Part 2

The tone as well as the substance of this extract makes it evident that the opinions of Heraclides on questions of theoretical music must be accepted with considerable reserve. The notion that the Phrygian and Lydian scales were 'barbarous' and opposed to Hellenic ethos was apparently common enough, though largely due (as we may gather from several indications) to national prejudice. But no one, except Heraclides, goes so far as to deny them the name of [Greek: harmonia]. The threefold division into Dorian, Aeolian and Ionian must also be arbitrary. It is to be observed that Heraclides obtains his Aeolian by identifying the Aeolian of Pratinas and other early poets with the mode called Hypo-dorian in his own time. The circumstance that Plato mentions neither Aeolian nor Hypo-dorian suggests rather that Aeolian had gone out of use before Hypo-dorian came in. The conjecture of Boeckh that Ionian was the same as the later Hypo-phrygian (_De Metr. Pind._ iii. 8) is open to a similar objection. The Ionian mode was at least as old as Pratinas, whereas the Hypo-phrygian was a novelty in the time of Heraclides. The protest which Heraclides makes against classifying modes merely according to their pitch is chiefly valuable as proving that the modes were as a matter of fact usually classified from that point of view. It is far from proving that there was any other principle which Heraclides wished to adopt--such, for example, as difference in the intervals employed, or in their succession. His 'differences of kind' ([Greek: tas kat' eidos diaphoras]) are not necessarily to be explained from the technical use of [Greek: eidos] for the 'species' of the octave. What he complains of seems to be the multiplication of modes--Hyper-mixolydian, Hyper-phrygian, Hypo-phrygian--beyond the legitimate requirements of the art. The Mixo-lydian (_e.g._) is high-pitched and plaintive: what more can the Hyper-mixolydian be? The Hypo-phrygian is a new mode: Heraclides denies it a distinctive ethos. His view seems to be that the number of modes should not be greater than the number of varieties in temper or emotion of which music is capable. But there is nothing to show that he did not regard pitch as the chief element, or one of the chief elements, of musical expression.

The absence of the name Hypo-lydian, taken with the description of Hypo-dorian as 'below the Dorian,' would indicate that the Hypo-dorian of Heraclides was not the later mode of that name, but was a semitone below the Dorian, in the place afterwards occupied by the Hypo-lydian. This is confirmed, as we shall see, by Aristoxenus (p. 18).

§ 7. _Aristotle--the Politics._

Of the writers who deal with music from the point of view of the cultivated layman, Aristotle is undoubtedly the most instructive. The chapters in his _Politics_ which treat of music in its relation to the state and to morality go much more deeply than Plato does into the grounds of the influence which musical forms exert upon temper and feeling. Moreover, Aristotle's scope is wider, not being confined to the education of the young; and his treatment is evidently a more faithful reflexion of the ordinary Greek notions and sentiment. He begins (_Pol._ viii. 5, p. 1340 _a_ 38) by agreeing with Plato as to the great importance of the subject for practical politics. Musical forms, he holds, are not mere _symbols_ ([Greek: sêmeia]), acting through association, but are an actual _copy_ or reflex of the forms of moral temper ([Greek: en de tois melesin autois esti mimêmata tôn êthôn]); and this is the ground of the different moral influence exercised by different modes ([Greek: harmoniai]). By some of them, especially by the Mixo-lydian, we are moved to a plaintive and depressed temper ([Greek: diatithesthai odyrtikôterôs kai synestêkotôs mallon]); by others, such as those which are called the 'relaxed' ([Greek: aneimenai]), we are disposed to 'softness' of mind ([Greek: malakôterôs tên dianoian]). The Dorian, again, is the only one under whose influence men are in a middle and settled mood ([Greek: mesôs kai kathestêkotôs malista]): while the Phrygian makes them excited ([Greek: enthousiastikous]). In a later chapter (Pol. viii. 7, p. 1342 _a_ 32), he returns to the subject of the Phrygian. Socrates, he thinks, ought not to have left it with the Dorian, especially since he condemned the flute ([Greek: aulos]), which has the same character among instruments as the Phrygian among modes, both being orgiastic and emotional. The Dorian, as all agree, is the most steadfast ([Greek: stasimôtatê]), and has most of the ethos of courage; and, as compared with other modes, it has the character which Aristotle himself regards as the universal criterion of excellence, viz. that of being the mean between opposite excesses. Aristotle, therefore, certainly understood Plato to have approved the Dorian and the Phrygian as representing the mean in respect of pitch, while other modes were either too high or too low. He goes on to defend the use of the 'relaxed' modes on the ground that they furnish a music that is still within the powers of those whose voice has failed from age, and who therefore are not able to sing the high-pitched modes ([Greek: oion tois apeirêkosi dia chronon ou rhadion adein tas syntonous harmonias, alla tas aneimenas hê physis hypoballei tois têlikoutois]). In this passage the meaning of the words [Greek: syntonos] and [Greek: aneimenos] is especially clear.

