those who follow him, is the difference between the species of the
Octave in the several genera, especially the difference between the
Diatonic and the Enharmonic. This is not felt as a difficulty with
all the species. Thus the so-called Dorian octave _e - e_ is in the
Enharmonic genus _e e* f a b b* c e_, a scale which may be regarded
as the Diatonic with _g_ and _d_ omitted, and the semitones divided.
But the Phrygian _d-d_ cannot pass in any such way into the
Enharmonic Phrygian _c e e* f a b b* c_, which answers rather to the
Diatonic scale of the species _c-c_ (the Lydian). The scholars who
connect the ancient Modes with the species generally confine
themselves to octaves of the Diatonic genus. In this they are
supported by later Greek writers--notably, as we shall see, by
Ptolemy--and by the analogy of the mediaeval Modes or Tones. But on
the other side we have the repeated complaints of Aristoxenus that
the earlier theorists confined themselves to Enharmonic octave
scales. We have also the circumstance that the writer or compiler of
the pseudo-Euclidean treatise, who is our earliest authority for the
names of the species, gives these names for the Enharmonic genus
only. Here, once more, we feel the difference between theory and
practice. To a theorist there is no great difficulty in the terms
Diatonic Phrygian and Enharmonic Phrygian meaning essentially
different things. But the 'Phrygian Mode' in practical music must
have been a tolerably definite musical form.
§ 25. _The Ethos of Music._
From Plato and Aristotle we have learned some elements of what may be
called the gamut of sensibility. Between the higher keys which in
Greece, as in Oriental countries generally, were the familiar vehicle
of passion, especially of the passion of grief, and the lower keys
which were regarded, by Plato at least, as the natural language of
ease and license, there were keys expressive of calm and balanced
states of mind, free from the violent extremes of pain and pleasure.
In some later writers on music we find this classification reduced to
a more regular form, and clothed in technical language. We find also,
what is still more to our purpose, an attempt to define more
precisely the musical forms which answered to the several states of
temper or emotion.
Among the writers in question the most instructive is Aristides
Quintilianus. He discusses the subject of musical ethos under the
first of the usual seven heads, that which deals with sounds or notes
([Greek: peri phthongôn]). Among the distinctions to be drawn in
regard to notes he reckons that of ethos: the ethos of notes, he
says, is different as they are higher or lower, and also as they are
in the place of a Parhypatê or in the place of a Lichanos (p. 13
Meib. [Greek: hetera gar êthê tois oxyterois, hetera tois baryterois
epitrechei, kai hetera men parypatoeidesin, hetera de
lichanoeidesin]). Again, under the seventh head, that of [Greek:
melopoiia] or composition, he treats of the 'regions of the voice'
([Greek: topoi tês phônês]). There are three kinds of composition, he
tells us (p. 28), viz. that which is akin to Hypatê ([Greek:
hypatoeidês]), that which is akin to Mesê ([Greek: mesoeidês]), and
that which is akin to Nêtê ([Greek: nêtoeidês]). The first part of
the art of composition is the choice ([Greek: lêpsis]) which the
musician is able to make of the region of the voice to be employed
([Greek: lêpsis men di' hês heuriskein tô mousikô perigignetai apo
poiou tês phônês to systêma topou poiêteon, poteron hypatoeidous ê
tôn loipôn tinos]). He then proceeds to connect these regions, or
different parts of the musical scale, with different branches of
lyrical poetry. 'There are three styles of musical composition
([Greek: tropoi tês melopoiias]), viz. the Nomic, the Dithyrambic,
and the Tragic; and of these the Nomic is netoid, the Dithyrambic is
mesoid, and the Tragic is hypatoid.... They are called styles
([Greek: tropoi]) because according to the melody adopted they
express the ethos of the mind. Thus it happens that composition
([Greek: melopoiia]) may differ in _genus_, as Enharmonic, Chromatic:
in _System_, as Hypatoid, Mesoid, Netoid: in _key_, as Dorian,
Phrygian: in _style_, as Nomic, Dithyrambic: in _ethos_, as we call
one kind of composition "contracting" ([Greek: systaltikê]), viz.
that by which we move painful feelings; another "expanding" ([Greek:
diastaltikê]), that by which we arouse the spirit ([Greek: thymos]);
and another "middle" ([Greek: mesê]), that by which we bring round
the soul to calmness.'
