Chapter 6

[4]An objection to this identification has been based on the words of Pollux,Onom.iv. 78kai harmonia men aulêtikê Dôristi, Phrygisti, Lydios kai Iônikê, kai syntonos Lydisti ên Anthippos exeure. The source of this statement, or at least of the latter part of it, is evidently the same as that of the notice in Plutarch. The agreement with Plato's list makes it probable that this source was some comment on the passage in theRepublic. If so, it can hardly be doubted that Pollux gives the original terms, the PlatonicLydistiandSyntonolydisti, and consequently that the later Lydian is not to be found in hisLydios(which is a 'relaxed' mode), but in hissyntonos Lydisti. There is no difficulty in supposing that the mode was calledsyntonosmerely in contrast to the other.

[5]It seems not impossible that this difficulty with regard to the 'slack Lydian' and Hypo-lydian may be connected with the contradiction in the statement of Aristoxenus about the schemes of keys in his time (p. 18). According to that account, if the text is sound, some musicians placed the Mixo-lydian a semitone below the Dorian—the Hypo-dorian being again a semitone lower. In this scheme, then, the Mixo-lydian held the place of the later Hypo-lydian. The conjecture may perhaps be hazarded, that this lower Mixo-lydian somehow represents Plato's 'slack Lydian,' and eventually passed into the Hypo-lydian.

[6]Aristides Quintilianus usestroposas the regular word for 'key:' e.g. in p. 136en tê tôn tropôn, hous kai tonous ekalesamen, ekthesei. So Alypius (p. 2 Meib.)dielein eis tous legomenous tropous te kai tonous, ontas pentekaideka ton arithmon. Also Bacchius in his catechism (p. 12 Meib.)hoi tous treis tropous adontes tinas adousi; Lydion, Phrygion, Dôrion; hoi de tous hepta tinas; Mixolydion, Lydion, Phrygion, Dôrion, Hypolydion, Hypophrygion, Hypodôrion, toutôn poios estin oxyteros? ho Mixolydios, k.t.l.And Gaudentius (p. 21, l. 2)kath' hekaston tropon hê tonon. Cp. Dionys. Hal.De Comp. Verb.c. 19.

[7]Anonymi scriptio de Musica(Berlin. 1841).

[8]This is especially evident in the case of the Lichanos; as was observed by Aristides Quintilianus, who says (p. 10 Meib.):hai kai tô genei lichanoi prosêgoreuthêsan, homônymôs tô plêttonti daktylô tên êchousan autas chordên onomastheisai. But Tritê also is doubtless originally the 'third string' rather than the 'third note.'

[9]The correspondence between ancient and modern musical notation was first determined in a satisfactory way by Bellermann (Die Tonleitern und Musiknoten der Griechen), and Fortlage (Das musicalische System der Griechen).

[10]This observation was made by ancient writers,e.g.by Adrastus (Peripatetic philosopher of the second cent.A.D.):epêuxêmenês de tês mousikês kai polychordôn kai polyphthongôn gegonotôn organôn tô proslêphthênai kai epi to bary kai epi to oxy tois pro[:y]parchousin oktô phthongois allous pleionas, homôs k.t.l.(Theon Smyrn. c. 6).

[11]The epigram is quoted in the pseudo-EuclideanIntroductio, p. 19 (Meib.):ho de(sc.Iôn)en dekachordô lyra(i.e.in a poem on the subject of the ten-stringed lyre):—tên dekabamona taxin echousatas symphônousas harmonias triodous;prin men s' heptatonon psallon dia tessara pantesHellênes, spanian mousan aeiramenoi.'The triple ways of music that are in concord' must be the three conjunct tetrachords that can be formed with ten notes (b c d e f g a b♭ c d). This is the scale of the Lesser Perfect System before the addition of the Proslambanomenos.

[11]The epigram is quoted in the pseudo-EuclideanIntroductio, p. 19 (Meib.):ho de(sc.Iôn)en dekachordô lyra(i.e.in a poem on the subject of the ten-stringed lyre):—

tên dekabamona taxin echousatas symphônousas harmonias triodous;prin men s' heptatonon psallon dia tessara pantesHellênes, spanian mousan aeiramenoi.

'The triple ways of music that are in concord' must be the three conjunct tetrachords that can be formed with ten notes (b c d e f g a b♭ c d). This is the scale of the Lesser Perfect System before the addition of the Proslambanomenos.