In the same discussion (c. 6), Aristotle refers to the distinction between music that is ethical, music suited to action, and music that inspires religious excitement ([Greek: ta men êthika, ta de praktika, ta ho enthousiastika]). The last of these kinds serves as a 'purification' ([Greek: katharsis]). The excitement is calmed by giving it vent; and the morbid condition of the ethos is met by music of high pitch and exceptional 'colour' ([Greek: tôn harmoniôn parekbaseis kai tôn melôn ta syntona kai parakechrôsmena]).

In a different connexion (_Pol._ iv. 3, p. 1290 _a_ 20), dealing with the opinion that all forms of government are ultimately reducible to two, viz. oligarchy and democracy, Aristotle compares the view of some who held that there are properly only two musical modes, Dorian and Phrygian,--the other scales being mere varieties of these two. Rather, he says, there is in each case a right form, or two right forms at most, from which the rest are declensions ([Greek: parekbaseis]),--on one side to 'high-pitched' and imperious oligarchies, on the other to 'relaxed' and 'soft' forms of popular government ([Greek: oligarchikas men tas syntonôteras kai despotikônteras, tas d' aneimenas kai malakas dêmotikas]). This is obviously the Platonic doctrine of two right keys, holding the mean between high and low.

§ 8. _The Aristotelian Problems._

Some further notices of the [Greek: harmoniai] or modes are contained in the so-called _Problems_,--a collection which is probably not the work of Aristotle himself, but can hardly be later than the Aristotelian age. What is said in it of the modes is clearly of the period before the reform of Aristoxenus. In one place (_Probl._ xix. 48) the question is asked why the Hypo-dorian and Hypo-phrygian are not used in the _chorus_ of tragedy. One answer is that the Hypo-phrygian has the ethos of action ([Greek: êthos echei praktikon]), and that the Hypo-dorian is the expression of a lofty and unshaken character; both of these things being proper to the heroic personages on the stage, but not to the chorus, which represents the average spectator, and takes no part in the action. Hence the music suited to the chorus is that of emotion venting itself in passive complaint:--a description which fits the other modes, but least of all the exciting and orgiastic Hypo-phrygian. On the contrary (the writer adds) the passive attitude is especially expressed by the Mixo-lydian. The view here taken of the Hypo-dorian evidently agrees with that of Heraclides Ponticus (_supra_, p. 10).

The relation which Plato assumes between high pitch and the excitement of passion, and again between lowness of pitch and 'softness' or self-indulgence ([Greek: malakia kai argia]), is recognized in the _Problems_, xix. 49 [Greek: epei de ho men barys phthongos malakos kai êremaios estin, ho de oxys kinêtikos, k.t.l.]: 'since a deep note is soft and calm, and a high note is exciting, &c.'

§ 9. _The Rhetoric._

The word [Greek: tonos] occurs several times in Aristotle with the sense of 'pitch,' but is not applied by him to the keys of music. The nearest approach to such a use may be found in a passage of the _Rhetoric_ (iii. 1, p. 1403 _b_ 27).

Speaking of the rise of acting ([Greek: hypokrisis]), which was originally the business of the poet himself, but had grown into a distinct art, capable of theoretical as well as practical treatment, he observes that a similar art might be formed for oratory. 'Such an art would lay down rules directing how to use the voice so as to suit each variety of feeling,--when it should be loud, when low, when intermediate;--and how to use the keys, when the pitch of the voice should be high or low or middle ([Greek: kai pôs tois tonois, oion oxeia kai bareia kai mesê], sc. [Greek: phônê]); and the rhythms, which to use for each case. For there are three things which men study, viz. quantity (_i. e._ loudness of sound), tune, and rhythm ([tria gar esti peri hôn skopousi, tauta d' esti megethos, harmonia, rhythmos]).' The passage is interesting as showing the value which Aristotle set upon pitch as an element of effect. And the use of [Greek: harmonia] in reference to the pitch of the voice, and as virtually equivalent to [Greek: tonos], is especially worthy of note.

