akolouthôs tô dedeigmenô syntonô diatonikô, kathaper exestai skopein
apo tês tôn oikeiôn autou logôn parabolês, harmozontai de heteron ti
genos] (sc. the Pythagorean), [Greek: xynengizon men ekeinô, k.t.l.]]
§ 32. _Remains of Greek Music._
The extant specimens of Greek music are mostly of the second century
A.D., and therefore nearly contemporary with Ptolemy. The most
considerable are the melodies of three lyrical pieces or hymns, viz.
(1) a hymn to Calliope, (2) a hymn to Apollo (or Helios),--both
ascribed to a certain Dionysius,--and (3) a hymn to Nemesis, ascribed
to Mesomedes[2]. Besides these there are (4) some short instrumental
passages or exercises given by Bellermann's _Anonymus_ (pp. 94-96).
And quite recently the list has been increased by (5) an inscription
discovered by Mr. W. M. Ramsay, which gives a musical setting of four
short gnomic sentences, and (6) a papyrus fragment (now in the
collection of the Arch-duke Rainer) of the music of a chorus in the
_Orestes_ of Euripides. These two last additions to our scanty stock
of Greek music are set out and discussed by Dr. Wessely of Vienna and
M. Ruelle in the _Revue des Études Grecques_ (V. 1892, pp. 265-280),
also by Dr. Otto Crusius in the _Philologus_, Vol. LII, pp.
160-200[1].
[Footnote 2: 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 his _Musik des griechischen Alterthumes_ (1883), and by
Gevaert, _Musique de l'Antiquité_, vol. i. pp. 445 ff.; also in Mr.
W. Chappell's _History 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 music of the three hymns is noted in the Lydian key (answering to
the modern scale with one [symbol: flat]). The melody of the second
hymn is of the compass of an octave, the notes being those of the
Perfect System from Parhypatê Hypatôn to Tritê Diezeugmenôn (_f - f_
with one [symbol: flat]). The first employs the same octave with a
lower note added, viz. Hypatê Hypatôn (_e_): the third adds the next
higher note, Paranêtê Diezeugmenôn (_g_). Thus the Lydian key may be
said, in the case of the second hymn, and less exactly in the case of
the two others, to give the Lydian or _c_-species of the octave in
the most convenient part of the scale; just as on Ptolemy's system of
Modes we should expect it to do.
This octave, however, represents merely the _compass_ (_ambitus_ or
_tessitura_) of the melody: it has nothing to do with its _tonality_.
In the first two hymns, as Bellermann pointed out, the key-note is
the Hypatê Mesôn; and the mode--in the modern sense of that word--is
that of the octave _e - e_ (the Dorian mode of Helmholtz's theory).
In the third hymn the key-note appears to be the Lichanos Mesôn, so
that the mode is that of _g-g_, viz. the Hypo-phrygian.
[Footnote 1: Of the discovery made at Delphi, after most of this book
was in type, I hope to say something in the _Appendix_.]
Of the instrumental passages given by the _Anonymus_ three are
clearly in the Hypo-dorian or common mode, the Mesê (_a_) being the
key-note. (See Gevaert, i. p. 141.) A fourth (§ 104) also ends on the
Mesê, but the key-note appears to be the Parhypatê Mesôn (_f_).
Accordingly Westphal and Gevaert assign it to the Hypo-lydian species
(_f - f_). In Westphal's view the circumstance of the end of the
melody falling, not on the key-note, but on the Third or Mediant of
the octave, was characteristic of the Modes distinguished by the
prefix _syntono-_, and accordingly the passage in question is
pronounced by him to be Syntono-lydian. All those passages, however,
are mere fragments of two or three bars each, and are quoted as
examples of certain peculiarities of rhythm. They can hardly be made
to lend much support to any theory of the Modes.
The music of Mr. Ramsay's inscription labours under the same defect
of excessive shortness. If, however, we regard the four brief
sentences as set to a continuous melody, we obtain a passage
consisting of thirty-six notes in all, with a compass of less than an
octave, and ending on the lowest note of that compass. Unlike the
other extant specimens of Greek music it is written in the Ionian
key--a curious fact which has not been noticed by Dr. Wessely.
INSCRIPTION WITH MUSICAL NOTES.
[Music:
[Greek: hos-on zês phai-nou.
mê-den hol-ôs sy ly-pou.
pros o-li-gon es-ti to zên.
to te-los ho chro-nos a-pai-tei.]