This passage does not quite explicitly connect the three kinds of
ethos--the diastaltic, the systaltic, the intermediate--with the
three regions of the voice; but the connexion was evidently implied,
and is laid down in express terms in the pseudo-Euclidean
_Introductio_ (p. 21 Meib.). According to this Aristoxenean writer,
'the diastaltic ethos of musical composition is that which expresses
grandeur and manly elevation of soul ([Greek: megaloprepeia kai
diarma psychês andrôdes]), and heroic actions; and these are employed
by tragedy and all poetry that approaches the tragic type. The
systaltic ethos is that by which the soul is brought down into a
humble and unmanly frame; and such a disposition will be fitting for
amatory effusions and dirges and lamentations and the like. And the
hesychastic or tranquilly disposed ethos ([Greek: hêsychastikon
êthos]) of musical composition is that which is followed by calmness
of soul and a liberal and peaceful disposition: and this temper will
fit hymns, paeans, laudations, didactic poetry and the like.' It
appears then that difference in the 'place' ([Greek: topos]) of the
notes employed in a composition--difference, that is to say, of
pitch--was the element which chiefly determined its ethos, and (by
consequence) which distinguished the music appropriate to the several
kinds of lyrical poetry.
A slightly different version of this piece of theory is preserved in
the anonymous treatise edited by Bellermann (§§ 63, 64), where the
'regions of the voice' are said to be four in number, viz. the three
already mentioned, and a fourth which takes its name from the
tetrachord Hyperbolaiôn ([Greek: topos hyperboloeidês]). In the same
passage the boundaries of the several regions are laid down by
reference to the keys. 'The lowest or hypatoid region reaches from
the Hypo-dorian Hypatê Mesôn to the Dorian Mesê; the intermediate or
mesoid region from the Phrygian Hypatê Mesôn to the Lydian Mesê; the
netoid region from the Lydian Mesê to the Nêtê Synemmenôn; the
hyperboloid region embracing all above the last point.' The text of
this passage is uncertain; but the general character of the [Greek:
topoi] or regions of the voice is clearly enough indicated.
The three regions are mentioned in the catechism of Bacchius (p. 11
Meib.): [Greek: topous] (MSS. [Greek: tropous]) [Greek: de tês phônês
posous legomen einai? treis. tinas? toutous; oxyn, meson, baryn.] The
varieties of ethos also appear (p. 14 Meib.): [Greek: hê de metabolê
kata êthos? hotan ek tapeinou eis megaloprepes; ê ex hêsychou kai
synnou eis parakekinêkos.] 'What is change of ethos? when a change is
made from the humble to the magnificent; or from the tranquil and
sober to violent emotion.'
When we compare the doctrine of musical ethos as we find it in these
later writers with the indications to be gathered from Plato and
Aristotle, the chief difference appears to be that we no longer hear
of the ethos of particular modes, but only of that of three or (at
the most) four portions of the scale. The principle of the division,
it is evident, is simply difference of pitch. But if that was the
basis of the ethical effect of music in later times, the circumstance
goes far to confirm us in the conclusion that it was the pitch of the
music, rather than any difference in the succession of the intervals,
that principally determined the ethical character of the older modes.
§ 26. _The Ethos of the Genera and Species._
Although the pitch of a musical composition--as these passages
confirm us in believing--was the chief ground of its ethical
character, it cannot be said that no other element entered into the
case.
In the passage quoted above from Aristides Quintilianus (p. 13 Meib.)
it is said that ethos depends first on pitch ([Greek: hetera êthê
tois oxyterois, hetera tois baryterois]), and secondly on the
moveable notes, that is to say, on the _genus_. For that is evidently
involved in the words that follow: [Greek: kai hetera men
parypatoeidesin, hetera de lichanoeidesin.] By [Greek:
parypatoeideis] and [Greek: lichanoeideis] he means all the moveable
notes ([Greek: phthongoi pheromenoi]): the first are those which hold
the place of Parhypatê in their tetrachord, viz. the notes called
Parhypatê or Tritê: the second are similarly the notes called
Lichanos or Paranêtê. These moveable notes, then, give an ethos to
the music because they determine the genus of the scale. Regarding
the particular ethos belonging to the different genera, there is a
statement of the same author (p. 111) to the effect that the Diatonic
is masculine and austere ([Greek: arrhenôpon d' esti kai
austêroteron]), the Chromatic sweet and plaintive ([Greek: hêdiston
te kai goeron]), the Enharmonic stirring and pleasing ([Greek:
diegertikon d' esti touto kai êpion]). The criticism doubtless came
from some earlier source.
Do we ever find ethos attributed to this or that _species_ of the
Octave? I can find no passage in which this source of ethos is
indicated. Even Ptolemy, who is the chief authority (as we shall see)
for the value of the species, and who makes least of mere difference
of pitch, recognises only two forms of modulation in the course of a
melody, viz. change of genus and change of pitch[1].
§ 27. _The Musical Notation._
As the preceding argument turns very much upon the practical
importance of the scale which we have been discussing, first as the
single octave from the original Hypatê to Nêtê, then in its enlarged
form as the Perfect System, it may be worth while to show that some
such scale is implied in the history of the Greek musical notation.
The use of written characters ([Greek: sêmeia]) to represent the
sounds of music appears to date from a comparatively early period in
Greece. In the time of Aristoxenus the art of writing down a melody
([Greek: parasêmantikê]) had come to be considered by some persons
identical with the science of music ([Greek: harmonikê]),--an error
which Aristoxenus is at some pains to refute. It is true that the
authorities from whom we derive our knowledge of the Greek notation
are post-classical. But the characters themselves, as we shall
presently see, furnish sufficient evidence of their antiquity.
[Footnote 1: 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: [Greek: hautê de hôsper ekpiptein autên] (sc. [Greek: tên
aisthêsin]) [Greek: 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 of _species_ is not suggested. So Dionys. Hal. _De Comp.
Verb._ c. 19 [Greek: hoi de ge dithyrambopoioi kai tous tropous]
(keys) [Greek: meteballon, Dôrikous te kai Phrygious kai Lydious en
tô autô asmati poiountes; kai tas melôdias exêllatton, tote men
enarmonious poiountes, k.t.l.]]
The Greek musical notation is curiously complicated. There is a
double set of characters, one for the note assigned to the singer,
the other for those of the lyre or other instrument. The notes for
the voice are obviously derived from the letters of the ordinary
Ionic alphabet, multiplied by the use of accents and other
diacritical marks. The instrumental notes were first explained less
than thirty years ago by Westphal. In his work _Harmonik und Melopöie
der Griechen_ (c. viii _Die Semantik_) he showed, in a manner as
conclusive as it is ingenious, that they were originally taken from
the first fourteen letters of an alphabet of archaic type, akin to
the alphabets found in certain parts of Peloponnesus. Among the
letters which he traces, and which point to this conclusion, the
most-significant are the digamma, the primitive crooked iota
[Symbols: Li], and two forms of lambda, [Symbols: <] and [Symbols:
F], the latter of which is peculiar to the alphabet of Argos. Of the
other characters [Symbols: M], which stands for alpha, is best
derived from the archaic form [Symbols: NJ]. For beta we find
[Symbols: c], which may come from an archaic form of the letter[1].
The character [Symbols: El], as Westphal shows, is for [Symbols:7],
or delta with part of one side left out. Similarly the ancient
[Symbols: O], when the circle was incomplete, yielded the character
[Symbols: C]. The crooked iota ([Symbols:'-i]) appears as
[Symbols:h]. The two forms of lambda serve for different notes, thus
bringing the number of symbols up to fifteen. Besides these there are
two characters, [Symbols: O] and [Symbols: 6], which cannot be
derived in the same way from any alphabet. As they stand for the
lowest notes of the scale, they are probably an addition, later than
the rest of the system. At the upper end, again, the scale is
extended by the simple device of using the same characters for notes
an octave higher, distinguishing them in this use by an accent. The
original fifteen characters, with the letters from which they are
derived, and the corresponding notes in the modern musical scale, are
as follows:
[Symbols: H h E r P F C K r l < E N Z M]
[Greek: ê i e l^1 g m [digamma] th k d l^2 b n z a]
_a b c d e f g a b c d e f g a_
[Footnote 1: Since this was written I have learned from Mr. H. S.
Jones that the form [Symbols:E] for beta occurs on an inscription
dated about 500 B.C., viz. Count Tyszkiewicz's bronze plate,
published simultaneously by Robert in the _Monumenti Antichi
pubblicati per cura della reale Accademia dei Lincei_, i. pp. 593
(with plate), and Fröhner in the _Revue Archéologique_, 1891
July-August, pp. 51 ff. Pl. xix. Mr. Jones points out that this
[Symbols:E] connects the crescent beta ([Symbols: 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.]
These notes, it will be seen, compose two octaves of the Diatonic
scale, identical with the two octaves of the Greater Perfect System.
They may be regarded as answering to the white notes of the modern
keyboard,--those which form the complete scale in the so-called
'natural' key.
The other notes, viz. those which are required not only in different
keys of the Diatonic scale, but also in all Enharmonic and Chromatic
scales, are represented by the same characters modified in some
simple way. Usually a character is turned half round backwards to
raise it by one small interval (as from Hypatê to Parhypatê), and
reversed to raise it by both (Hypatê to Lichanos). Thus the letter
epsilon, [Symbols: E], stands for our _c_: and accordingly [Symbols:
W] ([Symbols: E] [Greek: anestrammenon] or [Greek: hyption]) stands
for _c*_, and [Symbols: 3] ([Symbols: E] [Greek: apestrammenon]) for
_c[Symbols: #]_. The Enharmonic scale _c-c*-c[Symbols: #]-f_ is
therefore written [Symbols: E W 3 f'], the two modifications of the
letter [Symbols: E] representing the two 'moveable' notes of the
tetrachord. Similarly we have the triads [Symbols: h I rl, F "q, Cup,
KY>1, <V>, CUm]. As some letters do not admit of this kind of
differentiation, other methods are employed. Thus [Symbols: D] is
made to yield the forms [Symbols: ri] (for [Symbols: 7]) [Symbols: L
A]: from [Symbols: H] (or [Symbols: B]) are obtained the forms
[Symbols: Li] and [Symbols: R]: and from [Symbols: Z] (or [Symbols:
i]) the forms [Symbols: A] and [Symbols: A]. The modifications of
[Symbols: N] are [Symbols: /] and [Symbols: \]: those of [Symbols:
'I] are [Symbols: A] and [Symbols: N].
The method of writing a Chromatic tetrachord is the same, except that
the higher of the two moveable notes is marked by a bar or accent.
Thus the tetrachord _c c[Symbols: #] d f_ is written [Symbols: E W 3'
/`'].
In the Diatonic genus we should have expected that the original
characters would have been used for the tetrachords _b c d e_ and _e
f g a_; and that in other tetrachords the second note, being a
semitone above the first, would have been represented by a reversed
letter ([Greek: gramma apestrammenon]). In fact, however, the
Diatonic Parhypatê and Tritê are written with the same character as
the Enharmonic. That is to say, the tetrachord _b c d e_ is not
written [Symbols: h E H r], but [Symbols: Fix I-r]: and _d e[Symbols:
b] f g_ is not [Symbols: I], but [Symbols: I-tl F].
Let us now consider how this scheme of symbols is related to the
Systems already described and the Keys in which those Systems may be
set ([Greek: tonoi eph' hôn tithemena ta systêmata melôdeitai]).
The fifteen characters, it has been noticed, form two diatonic
octaves. It will appear on a little further examination that the
scheme must have been constructed with a view to these two octaves.
The successive notes are not expressed by the letters of the alphabet
in their usual order (as is done in the case of the vocal notes). The
highest note is represented by the first letter, [Greek: A]: and then
the remaining fourteen notes are taken in pairs, each with its
octave: and each of the pairs of notes is represented by two
successive letters--the two forms of lambda counting as one such pair
of letters. Thus:
The higher and lower _e_ are denoted by [Greek: b] and [Greek: g]
" " " _c_ " " [Greek: d] " [Greek: e]
" " " _g_ " " [Symbol: digamma] " [Greek: z]
" " " _a_ " " [Greek: ê] " [Greek: th]
" " " _b_ " " [Greek: i] " [Greek: k]
" " " _d_ " " [Greek: l^1] " [Greek: l^2]
" " " _f_ " " [Greek: m] " [Greek: n]
On this plan the alphabetical order of the letters serves as a series
of links connecting the highest and lowest notes of every one of the
seven octaves that can be taken on the scale. It is evident that the
scheme cannot have grown up by degrees, but is the work of an
inventor who contrived it for the practical requirements of the music
of his time.
Two questions now arise, which it is impossible to separate. What is
the scale or System for which the notation was originally devised?
And how and when was the notation adapted to exhibit the several keys
in which any such System might be set?
The enquiry must start from the remarkable fact that the two octaves
represented by the fifteen original letters are in the _Hypo-lydian_
key--the key which down to the time of Aristoxenus was called the
Hypo-dorian. Are we to suppose that the scheme was devised in the
first instance for that key only? This assumption forms the basis of
the ingenious and elaborate theory by which M. Gevaert explains the
development of the notation (_Musique de l'Antiquité_, t. I. pp. 244
ff.). It is open to the obvious objection that the Hypo-lydian (or
Hypo-dorian) cannot have been the oldest key. M. Gevaert meets this
difficulty by supposing that the original scale was in the Dorian
key, and that subsequently, from some cause the nature of which we
cannot guess, a change of pitch took place by which the Dorian scale
became a semitone higher. It is perhaps simpler to conjecture that
the original Dorian became split up, so to speak, into two keys by
difference of local usage, and that the lower of the two came to be
called Hypo-dorian, but kept the original notation. A more serious
difficulty is raised by the high antiquity which M. Gevaert assigns
to the Perfect System. He supposes that the inventor of the notation
made use of an instrument (the _magadis_) which 'magadised' or
repeated the notes an octave higher. But this would give us a
repetition of the primitive octave _e - e_, rather than an
enlargement by the addition of tetrachords at both ends.
M. Gevaert regards the adaptation of the scheme to the other keys as
the result of a gradual process of extension. Here we may distinguish
between the recourse to the modified characters--which served
essentially the same purpose as the 'sharps' and 'flats' in the
signature of a modern key--and the additional notes obtained either
by means of new characters ([Symbols: a] and [Symbols: e]), or by the
use of accents ([Symbols:?'], &c.). The Hypo-dorian and
Hypo-phrygian, which employ the new characters [Symbols: a] and
[Symbols: e], are known to be comparatively recent. The Phrygian and
Lydian, it is true, employ the accented notes; but they do so only in
the highest tetrachord (Hyperbolaiôn), which may not have been
originally used in these high keys. The modified characters doubtless
belong to an earlier period. They are needed for the three oldest
keys--Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian--and also for the Enharmonic and
Chromatic genera. If they are not part of the original scheme, the
musician who devised them may fairly be counted as the second
inventor of the instrumental notation.
In setting out the scales of the several keys it will be unnecessary
to give more than the standing notes ([Greek: phthongoi hestôtes]),
which are nearly all represented by original or unmodified
letters--the moveable notes being represented by the modified forms
described above. The following list includes the standing notes, viz.
Proslambanomenos, Hypatê Hypatôn, Hypatê Mesôn, Mesê, Paramesê, Nêtê
Diezeugmenôn and Nêtê Hyperbolaiôn in the seven oldest keys: the two
lowest are marked as doubtful:--
TABLE LEGEND:
Column A = Prosl.
Column B = Hyp. Hypatôn.
Column C = Hyp. Mesôn.
Column D = Mesê.
Column E = Par.
Column F = Nêtê Diez.
Column G = Nêtê Hyperb.
A B C D E F G
Mixo-lydian [Symbols] 4 id D > N \ = _e[Symbol: b] - e[Symbol: b]_
Lydian [Symbols] I- r c < c m = _d - d_
Phrygian [Symbols] E I- F 11 < Z = _c - c_
Dorian [Symbols] R E I' D ri N \ = _b[Symbol: b] - b[Symbol: b]_
Hypo-lydian [Symbols] H h r C I< c M = _a - a_
[Hypo-phrygian [Symbols] H I- F C < Z = _g - g_
[Hypo-dorian [Symbols] E /4 F 11 N = _f - f_
It will be evident that this scheme of notation tallies fairly well
with what we know of the compass of Greek instruments about the end
of the fifth century, and also with the account which Aristoxenus
gives of the keys in use up to his time. We need only refer to what
has been said above on p. 17 and p. 37.
It would be beyond the scope of this essay to discuss the date of the
Greek musical notation. A few remarks, however, may be made,
especially with reference to the high antiquity assigned to it by
Westphal.
The alphabet from which it was derived was certainly an archaic one.
It contained several characters, in particular [Symbols: F] for
digamma, [Symbols: LI] for iota, and [Symbols: I-] for lambda, which
belong to the period before the introduction of the Ionian alphabet.
Indeed if we were to judge from these letters alone we should be led
to assign the instrumental notation (as Westphal does) to the time of
Solon. The three-stroke iota ([Symbols: I]), in particular, does not
occur in any alphabet later than the sixth century B.C. On the other
hand, when we find that the notation implies the use of a musical
System in advance of any scale recognised in Aristotle, or even in
Aristoxenus, such a date becomes incredible. We can only suppose
either (1) that the use of [Symbols: Li] in the fifth century was
confined to localities of which we have no complete epigraphic
record, or (2) that [Symbols: i] as a form of iota was still
known--as archaic forms must have been--from the older public
inscriptions, and was adopted by the inventor of the notation as
being better suited to his purpose than [Symbols: 1].