I. Arvanitis: The name Naos and its nature are best described in Gabriel Ieromonachos' treatise (late byzantine) as simply the Diphonos of the Exo Protos. What does this mean? It simply means that in chants of Exo Protos (i.e. the Protos on Ke, the common Protos of the Old Sticherarion and Heirmologion), one can find phrases beginning from Ke and cadencing on Ni (remember the music of the word ''ypsothite'' in my transcription of the mediaeval ''Christos gennatai''). Today you can find such phrases in the Stichera of the Plagal of First Mode (see e.g. the last phrases of the two Eothina of Pl. Protos in the Anastasimatarion by Ioannis Protopsaltis). And, of course, the heirmologic Pl. Protos is mainly Naos, as well as, a very similar to it, sticheraric Protos, commonly written now on Pa (with medial cadences on Ga) but usually sung in a higher tessitura, so that it could be written on Ke. BTW, in the times of Koukouzelis, the heirmologic Protos was almost entirely Naos, i.e. it sounded like the present-day heirmologic Plagios Protos.

I. Arvanitis: No mention or hint of chromatic intervals in Naos is mentioned by Gabriel and one cannot claim that the present-day Naos (in the cases I've mentioned above) must be always chromatic. Its chromatic character appears only as a matter of attractions, i.e. only when the melody touches Pa for a cadence on Ni, or, sometimes, when descending from Bou to a cadence on Ni, Pa is slightly flattened (the flattening is very slight, 2-3 kommas, much less than e.g. Lycourgos Angelopoulos sings it. One almost doesn't need to think of it so much, so there is a smooth transition from phrases with a flattening of Pa to phrases without it. This is the true oral tradition). A chromatic Naos is present chiefly in new Byzantine compositions of the last two centuries and in folk songs. Karas probably wanted to present Byzantine tradition and folk song as one tradition of the Greek Nation. This is of course to a high degree true, but folk and church tradition need not be identical in every detail. So, Karas presented chromatic Naos as an Echos of this combined tradition, without making any distinction regarding its use.

I. Arvanitis: Now, if we must be careful to change theory and praxis even when the results of our research are fully justified, we must be much more careful when we have only some indications for the need of a change or when we have only a suspicion and make a hypothesis about an issue. In the case of "Ton tafon sou Sotir", the assertion or hypothesis that it was sung in the Protos Diphonos "Naos" finds no support. No support of course in the oral tradition, but also no support in the manuscripts. In Petros Vyzantios, Petros Lampadarios, Balasios, Theophanis Karykis Heirmologia (which include melodies similar or directly comparable to the now used) the Martyria is always that of Exo Protos. No indication of Diphonia after this Martyria. And the melody starts clearly from Di-Ke (it could be written with the Martyria of Exo Protos alone and then have two Oliga on "Ton ta-" wich would prove that it is Naos. But it's never written so). So, no sign of Naos in these mss. In the 15th/14th cent. the heirmologic chants (and some short papadic also) of Protos ech. were actually sung in Naos (=Protos from Ke with cadences on Ni; not necessarily chromatic of course). But in the mss of the same period "Ton tafon sou sotir" is clearly written in Eso Protos (from Pa) with a melody entirely different from the later melodies! So, no evidence for Naos for this chant, no need of change for the current theory and praxis. To be honest, Karas did not so much present it as his own theory (he attributes it to Philanthidis. Karas tries to give more arguments which can be proved to be wrong) or did not insist so much for a need of change of the praxis of all the psaltai (I remember him singing it in the 2nd mode in the chapel of his school). He rather proposed it as a solution to the paradox that it belongs to the 1st mode but is sung in the 2nd; Chromatic Naos can be thought as a combination of the two modes (this paradox can be solved in another way). The insistence on the need of a change is the work of Angelopoulos and his group. (I did not give here my whole argumentation. There is also more evidence that this troparion must remain as it is. I have collected my notes on this and intend to publish a small book, part of a wider work on the "Epeisakta". I don't know when, but we'll see).