Part 9

[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.

It does not, however, follow that the Greeks knew of no musical forms analogous to our Major and Minor modes, or to the mediaeval Tones. On the contrary, the course of the discussion has led us to recognise distinctions of this kind in more than one instance. The doctrine against which the argument has been mainly directed is not that ancient scales were of more than one species or 'mode' (as it is now called), but that difference of species was the basis of the ancient Greek Modes. This will become clear if we bring together all the indications which we have observed of scales differing from each other in species, that is, in the _order_ of the intervals in the octave. In doing so it will be especially important to be guided by the principle which we laid down at the outset, of arranging our materials according to chronology, and judging of each piece of evidence strictly with reference to the period to which it belongs. It is only thus that we can hope to gain a conception of Greek music as the living and changing thing that we know it must have been.

1. The principal scale of Greek music is undoubtedly of the Hypo-dorian or common species. This is sufficiently proved by the facts (1) that two octaves of this species (_a-a_) constitute the scale known as the Greater Perfect System, and (2) that the central _a_ of this system, called the Mesê, is said to have been the key-note, or at least to have had the kind of importance in the scale which we connect with the key-note (Arist. _Probl._ xix. 20). This mode, it is obvious, is based on the scale which is the descending scale of the modern Minor mode. It may therefore be identified with the Minor, except that it does not admit the leading note.

It should be observed that this mode is to be recognised not merely in the Perfect System but equally in the primitive octave, of the form _e - e_, out of which the Perfect System grew. The important point is the tonic character of the Mesê (_a_), and this, as it happens, rests upon the testimony of an author who knows the primitive octave only. The fact that that octave is of the so-called Dorian species does not alter the _mode_ (as we are now using that term), but only the compass of the notes employed.

The Hypo-dorian octave is seen in two of the scales of the cithara given by Ptolemy (p. 85), viz. those called [Greek: tritai] and [Greek: tropoi], and the Dorian octave (_e - e_) in two scales, [Greek: parupatai] and [Greek: ludia]. It is very possible (as was observed in commenting on them) that the two latter scales were in the key of _a_, and therefore Hypo-dorian in respect of mode. The Hypo-dorian mode is also exemplified by three at least of the instrumental passages given by the _Anonymus_ (_supra_, p. 89).

2. The earliest trace of a difference of species appears to be found in the passage on the subject of the Mixo-lydian mode quoted above (p. 24) from Plutarch's _Dialogue on Music_. In that mode, according to Plutarch, it was discovered by a certain Lamprocles of Athens that the Disjunctive Tone was the highest interval, that is to say, that the octave in reality consisted of two conjunct tetrachords and a tone:

[Music: Mesê Disj. Tone]

As the note which is the meeting-point of the two tetrachords is doubtless the key-note, we shall not be wrong in making it the Mesê, and thus finding the octave in question in the Perfect System and in the oldest part of it, viz. the tetrachords Mesôn and Synêmmenôn, with the Nêtê Diezeugmenôn. How then did this octave come to be recognised by Lamprocles as distinctively Mixo-lydian? We cannot tell with certainty, because we do not know what the Mixo-lydian scale was before his treatment of it. Probably, however, the answer is to be sought in the relation in respect of pitch between the Dorian and Mixo-lydian keys. These, as we have seen (p. 23), were the keys chiefly employed in tragedy, and the Mixo-lydian was a Fourth higher than the other. Now when a scale consisting of white notes is transposed to a key a Fourth higher, it becomes a scale with one [Symbol: Flat]. In ancient language, the tetrachord Synêmmenôn (_a-b[Symbol: Flat]-c-d_) takes the place of the tetrachord Diezeugmenôn. In some such way as this the octave of this form may have come to be associated in a special way with the use of the Mixo-lydian key.

However this may be, the change from the tetrachord Diezeugmenôn to the tetrachord Synêmmenôn, or the reverse, is a change of mode in the modern sense, for it is what the ancients classified as a change of System ([Greek: metabolê kata systêma])[1]. Nor is it hard to determine the two 'modes' concerned, if we may trust to the authority of the Aristotelian _Problems_ (_l. c._) and regard the Mesê as always the key-note. For if _a_ is kept as the key-note, the octave _a-a_ with one [Symbol: b] is the so-called Dorian (_e - e_ on the white notes). In this way we arrive at the somewhat confusing result that the ancient Dorian species (_e - e_ but with _a_ as key-note) yields the Hypo-dorian or modern Minor mode: while the Dorian mode of modern scientific theory[2] has its ancient prototype in the Mixo-lydian species, viz. the octave first brought to light by Lamprocles. The difficulty of course arises from the species of the Octave being classified according to their compass, without reference to the tonic character of the Mesê.

The Dorian mode is amply represented in the extant remains of Greek music. It is the mode of the two compositions of Dionysius, the Hymn to Calliope and the Hymn to Apollo (p. 88), perhaps also of Mr. Ramsay's musical inscription (p. 90). It would have been satisfactory if we could have found it in the much more important fragment of the _Orestes_. Such indications as that fragment presents seem to me to point to the Dorian mode (Mixo-lydian of Lamprocles).

3. The scales of the cithara furnish one example of the Phrygian species (_d-d_), and one of the Hypo-phrygian (_g-g_): but we have no means of determining which note of the scale is to be treated as the key-note.

[Footnote 1: Ps. Eucl. _Introd._ p. 20 Meib. [Greek: kata systêma de hotan ek synaphês eis diazeuxin ê anapalin metabolê ginêtai]. Anonym.

§ 65 [Greek: systêmatikai de] (sc. [Greek: metabolai]) [Greek: hopotan ek diazeuxeôs eis synaphên ê empalin metelthê to melos].]

[Footnote 2: As represented primarily by the analysis of Helmholtz, _Die Tonempfindungen_, p. 467, ed. 1863.]

In the Hymn to Nemesis, however, in spite of the incomplete form in which it has reached us, there is a sufficiently clear example of the Hypo-phrygian mode. It has been suggested as possible that the melody of Mr. Ramsay's inscription is also Hypo-phrygian, and if so the evidence for the mode would be carried back to the first century.

The Hypo-phrygian is the nearest approach made by any specimen of Greek music to the modern Major mode,--the Lydian or _c_-species not being found even among the scales of the cithara as given by Ptolemy. It is therefore of peculiar interest for musical history, and we look with eagerness for any indication which would allow us to connect it with the classical period of Greek art. One or two sayings of Aristotle have been thought to bear upon this issue.

The most interesting is a passage in the _Politics_ (iv. 3, cp. p. 13), where Aristotle is speaking of the multiplicity of forms of government, and showing how a great number of varieties may nevertheless be brought under a few classes or types. He illustrates the point from the musical Modes, observing that all constitutions may be regarded as either oligarchical (government by a minority) or democratical (government by the majority), just as in the opinion of some musicians ([Greek: hôs phasi tines]) all modes are essentially either Dorian or Phrygian. What, then, is the basis of this grouping of certain modes together as Dorian, while the rest are Phrygian in character? According to Westphal it is a form of the opposition between the true Hellenic music, represented by Dorian, and the foreign music, the Phrygian and Lydian, with their varieties. Moreover, it is in his view virtually the same distinction as that which obtains in modern music between the Minor and the Major scales[1]. This account of the matter, however, is not supported by the context of the passage. Aristotle draws out the comparison between forms of government and musical modes in such a way as to make it plain that in the case of the modes the distinction was one of pitch ([Greek: tas suntonôteras ... tas d' aneimenas kai malakas]). The Dorian was the best, because the highest, of the lower keys,--the others being Hypo-dorian (in the earlier sense, immediately below Dorian), and Hypo-phrygian--while Phrygian was the first of the higher series which took in Lydian and Mixo-lydian. The division would be aided, or may even have been suggested, by the circumstance that it nearly coincided with the favourite contrast of Hellenic and 'barbarous' modes[2]. There is another passage, however, which can hardly be reconciled with a classification according to pitch alone. In the chapters dealing with the ethical character of music Aristotle dwells (as will be remembered) upon the exciting and orgiastic character of the Phrygian mode, and notices its especial fitness for the dithyramb. This fitness or affinity, he says, was so marked that a poet who tried to compose a dithyramb in another mode found himself passing unawares into the Phrygian (_Pol._ viii. 7). It is natural to understand this of the use of certain sequences of intervals, or of cadences, such as are characteristic of a 'mode' in the modern sense of the word, rather than of a change of key. If this is so we may venture the further hypothesis that the Phrygian music, in some at least of its forms, was distinguished not only by pitch, but also by the more or less conscious use of scales which differed in type from the scale of the Greek standard system.

[Footnote 1: _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 a [Greek: tri' 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.]

[Footnote 2: 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).]

It may be urged that this hypothesis is inconsistent with our interpretation of the passage of the _Problems_ about the tonic character of the Mesê. If _a_ is key-note, it was argued, the mode is that of the _a_-species (Hypo-dorian, our Minor), or at most--by admitting the tetrachord Synêmmenôn--it includes the _e_-species (Dorian of Helmholtz). The answer may be that the statement of the _Problems_ is not of this absolute kind. It is not the statement of a technical writer, laying down definite rules, but is a general observation, or at best a canon of taste. We are not told how the predominance of the Mesê is shown in the form of the melody. Moreover this predominance is not said to be exercised in music generally, but in all _good_ music ([Greek: panta gar ta chrêsta melê pollakis tê mesê chrêtai]). This may mean either that tonality in Greek music was of an imperfect kind, a question of style and taste rather than of fixed rule, or that they occasionally employed modes of a less approved stamp, unrecognised in the earlier musical theory. § 36. _Conclusion._

The considerations set forth in the last chapter seem to show that if difference of mode or species cannot be entirely denied of the classical period of Greek music, it occupied a subordinate and almost unrecognised place.

The main elements of the art were, (1) difference of _genus_,--the sub-divisions of the tetrachord which Aristoxenus and Ptolemy alike recognise, though with important discrepancies in detail; (2) difference of pitch or _key_; and (3) _rhythm_. Passing over the last, as not belonging to the subject of _Harmonics_, we may now say that genus and key are the only grounds of distinction which are evidently of practical importance. No others were associated with the early history of the art, with particular composers or periods, with

## particular instruments, or with the ethos of music. This, however, is

only true in the fullest sense of Greek music before the time of Ptolemy. The main object of Ptolemy's reform of the keys was to provide a new set of scales, each characterised by a particular succession of intervals, while the pitch was left to take care of itself. And it is clear, especially from the specimens which Ptolemy gives of the scales in use in his time, that he was only endeavouring to systematise what already existed, and bring theory into harmony with the developments of practice. We must suppose, therefore, that the musical feeling which sought variety in differences of key came to have less influence on the practical art, and that musicians began to discover, or to appreciate more than they had done, the use of different 'modes' or forms of the octave scale. Along with this change we have to note the comparative disuse of the Enharmonic and Chromatic divisions of the tetrachord. The Enharmonic, according to Ptolemy, had ceased to be employed. Of the three varieties of Chromatic given by Aristoxenus only one remains on Ptolemy's list, and that the one which in the scheme of Aristoxenus involved no interval less than a semitone. And although Ptolemy distinguished at least three varieties of Diatonic, it is worth notice that only one of these was admitted in the tuning of the lyre,--the others being confined to the more elaborate cithara. In Ptolemy's time, therefore, music was rapidly approaching the stage in which all its forms are based upon a single scale--the natural diatonic scale of modern Europe.

In the light of these facts it must occur to us that Westphal's theory of seven modes or species of the Octave is really open to an _a priori_ objection as decisive in its nature as any of the testimony which has been brought against it. Is it possible, we may ask, that a system of modes analogous to the ecclesiastical Tones can have subsisted along with a system of scales such as the genera and 'colours' of early Greek music? The reply may be that Ptolemy himself combines the two systems. He supposes five divisions of the tetrachord, and seven modes based upon so many species of the Octave--in all thirty-five different scales (or seventy, if we bring in the distinction of octaves [Greek: apo nêtês] and [Greek: apo mesês]). But when we come to the scales actually used on the chief Greek instrument, the cithara, the number falls at once to six. Evidently the others, or most of them, only existed on paper, as the mathematical results of certain assumptions which Ptolemy had made. And if this can be said of Ptolemy's theory, what would be the value of a similar scheme combining the modes with the Enharmonic and the different varieties of the Chromatic genus? The truth is, surely, that such a scheme tries to unite elements which belong to different times, which in fact are the fundamental ideas of different stages of art.

The most striking characteristic of Greek music, especially in its earlier periods, is the multiplicity and delicacy of the intervals into which the scale was divided. A sort of frame-work was formed by the division of the octave into tetrachords, completed by the so-called disjunctive tone; and so far all Greek music was alike. But within the tetrachord the reign of diversity was unchecked. Not only were there recognised divisions containing intervals of a fourth, a third, and even three-eighths of a tone, but we gather from several things said by Aristoxenus that the number of possible divisions was regarded as theoretically unlimited. Thus he tells us that there was a constant tendency to flatten the 'moveable' notes of the Chromatic genus, and thus diminish the small intervals, for the sake of 'sweetness' or in order to obtain a plaintive tone[1];--that the Lichanos of a tetrachord may in theory be any note between the Enharmonic Lichanos (_f_ in the scale _e-e*-f-a_) and the Diatonic (_g_ in the scale _e-f-g-a_)[2];--and that the magnitude of the smaller intervals and division of the tetrachord generally belongs to the indefinite or indeterminate element in music[3]. Moreover, in spite of the disuse of several of the older scales, much of this holds good for the time of Ptolemy. The modern diatonic scale is fully recognised by him, but only as one of several different divisions. And the division which he treats as the ordinary or standard form of the octave is not the modern diatonic scale, but one of the so-called 'soft' or flattened varieties. It is clear that in the best periods of Greek music these refinements of melody, which modern musicians find scarcely conceivable, were far from being accidental or subordinate features. Rather, they were as much bound up with the fundamental nature of that music as complex harmony is with the music of modern Europe.

[Footnote 1: Aristox. _Harm._ p. 23 Meib. [Greek: hoi men gar tê nun katechousê melopoiia ounêtheis monon ontes eiktôs tên ditonon lichanon] (_f_ in the scale _e-a_) [Greek: 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.]]