A. The Historical Background
To understand the Song of Songs fully, one must first appreciate how its melos was preserved and reconstructed.
The Hebrew Bible actually uses two systems
of musical signs. One, used in Psalms, Proverbs and the body of Job, is called the psalmodic
system (or often the "poetic accents"). The other, used in the prologue
and epilogue of Job and in all the other books (including the Song of Songs), is called the prosodic
system (or "prose accents"). Together with the vowel-points and
other aids to clear pronunciation, they form the "Tiberian" interpunctuation: the specific "reading
tradition" transcribed by the Masoretes of Tiberias.
According to one of the last of the Masoretes (Moshe ben Asher, in 895 A.D.), this reading tradition was "founded
in...faithfulness" (that is, in accurate written form1) by the "community of Prophets" (`adat nevi'im). This "community" was either a family of Second Temple priests (the "Boethusians"
or Elders of Bathyra), or the doctrinal heirs of the Elders: the medieval Karaites.2 Moreover, the Elders (according to ben Asher) "established the [so-called 'Tiberian']
accents of Scripture" (hitkinou ta`amê haMikra') as an aide to the exegesis of the verbal text.
How was this notation transmitted? We are not certain -- but we know it appeared "out of nowhere" (to
use Paul Kahle's words) in the middle to late 9th century A.D. It may have been transmitted by means of abbreviated
manuscripts, either from one generation to the next or via "Dead Sea Scrolls" of the Hebrew Bible and
other books, found "near Jericho" (ca. 800 A.D.) and brought to the Karaites.3 There was, however, an authoritative notation of "vowels
and accents" in the 2nd century, connected with the correct interpretation of the Old Testament: reasonably,
the same as the Tiberian interpunctuation.4
There is no other mention of such accentuation (nor direct evidence of its active use) between the 3rd and the
mid-9th century.
During that time, there were "te`amim"
and "vowel-points", taught and transmitted orally (and eventually in writing) by the rabbinic synagogues
in Palestine and Babylonia. We put the above words in quotes because these interpunctuations represented purely local usages -- not the authoritative accentuation and vowelization used within the Temple. Rather, they represented oral memories of the Temple practice, as corrupted by
loss of knowledge and various local influences.
The "te`amim" of the synagogues
were marked orally (while the cantor was reciting the text) by hand- and finger-gestures of the right hand. This
sort of simplified chironomy was not the same in principle as the gestural systems used in ancient temples (which
generally used both hands in cooperation). Not surprisingly, the Tiberian, Palestinian and Babylonian notations
graphically are much different from each other.5
Yet the Tiberian notation was soon accepted as the authoritative transcription of the reading tradition.
Why was it so accepted? The Masoretic claim of a written origin for the Tiberian te`amim especially among the "Elders of Bathyra" was soon forgotten, if not actually suppressed.6 More important, the authors of the Talmud assumed
the te`amim, vowels and so on of biblical
times (and of the Second Temple) were essentially the same (in meaning if not in form) as those used in the early synagogues.7 Under pressure from Talmudic tradition, the last of the
Masoretes and their successors reinterpreted the Tiberian reading tradition (especially the te`amim) as if it were a notation of one or another reading tradition current in the synagogues.
Moshe ben Asher's son Aharon (ca. 930 A.D.) gave the first tentative description of the "Tiberian" te`amim as a system of punctuation (or more accurately, as a hierarchy of syntactical values), marking
the end of verses or phrases or joining words within a phrase. Later commentators expanded Aharon ben Asher's "syntactical
paradigm" into a series of complex rules supposedly governing the use of the te`amim. Even today, Hebraists are using binary analysis (by computer) to refine and "confirm"
these "rules".
The first medieval commentators imposed the melodic "style" of synagogue chant current in their day upon
this "paradigm". They defined certain signs at the end of phrases as markers of a simple rising and falling
melody, like those still sung in many old synagogue communities (especially by the Yemenite Jews). The lists of
such "markers" are not the same in all sources, and they are not related to how the "syntactical
paradigm" dictates how the te`amim
are to be defined and combined.
