The Modes of Ancient Greek Music Part 2

In this pa.s.sage 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: epaneimene 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 auletike Doristi, Phrygisti, Lydios kai Ionike, kai syntonos Lydisti en 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 pa.s.sage 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].

The statement that the 'relaxed Lydian' was the opposite of the Mixo-lydian, and similar to the Ionian, has given rise to much speculation. In what sense, we naturally ask, can a key or a mode be said to be 'opposite' or 'similar' to another? I venture to think that it is evidently a mere paraphrase of Plato's language. The relaxed Lydian is opposed to the Mixo-lydian because it is at the other end of the scale in pitch; and it is similar to the Ionian because the two are cla.s.sed together (as [Greek: chalarai]) by Plato.

The Mixo-lydian, according to Aristoxenus, was employed by the tragic poets in close union with the Dorian mode ([Greek: labontas syzeuxai te Doristi]). The fact that the Mixo-lydian was just a Fourth higher than the Dorian must have made the transition from the one to the other a natural and melodious one. As Aristoxenus suggested, it would be especially used to mark the pa.s.sage from grandeur and dignity to pathos which is the chief characteristic of tragedy ([Greek: he men to megaloprepes kai axiomatikon apodidosin, he de to pathetikon, memiktai de dia touton traG.o.dia]). It is worth noticing that this relation obtained in the scheme of the musicians who did not arrange the keys according to the diatonic scale, but in some way suggested by the form of the flute ([Greek: hoi pros ten ton aulon trypesin blepontes]). It may therefore be supposed to have been established before the relative pitch of other keys had been settled.

[Footnote 1: It seems not impossible that this difficulty with regard to the 'slack Lydian' and Hypo-lydian may be connected with the contradiction in the statement of Aristoxenus about the schemes of keys in his time (p. 18). According to that account, if the text is sound, some musicians placed the Mixo-lydian a semitone below the Dorian--the Hypo-dorian being again a semitone lower. In this scheme, then, the Mixo-lydian held the place of the later Hypo-lydian. The conjecture may perhaps be hazarded, that this lower Mixo-lydian somehow represents Plato's 'slack Lydian,' and eventually pa.s.sed into the Hypo-lydian.]

So far the pa.s.sage of Plutarch goes to confirm the view of the Platonic modes according to which they were distinguished chiefly, if not wholly, by difference of pitch. We come now, however, to a statement which apparently tends in the opposite direction, viz. that a certain Lamprocles of Athens noticed that in the Mixo-lydian mode the Disjunctive Tone ([Greek: diazeuxis]) was at the upper end of the scale ([Greek: epi to oxy]), and reformed the scale accordingly. This must refer to an octave scale of the form _b c d e f g a b_, consisting of the two tetrachords _b-e_ and _e-a_, and the tone _a-b_. Such an octave may or may not be in the Mixo-lydian key: it is certainly of the Mixo-lydian species (p. 57).

In estimating the value of this piece of evidence it is necessary to remark, in the first place, that the authority is no longer that of Aristoxenus, but of a certain Lysis, of whom nothing else seems to be known. That he was later than Aristoxenus is made probable by his way of describing the Mixo-lydian octave, viz. by reference to the notes in the Perfect System by which it is exemplified (Hypate Hypaton to Paramese). In Aristoxenus, as we shall see (p. 31), the primitive octave (from Hypate to Nete) is the only scale the notes of which are mentioned by name. But even if the notice is comparatively early, it is worth observing that the Mixo-lydian scale thus ascribed to Lamprocles consists of two tetrachords of the normal type, viz. with the semitone or [Greek: pyknon] at the lower end of the scale (Diatonic _e f g a_, Enharmonic _e e* f a_). The difference is that they are conjunct, whereas in the primitive standard octave (_e - e_) the tetrachords are disjunct (_e-a b-e_). This, however, is a variety which is provided for by the tetrachord Synemmenon in the Perfect System, and which may have been allowed in the less complete scales of earlier times. In any case the existence of a scale of this particular form does not prove that the octaves of other species were recognised in the same way.