§ 10. _Aristoxenus._

Our next source of information is the technical writer Aristoxenus, a contemporary and pupil of Aristotle. Of his many works on the subject of music three books only have survived, bearing the title [Greek: harmonika otoicheia][1]. In the treatment adopted by Aristoxenus the chapter on keys follows the chapter on 'systems' ([Greek: systêmata]). By a [Greek: systêma] he means a scale consisting of a certain succession of intervals: in other words, a series of notes whose relative pitch is determined. Such a system may vary in absolute pitch, and the [Greek: tonoi] or keys are simply the different degrees of pitch at which a particular system is taken ([Greek: tous tonous eph' ôn tithemena ta systêmata melôdeitai]). When the system and the key are both given it is evident that the whole series of notes is determined.

Aristoxenus is the chief authority on the keys of Greek music. In this department he is considered to have done for Greece what Bach's _Wohltemperirtes Clavier_ did for modern Europe. It is true that the scheme of keys which later writers ascribe to him is not given in the _Harmonics_ which we have: but we find there what is in some respects more valuable, namely, a vivid account of the state of things in respect of tonality which he observed in the music of his time.

[Footnote 1: It is foreign to our purpose to discuss the critical problems presented by the text of Aristoxenus. Of the three extant books the first is obviously a distinct treatise, and should probably be entitled [Greek: peri archôn]. The other two books will then bear the old title [Greek: harmonika stoicheia]. They deal with the same subjects, for the most part, as the first book, and in the same order,--a species of repetition of which there are well-known instances in the Aristotelian writings. The conclusion is abrupt, and some important topics are omitted. It seems an exaggeration, however, to describe the _Harmonics_ of Aristoxenus as a mere collection of excerpts, which is the view taken by Marquard (_Die harmonischen Fragmente des Aristoxenus_, pp. 359-393). See Westphal's _Harmonik und Melopöie der Griechen_ (p. 41, ed. 1863), and the reply to Marquard in his _Aristoxenus von Tarent_ (pp. 165-170).]

'No one,' says Aristoxenus (p. 37 Meib.), 'has told us a word about the keys, either how they are to be arrived at ([Greek: tina tropon lêpteon]), or from what point of view their number is to be determined. Musicians assign the place of the keys very much as the different cities regulate the days of the month. The Corinthians, for example, will be found counting a day as the tenth of the month, while with the Athenians it is the fifth, and in some other place the eighth. Some authorities on music ([Greek: harmonikoi]) say that the Hypo-dorian is the lowest key, the Mixo-lydian a semitone higher, the Dorian again a semitone higher, the Phrygian a tone above the Dorian, and similarly the Lydian a tone above the Phrygian. Others add the Hypo-phrygian flute [_i. e._ the scale of the flute so called] at the lower end of the list. Others, again, looking to the holes of the flute ([Greek: pros tên tôn aulôn trupêsin blepontes]), separate the three lowest keys, viz. the Hypo-phrygian, Hypo-dorian, and Dorian, by the interval of three-quarters of a tone ([Greek: trisi diesesin]), but the Phrygian from the Dorian by a tone, the Lydian from the Phrygian again by three-quarters of a tone, and the Mixo-lydian from the Lydian by a like interval. But as to what determines the interval between one key and another they have told us nothing.'

It will be seen that (with one marked exception) there was agreement about the order of the keys in respect of pitch, and that some at least had reduced the intervals to the succession of tones and semitones which characterises the diatonic scale. The exception is the Mixo-lydian, which some ranked immediately below the Dorian, others above the Lydian. Westphal attributes this strange discrepancy to the accidental displacing of some words in the MSS. of Aristoxenus[1]. However this may be, it is plain that in the time of Aristoxenus considerable progress had been made towards the scheme of keys which was afterwards connected with his name. This may be represented by the following table, in which for the sake of comparison the later Hypo-lydian and Hypo-dorian are added in brackets:

Mixo-lydian semitone - { Lydian tone - { Phrygian tone - { Dorian semitone - { Hypo-dorian [Hypo-lydian] tone - { Hypo-phrygian tone - { [Hypo-dorian]