Thus, as in the synagogue "te`amim",
the musical and syntactical functions of the "Tiberian" te`amim were assumed to be parallel,
yet separate and unrelated. Only later
(after the 13th century, from all written evidence) were melodic "tropes" imposed on the te`amim according to the syntactical "rules"
described for them.
Yet these rules (besides being younger than the earliest manuscripts with the "Tiberian" notation) ignore
a number of obvious features: the placement of graphic forms above and below the words, the nuances of their placement
relative to a syllable (nuances suppressed in some manuscripts and printed editions); the alleged (and unexplained)
change of form, position and name of some te`amim
(so that the same graphic form represents different syntactical values, or different forms the same values); their
exact graphic forms and orders (especially for te`amim
within a phrase), and the sheer number of te`amim
used.
In fact, the syntactical paradigm defines an "accent" or ta`am by its verbal context; the syntactical function of any graphic sign dominates its form.8 While Hebraists
generally concede that the graphic forms are related to music, neither the Masoretes, nor the early commentators,
nor later and modern grammarians have ever defined the exact musical meaning of any ta`am. The original musical meaning of the system, and its connection to the layout of the graphic
forms, has simply remained undefined. At best, the original music is assumed to have been an oral tradition, dating
to biblical times, but now utterly lost (save in corrupted form in the oldest synagogue chants).
Sometimes it is claimed that the Masoretes transcribed an oral musical tradition -- one known to them, but now
lost in practice. But if this be the case, why did they offer no clear explanation of it? Nowhere in the early
sources is the musical meaning of a single Tiberian ta`am
(written or gestural) defined. The only systematic musical interpretation attempted by these sources is inconsistently
defined by them. It explains nothing about the forms of the te`amim, their number, their placement above or below the words, or how they are combined with each
other or with the verbal syntax.
And so we return to the unfounded Talmudic
equation:
Second Temple reading tradition = synagogue reading tradition
The early "reader's manuals" of Aharon ben Asher and later commentators
(noted above) accept this equation. Their authors do not mention the priestly and Karaitic origin of the Tiberian
notation; but if they knew of this (and Aharon ben Asher, if no one else, surely did from his father), it did not
cancel the equation in their minds. Yet this equation denies the plain testimony of the very tradition cited in
the manuals: each ta`am represents a specific
and distinct ne`ima (musical tone) made
"by the mouth", each paralleled by a specific gesture of the hand or fingers.9
Even here, only the right hand is cited as being used -- apparently because the "te`amim" described in the Talmud are marked only by the right hand.10 This gives no explanation of why the gestures were transcribed
by symbols written above and below the words. Yet in some few communities (such as the old Egyptian synagogue community),
both hands are used to mark te`amim, just as both hands were generally used to conduct
ancient "classical" music.11
Moreover, the Talmudic equation denies the plain testimony not only of Scripture, but of the Greek philosophers
regarding the nature and expressiveness of ancient "classical" music, and for that matter the real history
of synagogue chant (which was long an amateur art). Finally, the Talmudic equation has in fact been disproven for
over half a century, by the science of comparative musicology.
B. Temple and Synagogue Chant
We owe to the late Curt Sachs the classification of all forms of vocal music (ancient and modern, primitive, folk,
and classical, East and West), into three types: logogenic ("speech-born"), pathogenic
("passion-born") and melogenic
("melody-born" -- though as we will see, this English definition is inaccurate).
Logogenic music is completely dominated by the verbal syntax; the melody is simply a support or memory aid (sometimes
nearly a monotone!). Pathogenic music is completely dominated by the melodic syntax; the words may even become
meaningless sounds or syllables. Melogenic music is based on the interaction, the linkage of melodic and verbal syntaxes (what the Greek philosophers called melos or "melody-words"). More precisely, then, melogenic music is melos-born: based on a melodic-verbal gestalt or "complex".
Logogenic and pathogenic music (as Sachs noted) are the arts of primitive and folk cultures. Melogenic music is
the music of high culture, of high civilization: of professional musicians and poet-composers, of temple priests
and royal courts. The cantillation of the Temple (the work of poet-composers and the preserve of professionals)
was (by definition) melogenic. Early synagogue chant (created by amateurs and transmitted mouth-to-ear) oscillates
between logogenic and pathogenic extremes without really becoming either one, let alone combining melody and words
into melos. Synagogue chant, therefore,
has no direct link with the music of the
Temple.
Temple and synagogue chant, however, have an indirect
link. Aural reminiscences (a melodic theme here, a musical scale there, a musical ornament or two somewhere else)
came home with pilgrims returning from the Second Temple (where some were permitted to observe and even participate
in the Temple services). One of the melodic themes -- that which opens the original cantillation of Lamentations
-- even made it into Gregorian chant via the synagogue.12
As we have noted, only after the 12th century (so far as written sources tell us) were melodic "tropes"
imposed on the te`amim (as defined under
the "syntactical paradigm") by the synagogue communities. Even here, no true melos is created; while there is a link between musical and verbal syntaxes, the verbal syntax dominates
the musical. Besides, the musical syntax itself is often unclear. Sometimes there is little tonal distinction between
"tropes" with completely different syntactical functions. Is it any surprise that the various systems
of "tropes" are (at best) vague and arbitrary
in their expression of the verbal meaning and poetic structure?
The oft-alleged common source of synagogue chant, then, cannot be the cantillation of the Temple (for the above
reasons and others). One possible common source lies in another folk tradition: the makamat of the Arabs and Persians, adapted by the Jews for their own purposes and according to their
own spirits. Another possible source is the alleged wellspring of much of Gregorian chant as well: the orally-transmitted
melodies of the Greeks, Egyptians and Babylonians.
A third (and widely acknowledged) possible source for the "primitive" synagogue chant is the folk liturgy
of the ancient Israelites themselves. This in any case would have been a different art from that of the initiates
in Scripture reading: the prophets, priests and Levites, and their students (such as young David, son of Jesse,
the other righteous kings, the "prophets" under Samuel, and the later "sons of the prophets").
What then was the Second Temple cantillation (or that of the First, or of earlier times) like? This much we can
say with confidence, thanks to the evidence given by the biblical narratives, archaeology and comparative musicology.
It was commonly accompanied by harps and lyres (by definition, in Psalm-singing) as well as other instruments (as
in choral Psalms, but also the music of the "prophets" of Saul's day). It was based on the same sort
of scales we use today ("diatonic" or "diatonic-chromatic", based on steps and half-steps),
the scales most natural for both ancient harps and lyres and the human voice.13 It was melogenic, and its Divine inspiration lay in the melos, not in the words alone; but this tells us nothing specific about the original melodies!
C. Attempts to Decipher the Notation
Scientific analysis of an unknown notation requires a "bilingual" or "virtual bilingual" text:
a "Rosetta Stone" having a notation of known meaning parallel to and sharing information in common with
the unknown notation. But it also requires an understanding of the significance of the unknown notation: its genre
(musical, punctuational, mathematical, etc.).
We know from the historical sources that the te`amim
are both musical and exegetical (that is, they punctuate the verbal text and clarify its syntax and meaning). They also have
an elocutionary function; they aid in
the clear public recitation of the words. Which function predominates, then? Are the te`amim primarily musical, punctuational or elocutionary?
Most researchers have assumed the correct virtual bilingual (the Hebrew verbal syntax, parallel to that of the
te`amim) but an incorrect premise regarding
the notation's significance: almost always, that the "Tiberian" te`amim are primarily exegetical (that is, a form of punctuation dividing and connecting words within
phrases), just as are the oral and written "te`amim"
of the synagogues.
Starting from this assumption, it is possible to derived detailed and generally consistent rules for the application
of the graphic forms to the verbal text. This "syntactical paradigm", however, does not explain the most
obvious features of the notation -- features which can only have a musical basis (forms, sub- or superlinear positions,
nuanced positions relative to a word or syllable, and so on).
Since the Renaissance, musicians and musicologists have sought to decipher the "Tiberian" te`amim as a musical notation. They have begun with the right premise (the te`amim are primarily musical) but the wrong virtual bilingual (an arbitrary musical standard unrelated
to the Hebrew verbal text). Some have imposed their own ideas of what ancient music "should have been"
upon the notation. Their results, obviously, have been equally arbitrary and anachronistic.
Others have attempted to trace a common origin for the oldest synagogue chants -- once again assuming the validity
of the Talmudic equation.14 Still
others have made comparisons between the "Tiberian" notation and other notations, especially the Byzantine
Greek notation )having no firm basis for comparison other than the similarity of certain graphic forms). Some even
speculate (without cause) that the notation is a tabulature for the fingers, or any number of other musical possibilities.
Hebraist Saul Levin takes a different approach. He assumes the correct virtual bilingual, but starts from the elocutionary premise.15 His results explain more features of the notation than does the "syntactical paradigm"
of the Masoretes and most Hebraists; but they still do not account for the most obvious features of all (the sub-
and superlinear positions of the graphic forms), nor the various nuances of position of certain forms relative
to a word or syllable.
D. Haïk-Vantoura's Foundational Approach
Suzanne Haïk-Vantoura, like other analysts, used the Hebrew verbal syntax as her "virtual bilingual".
Her starting premise, however, is that actually maintained by Masoretic tradition (as opposed to interpretation),
as well as by modern musicology: the te`amim are primarily musical. They are a notation of vocal music,
with inherent (and secondary) syntactical and elocutionary functions. Through exhaustive analysis, Haïk-Vantoura finally
reconstructed the musical theory behind the te`amim,
a theory which not only explains all the features analyzed by other paradigms, but all the features ignored heretofore
as well.16
Every reviewer who has correctly followed Haïk-Vantoura's logic has confirmed the accuracy of her results.
Such reviewers have often been composers in the classical music community, who are best trained to appreciate the
complexities of melos. But they have also
included some of the greatest authorities in religion, and certain noted musicologists as well.
Few, if any, negative critics (and there have been many) have grasped the essential point: Haïk-Vantoura's
results derive strictly from her starting
premise, as analyzed against the virtual bilingual of the Hebrew verbal syntax. This starting premise leads to
but one unified, musical-syntactical paradigm, which is at once the simplest and only complete explanation of the
notation and its relation to the Hebrew verbal text. It also leads to the simplest and only reasonably complete
explanation of the origins and transmission of the Tiberian reading tradition.
Given the correctness of Haïk-Vantoura's starting premise, of the logic of her deciphering process, and of
her source text (the Letteris Edition), the "virtual bilingual" of the Hebrew verbal syntax dictates the resulting "deciphering key". The
melodies derived from this key are "very, very close" (in Haïk-Vantoura's words) to those
used in antiquity -- so close that their exegetical function is not impaired anywhere in the Hebrew Bible (barring
scribal error in either the melodic or verbal texts).
E. The Deciphering Key to the Notation
As mentioned above, the Hebrew Bible actually has two systems of musical notation: the psalmodic (in Psalms, Proverbs and Job 3:2-42:6) and the prosodic (in the prologue and epilogue of Job and in all the other books). The verses in our English
translations actually represent (with a very few exceptions) complete musical verses in the Masoretic Text.
