Professional Documents
Culture Documents
My transliterations of the Greek are based on the text given in Macran 1902
(and I assume full responsibility for their shortcomings); the text has been
arranged according to Meibom's page and line breaks, and the punctuation is
from Meibom. Text given by Meibom but omitted by Macran is indicated in {}.
The English translations are from Barker 1989 unless otherwise indicated;
there are bound to be discrepancies with Macran's text, because for his text
Barker used da Rios 1954, a source unavailable to me.
should be said that the true formula, by which the pitch varies according to the square of
the tension, is not one that would easily be arrived at by chance.
Aristoxenus therefore chose to use the newly formulated methods of geometry to pinpoint
examples of his divisions of the tetrachord.
Thus, his music-theory was radically different from anything that had come before in ancient
Greece.
As Andrew Barker says [Barker 1989, p 119-120]:
In harmonics his work was truly revolutionary, as he would have been the first to agree. It
sets aside the researches of the Pythagoreans as irrelevant and misdirected, and seeks in
effect to establish a wholly new science that will study music on the basis of principles
intrinsic to itself, not borrowed from physics or mathematics.
The lack of rational accuracy is an intentional and fundamental aspect of Aristoxenus's theory.
Rapid developments had been taking place in Greek musical practice in his day, and he wished
to describe the wide variety of intervals, which could not be done numerically with the
mathematics then available. Scientific music-theory had up to that time been based primarily on
arithmetic manipulation of integer ratios as described by the followers of Pythagoras [see
Burkert 1972].
Another school of music-theorists called the 'Harmonists' apparently had as their goal the
illustration of all the different scales thru the use of a small 'basic unit' of intervallic
measurement, with which they diagrammed the scales next to one another within the same
overall pitch-space, presenting a geometric view based on a common metric, in a diagram
which Aristoxenus calls _katapyknosis_. But Aristoxenus criticizes their methods as not
portraying the pitches according to their musical *function*.
His main goal is to assemble all the different tetrachordal divisions into a comprehensive system
which allows for modulation between various different scales, which was something that had
become an important element in Greek music of his time.
Geometry was a new concept in Greek mathematics and Aristoxenus made use of it in his
descriptions because it enabled him to illustrate irrational divisions of musical pitch-space.
Thanks to more recent developments in mathematics in modern times, we are now able, thru
the manipulation of roots and exponents, to probe further into the calculation of his intervals.
It seems clear to me that Aristoxenus still intended for his audience to understand certain of the
harmonic relationships as ratios, even if the others must be rendered in another way.
[2.55.2-12]
Epei de ton diastematikon megethon ta men ton symphonon etoi holos ouk | echein dokei
topon all heni megethei horisthai, e pantelos akariaion tina, ta de ton diaphonon pollo
hetton touto peponthe kai dia tautas tas aitias poly mallon tois ton symphonon megethesi
pi|steiei he aisthesis e tois ton diaphonon; akribestate d' an eie diaphonou diastematos
lepsis he dia symphonias.
Of the magnitudes of intervals, those of the concords appear to have either no range of
variation at all, being determined to a single magnitude, or else a range which is quite
indiscernible, whereas those of the discords possess this quality to a much smaller degree.
Hence perception relies much more confidently on the magnitudes of concords than on
those of discords. The most accurate way of constructing a discordant interval will
therefore be by means of concords.
(We will examine his method of 'Tuning by Concords' shortly.)
This certainly means that the 'octave', '4th', and '5th' are to be determined by ear, which means
that they will be measured as their usual Pythagorean ratios 2:1, 4:3, and 3:2, and the intervals
smaller than the '4th' (the 'discords') calculated in relation to them, by means of a series of
alternating '4ths' and '5ths'.
Because of his adamant stance against using ratios (or string-lengths, from which ratios can be
easily calculated), it is quite difficult to ascertain Aristoxenus's interval measurements in a
numerically exact way. Clues must be found by paying close attention to his terminology and his
described methods of tuning. Our findings will be applied to his ideas about the ranges of the
_loci_ for the two moveable notes.
_mese_, which was the reference pitch in Greek theory, and explains that for any given genus
or shade, the same intervals should appear in all other tetrachords of the complete system.
The _tetrachord meson_ has these note-names, from highest to lowest:
1) mese
2) lichanos
3) parhypate
4) hypate
The interval between _mese_ and _hypate_ is, as always in Greek theory, a 'perfect 4th'. These
two notes are both fixed in pitch, whereas Aristoxenus states that the _lichanos_ and
_parhypate_ are both moveable to various postions in the tetrachord, within their respective
ranges [1.22-23, 2.46-47].
