of tuning duringClassical antiquity that fell into early misuse because of its complexity. If the phthora nenano was already chromatic during the 9th century, including the use of one enharmonicdiesis, is still a controversial issue, but medieval Arabic, Persian and Latin authors like Jerome of Moravia rather hint to the possibility that it was.

Greek music theoreticians such asSimon Karas continue up to the end of the twentieth century to regard the intonation nenano as "exotic," although they do not always agree, whether theechos plagios devteros intonation is hard or soft chromatic.^[23] Anonymous authors like the 16th-century Papadike (EBE 899) maintained, that one of the minor tones in the tetrachord of nenano should be either smaller or larger than a tempered semitone, approaching the smallest interval of a third or a quarter of a tone. The banishment of instrumental musical practice and its theory from the tradition of Byzantine chant has made it very difficult to substantiate any such claims experimentally, and traditional singers use different intonations depending on their school. The only possible conclusions can be drawn indirectly and tentatively through comparisons with the tradition of Ottoman instrumental court music, which important church theoreticians such as theKyrillos Marmarinos,Archbishop ofTinos considered a necessary complement to liturgical chant.^[24] However, Ottoman court music and its theory are also complex and diverging versions of modes exist according to different schools, ethnic traditions or theorists. There, one encounters various versions of the "nenano" tetrachord, both with a narrow and with a wider minor second either at the top or at the bottom, depending on the interval structure of the scale beyond the two ends of the tetrachord.

Although the phthora nenano is already known as one of two additional phthorai used within theHagiopolitan octoechos, its chromaticism was often misunderstood as a late corruption of Byzantine chant during the Ottoman Empire, but recent comparisons with medieval Arabic treatises proved that this exchange can dated back to a much earlier period, when Arab music was created as a synthesis of Persian music and Byzantine chant of Damascus.^[25]

• "Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, fonds grec, Ms. 360, ff.216r-237v".Βιβλίον ἁγιοπολίτης συγκροτημένον ἔκ τινων μουσικῶν μεθόδων [The book of the Holy Polis "Jerusalem" unifying different musical methods] in a compiled collection of basic grammar treatises and fragments with mathemataria and of a menologion (12th century).
• Panagiotes the New Chrysaphes."London, British Library, Harley Ms. 5544, fol. 3r-8v".Papadike and the Anastasimatarion of Chrysaphes the New, and an incomplete Anthology for the Divine Liturgies (17th century). British Library. Archived fromthe original on 13 January 2013. Retrieved3 May 2012.

EnglishWikisource has original text related to this article:

Αγιοπολίτης

EnglishWikisource has original text related to this article:

Manuel Chrysaphes

EnglishWikisource has original text related to this article:

Chrysanthos of Madytos

• Raasted, Jørgen, ed. (1983).The Hagiopolites: A Byzantine Treatise on Musical Theory(PDF). Cahiers de l'Institut du Moyen-Âge Grec et Latin. Vol. 45. Copenhagen: Paludan.
• Hannick, Christian; Wolfram, Gerda, eds. (1997).Die Erotapokriseis des Pseudo-Johannes Damaskenos zum Kirchengesang. Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae - Corpus Scriptorum de Re Musica. Vol. 5. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.ISBN 3-7001-2520-8.
• Cserba, Simon M., ed. (1935).Hieronymus De Moravia O.P.: Tractatus De Musica. Regensburg: F. Pustet. Archived fromthe original on 2010-07-26. Retrieved2011-10-22.
• Conomos, Dimitri, ed. (1985).The Treatise of Manuel Chrysaphes, the Lampadarios: [Περὶ τῶν ἐνθεωρουμένων τῇ ψαλτικῇ τέχνῃ καὶ ὧν φρουνοῦσι κακῶς τινες περὶ αὐτῶν] On the Theory of the Art of Chanting and on Certain Erroneous Views that some hold about it (Mount Athos, Iviron Monastery MS 1120, July 1458). Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae - Corpus Scriptorum de Re Musica. Vol. 2. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.ISBN 978-3-7001-0732-3.
• Hannick, Christian; Wolfram, Gerda, eds. (1985).Gabriel Hieromonachus: [Περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ ψαλτικῇ σημαδίων καὶ τῆς τούτων ἐτυμολογίας] Abhandlung über den Kirchengesang. Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae - Corpus Scriptorum de Re Musica. Vol. 1. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.ISBN 3-7001-0729-3.
• Popescu-Județ, Eugenia; Şırlı, Adriana Arabi, eds. (2000).Sources of 18th Century Music: Panayiotes Chalatzoglou and Kyrillos Marmarinos' Comparative Treatises on Secular Music. Pan Yayıncılık. Istanbul: Pan.ISBN 975-8434-05-5.
• Chrysanthos of Madytos (1832). Pelopides, Panagiotes G. (ed.).Θεωρητικόν μέγα της μουσικής συνταχθέν μεν παρά Χρυσάνθου αρχιεπισκόπου Διρραχίου του εκ Μαδύτων εκδοθέν δε υπό Παναγιώτου Γ. Πελοπίδου Πελοποννησίου διά φιλοτίμου συνδρομής των ομογενών. Triest: Michele Weis. Retrieved11 April 2012.
• Karas, Simon (1981).Μέθοδoς τῆς Ἐλληνικῆς Μουσικῆς: Θεωρητικόν. Athens: Association for the Dissemination of National Music.