In both systems, there are graphic forms found below the words (the sublinear signs) and above them (the superlinear
signs). Every verse is equipped with sublinear signs; some phrases, in some verses, also have superlinear signs
(some few phrases have superlinear signs only). Words are either given signs of their own or joined (by a hyphen,
maKef) to those which are, forming "musical-syntactical
units" which are treated as if one word. The sublinear signs are generally much simpler in form and much more
common in use than (and independant in their interrelationships from) the superlinear signs. Finally, there are
a number of conventional abbreviations in the notation (such as the sparing use of signs, usually on naturally
accented syllables) and in the positions of the various signs relative to the words.
All this presages the dominance of the
sublinear signs and the subordination
of the superlinear signs to them. Of the dominant sublinear signs, one sign (the simplest in form and most common
in use) is evidently a "center of melodic attraction". Every other sign is strongly attracted to it (and
thus commonly found near it). Moreover, it not only ends all but a handful of verses (often repeating itself two
or three times on the last word), but it is found in many places within the verses and often at their beginning.
This sign, then (called siLouk), is the
key "tone" of the entire musical structure.
Only a single note can fulfill all these functions within a melodic-verbal phrase. But it it does, it is by definition
a tonic: a "center of attraction"
for a hierarchy of musical tones, based on harmonic relationships between tones ("tonality"). Since the
sublinear signs form an independant (and interdependant) class, they must therefore all represent specific notes:
the degrees of a tonal scale of a particular genre (diatonic, pentatonic, chromatic, etc.), founded in one or more
specific "modalities".
Two other sublinear signs are consistently found at the major cadences within verses: atnah and mounah (the latter is also found within phrases). The existence
of two such "dominants" proves that the scale genre is diatonic (or a direct derivative of the diatonic
genre). Upon careful analysis against the verbal syntax, it is possible to prove that atnah represents the
4th degree of the scale; mounah, the 5th degree. One does not know, yet, whether these lie below or above the tonic
(or both, as in our modern Western octave, which has the tonic at either end).
Given these three "pillar degrees" (the degrees around which the rest of the tonality revolves), it is
possible (via exhaustive statistical analysis and comparison of the results with the verbal syntax) to determine
the order of the degrees of the scale, and the basic modes they indirectly indicate (by the relative emphasis they
give to the words they mark). Once Haïk-Vantoura had done this for the prosodic system, she determined the
meaning of the superlinear prosodic signs one by one. After this, she deciphered the psalmodic system as well (which
uses many of the same signs, but in different relationships with the words and each other).
Figure
1 and Figure 2 give the interrelationships
between the common signs of the prosodic and psalmodic systems, respectively. (There are two rare signs in prosody
which are not in these tables, which were also deciphered.) Each sublinear sign represents a degree of a basic
scale (an eight-note scale in prosody, a seven-note scale in psalmody). Each superlinear sign represents a group
of one to three notes sung on one syllable: an ornamentation or melisma. The basic meaning of each melisma is always the same; its pitch is relative to that of the
preceding sublinear sign.
Since our text will mention specific te`amim by name at times, we provide below a table giving the forms and names of the sublinear and
superlinear te`amim in prosody. The sublinear te`amim
are given in descending order (and are matched with pitches as well, assuming E as the tonic degree and the "mode
of E" as the basic mode). Since the pitch of each superlinear sign is always relative to that of the sublinear
sign that precedes it, the reader may best understand its meaning by checking Figure 1. (Some of the names
are spelled somewhat differently than they are in Haïk-Vantoura's own tables; the orthography has been "normalized"
to fit with the transliteration of Hebrew used in her scores.)