The various intervals resulting from these moveable notes determined the different _genera_ of
ancient Greek theory, of which three had been acknowledged and described by Archytas
[Barker 1989, p 46-52]: the _diatonic_ ('thru the tones'), the _chromatic_ ('thru the colors' or
'shades'), and the _enharmonic_ ('thru proper attunement').
Aristoxenus, no doubt trying to accomodate the proliferation of widely divergent varieties of
genera used in practice in his day, divided the 'diatonic' and 'chromatic' genera further into
'shades' or 'colors':
Aristoxenus states at several places that 'the fourth is two and a half tones' [1.24.4-10, 2.46.2],
and gives an elaborate 'proof' that this is so [2.56.14-58.4]. Litchfield addresses this claim:
decimal ratio
1/(((9/8)^2)*(256/243))
0.75
cents
~-498.045
THE _PYKNON_
The _pyknon_ indicates 'compression', and refers to the grouping together of small intervals at
the bottom of the tetrachord.
[1.24.11-14]
Pyknon de legestho to ek duo diastematon synestekos ha syntethenta elatton diastema
periexei tou deipomenou diastematos en toi dia tessaron.
Let us call _'pyknon'_ that which is composed of two intervals which, when put together,
cover an interval smaller than that which makes up the remainder of the fourth [i.e., 'perfect
4th'].
.......
[2.50.15...] Pyknon de legestho mechri toutou, [16] heos an en tetrachordo dia tessaron
[17] symphonounton ton akron, ta duo dia-[18]stemata syntethenta, tou henos elatto [19]
topon kateche.
Let us use the term '_pyknon_' for every case where, in a tetrachord whose extremes form
the concord of a fourth, the two intervals put together occupy a smaller range than the one.
Or, in mathematical terms, if the _pyknon_ is composed of intervals x and y: x * y < (4/3)^(1/2).
[1.24.15-17] Touton houtos horismenon pros toi baryteroi ton menonton phthongon
eilephtho to elachiston pyknon;
let us take the smallest _pyknon_, placed next to the lower of the fixed notes [i.e.,
_hypate_].
This indicates that the _pyknon_ occurs at the bottom of the tetrachord, with the larger interval
at the top.
.......
[2.46.3-8] Ton de tou tonou meron melodeitai to hemisi, ho kaleitai hemitonion, kai to triton
meros, | ho kaleitai diesis chromatike elachiste, kai to tetarton, ho kaleitai diesis
enarmonios elachiste; toutou d' elatton ouden melodeitai diastema.
Of the parts of the tone the following are melodic: the half, which is called the semitone, the
third part, which is called the least chromatic diesis, and the quarter, which is called the
least enharmonic diesis. No interval smaller than that is melodic.
Aristoxenus thus calls every interval smaller than a quarter-tone 'unmelodic', meaning that they
were unsuitable for use in melody (i.e., actual music), but were useful in analyzation of the
various different shades and genera. He also takes pains to state that more than two small
intervals cannot be sung in succession in proper melody, altho conceptually a tone may be
divided into 3, 4, or more parts, and 'that from a purely abstract point of view there is no least
interval' [2.46.19].
Dividing the 9/8 literally into 2, 3, and 4 equal parts, we get:
ratio
There are other statements in Aristoxenus's treatise, however, which indicate that this general
and simple description may not always be all there is to it.
'Tuning by Concords'
Without using ratios, Aristoxenus illustrates the method of determining 'discords' (i.e., any
interval smaller than a 'perfect 4th') by ear, by means of successive '4ths' and '5ths':
[2.55.13-23] Ean men oun prostachthe pros to dothenti phthongo labein epi to bary to |
diaphonon oion ditonon ... epi to oxy apo tou dothentos phthongou lepteon to dia tessaron,
eit epi to bary to dia pente, eita palin epi to | oxy to dia tessaron, eit epi to bary to dia pente.
kai houtos estai to ditonon apo tou lephthentos phthongou eilemmenon to epi to bary.
if we have the task of constructing from a given note a discord such as a ditone downwards
... we should construct from the given note a fourth upwards, from there a fifth downwards,
then another fourth upwards, and then another fifth downwards. In this way the ditone
downwards from the given note will have been constructed.