[12]Pherecratescheirônfr. 1 (quoted by Plut.de Mus.c. 30). It is needless to refer to the other traditions on the subject, such as we find in Nicomachus (Harm.p. 35) and Boethius.

[13]The termhyperypatêhad all but disappeared from the text of Theon Smyrnaeus in the edition of Bullialdus (Paris, 1644), having been corrupted intohypatêorparypatêin every place except one (p. 141, 3). It has been restored from MSS. in the edition of Hiller (Teubner, Leipzig, 1878). The word occurs also in Aristides Quintilianus (p. 10 Meib.), where the pluralhyperypataiis used for the notes below Hypatê, and in Boethius (Mus.i. 20).It may be worth noticing also that Thrasyllus uses the wordsdiezeugmenêandhyperbolaiain the sense ofnêtê diezeugmenônandnêtê hyperbolaiôn(Theon Smyrn.l. c.).

It may be worth noticing also that Thrasyllus uses the wordsdiezeugmenêandhyperbolaiain the sense ofnêtê diezeugmenônandnêtê hyperbolaiôn(Theon Smyrn.l. c.).

[14]TheIntroduction to Harmonics(eisagôgê harmonikê) which bears the name of Euclid in modern editions (beginning with J. Pena, Paris, 1557) cannot be his work. In some MSS. it is ascribed to Cleonides, in others to Pappus, who was probably of the fourth centuryA. D.The author is one of theharmonikoior Aristoxeneans, who adopt the method of equal temperament. He may perhaps be assigned to a comparatively early period on the ground that he recognises only the thirteen keys ascribed to Aristoxenus—not the fifteen keys given by most later writers (Aristides Quint., p. 22 Meib.). For some curious evidence connecting it with the name of the otherwise unknown writer Cleonides, see K. von Jan,Die Harmonik des Aristoxenianers Kleonides(Landsberg, 1870). TheSection of the Canon(kanonos katatomê) belongs to the mathematical or Pythagorean school, dividing the tetrachord into two major tones and aleimmawhich is somewhat less than a semitone. In point of form it is decidedly Euclidean: but we do not find it referred to by any writer before the third centuryA. D.—the earliest testimony being that of Porphyry (pp. 272-276 in Wallis' edition).

[15]Plato, Rep. p. 399:ouk ara, ên d' egô, polychordias ge oude panarmoniou hêmin deêsei en tais ôdais te kai melesin. Ou moi, ephê, phainetai. Trigônôn ara kai pêktidôn kai pantôn organôn hosa polychorda kai polyarmonia dêmiourgous ou threpsomen. Ou phainometha. Ti de? aulopoious ê aulêtas paradexei eis tên polin? ê ou touto polychordotaton, kai auta ta panarmonia aulou tynchanei onta mimêma? Dêla dê, ê d' hos. Lyra dê soi, ên d' egô, kai kithara leipetai, kai kata polin chrêsima; kai au kat' agrous tois nomeusi syrinx an tis eiê.Theauloswas not exactly a flute. It had a mouthpiece which gave it the character rather of the modern oboe or clarinet: see theDictionary of Antiquities,s. v. tibia. Thepanarmonionis not otherwise known, and the passage in Plato does not enable us to decide whether it was a real instrument or only a scale or arrangement of notes.

Theauloswas not exactly a flute. It had a mouthpiece which gave it the character rather of the modern oboe or clarinet: see theDictionary of Antiquities,s. v. tibia. Thepanarmonionis not otherwise known, and the passage in Plato does not enable us to decide whether it was a real instrument or only a scale or arrangement of notes.

[16]The passage quoted above from theKnightsof Aristophanes (p. 7) is sufficient to show that a marked preference for the Dorian mode would be a matter for jest.

[17]Die Lehre von den Tonempfindungen, p. 367, ed. 1863.

[18]So in the EuclideanSectio Canonisthe propositions which deal with the 'movable' notes, viz. Paranêtê and Lichanos (Theor. xvii) and Parhypatê and Tritê (Theor. xviii), begin by postulating the Mesê (estô gar mesê ho B k.t.l.).