|
The Common Sublinear Te`amim (Prosody)
|
|
|
(C') meHoupakh (returned) |
|
|
(B) mounah
(placed) |
|
|
(A) atnah
(resting) |
|
|
(G) tifha
(palm) |
|
|
(F) mérkha (extension) |
|
|
(E) siLouk (end)
[tonic degree] |
|
|
(D) tevir (broken) |
|
|
copyright © darga (step, ladder) |
|
The Rare Sublinear Te`amim (Prosody)
|
|
|
(D#) galgal*** (wheel) |
|
|
(D-F) mérkha kefula*** (double extension) |
|
The Common Superlinear Te`amim (Prosody)
|
|
|
paschta (stretcher) |
|
|
gérésch (expulsion) |
|
|
gérschayim (double expulsion) |
|
|
pazér katon*** (small dispersing) |
|
|
zakéf katon (small rising) |
|
|
zakéf gadol (great rising) |
|
|
revi`a (crouching) |
|
|
çegolta (cluster) |
|
|
zarka (spurt) |
|
|
telischa ketaNa (small pulling away) |
|
|
telischa gedola*** (great pulling away) |
|
The Rare Superlinear Te`amim (Prosody)
|
|
|
schalschélét*** (chain) |
|
|
pazér gadol*** (great dispersing) |
|
*** = Not used in the Song of
Songs.
|
|
With this introduction completed, we continue with the basic mechanics of the musical
system that lies behind the te`amim.
The Prosodic Scale and Modes
Ancient music was based not only on particular scales, but on the concept of "modality". In modern Western
music, the "mode" and the "scale" begin and end on the same note within the octave: the tonic.
Thus in the modern "key" of "C major", the "major mode" and the "major scale"
begin and end on C:
| Degrees of Scale: |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
| Notes of Scale: |
C
|
D
|
E
|
F
|
G
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
| Degrees of Mode: |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
1
|
Note that the 8th degree of the one-octave scale is also the 1st degree of the mode (since the note C repeats itself
at the end of the octave). The essential equivalence of mode and scale in Western music (and its use of two centers of attraction in the octave) determines much of its structure and characteristics.
Biblical cantillation likewise begins with the major scale, but places the tonic of the basic mode on the equivalent
of E, not C. Biblical prosody puts the tonic or "final" (the degree that ends every verse) on the 3rd,
not the 1st and 8th degrees of the octave:
| Degrees of Scale: |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
| Notes of Scale: |
C
|
D
|
E
|
F
|
G
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
| Degrees of Mode: |
6
|
7
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
Ancient Mesopotamian music (and its theoretical heir, ancient Greek music) used the same basic scale ("C major")
and the same basic mode (the "mode of E" or "Greek Dorian") as the basis of tuning theory and
practice.17 Harps and lyres can
be tuned to any "diatonic" or "diatonic-chromatic" mode from the "mode of E", simply
by raising or lowering the proper strings in a tuning cycle.18
This most basic scalar-modal structure is used in the first four verses (and a few others) of the Song of Songs.
Lamentations 3 and 5 use this mode as well. Unlike the "Greek Dorian" octave species, the biblical octave
places the tonic on its 3rd scalar degree rather than at either end. This placement gives a more reserved character
to the biblical melodies than they would have otherwise.
Other modes (both diatonic and diatonic-chromatic) are derived by "augmenting" one or more degrees of
the above basic structure. We mark such augmented degrees here by adding the "pound sign" to the letter
name of the degree. ("F#", for example, represents "F sharp", the augmentation of F.) Biblical
prosody uses most of the diatonic modes, as well as a number of diatonic-chromatic ones. One of the most bizarre
(and expressive) of the latter is found in many verses in the Song of Songs, especially chapter 4:
| Degrees of Scale: |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
| Notes of Scale: |
C
|
D
|
E
|
F#
|
G
|
A#
|
B
|
C
|
| Degrees of Mode: |
6
|
7
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
Another very beautiful mode (similar to one common in Irish music) is used in the Dear One's description of the
Loved One (Song 5:10-16a), much of Isaiah 60, much of the Book of Ruth, and elsewhere:
| Degrees of Scale: |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
| Notes of Scale: |
C#
|
D
|
E
|
F#
|
G#
|
A
|
B
|
C#
|
| Degrees of Mode: |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
1
|
The pure "diatonic minor" is also found in the Song of Songs, in Esther and throughout Ecclesiastes:
| Degrees of Scale: |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
| Notes of Scale: |
C
|
D
|
E
|
F#
|
G
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