• Amargianakis, George (1977)."An Analysis of Stichera in the Deuteros Modes: The Stichera idiomela for the Month of September in the Modes Deuteros, Plagal Deuteros, and Nenano; transcribed from the Manuscript Sinai 1230 <A.D. 1365>"(PDF).Cahiers de l'Institut du Moyen-Âge Grec et Latin.22–23:1–269.
• Barbera, André."Metabolē".Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Retrieved21 October 2011.
• Neubauer, Eckhard (1998), "Die acht "Wege" der arabischen Musiklehre und der Oktoechos – Ibn Misğah, al-Kindī und der syrisch-byzantinische oktōēchos",Arabische Musiktheorie von den Anfängen bis zum 6./12. Jahrhundert: Studien, Übersetzungen und Texte in Faksimile, Publications of the Institute for the History of Arabic-Islamic Science: The science of music in Islam, vol. 3, Frankfurt am Main: Inst. for the History of Arab.-Islamic Science, pp. 373–414.
• Gerlach, Oliver (2010)."Phthora und Tongeschlecht – φθορά καί γένος".Im Labyrinth des Oktōīchos — Über die Rekonstruktion einer mittelalterlichen Improvisationspraxis in der Musik der Ost- & Westkirche (doctoral thesis). Berlin: Ison. pp. 125–134.ISBN 978-3-00-032306-5. Retrieved21 October 2011.
• Jeffery, Peter (2001). "The Earliest Oktōēchoi: The Role of Jerusalem and Palestine in the Beginnings of Modal Ordering".The Study of Medieval Chant: Paths and Bridges, East and West; In Honor of Kenneth Levy. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press. pp. 147–209.ISBN 0-85115-800-5.
• Makris, Eustathios (2005). "The Chromatic Scales of the Deuteros Modes in Theory and Practice".Plainsong and Medieval Music.14:1–10.doi:10.1017/S0961137104000075.ISSN 0961-1371.S2CID 162385479.
• Zannos, Ioannis (1994).Ichos und Makam - Vergleichende Untersuchungen zum Tonsystem der griechisch-orthodoxen Kirchenmusik und der türkischen Kunstmusik. Orpheus-Schriftenreihe zu Grundfragen der Musik. Bonn: Verlag für systematische Musikwissenschaft.ISBN 978-3-922626-74-9.

• Koukouzeles, John (23 November 2012)."Kratema composed in phthora nenano". Greek-Byzantine Choir.Archived from the original on 2021-12-21.

• Byzantine music theory
• Modes (music)

• Articles containing Ancient Greek (to 1453)-language text
• Articles with short description
• Short description is different from Wikidata
• Articles containing Persian-language text
• Articles containing Latin-language text
• Wikisource templates with missing id
• CS1: long volume value