[Footnote 1: _Harm._ p. 37, 19 Meib. [Greek: houtô gar hoi men tôn harmonikôn legousi barytaton men ton Hypodôrion tôn tonôn, hêmitoniô de oxyteron toutou ton Mixolydion, toutou de hêmitoniô ton Dôrion, tou de Dôriou tonô ton Phrygion: hôsautôs de kai tou Phrygiou ton Lydion heterô tonô.] Westphal (_Harmonik und Melopöie_ p. 165) would transfer the words [Greek: hêmitoniô ... Mixolydion] to the end of the sentence, and insert [Greek: oxyteron] before [Greek: ton Dôrion]. The necessity for this insertion shows that Westphal's transposition is not in itself an easy one. The only reason for it is the difficulty of supposing that there could have been so great a difference in the pitch of the Mixo-lydian scale. As to this, however, see p. 23 (note).

The words [Greek: Hypophrygion aulon] have also been condemned by Westphal (_Aristoxenus_, p. 453). He points out the curious contradiction between [Greek: pros tên tôn aulôn trypêsin blepontes] and the complaint [Greek: ti d' esti pros ho blepontes ... ouden eirêkasin]. But if [Greek: pros tên ... blepontes] was a marginal gloss, as Westphal suggests, it was doubtless a gloss on [Greek: aulon], and if so, [Greek: aulon] is presumably sound. Since the [Greek: aulos] was especially a Phrygian instrument, and regularly associated with the Phrygian mode (as we know from Aristotle, see p. 13), nothing is more probable than that there was a variety of flute called Hypo-phrygian, because tuned so as to yield the Hypo-phrygian key, either by itself or as a modulation from the Phrygian.]

In this scheme the important feature--that which marks it as an advance on the others referred to by Aristoxenus--is the conformity which it exhibits with the diatonic scale. The result of this conformity is that the keys stand in a certain relation to each other. Taking any two, we find that certain notes are common to them. So long as the intervals of pitch were quite arbitrary, or were practically irrational quantities, such as three-quarters of a tone, no such relation could exist. It now became possible to pass from one key to another, _i. e._ to employ _modulation_ ([Greek: metabolê]) as a source of musical effect. This new system had evidently made some progress when Aristoxenus wrote, though it was not perfected, and had not passed into general use.

§ 11. _Names of Keys_ ([Greek: hypo-]).

A point that deserves special notice at this place is the use of the prefix _Hypo-_ ([Greek: hypo-]) in the names of keys. In the final Aristoxenean system _Hypo-_ implies that a key is lower by the interval of a Fourth than the key to whose name it is prefixed. This convention served to bring out the special relation between the two keys, viz. to show that they are related (to use modern language) as the keys of a tonic and dominant. In the scheme of keys now in question there is only one instance of this use of _Hypo-_, namely in the Hypo-phrygian, the most recently introduced. It must have been on the analogy of this name that the term Hypo-dorian was shifted from the key immediately below the Dorian to the new key a Fourth below it, and that the new term Hypo-lydian was given to the old Hypo-dorian in accordance with its similar relation to the Lydian. In the time of Aristoxenus, then, this technical sense of _Hypo-_ had not yet been established, but was coming into use. It led naturally to the employment of _Hyper-_ in the inverse sense, viz. to denote a key a Fourth higher (the key of the sub-dominant). By further steps, of which there is no record, the Greek musicians arrived at the idea of a key for every semitone in the octave; and thus was formed the system of thirteen keys, ascribed to Aristoxenus by later writers. (See the scheme at the end of this book, Table II.) Whether in fact it was entirely his work may be doubted. In any case he had formed a clear conception--the want of which he noted in his predecessors--of the principles on which a theoretically complete scheme of keys should be constructed.

In the discussions to which we have been referring, Aristoxenus invariably employs the word [Greek: tonos] in the sense of 'key.' The word [Greek: harmonia] in his writings is equivalent to 'Enharmonic genus' ([Greek: genos enarmonion]), the _genus_ of music which made use of the Enharmonic _diësis_ or quarter-tone. Thus he never speaks, as Plato and Aristotle do, of the Dorian (or Phrygian or Lydian) [Greek: harmonia], but only of the [Greek: tonoi] so named. There is indeed one passage in which certain octave scales are said by Aristoxenus to have been called [Greek: harmoniai]: but this, as will be shown, is a use which is to be otherwise explained (see p. 54).

