ABSTRACT
Various strategies may be thought appropriate in examining such a large body of material. It would be both logical and intuitively attractive, for example, to adhere at least initially to Cantemir's own categorizations and definitions on the assumption that, even if not all of equal standing, they serve to demarcate various areas of the repertoire that would repay separate scrutiny. But an equally good case could be made for deliberately setting them aside and subjecting the unsorted mass of notations to a particular pre-selected technique of analysis, one therefore potentially capable, if not of cultural neutrality, then at least of consistency of application. A third possibility would be a form of compromise balancing a possible loss of rigour against a possible gain in sensitivity by attempting some measure of synthesis, or at least productive interweaving, of emic and etic approaches. Again, might it be more illuminating to consider modes in groups, or individually? And in either case where would it be most useful to start—with the modes deemed by Cantemir to be the most significant, normally those which provide the greatest number of examples (no fewer that 49 compositions in the case of hüseyni), or with those of evidently lesser significance where the amount of material to consider is small, in some cases, indeed, consisting of no more than a single brief representation in a modulatory sequence?