[19]The termhêgemônor 'leading note' of the tetrachord Mesôn, here applied to the Mesê, is found in the same sense in Plutarch,De Mus.c. 11, whereho peri ton hêgemona keimenos tonos] means the disjunctive tone. Similarly Ptolemy (Harm.i. 16) speaks of the tones in a diatonic scale as beingen tois hêgoumenois topois, the semitonesen tois hepomenois(sc. of the tetrachord): and again of the ratio 5:4 (the major Third) as the 'leading' one of an Enharmonic tetrachord (ton epitetarton hos estin hêgoumenos tou enarmoniou genous).

[20]The investigation occupies a considerable space in hisHarmonics, viz. pp. 27-29 Meib. (from the wordsperi de synecheias kai tou hexês), and again pp. 58-72 Meib.

[21]This point is one which Aristoxenus is fond of insisting upon: cp. p. 10, 16ou pros tên katapyknôsin blepontas hôsper hoi harmonikoi: p. 38, 3hoti de estin hê katapyknôsis ekmelês kai panta tropon achrêstos phaneron: p. 53, 3kata tên tou melous physin zêtêteon to hexês kai ouch hôs hoi eis tên katapyknôsin blepontes eiôthasin apodidonai to hexês.The statement that the ancient diagrams gave a series of twenty-eight successive dieses or quarter-tones has not been explained. The number of quarter-tones in an octave is only twenty-four. Possibly it is a mere error of transcription (κηforκδ). If not, we may perhaps connect it with the seven intervals of the ordinary octave scale, and the simple method by which the enharmonic intervals were expressed in the instrumental notation. It has been explained that raising a note a quarter of a tone was shown by turning it through a quarter of a circle. Thus, ourcbeing denoted byepsilon02,c* wasepsilon04, andc♯ wasepsilon03. Now the ancient diagrams, which divided every tone into four parts, must have had a character forc♯*, or the note three-quarters of a tone abovec. Naturally this would be the remaining position ofepsilon02, namelyepsilon05. Again, we have seen that when the interval between two notes on the diatonic scale is only a semitone, the result of the notation is to produce a certain number of duplicates, so to speak. Thus:kappa01stands forb, and thereforekappa02forc: butcis a note of the original scale, and as such is writtengamma01. It may be that the diagrams to which Aristoxenus refers made use of these duplicates: that is to say, they may have made use of all four positions of a character (such as4kappas) whether the interval to be filled was a tone or a semitone. If so, the seven intervals would give twenty-eight characters (besides the upper octave-note), and apparently therefore twenty-eight dieses. Some traces of this use of characters in four positions have been noticed by Bellermann (Tonleitern, p. 65).]

The statement that the ancient diagrams gave a series of twenty-eight successive dieses or quarter-tones has not been explained. The number of quarter-tones in an octave is only twenty-four. Possibly it is a mere error of transcription (κηforκδ). If not, we may perhaps connect it with the seven intervals of the ordinary octave scale, and the simple method by which the enharmonic intervals were expressed in the instrumental notation. It has been explained that raising a note a quarter of a tone was shown by turning it through a quarter of a circle. Thus, ourcbeing denoted byepsilon02,c* wasepsilon04, andc♯ wasepsilon03. Now the ancient diagrams, which divided every tone into four parts, must have had a character forc♯*, or the note three-quarters of a tone abovec. Naturally this would be the remaining position ofepsilon02, namelyepsilon05. Again, we have seen that when the interval between two notes on the diatonic scale is only a semitone, the result of the notation is to produce a certain number of duplicates, so to speak. Thus:kappa01stands forb, and thereforekappa02forc: butcis a note of the original scale, and as such is writtengamma01. It may be that the diagrams to which Aristoxenus refers made use of these duplicates: that is to say, they may have made use of all four positions of a character (such as4kappas) whether the interval to be filled was a tone or a semitone. If so, the seven intervals would give twenty-eight characters (besides the upper octave-note), and apparently therefore twenty-eight dieses. Some traces of this use of characters in four positions have been noticed by Bellermann (Tonleitern, p. 65).]

[22]The fullest account of this curious fragment of notation is that given by Bellermann in his admirable book,Die Tonleitern und Musiknoten der Griechen, pp. 61-65. His conjectures as to its origin do not claim a high degree of probability. See the remarks onpp. 97-99.