This may be represented in the following diagram (with ratios, letter-names, and cents for each
note):
approx.
cents
500
4/3 D ~498
400
/ \
300 (4:3) \ 32/27 C ~294
200
/ (3:2) / \
100 /
\ (4:3) \
0 1/1 A 0
\ / (3:2)
-100
\/
\
-200
8/9 G ~-204 \
-300
\
-400
64/81 F ~-408
-500
n^0 3^-1 3^-2 3^-3 3^-4
This results in standard Pythagorean diatonic tuning, with the 'target' pitches giving, in addition
to the 'limma', the following 'discord' intervals reckoned from _mese_ (1/1):
ratio decimal ratio
cents
[2.55.24-26] ean d' epi tounantion prostachthe labein to diapho|non, enantios poieteon ten
ton symphonon lepsin.
And if the task is to construct the discord in the opposite direction, the concords should be
constructed the opposite way round.
approx.
cents
500
400
81/64 C# ~408
300
/
200
9/8 B ~204
/
100
/ \
(3:2)
0 1/1 A 0
/ (4:3) /
-100 \
(3:2) \ /
-200 (4:3) /
\ /
-300
\ / 27/32 F# ~-294
-400
\ /
-500 3/4 E ~-498
n^0 3^1
3^2 3^3
3^4
It should be quite clear that tuning by ear in this way will result in a chromatic scale (in the
modern sense of the word 'chromatic') comprised of the usual Pythagorean intervals.
The 'semitone'
Aristoxenus goes on:
[2.55.27-31] Gignetai de kai ean apo symphonou diastematos to diaphonon aphairethe dia
symphonias kai to loipon dia symphonias eilemmenon; aphaireistho | gar to ditonon apo
tou dia tessaronsymphonias;
Further, if a discord is subtracted from a concordant interval by means of concords, the
remainder will also have been found by means of concords. For instance, let the ditone be
subtracted by means of concords from the fourth.
He then describes the procedure diagrammed above, finding a ditone above the starting note,
all over again, this time not from a single given note, but from a given '4th', and describes the
difference between the last note found and the bottom note of the '4th' as a remainder found by
means of concords:
[2.55.31-56.12] delon de hoti hoi ten hyperochen periechontes he to dia tessaron
hyperechei tou ditonou dia symphonias esontai pros allelous eilemmenou; hypar||chousi
men gar hoi tou dia tessaron horoi symphonoi; apo de tou oxyterou auton lambanetai
phthongos symphonos epi to oxy dia tessaron, apo de tou le|phthentos heteros epi to bary
dia pente, (eita palin epi to oxy dia tessaron,) eit' apo toutou heteros epi to bary dia pente.
kai peproke to teleutaion symphonon epi ton exyterou ton hyperochen horizonton, host'
einai pha|neron, hoti, ean apo symphonou diaphonon aphairethe dia symphonias, estai kai
to loipon dia symphonias eilemmenon.
It is clear that the notes bounding the remainder by which the fourth exceeds the ditone
have also been constructed, by means of concords, in their relation to one another. The
notes bounding the fourth are themselves concordant. From the higher of them we find a
note concordant at a fourth above, from that note another a fifth below, then again one a
fourth above, and then from that note another a fifth below. The last of these concordant
intervals falls on the higher of the notes bounding the remainder in question: and it is thus
clear that if a discord is subtracted from a concord by means of concords, the remainder
will also have been found by means of concords.
approx.
cents
500
4/3 D ~498
400
/ \
300
(4:3) \ 32/27 C ~294
200
/ (3:2) / \
100
/
\ (4:3) \
0 1/1 A 0
\ / (3:2)
-100
|
\/
\
-200 (4:3) 8/9 G ~-204 \
-300
|
-400
|
-500 3/4 E ~-498
\
64/81 F ~-408 \
3/4 E ~-498 / 'remainder'
cents
or the usual Pythagorean 'lesser semitone' or 'limma', which is ~11.730 cents smaller than
(9/8)^(1/2). This difference, between the semitone derived by Aristoxenus's tuning methods and
the one implied by his terminology of 'semitone' or 'half a tone', is a noticeable one to most ears,
and should probably be resolved.
[2.50.22...] Mia men [23]oun ton diaipeseon estin enarmonios, [24]en he to men pyknon,
hemitonion esti; to [25]de loipon, ditonon.
One of these divisions [of the tetrachord] is enharmonic, in which the pyknon is a semitone
and the remainder a ditone.
......
[1:23.12-22]
12 ..... '
13 14
15 '
16 . ' 17 . ' ' 18 .
19 20 . ' '
21 ',
22 .
This almost certainly means narrowing the 'characteristic interval' of the enharmonic tetrachord
from a Pythagorean 81/64 ditone [= ~408 cents] to a 5/4 'major 3rd' [= ~386 cents], as had
already been documented by Archytas. But it is obvious that in Aristoxenus's view, the 'proper'
enharmonic tetrachord contains the ditone.
The 'limma' 256/243 would be the _pyknon_ remaining in the tetrachord after subtracting the
'ditone' characteristic interval. Aristoxenus's terminology concerning the enharmonic genus
argues in favor of accepting the 'limma' as his definition of 'semitone'.
There is another interesting point in connection with the 'sweetening' of the enharmonic
_lichanos_ to or towards the 5/4, and the 'semitonal' relationship of that note to others in the
basic Pythagorean diatonic and chromatic genera.
ratio
(32/27)/(9/8)
1.0534979 ~ 90.225 semi-ditone - tone
(5/4)/(32/27)
1.0546875 ~ 92.179 'sweet' ditone - semi-ditone
(81/64)/(32/27)
1.0678711 ~113.685 apotome = true ditone - semi-ditone
(5/4)/(9/8)
1.1111111 ~182.404 smaller tone = 'sweet' ditone - tone
((5/4)/(9/8))^(1/2) 1.0540926 ~ 91.202 1/2 of smaller tone
The 32/27 'semi-ditone' (what we call the 'minor 3rd') is a limma [256/243 = ~90.225 cents]
larger than the 9/8 tone. The 5/4 interval that Aristoxenus considered a 'sweetened' distortion of
the enharmonic 'ditone' is a 5-limit 'lesser semitone' [135/128 = ~92.179 cents] larger than
32/27, whereas the true 81/64 'ditone' is an apotome [2187/2048 = ~113.685 cents] larger.
32/27 thus almost perfectly bisects the 5-limit 'smaller tone' [10/9 = ~182.404 cents] between
5/4 and 9/8; the exact midpoint is (10/9)^(1/2) = ~91.202 cents.
Even tho Aristoxenus described this 5/4 as being 'forced close to the chromatic', it still
functioned as the *enharmonic* _lichanos_. Since the 9/8 and 32/27 measure the _lichanoi_ in
the standard Pythagorean diatonic and chromatic genera, respectively, the similarity of 'step
size' between these three notes would encourage Aristoxenus to think of the progression 9/8 :
32/27 : 5/4 as a series of nearly even 'semitones'.
Note, however, that the difference between the 'sweet' ditone [5/4] and the true ditone [81/64] is
the syntonic comma [= ~21.506 cents].
There are ~9.4814124 [= log(9/8)/log((81/64)/(5/4))] of these commas in a tone, making the
comma therefore between a 1/9- and a 1/10-tone. Aristoxenus explicity says in his descriptions
that he expects us to perceive a 1/12-tone difference between _lichanoi_ of two of his genera,
and implies that we should perceive a 1/24-tone difference between two others [see below].
We have already seen how he stipulated and preferred the 81/64 'ditone'. This blurring of
distinctions between functionally-identical pitches was perhaps a further reason why Aristoxenus
did not use rational values to locate his pitches. He said nothing else about the measurement of
the enharmonic _lichanos_, beyond the fact that the upper boundary of its range is conjunct with
the lowest chromatic _lichanos_, while he meticulously located the various chromatic
_parhypatai_ at smaller distances. This seems to indicate that he needed to blur the distinctions
between the two sizes of semitone in order for his calculations to come out right. We will explore
Aristoxenus's 'semitone' further, below.
The 'quarter-tone' and 'enharmonic diesis'
Thus, the enharmonic _pyknon_ will be a 256/243 'semitone', and dividing this exactly in half
gives (256/243)^(1/2) for the 'enharmonic diesis':
ratio
This interval is ~5.865 cents smaller than (9/8)^(1/4), the ratio implied by use of the term
'quarter-tone'. This may or may not be a noticeable difference, depending on various factors.
Based on his meticulous description of how to tune the 'discords', and on the way he describes
the 'proper' enharmonic genus, it makes the most sense to assume that Aristoxenus intends to
imply the ratio 256/243 for 'semitone', and its geometrically-equal division, the irrational interval
(256/243)^(1/2), for 'enharmonic diesis' or 'quarter-tone'.
The 'third-tone' and 'chromatic diesis'
One of Aristoxenus's most brilliant discoveries is that 1.5 * enharmonic diesis [= limma^(3/4)] is
almost exactly the same as '1/3-tone' [= tone^(1/3)], with less than 1/3-cent difference between
the two:
ratio
cents difference
(9/8)^(1/3)
~1.040041912 ~67.970
((256/243)^(1/2))^1.5 ~1.039860949 ~67.669
~0.301
For now we may assume the irrational interval (9/8)^(1/3) [= ~67.97 cents] as the definition of
both 'third-tone' and 'least chromatic diesis', altho this will cause problems upon closer analysis,
which will be encountered later in this paper.
Since these passages make use only of the terms 'tone' and 'ditone' to describe the intervals,
we may assume a fairly straightforward Pythagorean tuning:
total range of _lichanos_ = 9/8 tone highest lichanos = 9/8 below _mese_ lowest lichanos =
81/64 ditone below _mese_
ratio
1/(9/8)
~0.888889 ~203.91 highest lichanos
1/((9/8)^2) ~0.790123 ~407.82 lowest lichanos
The difference between these two is ~203.91 cents, or a
Pythagorean 9/8 'tone'.
[1.23.27-29] let the range of ... _parhypate_ [be agreed to be] the smallest diesis, since it
never comes closer to _hypate_ than a diesis and is never more than half a tone away
from it.
[1.23.27-29] let the range of ... _parhypate_ [be agreed to be] the smallest diesis [i.e., '1/4tone'], since it never comes closer to _hypate_ than a diesis [i.e., (256/243)^(1/2) above
_hypate_] and is never more than half a tone away from it [i.e., either (9/8)^(1/2) or 256/243
above _hypate_].
Aristoxenus's loose terminology here, using 'half a tone' instead of 'semitone', admits of the
possibility of interpreting 'half a tone' to be (9/8)^(1/2), rather than the 256/243 'limma' which is
more likely. Let us examine both:
Based on '1/2-tone' and '1/4-tone':
ratio
(3/4)*((9/8)^(1/2))
(3/4)*((9/8)^(1/4))
(3/4)*(256/243)
0.790123 ~-407.820 highest parhypate
(3/4)*((256/243)^(1/2)) 0.7698 ~-452.933 lowest parhypate
The difference between these two is the diesis we calculated above
of ~45.112 cents, which is exactly half of the Pythagorean 'lesser
semitone' or 'limma'.
We thus have two mutually incompatible explanations of the range of _parhypate_, and must
search further for clues to solving this dichotomy.
- all _parhypatai_ below the lowest chromatic are to be considered 'enharmonic', and
- all other _parhypatai_ are to be considered common to diatonic and chromatic.
He further explains on this last point that mixed genera sometimes occur, which make use of a
diatonic _lichanos_ with a chromatic _parhypate_.
Mathiesen illustrates distinctions in Aristoxenus's terminology at this point, which have been
missed by most editors and translators:
According to the emphasis Mathiesen gives these two pairs of words, Aristoxenus makes the
important point [1.26] that there are two different *types* of _parhypate_: one that can be moved
within the locus for all the shades of diatonic and chromatic (regardless of which of these two
genera is in use), and the other one unique to the _harmonia_, 'the divine ordering of the
Universe', which would be used only in the enharmonic genus.
We will thus assume that the largest interval which may appear at the bottom of the tetrachord,
in either the diatonic or chromatic genera, will be the 'limma' 256/243.
[Barker 1989, p 143, note 100] Called by the general name _systema_ because [they
exceed] the magnitude properly called _pyknon_.
===========
[1.24.15-25.11]
[1.24.15-25.11]
> [Meibom:]
15> Touton houtos horismenon, pros toi
16> baryteroi ton menonton phthongon eile17> phtho to elachiston. pyknon d' estai to
18> ek duo dieseon enarmonion kai chro19> matikon elachiston. esontai duo de li20> chanoi eilemmenai duo genon bary21> tatai. he men harmonias; he de, chro22> matos. katholou gar barytatai
23> men hai enarmonioi lichanoi esan.
24> echomenai de, hai chromatikai. syn25> tonotatai de, hai diatonoi. Meta tau26> ta triton eilephtho pyknon pros toi
27> autoi. tetarton eilephtho pyknon to28> niaion. pempton de pros toi autoi,
29> to ex hemitoniou kai hemioliou diastem30> matos synestekos systema eilephtho.
31> hekton de, ex hemitoniou kai tonou. Hai
32> men oun ta duo ta prota lephthen33> ta pykna horizousai lichanoi eiren34> tai; he de to triton pyknon horizousa
[25]
1> lichanos, chromatike men estin; kalei2> tai de to chroma, en hoi estin, hemiolion.