(2) In another pa.s.sage (c. 6) Plutarch says of the ancient music of the cithara that it was characterised by perfect simplicity. It was not allowed, he tells us, to change the mode ([Greek: metapherein tas harmonias]) or the rhythm: for in the primitive lyrical compositions called 'Nomes' ([Greek: nomoi]) they preserved in each its proper pitch ([Greek: ten oikeian tasin]). Here the word [Greek: tasis]

indicates that by [Greek: harmoniai] Plutarch (or the older author from whom he was quoting) meant particular _keys_. This is fully confirmed by the use of [Greek: tonos] in a pa.s.sage a little further on (c. 8), where Plutarch gives an account of an innovation in this matter made by Sacadas of Argos (fl. 590 B.C.). 'There being three keys ([Greek: tonoi]) in the time of Polymnastus and Sacadas, viz.

the Dorian, Phrygian and Lydian, it is said that Sacadas composed a strophe in each of these keys, and taught the chorus to sing them, the first in the Dorian, the second in the Phrygian, and the third in the Lydian key: and this composition was called the "three-part Nome"

([Greek: nomos trimeres]) on account of the change of key.' In Westphal's _Harmonik und Melopoie_ (ed. 1863, p. 76, cp. p. 62) he explains this notice of the ancient modes ([Greek: harmoniai], _Tonarten_), observing that the word [Greek: tonos] is there used improperly for what the technical writers call [Greek: eidos tou dia pason].

(3) In a somewhat similar pa.s.sage of the same work (c. 19) Plutarch is contending that the fewness of the notes in the scales used by the early musicians did not arise from ignorance, but was characteristic of their art, and necessary to its peculiar ethos. Among other points he notices that the tetrachord Hypaton was not used in Dorian music ([Greek: en tois Doriois]), and this, he says, was not because they did not know of that tetrachord--for they used it in other keys ([Greek: tonoi])--but they left it out in the Dorian key for the sake of preserving its ethos, the beauty of which they valued ([Greek: dia de ten tou ethous phylaken apheroun tou Doriou tonou, timontes to kalon autou]). Here again Westphal (_Aristoxenus_, p. 476) has to take [Greek: tonos] to mean [Greek: harmonia] or 'mode' (in his language _Tonart_, not _Transpositionsscala_). For in the view of those who distinguish [Greek: harmonia] from [Greek: tonos] it is the [Greek: harmonia] upon which the ethos of music depends. Plutarch himself had just been saying (in c. 17) that Plato preferred the Dorian [Greek: harmonia] on account of its grave and elevated character ([Greek: epei poly to semnon estin en te Doristi, tauten proutimesen]). On the other hand the usual sense of [Greek: tonos] is supported by the consideration that the want of the tetrachord Hypaton would affect the pitch of the scale rather than the succession of its intervals.

It seems to follow from a comparison of these three pa.s.sages that Plutarch was not aware of any difference of meaning between the words [Greek: tonos] and [Greek: harmonia], or any distinction in the scales of Greek music such as has been supposed to be conveyed by these words. Another synonym of [Greek: tonos] which becomes very common in the later writers on music is the word [Greek: tropos][1].

In the course of the pa.s.sage of Plutarch already referred to (_De Mus._ c. 17) it is applied to the Dorian mode, which Plutarch has just called [Greek: harmonia]. As [Greek: tropos] is always used in the later writers of the keys ([Greek: tonoi]) of Aristoxenus, this may be added to the places in which [Greek: harmonia] has the same meaning.

-- 13. _Modes employed on different Instruments._

In the anonymous treatise on music published by Bellermann[2] (c.

28), we find the following statement regarding the use of the modes or keys in the scales of different instruments:

'The Phrygian mode ([Greek: harmonia]) has the first place on wind-instruments: witness the first discoverers--Marsyas, Hyagnis, Olympus--who were Phrygians. Players on the water-organ ([Greek: hydraulai]) use only six modes ([Greek: tropoi]), viz. Hyper-lydian, Hyper-ionian, Lydian, Phrygian, Hypo-lydian, Hypo-phrygian. Players on the cithara tune their instrument to these four, viz.

Hyper-ionian, Lydian, Hypo-lydian, Ionian. Flute-players employ seven, viz. Hyper-aeolian, Hyper-ionian, Hypo-lydian, Lydian, Phrygian, Ionian, Hypo-phrygian. Musicians who concern themselves with orchestic (choral music) use seven, viz. Hyper-dorian, Lydian, Phrygian, Dorian, Hypo-lydian, Hypo-phrygian, Hypo-dorian.