]
The notes which enter into this melody form the scale _f[Symbols:
sharp]-g-a-b-c[Symbols: sharp]-d-e[-f[Symbols: sharp]]_, which is an
octave of the Dorian species (_e - e_ on the white notes). Hence if
_f_[Symbols: sharp], on which the melody ends, is the key-note, the
_mode_ is the Dorian. On the other hand the predominant notes are
those of the triad _a-c[Symbols: sharp]-e_, which point to the key of
_a_ major, with the difference that the Seventh is flat (_g_ instead
of _g_[Symbols: sharp]). On this view the music would be in the
Hypo-phrygian mode.
However this may be, the most singular feature of this fragment
remains to be mentioned, viz. the agreement between the musical notes
and the _accentuation_ of the words. We know from the grammarians
that an acute accent signified that the vowel was sounded with a rise
in the pitch of the voice, and that a circumflex denoted a rise
followed on the same syllable by a lower note--every such rise and
fall being quite independent both of syllabic quantity and of stress
or _ictus_. Thus in ordinary speech the accents formed a species of
melody,--[Greek: logôdes ti melos], as it is called by
Aristoxenus[1]. When words were _sung_ this 'spoken melody' was no
longer heard, being superseded by the melody proper. Dionysius of
Halicarnassus is at pains to explain (_De Comp. Verb._, c. 11), that
the melody to which words are set does not usually follow or resemble
the quasi-melody of the accents, _e.g._ in the following words of a
chorus in the _Orestes_ of Euripides (ll. 140-142):--
[Greek: siga siga leukon ichnos arbylês
tithete, mê ktypeite;
apoprobat' ekeis' apopro moi koitas,]
[Footnote 1: _Harm._ p. 18 Meib. [Greek: 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].]
he notices that the melody differs in several points from the spoken
accents: (1) the three first words are all on the same note, in spite
of the accents; (2) the last syllable of [Greek: arbylês] is as high
as the second, though that is the only accented syllable: (3) the
first syllable of [Greek: tithete] is lower than the two others,
instead of being higher: (4) the circumflex of [Greek: ktypeite] is
lost ([Greek: êphanistai]), because the word is all on the same
pitch; (5) the fourth syllable of [Greek: apoprobate] is higher in
pitch, instead of the third. In Mr. Ramsay's inscription, however,
the music follows the accents as closely as possible. Every acute
accent coincides with a rise of pitch, except in [Greek: hoson],
which begins the melody, and in [Greek: esti], for which we should
perhaps read the orthotone [Greek: esti]. Of the four instances of
the circumflex accent three exhibit the two notes and the falling
pitch which we expect. The interval is either a major or a minor
Third. In the other case ([Greek: zês) the next note is a Third
lower: but it does not seem to belong to the circumflexed syllable.
All this cannot be accidental. It leads us to the conclusion that the
musical notes represent a kind of recitative, or imitation of spoken
words, rather than a melody in the proper sense of the term.
If any considerable specimen of the music of Euripides had survived,
it might have solved many of the problems with which we have been
dealing. The fragment before us extends over about six lines in
dochmiac metre (_Orestes_ 338-343), with the vocal notation: but no
single line is entire. The key is the Lydian. The genus is either
Enharmonic or Chromatic. Assuming that it is Enharmonic--the
alternative adopted by Dr. Wessely--the characters which are still
legible may be represented in modern notation as follows:
[Music: [_Euripides_, _Orestes 338-344_.
[Greek: (katolo)phy-ro-mai; ma-te-ros (haima sas ho d' ana)bak-cheu-ei;
ho me-gas (olbos ou monimo)s en bro-tois;
a-na (de laiphos hôs ti)s a-ka-tou tho-as ti-na(xas daimôn)
kat-e-kly-sen (deinôn ponon) hôs pon-tou labrois k.t.l.
]
It should be observed that in the fragment the line [Greek:
katolophyromai katolophyromai] comes before 338 ([Greek: materos
k.t.l.]), not after it, as in our texts[1].
[Footnote 1: 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 the _Appendix_. I have only introduced one of his
corrections here, viz. the note on the second syllable of [Greek:
kateklysen].]