[23]Cp. Plato,Rep.p. 531:kai smikrotaton einai touto diastêma, hô metrêteon.It may even be that this sense ofharmoniawas connected with the use for the Enharmonic genus. It is at least worth notice that the phraseha ekaloun harmoniasin this passage answers to the adjectiveenarmoniônin the passage first quoted (compare the wordsperi autôn monon tôn hepta oktachordôn ha ekaloun harmoniaswithperi systêmatôn oktachordôn enarmoniôn monon).

[24]So in Plato,Leg.p. 665 a:tê dê tês kinêseôs taxei rhythmos onoma eiê, tê d' au tês phônês, tou te oxeos hama kai bareos synkerannymenôn, harmonia onoma prosagoreuoito.

[25]Ptol.Harm.ii. 6. After drawing a distinction between difference of key as affecting the whole of a melody or piece of music and as a means of change in the course of it—the distinction, in short, between transposition and modulation proper—he says of the latter:hautê de hôsper ekpiptein autên(sc.tên aisthêsin)poiei tou synêthous kai prosdokômenou melous, hotan epi pleon men syneirêtai to akolouthon, metabainê de pê pros heteron eidos, êtoi kata to genos ê kata tên tasin.That is to say, the sense of change is produced by a change of genus or of pitch. A change ofspeciesis not suggested. So Dionys. Hal.De Comp. Verb.c. 19hoi de ge dithyrambopoioi kai tous tropous(keys)meteballon, Dôrikous te kai Phrygious kai Lydious en tô autô asmati poiountes; kai tas melôdias exêllatton, tote men enarmonious poiountes, k.t.l.

[26]Since this was written I have learned from Mr. H. S. Jones that the formarchaic_betafor beta occurs on an inscription dated about 500B.C., viz. Count Tyszkiewicz's bronze plate, published simultaneously by Robert in theMonumenti Antichi pubblicati per cura della reale Accademia dei Lincei, i. pp. 593 (with plate), and Fröhner in theRevue Archéologique, 1891 July-August, pp. 51 ff. Pl. xix. Mr. Jones points out that thisarchaic_betaconnects the crescent beta (C) of Naxos, Delos, &c. with the common form, and is evidently therefore an early form of the letter.I take this opportunity of thanking Mr. Jones for other help, especially in regard to the subject of this section.

I take this opportunity of thanking Mr. Jones for other help, especially in regard to the subject of this section.

[27]Harmonik und Melopöie, p. 286 (ed. 1863). The true form of the letter is given by Mr. Roberts,Greek Epigraphy, p. 109.

[28]Pausanias (iv. 27, 4) says of the founding of Messene:eirgazonto de kai hypo mousuiês allês men oudemias, aulôn de Boiôtiôn kai Argeiôn; ta te Sakada kai Pronomou melê tote dê proêchthê malista eis hamillan.

[29]Harm.ii. 8hoi de hyperekpiptontes tou dia pasôn tous ap' autou tou dia pasôn apôterô parelkontôs hypotithentai, tous autous aei ginomenous tois proeilêmmenois.

[30]Harm.ii. 11hôste mêd' an heteron eti doxai tô eidei ton tonon para ton proteron, all' hypodôrion palin, ê ton auton hypophrygion, oxyphônoteron tinos ê baryphônoteron monon.

[31]Harm.ii. 7pros tên toiautên diaphoran hê tôn organôn holôn epitasis ê palin anesis aparkei.

[32]This may be traced in the occasionally controversial tone; asHarm.ii. 7hoi men ep' elatton tou dia pasôn phthasantes, hoi d' ep' auto monon, hoi de epi to meizon toutou, prokopên tina schedon toiautên aei tôn neôterôn para tous palaioterous thêrômenôn, anoikeion tês peri to hêrmosmenon physeôs te kai apokatastaseôs; hê monê perainein anankaion esti tên tôn esomenôn akrôn tonôn diastasin. We may compare c. 11.

[33]So Bacch. p. 19 Meib.theseis de tetrachordôn hois to melos horizetai eisin hepta? synaphê, diazeuxis, hypodiazeuxis, k.t.l.(see the whole passage).

[34]We may think of this as a scale in which the semitones are considerably smaller,i.e.in whichcandfare nearly a quarter of a tone flat.

[35]Ptol.Harm.ii. 16periechetai de ta men en tê lyra kaloumena sterea tonou tinos hypo tôn tou toniaiou diatonou arithmôn tou autou tonou, ta de malaka hypo tôn en tô migmati tou malakou chrômatos apithmôn tou autou tonou. Heretonou tinosevidently means 'of any given key,' andtou autou tonou'of that key.' There is either no restriction, or none that Ptolemy thought worth mentioning, in the choice of the key and species.

[36]The two passages enumerate the scales in a slightly different manner. In i. 16 they are arranged in view of the genus or colour into—Pure Middle Soft Diatonic, viz.—sterea, of the lyre.tritai} of the cithara.hypertropa}Mixture of Chromatic, viz.—malaka, of the lyre.tropika, of the cithara.Mixture of Soft Diatonic, viz.—parypatai, of the cithara.Mixture ofdiatonon syntonon, viz.—lydia} of the cithara.iastia}It is added, however, that in their use of this last 'mixture' musicians are in the habit of tuning the cithara in the Pythagorean manner, with two Major tones and aleimma(calleddiatonon ditoniaion).In the second passage (ii. 16) the scales of the lyre are given first, then those of the cithara with the key of each. The order is the same, except thatparypataicomes beforetropika(now calledtropoi), andlydiais placed last. The wordsta de lydia hoi tou toniaiou diatonou[sc.arithmoi periechousitou dôrioucannot be correct, not merely because they contradict the statement of the earlier passage thatlydiadenoted a mixture withdiatonon syntonon(or in practicediatonon ditoniaion), but also because the scales that do not admit mixture are placed first in the list in both passages. Hence we should doubtless readta de lydia hoi [tou migmatos] tou [di]toniaiou diatonou tou Dôriou.]

[36]The two passages enumerate the scales in a slightly different manner. In i. 16 they are arranged in view of the genus or colour into—

Pure Middle Soft Diatonic, viz.—sterea, of the lyre.tritai} of the cithara.hypertropa}

Mixture of Chromatic, viz.—malaka, of the lyre.tropika, of the cithara.

Mixture of Soft Diatonic, viz.—parypatai, of the cithara.

Mixture ofdiatonon syntonon, viz.—lydia} of the cithara.iastia}

It is added, however, that in their use of this last 'mixture' musicians are in the habit of tuning the cithara in the Pythagorean manner, with two Major tones and aleimma(calleddiatonon ditoniaion).

In the second passage (ii. 16) the scales of the lyre are given first, then those of the cithara with the key of each. The order is the same, except thatparypataicomes beforetropika(now calledtropoi), andlydiais placed last. The wordsta de lydia hoi tou toniaiou diatonou[sc.arithmoi periechousitou dôrioucannot be correct, not merely because they contradict the statement of the earlier passage thatlydiadenoted a mixture withdiatonon syntonon(or in practicediatonon ditoniaion), but also because the scales that do not admit mixture are placed first in the list in both passages. Hence we should doubtless readta de lydia hoi [tou migmatos] tou [di]toniaiou diatonou tou Dôriou.]

[37]Harm.i. 16plên kathoson adousi men akolouthôs tô dedeigmenô syntonô diatonikô, kathaper exestai skopein apo tês tôn oikeiôn autou logôn parabolês, harmozontai de heteron ti genos(sc. the Pythagorean),xynengizon men ekeinô, k.t.l.

[38]It seems needless to set out these melodies here. The first satisfactory edition of them is that of Bellermann,Die Hymnen des Dionysius und Mesomedes(Berlin, 1840). They are given by Westphal in hisMusik des griechischen Alterthumes(1883), and by Gevaert,Musique de l'Antiquité, vol. i. pp. 445 ff.; also in Mr. W. Chappell'sHistory of Music(London, 1874), where the melodies of the first and third hymns will be found harmonised by the late Sir George Macfarren.The melody published by Kircher (Musurgia, i. p. 541) as a fragment of the first Pythian ode of Pindar has no attestation, and is generally regarded as a forgery.

The melody published by Kircher (Musurgia, i. p. 541) as a fragment of the first Pythian ode of Pindar has no attestation, and is generally regarded as a forgery.

[39]Of the discovery made at Delphi, after most of this book was in type, I hope to say something in theAppendix.

[40]Harm.p. 18 Meib.legetai gar dê kai logôdes ti melos, to synkeimenon ek tôn prosôdiôn, to en tois onomasi; physikon gar to epiteinein kai anienai en tô dialegesthai.