[Footnote 1: Aristides Quintilia.n.u.s uses [Greek: tropos] as the regular word for 'key:' e.g. in p. 136 [Greek: en te ton tropon, hous kai tonous ekalesamen, ekthesei]. So Alypius (p. 2 Meib.) [Greek: dielein eis tous legomenous tropous te kai tonous, ontas pentekaideka ton arithmon]. Also Bacchius in his catechism (p. 12 Meib.) [Greek: hoi tous treis tropous adontes tinas adousi; Lydion, Phrygion, Dorion; hoi de tous hepta tinas; Mixolydion, Lydion, Phrygion, Dorion, Hypolydion, Hypophrygion, Hypodorion, touton poios estin oxyteros? ho Mixolydios, k.t.l.] And Gaudentius (p. 21, l. 2) [Greek: kath' hekaston tropon he tonon]. Cp. Dionys. Hal. _De Comp. Verb._ c.

19.]

[Footnote 2: _Anonymi scriptio de Musica_ (Berlin. 1841).]

In this pa.s.sage it is evident that we have to do with keys of the scheme attributed to Aristoxenus, including the two (Hyper-aeolian and Hyper-lydian) which were said to have been added after his time.

The number of scales mentioned is sufficient to prove that the reference is not to the seven species of the octave. Yet the word [Greek: harmonia] is used of these keys, and with it, seemingly as an equivalent, the word [Greek: tropos].

Pollux (_Onom._ iv. 78) gives a somewhat different account of the modes used on the flute: [Greek: kai harmonia men auletike Doristi, Phrygisti, Lydios kai Ionike, kai syntonos Lydisti hen Anthippos exeure]. But this statement, as has been already pointed out (p. 22), is a piece of antiquarian learning, and therefore takes no notice of the more recent keys, as Hyper-aeolian and Hyper-ionian, or even Hypo-phrygian (unless that is the Ionian of Pollux). The absence of Dorian from the list given by the _Anonymus_ is curious: but it seems that at that time it was equally unknown to the cithara and the water-organ. There is therefore no reason to think that the two lists are framed with reference to different things. That is to say, [Greek: harmonia] in Pollux has the same meaning as [Greek: harmonia]

in the _Anonymus_, and is equivalent to [Greek: tonos].

-- 14. _Recapitulation--[Greek: harmonia] and [Greek: tonos]._

The inquiry has now reached a stage at which we may stop to consider what result has been reached, especially in regard to the question whether the two words [Greek: harmonia] and [Greek: tonos] denote two sets of musical forms, or are merely two different names for the same thing. The latter alternative appears to be supported by several considerations.

1. From various pa.s.sages, especially in Plato and Aristotle, it has been shown that the modes anciently called [Greek: harmoniai]

differed in pitch, and that this difference in pitch was regarded as the chief source of the peculiar ethical character of the modes.

2. The list of [Greek: harmoniai] as gathered from the writers who treat of them, viz. Plato, Aristotle, and Heraclides Ponticus, is substantially the same as the list of [Greek: tonoi] described by Aristoxenus (p. 18): and moreover, there is an agreement in detail between the two lists which cannot be purely accidental. Thus Heraclides says that certain people had found out a new [Greek: harmonia], the Hypo-phrygian; and Aristoxenus speaks of the Hypo-phrygian [Greek: tonos] as a comparatively new one. Again, the account which Aristoxenus gives of the Hypo-dorian [Greek: tonos] as a key immediately below the Dorian agrees with what Heraclides says of the Hypo-dorian [Greek: harmonia], and also with the mention of Hypo-dorian and Hypo-phrygian (but not Hypo-lydian) in the Aristotelian _Problems_. Once more, the absence of Ionian from the list of [Greek: tonoi] in Aristoxenus is an exception which proves the rule: since the name of the Ionian [Greek: harmonia] is similarly absent from Aristotle.

3. The usage of the words [Greek: harmonia] and [Greek: tonos] is never such as to suggest that they refer to different things. In the earlier writers, down to and including Aristotle, [Greek: harmonia]

is used, never [Greek: tonos]. In Aristoxenus and his school we find [Greek: tonos], and in later writers [Greek: tropos], but not [Greek: harmonia]. The few writers (such as Plutarch) who use both [Greek: tonos] and [Greek: harmonia] do not observe any consistent distinction between them. Those who (like Westphal) believe that there was a distinction, are obliged to admit that [Greek: harmonia]

is occasionally used for [Greek: tonos] and conversely.