The notes employed, according to the interpretation given above, give
the scale _g-a-a*-a#-d-e-e*_. If the genus is Chromatic, as M. Ruelle
is disposed to think, they are _g-a-a#-b-d-e-f_. When these scales
are compared with the Perfect System we find that they do not
entirely agree with it. Whether the genus is Enharmonic or Chromatic
the notes from _a_ to _e*_ (or _f_) answer to those of the Perfect
System (of the same genus) from Hypatê Mesôn to Tritê Diezeugmenôn.
But in either case the lowest note (_g_) finds no place in the
System, since it can only be the Diatonic Lichanos Hypatôn. It is
possible, however, that the scale belongs to the period when the
original octave had been extended by the addition of a tone below the
Hypatê--the note, in fact, which we have already met with under the
name of Hyper-hypatê (p. 39). Thus the complete scale may have
consisted of the disjunct tetrachords _a-d_ and _e-a_, with the tone
_g-a_. It may be observed here that although the scale in question
does not fit into the Perfect System, it conforms to the general
rules laid down by Aristoxenus for the melodious succession of
intervals. It is unnecessary therefore to suppose (as Dr. Wessely and
M. Ruelle do) that the scale exhibits a _mixture_ of different
genera.
It must be vain to attempt to discover the tonality of a short
fragment which has neither beginning nor end. The only group of notes
which has the character of a cadence is that on the word
[Greek:(olo)phypomai], and again on the words [Greek: en brotois],
viz. the notes _a# a* a_ (if the genus is the Enharmonic). The same
notes occur in reversed order on [Greek: akatou] and [Greek:
(kat)eklusen]. This seems to bear out the common view of the
Enharmonic as produced by the introduction of an 'accidental' or
passing note. It will be seen, in fact, that the Enharmonic notes
(_a*_ and _e*_) only occur before or after the 'standing' notes (_a_
and _e_).
Relying on the fact that the lowest note is _g_, Dr. Wessely and M.
Ruelle pronounce the mode to be the Phrygian (_g-g_ in the key with
one [Symbols: flat], or _d-d_ in the natural key). I have already put
forward a different explanation of this _g_, and will only add here
that it occurs twice in the fragment, both times on a short
syllable[1]. The important notes, so far as the evidence goes, are
_a_, which twice comes at the end of a verse (with a pause in the
sense), and _e_, which once has that position. If _a_ is the
key-note, the mode--in the modern sense--is Dorian (the _e_-species).
If _e_ is the key-note, it is Mixo-lydian (the _b_-species).
[Footnote 1: Dr. Crusius, however, detects a [Symbols: phi]; (the
sign for _g_) over the first syllable of [Greek: kateklusen] and the
second syllable of [Greek: pontou]. There is little trace of them in
his facsimile.]
§ 33. _Modes of Aristides Quintilianus._
The most direct testimony in support of the view that the ancient
Modes were differentiated by the succession of their intervals has
still to be considered. It is the account given by Aristides
Quintilianus (p. 21 Meib.) of the six Modes ([Greek: harmoniai]) of
Plato's _Republic_. After describing the genera and their varieties
the 'colours,' he goes on to say that there were other divisions of
the tetrachord ([Greek: tetrachordikai diaireseis]) which the most
ancient musicians used for the [Greek: harmoniai], and that these
were sometimes greater in compass than the octave, sometimes less. He
then gives the intervals of the scale for each of the six Modes
mentioned by Plato, and adds the scales in the ancient notation. They
are of the Enharmonic genus, and may be represented by modern notes
as follows:--
Mixo-lydian _b-b*-c-d-e-e*-f-b_
Syntono-lydian _e-e*-f-a-c_
Phrygian _d-e-e*-f-a-b-b*-c-d_
Dorian _d-e-e*-f-a-b-b*-c-e_
Lydian _e*-f-a-b-b*-c-e-e*_
Ionian _e-e*-f-a-c-d_
Comparing these scales with the Species of the Octave, we find a
certain amount of correspondence. As has been already noticed (p.
22), the names Syntono-lydian and Lydian answer to the ordinary
Lydian and Hypo-lydian respectively. Accordingly the Lydian of
Aristides agrees with the Hypo-lydian species as given in the
pseudo-Euclidean _Introductio_. The Dorian of Aristides is the Dorian
species of the _Introductio_, but with an additional note, a tone
below the Hypatê.
The Phrygian of Aristides is not the Enharmonic Phrygian species; but
it is derived from the diatonic Phrygian octave _d-e-f-g-a-b-c-d_ by
inserting the enharmonic notes _e*_ and _b*_, and omitting the
diatonic _g_. By a similar process the Mixo-lydian of Aristides may
be derived from the diatonic octave _b-b_, except that _a_ as well as
_g_ is omitted, and on the other hand _d_ is retained. If the scale
of the Syntono-lydian is completed by the lower _c_ (as analogy would
require), it will answer similarly to the Lydian species (_c-c_).
§ 34. _Credibility of Aristides Quintilianus._
But what weight can be given to Aristides as an authority on the
music of the time of Plato? The answer to this question depends upon
several considerations.
1. The date of Aristides is unknown. He is certainly later than
Cicero, since he quotes the _De Republica_ (p. 70 Meib.). From the
circumstance that he makes no reference to the musical innovations of
Ptolemy it has been supposed that he was earlier than that writer.
But, as Aristides usually confines himself to the theory of
Aristoxenus and his school, the argument from silence is not of much
value. On the other hand he gives a scheme of notation containing two
characters, [Symbol: [] and [Symbol: *], which extend the scale two
successive semi-tones beyond the lowest point of the notation given
by Alypius[1]. For this reason it is probable that Aristides is one
of the latest of the writers on ancient music.
[Footnote 1: This argument is used, along with some others not so
cogent, in Mr. W. Chappell's _History of Music_ (p. 130).]
2. The manner in which Aristides introduces his information about the
Platonic Modes is highly suspicious. He has been describing the
various divisions of the tetrachord according to the theory of
Aristoxenus, and adds that there were anciently other divisions in
use. So far Aristides is doubtless right, since Aristoxenus himself
says that the divisions of the tetrachord are theoretically infinite
in number (p. 26 Meib.),--that it is possible, for example, to
combine the Parhypatê of the Soft Chromatic with the Lichanos of the
Diatonic (p. 52 Meib.). But all this concerns the genus of the scale,
and has nothing to do with the species of the Octave, with which
Aristides proceeds to connect it. It follows either that there is
some confusion in the text, or that Aristides was compiling from
sources which he did not understand.
3. The Platonic Modes were a subject of interest to the early musical
writers, and were discussed by Aristoxenus himself (Plut. _de Mus._
c. 17). If Aristoxenus had had access to such an account as we have
in Aristides, we must have found some trace of it, either in the
extant _Harmonics_ or in the quotations of Plutarch and other
compilers.
4. Of the four scales which extend to the compass of an octave, only
one, viz. the Dorian, conforms to the rules which are said by
Aristoxenus to have prevailed in early Greek music. The Phrygian
divides the Fourth _a-d_ into four intervals instead of three, by the
sequence _a b b* c d_. As has been observed, it is neither the
Enharmonic Phrygian species (_c e e* f a b b* c_), nor the Diatonic
_d-d_, but a mixture of the two. Similarly the Mixo-lydian divides
the Fourth _b_-_e_ into four intervals (_b b* c d e_), by introducing
the purely Diatonic note _d_. The Lydian is certainly the Lydian
Enharmonic species of the pseudo-Euclid; but we can hardly suppose
that it existed in practical music. Aristoxenus lays it down
emphatically that a quarter-tone is always followed by another: and
we cannot imagine a scale in which the highest and lowest notes are
in no harmonic relation to the rest.
5. Two of the scales are incomplete, viz. the Ionian, which has six
notes and the compass of a Seventh, and the Syntono-lydian, which
consists of five notes, with the compass of a Minor Sixth. We
naturally look for parallels among the defective scales noticed in
the _Problems_ and in Plutarch's dialogues. But we find little that
even illustrates the modes of Aristides. The scales noticed in the
_Problems_ (xix. 7, 32, 47) are hepta-chord, and generally of the
compass of an octave. In one passage of Plutarch (_De Mus._ c. 11)
there is a description--quoted from Aristoxenus--of an older kind of
Enharmonic, in which the semitones had not yet been divided into
quarter-tones. In another chapter (c. 19) he speaks of the omission
of the Tritê and also of the Nêtê as characteristic of a form of
music called the [Greek: spondeiakos tropos]. It may be said that in
the Ionian and Syntono-lydian of Aristides the Enharmonic Tritê
(_b*_) and the Nêtê (_e_) are wanting. But the Paramesê (_b_) is also
wanting in both these modes. And the Ionian is open to the
observation already made with regard to the Phrygian, viz. that the
two highest notes (_c d_) involve a mixture of Diatonic with
Enharmonic scale. We may add that Plutarch (who evidently wrote with
Aristoxenus before him) gives no hint that the omission of these
notes was characteristic of any particular modes.
6. It is impossible to decide the question of the modes of Aristides
without some reference to another statement of the same author. In
the chapter which treats of Intervals (pp. 13-15 Meib.) he gives the
ancient division of two octaves, the first into dieses or
quarter-tones, the second into semitones. The former of these
([Greek: hê para tois archaiois kata dieseis harmonia]) is as
follows:
[1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
[Symbols: -o < 6 1-1 9 L J A V E 3]
[Symbols: o- > 9 n 6 J r- v 0 3 E]
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
[Symbols: 3.. N 1-1 3 E , '- cc > < Y Y]
[Symbols: r a..1-1 E 3 A ,'- 33 < Y]
After every allowance has been made for the probability that these
signs or some of them have reached us in a corrupt form, it is
impossible to reduce them to the ordinary notation, as Meibomius
sought to do. The scholar who first published them as they stand in
the MSS. (F. L. Perne, see Bellermann, _Tonleitern_, p. 62) regarded
them as a relic of a much older system of notation. This is in
accordance with the language of Aristides, and indeed is the only
view consistent with a belief in their genuineness. They are too like
the ordinary notation to be quite independent, and cannot have been
put forward as an improvement upon it. Are they, then, earlier?
Bellermann has called our attention to a peculiarity which seems
fatal to any such claim. They consist, like the ordinary signs, of
two sets, one written above the other, and in every instance one of
the pair is simply a reversed or inverted form of the other. With the
ordinary signs this is not generally the case, since the two sets,
the vocal and instrumental notes, are originally independent. But it
is the case with the three lowest notes, viz. those which were added
to the series at a later time. When these additional signs were
invented the vocal and instrumental notes had come to be employed
together. The inventor therefore devised a pair of signs in each
case, and not unnaturally made them correspond in form. In the scale
given by Aristides this correspondence runs through the whole series,
which must therefore be of later date. But if this is so, the
characters can hardly represent a genuine system of notation. In
other words, Aristides must have been imposed upon by a species of
forgery.
7. Does the fragment of the _Orestes_ tell for or against the Modes
described by Aristides?
The scale which is formed by the notes of the fragment agrees, so far
as it extends, with two of the scales now in question, viz. the
Phrygian and the Dorian. Taking the view of its tonality expressed in
the last chapter (p. 93), we should describe it as the Dorian scale
of Aristides with the two highest notes omitted. The omission, in so
short a fragment, is of little weight; and the agreement in the use
of an additional lower note (Hyper-hypatê) is certainly worth notice.
On the other hand, the Dorian is precisely the mode, of those given
in the list of Aristides, which least needs defence, as it is the
most faithful copy of the Perfect System. Hence the fact that it is
verified by an actual piece of music does not go far in support of
the other scales in the same list.
If our suspicions are well-founded, it is evident that they seriously
affect the genuineness of all the antiquarian learning which
Aristides sets before his readers, and in particular of his account
of the Platonic modes. I venture to think that they go far to deprive
that account of the value which it has been supposed to have for the
history of the earliest Greek music.
For the later period, however, to which Aristides himself belongs,
these apocryphal scales are a document of some importance. The fact
that they do not agree entirely with the species of the Octave as
given by the pseudo-Euclid leads us to think that they may be
influenced by scales used in actual music. This applies especially to
the Phrygian, which (as has been shown) is really diatonic. The
Ionian, again, is perhaps merely an imperfect form of the same scale,
viz. the octave _d-d_ with lower _d_ omitted. And the Syntono-lydian
may be the Lydian diatonic octave _c-c_ with a similar omission of
the lower _c_. § 35. _Evidence for Scales of different species._
The object of the foregoing discussion has been to show, in the first
place, that there was no such distinction in ancient Greek music as
that which scholars have drawn between Modes ([Greek: harmoniai]) and
Keys ([Greek: tonoi] or [Greek: tropoi]): and, in the second place,
that the musical scales denoted by these terms were primarily
distinguished by difference of _pitch_,--that in fact they were so
many keys of the standard scale known in its final form as the
Perfect System. The evidence now brought forward in support of these
two propositions is surely as complete as that which has been allowed
to determine any question of ancient learning.