[41]I need not repeat what is said by Dr. Wessely and M. Ruelle in defence of the genuineness of our fragment. They justly point to the remarkable coincidence that the music of this very play is quoted by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (l. c.). It would almost seem as if it was the only well-known specimen of music of the classical period of tragedy.The transcription of Dr. Crusius, with his conjectural restorations, will be found in theAppendix. I have only introduced one of his corrections here, viz. the note on the second syllable ofkateklysen.

The transcription of Dr. Crusius, with his conjectural restorations, will be found in theAppendix. I have only introduced one of his corrections here, viz. the note on the second syllable ofkateklysen.

[42]Dr. Crusius, however, detects a Φ; (the sign forg) over the first syllable ofkateklusenand the second syllable ofpontou. There is little trace of them in his facsimile.

[43]This argument is used, along with some others not so cogent, in Mr. W. Chappell'sHistory of Music(p. 130).

[44]Ps. Eucl.Introd.p. 20 Meib.kata systêma de hotan ek synaphês eis diazeuxin ê anapalin metabolê ginêtai. Anonym. § 65systêmatikai de(sc.metabolai)hopotan ek diazeuxeôs eis synaphên ê empalin metelthê to melos.

[45]As represented primarily by the analysis of Helmholtz,Die Tonempfindungen, p. 467, ed. 1863.

[46]Harmonik und Melopöie, p. 356 (ed. 1863): 'Die älteste griechische Tonart ist demnach eine Molltonart.... Aus Kleinasien wurden zunächst zwei Durtonarten nach Griechenland eingeführt, die lydische und phrygische.' In the 1886 edition of the same book (p. 189) Westphal discovers a similar classification of modes implied in the words of Plato,Rep.p. 400 atri' atta estin eidê ex hôn hai baseis plekontai, hôsper en tois phthongois tettara hothen hai pasai harmoniai. But Plato is evidently referring to some matter of common knowledge. The three forms or elements of which all rhythms are made up are of course the ratios 1: 1, 2: 1 and 3: 2, which yield the three kinds of rhythm, dactylic, iambic and cretic (answering to common, triple, and quintuple time). Surely the four elements of all musical scales of which Plato speaks are not four kinds of scale (Harmonien-Klassen), but the four ratios which give the primary musical intervals—viz. the ratios 2: 1, 3: 2, 4: 3 and 9: 8, which give the Octave, Fifth, Fourth and Tone.

[47]If Hypo-phrygian is the same as the older Ionian (p. 11), the coincidence is complete for the time of Aristotle. Plato treats the claim of Ionian to rank among the Hellenic modes as somewhat doubtful (Laches, p. 188).

[48]Aristox.Harm.p. 23 Meib.hoi men gar tê nun katechousê melopoiia ounêtheis monon ontes eiktôs tên ditonon lichanon(fin the scalee-a)exorizousi; suntonôterais gar chrôntai schedon hoi pleistoi tôn nun. toutou d' aition to boulesthai glukainein aei. sêmeion de hoti toutou stochazontai, malista men gar kai pleiston chronon en tô chrômati diatribousin. hotan d' aphikôntai pote eis tên harmonian engus tou chromatos prosagousi, sunepismômenou tou êthous.

[49]Ibid. p. 26noêteon gar apeirous ton arithmon tas lichanous. hou gar an stêsês tên phônên apodedeigmenon lichanô topou lichanos estai; diakenon de ouden esti tou lichanoeidous topou, oude toiouton hôste mê dechisthai lichanon. And p. 48epeidê per ho tês lichanou topos eis apeirous temnetai tomas.

[50]Aristox.Harm.p. 69 Meib.kata men oun ta megethê tôn diastêmatôn kai tas tôn phthongôn taseis apeira pôs phainetai einai ta peri to melos, kata de tas dynameis kai kata ta eidê kai kata tas theseis peperasmena te kai tetagmena.