§ 12. _Plutarch's Dialogue on Music._

After the time of Aristoxenus the technical writers on music make little or no use of the term [Greek: harmonia]. Their word for 'key' is [Greek: tonos]; and the octachord scales which are distinguished by the succession of their intervals are called 'species of the octave' ([Greek: eidê tou dia] [Greek: pasôn]). The modes of the classical period, however, were still objects of antiquarian and philosophic interest, and authors who treated them from this point of view naturally kept up the old designation. A good specimen of the writings of this class has survived in the _dialogus de musicâ_ of Plutarch. Like most productions of the time, it is mainly a compilation from earlier works now lost. Much of it comes from Aristoxenus, and there is therefore a special fitness in dealing with it in this place, by way of supplement to the arguments drawn directly from the Aristoxenean _Harmonics_. The following are the chief passages bearing on the subject of our enquiry:

(1) In cc. 15-17 we find a commentary of some interest on the Platonic treatment of the modes. Plutarch is dwelling on the superiority of the older and simpler music, and appeals to the opinion of Plato.

'The Lydian mode ([Greek: harmonia]) Plato objects to because it is high ([Greek: oxeia]) and suited to lamentation. Indeed it is said to have been originally devised for that purpose: for Aristoxenus tells us, in his first book on Music, that Olympus first employed the Lydian mode on the flute in a dirge ([Greek: epikêdeion aulêsai Lydisti]) over the Python. But some say that Melanippides began this kind of music. And Pindar in his paeans says that the Lydian mode ([Greek: harmonia]) was first brought in by Anthippus in an ode on the marriage of Niobe. But others say that Torrhebus first used that mode, as Dionysius the Iambus relates.'

'The Mixo-lydian, too, is pathetic and suitable to tragedy. And Aristoxenus says that Sappho was the inventor of the Mixo-lydian, and that from her the tragic poets learned it. They combined it with the Dorian, since that mode gives grandeur and dignity, and the other pathos, and these are the two elements of tragedy. But in his Historical Treatise on Music ([Greek: historika tês harmonias hypomnêmata]) he says that Pythoclides the flute-player was the discoverer of it. And Lysis says that Lamprocles the Athenian, perceiving that in it the disjunctive tone ([Greek: diazeuxis]) is not where it was generally supposed to be, but is at the upper end of the scale, made the form of it to be that of the octave from Paramesê to Hypatê Hypatôn ([Greek: toiouton autês apergasasthai to schêma hoion to apo paramesês epi hypatên hypatôn]). Moreover, it is said that the relaxed Lydian ([Greek: epaneimenên Lydisti]), which is the opposite of the Mixo-lydian, being similar to the Ionian ([Greek: paraplêsian ousan tê Iadi]), was invented by Damon the Athenian.'

'These modes then, the one plaintive, the other relaxed ([Greek: eklelymenê]), Plato properly rejected, and chose the Dorian, as befitting warlike and temperate men.'

In this passage the 'high-pitched Lydian' ([Greek: Syntonolydisti]) of Plato is called simply Lydian. There is every reason to suppose that it is the mode called Lydian by Aristotle and Heraclides Ponticus[1]. If this is so, it follows almost of necessity that the Lydian of Plato, called slack ([Greek: chalara]) by him--Plutarch's [Greek: epaneimenê Lydisti]--is to be identified with the later Hypo-lydian.

[Footnote 1: An objection to this identification has been based on the words of Pollux, _Onom._ iv. 78 [Greek: kai 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 the _Republic_. If so, it can hardly be doubted that Pollux gives the original terms, the Platonic [Greek: Lydisti] and [Greek: Syntonolydisti], and consequently that the later Lydian is not to be found in his [Greek: Lydios] (which is a 'relaxed' mode), but in his [Greek: syntonos Lydisti]. There is no difficulty in supposing that the mode was called [Greek: syntonos] merely in contrast to the other.]

The point, however, is not free from difficulty: for (as we have seen, p. 18), the name Hypo-lydian is not in the list of keys given by Aristoxenus--the key which was ultimately called Hypo-lydian being known to him as the Hypo-dorian. If, however, the confusion in the nomenclature of the keys was as great as Aristoxenus himself describes, such a contradiction as this cannot be taken to prove much[1].