| Degrees of Mode: |
6
|
7
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
The "chromatic-Dorian" mode, the most "Jewish" of all to most Westerners' ears, is used nowhere
in the Song of Songs. It is used, however,
in many passages of the Torah, in Lamentations 4 and in the incomparable "Elegy of David" (2 Samuel 1:19-27):
| Degrees of Scale: |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
| Notes of Scale: |
C
|
D
|
E
|
F
|
G#
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
| Degrees of Mode: |
6
|
7
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
Other modes are also used, both in the Song of Songs and in the other "prose" books. Though the major
scale is the basic scale used in biblical
prosody, no prose text uses the major mode,
which (were it used) would look like this:
| Degrees of Scale: |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
| Notes of Scale: |
C#
|
D#
|
E
|
F#
|
G#
|
A
|
B
|
C#
|
| Degrees of Mode: |
6
|
7
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
The Psalmodic Scale and Modes
In Psalms, Proverbs and the body of Job, a "gapped" scale of only seven degrees is used; the tonic of
the mode is on the second degree of the scale. The basic mode19 (used in Psalms 6, 23, 130, etc.) is similar to the "harmonic minor" mode of Western
music:
| Degrees of Scale: |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
| Notes of Scale: |
D#
|
E
|
F#
|
G
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
| Degrees of Mode: |
7
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
Sometimes the 4th degree of the mode is augmented, giving the bizarre "minor with 2 chromaticisms" used
in Psalms 27, 29, 93, 117 and 148:
| Degrees of Scale: |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
| Notes of Scale: |
D#
|
E
|
F#
|
G
|
A#
|
B
|
C
|
| Degrees of Mode: |
7
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
The beautiful "major-minor" mode (used in many Psalms) is merely the "harmonic minor" mode
with the 3rd degree augmented rather than the 4th degree:
| Degrees of Scale: |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
| Notes of Scale: |
D#
|
E
|
F#
|
G#
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
| Degrees of Mode: |
7
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
Finally, there is the magnificent "major" mode used in Psalms 8, 96, 98, 111, 122 and 149 (among others):
| Degrees of Scale: |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
| Notes of Scale: |
D#
|
E
|
F#
|
G#
|
A
|
B
|
C#
|
| Degrees of Mode: |
7
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
Psalm 148 is unique in that it uses all four psalmodic modes (the 2nd, 1st, 3rd and 4th listed above, in that order).
Many psalms use only one mode; many more alternate two, rarely three modes, sometimes with "variable"
degrees as well (see below).
Modes with "Variable" Degrees
Some prose texts such as the Song of Songs (and a number of Psalms) also use modes in which one or more degrees
are "variable". The "Loved One's Wedding" (Song 3:6-11) uses such a mode, with a "variable
4th degree": A or A# [A(#)]. The modal structure looks like this:
| Degrees of Scale: |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
| Notes of Scale: |
C
|
D
|
E
|
F#
|
G
|
A(#)
|
B
|
C
|
| Degrees of Mode: |
6
|
7
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
In Song 3:6 the 4th degree is augmented;
in 3:7 it is natural. Throughout the wedding
scene, A and A# alternate to bring out the sense of particular words and phrases.
The Biblical Ambitus
The biblical notation uses more than sublinear signs, of course. Combined with the sublinear signs representing
basic degrees, the superlinear melismas extend the ambitus (range) of the biblical melody to eleven degrees, in both the prosodic and psalmodic systems.
Using the most basic mode of prosody, one may illustrate the ambitus as follows:
| Degrees of Scale: |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
| Notes of Scale: |
C
|
D
|
E
|
F
|
G
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
F
|
| Degrees of Mode: |
6
|
7
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
(7)
|
(8)
|
(9)
|
The attentive musician will notice something peculiar: the 1st or tonic degree
of the mode does not repeat itself at the octave. That is because the 8th
degree above the tonic does not act as a "center of attraction". The top three degrees of the scale (and
of the mode) are made possible through the intervention of the superlinear (melismatic) te`amim. Thanks to these accents, the 8th degree above the octave is treated as a "passing tone".