4. If a series of names such as Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian and the rest were applied to two sets of things so distinct from each other, and at the same time so important in the practice of music, as what we now call modes and keys, it is incredible that there should be no trace of the double usage. Yet our authors show no sense even of possible ambiguity. Indeed, they seem to prefer, in referring to modes or keys, to use the adverbial forms [Greek: doristi], [Greek: phrygisti], &c., or the neuter [Greek: ta doria], [Greek: ta phrygia], &c., where there is nothing to show whether 'mode' or 'key,' [Greek: harmonia] or [Greek: tonos], is intended.

-- 15. _The Systems of Greek Music._

The arguments in favour of identifying the primitive national Modes ([Greek: harmoniai]) with the [Greek: tonoi] or keys may be reinforced by some considerations drawn from the history and use of another ancient term, namely [Greek: systema].

A System ([Greek: systema]) is defined by the Greek technical writers as a group or complex of intervals ([Greek: to ek pleionon e henos diastematon synkeimenon] Ps. Eucl.). That is to say, any three or more notes whose _relative_ pitch is fixed may be regarded as forming a particular System. If the notes are such as might be used in the same melody, they are said to form a _musical_ System ([Greek: systema emmeles]). As a matter of abstract theory it is evident that there are very many combinations of intervals which in this sense form a musical System. In fact, however, the variety of systems recognised in the theory of Greek music was strictly limited. The notion of a small number of scales, of a particular compa.s.s, available for the use of the musician, was naturally suggested by the ancient lyre, with its fixed and conventional number of strings. The word for _string_ ([Greek: chorde]) came to be used with the general sense of a _note_ of music; and in this way the several strings of the lyre gave their names to the notes of the Greek gamut[1].

-- 16. _The Standard Octachord System._

In the age of the great melic poets the lyre had no more than seven strings: but the octave was completed in the earliest times of which we have accurate information. The scale which is a.s.sumed as matter of common knowledge in the Aristotelian _Problems_ and the _Harmonics_ of Aristoxenus consists of eight notes, named as follows from their place on the lyre:

Nete ([Greek: neate] or [Greek: nete], lit. 'lowest,' our 'highest').

Paranete ([Greek: paranete], 'next to Nete').

Trite ([Greek: trite], _i.e._ 'third' string).

Paramese ([Greek: paramese] or [Greek: paramesos], 'next to Mese').

Mese ([Greek: mese], 'middle string').

Lichanos ([Greek: lichanos], _i.e._ 'forefinger' string).

Parhypate ([Greek: parypate]).

Hypate ([Greek: hypate], lit. 'uppermost,' our 'lowest').

It will be seen that the conventional sense of high and low in the words [Greek: hypate] and [Greek: neate] was the reverse of the modern usage.

The musical scale formed by these eight notes consists of two _tetrachords_ or scales of four notes, and a major tone. The lower of the tetrachords consists of the notes from Hypate to Mese, the higher of those from Paramese to Nete: the interval between Mese and Paramese being the so-called _Disjunctive Tone_ ([Greek: tonos diazeuktikos]). Within each tetrachord the intervals depend upon the _Genus_ ([Greek: genos]). Thus the four notes just mentioned--Hypate, Mese, Paramese, Nete--are the same for every genus, and accordingly are called the 'standing' or 'immoveable' notes ([Greek: phthongoi hestotes, akinetoi]), while the others vary with the genus, and are therefore 'moveable' ([Greek: pheromenoi]).

[Footnote 1: This is especially evident in the case of the Lichanos; as was observed by Aristides Quintilia.n.u.s, who says (p. 10 Meib.): [Greek: hai kai to genei lichanoi prosegoreuthesan, h.o.m.onymos to plettonti daktylo ten echousan autas chorden onomastheisai]. But Trite also is doubtless originally the 'third string' rather than the 'third note.']

In the ordinary Diatonic genus the intervals of the tetrachords are, in the ascending order, semitone + tone + tone: _i.e._ Parhypate is a semitone above Hypate, and Lichanos a tone above Parhypate. In the Enharmonic genus the intervals are two successive quarter-tones ([Greek: diesis]) followed by a ditone or major Third: consequently Parhypate is only a quarter of a tone above Hypate, and Lichanos again a quarter of a tone above Parhypate. The group of three notes separated in this way by small intervals (viz. two successive quarter-tones) is called a [Greek: pyknon]. If we use an asterisk to denote that a note is raised a quarter of a tone, these two scales may be represented in modern notation as follows: