Dimitrie Cantemir and the Beginning of European Musicology

Professor PhD Odette Arhip

Dimitrie Cantemir was twice prince of Moldavia, a Romanian county, but he

is reputed for his scientific and literary work. One of his reward able achievement is a
musical treatise written after he spent several years at Constantinople (1688-1710), so
during a period of prosperity for Ottoman arts. It was soon after the siege of Vienna
(1683) and Passarowitz Peace, when the Empire has finally succeeded to stop losing
territories. The sultans were no longer dedicated to military purposes, but mostly to
artistic ones. Soliman II had deep interest in theology, Ahmed II was an eager
penman, encouraging also the music, and Ahmed III opened the renowned Tulip Age,
a golden age for Ottoman culture and civilization about which Nicolae Iorga said that
it was similar to the French century of Louis the XIV-th.1
The treatise is his main musical contribution, although it is known according
to different titles, and it was dedicated to the sultan conducting the empire when
Cantemir was already in Russia (around the year 1712). He studied in the Ottoman
Empire as the usual convention of that time was to keep an eye of the children of the
leaders of the two Romanian counties (Moldova and Tara Românească). So, Dimitrie
Cantemir lived more than 12 years at Constantinople as he was Constantin Cantemir’s
son and Antioh Cantemir’s brother, both of them princes of Moldavia. Cantemir spent
almost an aristocratic life in Fanar, a famous neighborhood of the capital inhabited
mainly by Greek gentry. And he was not the only Romanian prince in that specific
area. For example, his literary and politic rival, Nicolae Mavrocordat, lived and
studied also there having close fields of interest: Greek, Latin and Turkish languages,
literature and history. Cantemir was the last native leader of the two counties, while
Mavrocordat was the first one with Greek origins (it was the beginning of the fanariot
kingship). The lives and the literary or scientific achievements of these two political
men are recently presented and analyzed in Tudor Dinu’s book: Dimitrie Cantemir şi
Nicolae Mavrocordat. Rivalităţi politice şi literare la începutul secolului XVIII. 2 The
life and cultural contribution of the whole boyar Cantemir family was specified in
Ştefan Lemny documentary account, Cantemireştii.3 The second author, Ştefan
Lemny presents the remarkable and exciting life of Cantemir family in the native
country, and then in the Ottoman Empire, at Sankt Petersburg, London and Paris. The
 2

family offered to the European culture two outstanding intellectual figures: Dimitrie
Cantemir, member of the Academy from Berlin, writer, historian, geographer,
ethnologist, musicologist, secret counselor of Peter the Great, politic personality; his
son, Antioh Cantemir, was ambassador for Russia at London and Paris and he set up
the modern Russian poetry due to his “Satires”. Both of them spoke and wrote in
several languages: Latin, Greek, Turkish, Russian, French, English, Italian, and
German and, of course, Romanian. Although they never return to Moldavia after the
battle from Stănilești, they contributed to enrich the Romanian cultural heritage and to
a much closer connection between Eastern and Western Europe.
Dimitrie Cantemir is appreciated as an exceptional geographer and ethnologist
due to his masterpiece, Descriptio Moldaviae. He is reputed as a historian by reason
of his History of the Ottoman Empire. His literary contribution was extensively
observed. His first work was Divanul or Gâlceava înțeleptului cu lumea, published in
1698, at Iaşi, and considered to mark the beginning of Romanian philosophical
papers. It debated issues related to soul, conscience, time, nature and it was the first
attempt to define philosophical concepts and to create a Romanian philosophical
terminology.4 Carrying on the previous tradition of historical chronicals, Cantemir
took up a superior level leading the field for the first social-political allegoric novel:
Istoria ieroglifică – written in Romanian at Constantinople, between 1703 and 1705,
and having enclosed all kinds of popular sayings, thoughts or lines as a result of direct
folkloric influence. It was an obvious proof that Cantemir did a clear distinction
between history and fiction, between facts and verity created by literary means and
artistic liberty.
Coming back to his activity as a musicologist, we wish to comment upon his
main contribution. He was influenced and impressed by the pretty wide appreciation
for music at Constantinople. The Ottomans did not disclaim music as the Arabic
people did. All the sultans cherished military music, but, especially during the
eighteenth century, they used to have their own orchestras, called tabl ii’ alem-i kassa
(free translation: the emporer’s drums and banner). According to their rank, almost all
the political men used to have such musical groups. There was also another kind of
music – one inspired by Persian poetry and which was played inside the serais and the
palace courts. It was played by special musicians who had also the quality of talented
poets and connoisseurs of the classic Persian lyrics. At the end of the XVII-th century,
the Turkish music emancipated and became independent, different from Persian style.
 3

This process came to an end during Ahmed III’s reign and, in 1706, the Persan
ambassador was officially received and honored with pure Turkish music, a good
occasion to point out that this one had it chance to exceed Pursian art. At that time as
well, music was also an important studying discipline for the children of the rich
families and for refined people. Seeing and becoming familiar with this atmosphere,
Cantemir decided to present in details this kind of music, but also to create an original
way to transpose musical works. Cantemir considered that the Turkish music was
perfect from the point of view of the beat, measure and proportion of the voices. The
beat was represented with the help of several concentric circles.

One type of beat – small, with 14 measures.

Another type of beat, also an even small one with only 9 measures.
 4

For bigger beats, with 88 measures, he needed another kind of graphical

representation.

But for the beginnig, we may take a look at the starts of this scientific pursuit.
The first Turkish authors of musical treatises were strongly influenced by Greek
theory. The father of native musical theory was al Farabi (cca. 870-950) who wrote
The Great Book of Music, an important source of inspiration for the next scholars. A
systematic school, with high principles, was founded by a Persian letterman, Safi al-
Din, during the XII-th century. This was dominant for more than 300 years. Faintly,
only in the XV-th century, in the period of Murad II’s reign, an original Turkish
theory blossomed. It was never used the Western European way to transpose the key
musical notes, but only a complicated modality which combined Arabic letters and
numbers. Few authors chose to use Persian musical patterns. During the XV-th
century, the first treatises written in Turkish appeared, but they were only
compilations after Safi al Din and other ancient writers. So, this is the general context
 5

of the musical theory at the end of the XVII-th century when young Dimitrie
Cantemir stood out as very familiar with this topic and he was highly appreciated.5
His treatise was written around the year 1700, during the first phase of his
literary activity when he achieved also his main philosophical works. In The History
of the Ottoman Empire, Cantemir confessed that he was encouraged by his pupils to
produce this treatise6. He used to teach music for Turkish youngmen and he already
had his own method and an original notation system. He was familiar with all the
secrets of Pursian and Turkish music, becoming a maestro. His treatise is known
under different titles or it is better to say different ways to translate its title and, there
are, as well, diverse opinions regarding the precise period in which it was written7.
But this is not very important in our contribution. We wish to highlight the fact that
this brilliant Romanian scholar had a major tribute to present and to introduce Turkish
original music to the world.
Cantemir’s original manuscript is preserved in Instanbul, at the National
Library. It was bought from an antiquary by H. S. Arel, at the beginning of the XX-th
century, and it was granted to Turkish officials. It was written in Turkish and it has
two parts. The first part is purely theoretical, the second one contains all the 354
melodies transposed by means of Cantemir’s original alphabetical system. Among
them, one may find out the 13 songs written by Cantemir himself.
The first European musicologist who mentioned Cantemir’s creations was
Charles Fonton, in 1751. He was carried away by Cantemir’s talent for chords and he
also praised the Turkish enthusiasm for his music. All the principal lexicons of the
XVII-th and of the XVIII-th century mentioned him and his achievments (Fr. J.
Sulzer, C. J. Jöcher, E. L. Gerber, Choron etc.). The European musicologists of the
XIX-th century considered Dimitrie Cantemir to be the innovater of the Turkish
musical notation (G. A. Villoteau, L. A. Castellan, F. J. Fétis etc.).
6
 7

This is a sample of one of Cantemir’s original songs transposed in the classical

way – rendered from Eugenia Popescu-Judetz’s book.
The first part refers to different kinds of tempos, and it includes descriptions of
the instruments, a drawing of the human body and the relationship between it, human
organs and several musical beats. It is interesting to mention the fact that this
avocation for oriental music was inherited by his son, Antioh, who did the following
reference regarding his father’s work in a letter addressed to Voltaire: „My father’s
signs for musical notes in Turkish music resemble more to the one used by Greeks,
and less to the ones used by French people. I have here, in Moscow, a whole book
concerning this aspect...”8 Another observation is possible due to Antioh’s mention.
Dimitrie Cantemir continued to concern himself about Turkish music even living in
Russia. In 1711, he wrote a second book: Introducere în muzica turcească în limba
moldovenească. He mentioned this work in his history dedicated to the Ottoman
Empire. In this way, he succeeded to draw a bigger attention from the tsar, Peter the
Great, who was a very good singer, loved and encouraged ecclesiastic music. He used
to have his own orchestra, consisting of 20 people, which accompanied him even in
his military campaigns. This fact offers an explanation for the fact that the second
Cantemir’s contribution is lost. As counselor of Peter the Great, he obeyed the battle
order and went to Persia in 1722. A shipwreck took place and everybody agrees that
this was probably the occasion when his work disappeared. Nevertheless, taking into
account Peter the Great’s dedication for ecclesiastic music, Cantemir had a conclusive
contribution to introduce and to translate the Byzantine High Mass for the Russian
Orthodox church due to his good knowledge of Greek, Slavonic language and music.
He also made an instrument capable to measure the height of the sounds – Cantemir
himself described his success in Sistema religiei mahomedane.9
So, Cantemir’s treatise is the first one dedicated to the pure Turkish music and
his whole theory was rooted in his practical experience. His ideas are not abstract or
philosophical, he did not pay any tribute to previous attempts, and he humbly
admitted that all he wrote stood for his own opinion. He was completely conscious
that this was an authentic one, reason for which he kept using the term “new” when he
referred to his contribution in this field. As in all his scientific area, he exhibited a
mature, superior thinking which is characterized by attention for truth, method,
innovation and bold conception. He also succeeded to unit theory with practice, fields
always kept apart during Medieval Age. Dimitrie Cantemir cleared up the speculative
 8

maze imposed by former scholastic authors and he was the first one who understood
the amazing importance of the way in which musical notation was transposed.

1
Cf. Nicolae Iorga, Prefata at Viata lui Constantin Vodă Cantemir, Craiova, Scrisul românesc
2
Tudor Dinu, Dimitrie Cantemir şi Nicolae Mavrocordat. Rivalităţi politice şi literare la începutul
secolului XVIII, Bucuresti, Humanitas, 2011
3
Stefan Lemny, Cantemireştii. Aventura europeană a unei familii princiare din secolul al XVIII-lea,
Iaşi, Polirom, 2009 (preface by the French historian Emmanuel Le Roz).
4
Cf. Elvira Sorohan, Cantemir în cartea ieroglifelor, Bucureşti, Minerva, 1978
5
Eugenia Popescu-Judetz, Dimitrie Cantemir. Cartea ştiinţei muzicii, Bucureşti, Editura muzicală a
Uniunii compozitorilor, 1973, p. 65
6
Dimitrie Cantemir, Istoria Imperiului Otoman, p. 217, reference 17, Bucureşti.
7
Cf. Teodor T. Burada, Scrierile muzicale ale lui Dimitrie Cantemir, Bucureşti, 1911; Nicolae Iorga,
Istoria literaturii române în secolul al XVIII-lea, Bucureşti, 1965; P. P. Panaitescu, Dimitrie Cantemir.
Viaţa, opera, Bucureşti, Editura Academiei, 1969
8
Eugenia Popescu-Judetz, op. cit., p. 78
9
Cf. Albert Soubies, Histoire de la musique en Russie, Paris, Société Française d’Edition d’Art, 1893,
p. 34