The melody does not rest on that degree, but immediately passes on to another note (almost always downward). In
a certain sense, the top three degrees of the scale are not even degrees of the mode (since these are determined
by the sublinear signs) -- and so we have placed them in parentheses in the table above.
In Haïk-Vantoura's original score of the Song of Songs (the source of most of the illustrations in this book),
the tonic degree is set on D rather than on E. The pitches of the scale and basic mode are therefore set as follows
(using the entire ambitus):
| Degrees of Scale: |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
| Notes of Scale: |
Bb
|
C
|
D
|
Eb
|
F
|
G
|
A
|
Bb
|
C
|
D
|
Eb
|
| Degrees of Mode: |
6
|
7
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
(7)
|
(8)
|
(9)
|
In the above table and in other tables, "b" stands for the flat sign, as "#" stands for the sharp sign. Thus the basic scale above is B-flat major, while the basic mode is the equivalent of D minor
(the "diatonic" variety) with the second degree diminished (lowered by a half step from E to Eb).
Because Haïk-Vantoura's original score sets the tonic on D rather than on E,
we will use the above table as the basis of all other such tables in the rest of the book. The pitch of a particular
degree in the melodic line will be raised by a half step as the modality requires.
F. The Interaction of Tonality and Verbal Syntax
In all professional vocal music, and in particular that of antiquity, the expression (and therefore the intended
message) is founded in the linkage of verbal and melodic syntaxes: the melos.
Haïk-Vantoura has recently demonstrated how the musical syntax (tonality) interacts with the verbal syntax
to create the melos.20 Generalizing her conclusions, we may define five musical, five verbal factors, which interact with
quasi-mathematical precision (cf. Appendix 3).
These ten factors interact to create a melodic-verbal synergy, in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The tonality (the hierarchal arrangement of tones into musical verses and phrases) complements the verbal syntax (the hierarchical arrangement of words into
verbal verses and phrases). Like an intertwining of the fingers of the left and right hands, these ten factors
interlock to form the message of the original
biblical revelation (a message inspired on more than one level).
The strictness of the parallels between the musical notation and the verbal syntax makes the complete and accurate
decipherment of the former possible.21
The interaction of melody and words proves conclusively that the Hebrew Bible was created, taught and transmitted
as "art song". Like an ever-changing river, the biblical melos flows through time, indicating by its subtle interrelationships the influences of authorial
personality, historical context, prophetic purpose (which includes literary and liturgical concerns) and spiritual
inspiration.
Public "prophecy", in the Hebrew Bible, is not merely musical or verbal but both in combination: nevi`a (prophecy), maSa ("burden" or oracle), schir or schira (sung poem),
mizmor (a "psalm", accompanied
by plucked stringed instruments), maskil
(in a variable sense, a "didactic" psalm), tora
(law, teaching), and every other type of biblical text.
We note the Levitical psalmists, under David's direction, "prophesied with harps, lyres and cymbals"
(cf. 1 Chronicles 25); as did the "prophets" under Samuel's direction (1 Samuel 10:5, 10-11; 19:18-24).
But all the authors of Hebrew Scripture used at least one plucked string instrument to accompany their oracles
-- if we may judge by the example of other poet-musicians in biblical times.22 Unlike ancient synagogue chant, ancient melos was normally accompanied (and usually with lyre, harp, lute, or other plucked string instrument).
Again, unlike ancient synagogue chant (which has little harmonic structure and is intended for solo voice), biblical
melos is most effective when accompanied
(thanks to its harmonic structure) and when the correct choral resources perform it (in the acoustical settings
for which each text was designed to be heard).
Our exegesis of the Song of Songs is based on the above ten factors, musical and verbal, that make up the melos. We will attempt to make the specific relationships
clear, where they are critical to the understanding of a passage.
|