[51]The ecclesiastical Modes received their final shape in theDodecachordonof Glareanus (Bâle, 1547). They are substantially the Greek modes of Westphal's theory, although the Greek names which Glareanus adopted seem to have been chosen at haphazard. But the ecclesiastical Modes, as Helmholtz points out, were developed under the influence of polyphonic music from the earlier stages represented by the Ambrosian and Gregorian scales. It would be a singular chance if they were also, as Greek modes, the source from which the Ambrosian and Gregorian scales were themselves derived.Some further hints on this part of the subject may possibly be derived from the musical scales in use among nations that have not attained to any form of harmony, such as the Arabians, the Indians, or the Chinese. A valuable collection of these scales is given by Mr. A. J. Ellis at the end of his translation of Helmholtz (Appendix XX. Sect. K,Non-harmonic Scales). Among the most interesting for our purpose are the eight mediaeval Arabian scales given on the authority of Professor Land (nos. 54-61). The first three of these—called 'Ochaq, Nawa and Boasili—follow the Pythagorean intonation, and answer respectively to the Hypo-phrygian, Phrygian, and Mixo-lydian species of the octave. The next two—Rast and Zenkouleh—are also Hypo-phrygian in species, but the Third and Sixth are flatter by about an eighth of a tone (the Pythagorean comma). In Zenkouleh the Fifth also is similarly flattened. The last two scales—Hhosaini and Hhidjazi—are Phrygian: but the Second and Fifth, and in the case of Hhidjazi also the Sixth, are flatter by the interval of a comma. The remaining scale, called Rahawi, does not fall under any species, since the semitones are between the Third and Fourth, and again between the Fifth and Sixth. It will be seen that in general character—though by no means in details—this series of scales bears a considerable resemblance to the 'scales of the cithara' as given by Ptolemy (supra,p. 85). In both cases the several scales are distinguished from each other partly by the order of the intervals (species), partly by the intonation, or magnitude of the intervals employed (genus). This latter element is conspicuously absent from the ecclesiastical Modes.

Some further hints on this part of the subject may possibly be derived from the musical scales in use among nations that have not attained to any form of harmony, such as the Arabians, the Indians, or the Chinese. A valuable collection of these scales is given by Mr. A. J. Ellis at the end of his translation of Helmholtz (Appendix XX. Sect. K,Non-harmonic Scales). Among the most interesting for our purpose are the eight mediaeval Arabian scales given on the authority of Professor Land (nos. 54-61). The first three of these—called 'Ochaq, Nawa and Boasili—follow the Pythagorean intonation, and answer respectively to the Hypo-phrygian, Phrygian, and Mixo-lydian species of the octave. The next two—Rast and Zenkouleh—are also Hypo-phrygian in species, but the Third and Sixth are flatter by about an eighth of a tone (the Pythagorean comma). In Zenkouleh the Fifth also is similarly flattened. The last two scales—Hhosaini and Hhidjazi—are Phrygian: but the Second and Fifth, and in the case of Hhidjazi also the Sixth, are flatter by the interval of a comma. The remaining scale, called Rahawi, does not fall under any species, since the semitones are between the Third and Fourth, and again between the Fifth and Sixth. It will be seen that in general character—though by no means in details—this series of scales bears a considerable resemblance to the 'scales of the cithara' as given by Ptolemy (supra,p. 85). In both cases the several scales are distinguished from each other partly by the order of the intervals (species), partly by the intonation, or magnitude of the intervals employed (genus). This latter element is conspicuously absent from the ecclesiastical Modes.

[52]Tonempfindungen, p. 364 (ed. 1863).

[53]Aristox.,Harm.p. 3 Meib.kineitai men gar kai dialegomenôn hêmôn kai melôdountôn tên eirêmenên kinêsin; oxy gar kai bary dêlon hôs en amphoterois toutois enestin.Also p. 8dyo tines eisin ideai kinêseôs, hê te synechês kai hê diastêmatikê; kata men oun tên synechê topon tina diexienai phainetai hê phônê tê aisthêsei houtôs hôs an mêdamou histamenê, k.t.l.And p. 9tên oun synechê logikên einai phanen, k.t.l.

[54]Ibid. p. 18 Meib.tou ge logôdous kechôristai tautê to mousikon melos; legetai gar dê kai logôdes ti melos, to synkeimenon ek tôn prosôdiôn tôn en tois onomasin; physikon gar to epiteinein kai anienai en tô dialegesthai.

[55]Nicomachus,Enchiridion, p. 4ei gar tis ê dialegomenos ê apologoumenos tini ê anaginôskôn ge ekdêla metaxy kath' hekaston phthongon poiei ta megethê, diistanôn kai metaballôn tên phônên ap' allou eis allon, ouketi legein ho toioutos oude anaginôskein alla meleazein legetai.

[56]De Compositione Verborum, c. 11, p. 58 Reisk.

[57]De Comp.c. 11, p. 64to de auto ginetai kai peri tous rhythmous; hê men gar pezê lexis oudenos oute onomatos oute rhêmatos biazetai tous chronous oude metatithêsin, all' oias pareilêphe tê physei tas syllabas, tas te makras kai tas bracheias, toiautas phylattei; hê de mousikê te kai rhythmikê metaballousin autas meiousai kai parauxousai, ôite pollakis eis tanantia metachôrein; ou gar tais syllabais apeuthynousi tous chronous, alla tois chronois tas syllabas.

[58]The metrical accent or ictus was marked in ancient notation by points placed over the accented syllable. These points have been preserved in Mr. Ramsay's musical inscription (see the Appendix,p. 133) and in one or two places of the fragment of theOrestes(p. 130). Hence Dr. Crusius has been able to restore the rhythm with tolerable certainty, and has made the interesting discovery that in both pieces the ictus falls as a rule on a short syllable. The only exceptions in the inscription are circumflexed syllables, where the long vowel or diphthong is set to two notes, the first of which is short and accented. The accents on the short first syllables of the dochmiacs of Euripides are a still more unexpected evidence of the same rhythmical tendency.

[59]Plato,Legg.p. 669.

[60]On this point I may refer to the somewhat fuller treatment in Smith'sDictionary of Antiquities, art.Musica(Vol. II, p. 199, ed. 1890-91).

[61]Plato,Legg. p. 812 dpanta oun ta toiauta mê prospherein tois mellousin en trisin etesi to tês mousikês chrêsimon eklêpsesthai dia tachous.

[62]In Euclid'sSectio Canonisthe Pythagorean division is assumed, and there is no hint of any other ratio than those which Pythagoras discovered. Prop. xvii shows how to find the Enharmonic Lichanos and Paranêtê by means of the Fourth and Fifth. Prop. xviii proves against Aristoxenus (of course without naming him), that apyknoncannot be divided into two equal intervals; but there is no attempt to explain the nature of the Enharmonic diesis. It is worth notice that in these propositions the Lichanos and Paranêtê of the Enharmonic scale are calledlichanosandparanêtêsimply, as though the Enharmonic were the only genus—a usage which agrees with that of the AristotelianProblems(supra,p. 33).According to Ptolemy (i. 13) the Pythagorean philosopher Archytas was the author of a new division of the tetrachord for each of the three genera. In it the natural Major Third (5: 4) was given for the large interval of the Enharmonic, in place of the Pythagorean ditone (81: 64); and the Diatonic was the same as the Middle Soft Diatonic of Ptolemy. But, as Westphal long ago pointed out (Harmonik und Melopöie, p. 230, ed. 1863), this scheme is probably the work of the later Pythagorean school. It seems to be unknown to Plato and Aristoxenus,—the latter wrote a life of Archytas—and also to Euclid, as we have seen. The next scheme of musical ratios is that of Eratosthenes, who makes no use of the natural Major Third.

According to Ptolemy (i. 13) the Pythagorean philosopher Archytas was the author of a new division of the tetrachord for each of the three genera. In it the natural Major Third (5: 4) was given for the large interval of the Enharmonic, in place of the Pythagorean ditone (81: 64); and the Diatonic was the same as the Middle Soft Diatonic of Ptolemy. But, as Westphal long ago pointed out (Harmonik und Melopöie, p. 230, ed. 1863), this scheme is probably the work of the later Pythagorean school. It seems to be unknown to Plato and Aristoxenus,—the latter wrote a life of Archytas—and also to Euclid, as we have seen. The next scheme of musical ratios is that of Eratosthenes, who makes no use of the natural Major Third.

[63]The two schools distinguished by Plato seem to be those which were afterwards known as theharmonikoior Aristoxeneans, and themathêmatikoi, who carried on the tradition of Pythagoras. Theharmonikoiregarded a musical interval as a quantity which could be measured directly by the ear, without reference to the numerical ratio upon which it might be based. They practically adopted the system of equal temperament. Themathêmatikoisought for ratios, but by experiment 'among the consonances which are heard,' as Plato says. Hence they failed equally with those whose method never rose above the facts of sense.

Back to Index Next