3> he de to tetarton pyknon horizousa li4> chanos, chromatike men estin; kaleitai
5> de to chroma, en hoi esti, toniaion. he de
6> to pempton lephthen systema horizousa
7> lichanos, ho meizon ede pyknou en.
8> epeideper isa esti ta duo toi heni, ba9> rytate diatonos estin. he de to hekton
10> lephthen systema horizousa lichanos,
11> syntonotate diatonos estin.
> [Macran:]
> Touton houtos horismenon pros toi baryteroi ton menonton
> phthongon eilephtho to elachiston pyknon; touto d' estai to ek
> duo dieseon autoi; touto de estai to ek duo dieseon> chromatikon elachiston.
> esontai de duo li|chanoi eilemmenai duo genon barytatai,
> he men harmonias he de chromatos. katholou gar barytatai men
> hai enarmonioi lichanoi esan, echomenai d' hai chromatikai,
> syn|tonotatai d' hai diatonoi. Meta tauta triton eilephtho
> pyknon pros toi autoi; tetarton eilephtho pyknon toniaion;
> pempton de pros toi autoi, to ex hemitoniou kai hemioliou
> diastem|matos synestekos systema eilephtho; hekton de to ex
> hemitoniou kai tonou. Hai men oun ta duo [ta] prota lephthenta
> pykna horizousai lichanoi eirentai; he de to triton pyknon
> horizousa || lichanos chromatike men estin, kaleitai de to
> chroma en hoi estin hemiolion. He de to tetarton pyknon horizousa
> lichanos chromatike men estin, kaleitai | de to chroma en hoi
> esti toniaion. he de to pempton lephthen systema horizousa
> lichanos, ho meizon ede pyknou en, epeideper isa esti ta duo
> toi heni, barytate diatonos estin. he de to hekton lephthen |
> systema horizousa lichanos syntonotate diatonos estin.
>
>> Given these definitions, let us take the smallest pyknon, placed
>> next to the lower of the fixed notes. This will be the one
>> composed of two enharmonic or two of the smallest chromatic
>> diesis. The two lichanoi thus specified will be the lowest in
>> each of the two genera, one in the enharmonic, the other in the
>> chromatic: for we have explained that, taken overall, the
>> enharmonic lichanoi are the lowest, the chromatic next, and the
>> diatonic the highest. After these, consider a third pyknon
>> placed next to the same note, and then a fourth one, which
>> is a tone: fifthly, from the same note take the systema composed
>> of a semitone and an interval one and a half times as great, and
>> sixthly, that composed of a semitone and a tone.
>> We have already spoken of the lichanoi bounding the first two
>> pykna listed. The one that bounds the third is chromatic, and
>> the chroma in which it is is called hemiolic. That bounding the
>> fourth pyknon is chromatic, and the chroma in which it is is
>> called tonic. The lichanos bounding the fifth systema mentioned,
>> which was specified as greater than a pyknon, since the two
>> intervals are equal to the one, is the lowest diatonic: that
>> which bounds the sixth systema mentioned is the highest diatonic.
[1.25.11-26.7]
[Meibom:]
[25]
11> .................. He men oun
12> barytate chromatike lichanos tes
13> enarmoniou barytates hektoi merei to14> nou oxytera estin. epeideper he chro15> matike diesis tes enarmoniou dieseos
16> dodekatemorioi tonou meizon esti. Dei
17> gar to tou autou tritemorion tou tetartou
18> merous dodekatemorioi hyperechein.
19> hai de duo chromatikai ton duo
20> enarmonion delon hos toi diplasioi.
21> touto de estin hektemorion elatton dia22> stema tou elachistou ton meloidoume23> non. Ta de toiauta ameloideta
24> estin. ameloideton gar legomen, ho me
25> tattetai kath' heauto en systemati. He de
26> barytate diatonos tes barytates
27> chromatikos hemitonioi kai dodekate28> morioi tonou oxytera estin. epi men gar
29> ten tou hemioliou chromatos lichanon
30> hemitonion en ep' autes. apo de tes hemio31> liou epi ten enarmonion, diesis. apo
32> de tes enarmoniou epi ten baryta33> ten chromatiken, hektemorion. apo de
34> tes barytates chromatikes epi ten hemiolion, dodekatemorion tonou. to
[26]
1> de tetartemorion ek trion dodeka2> temorion synkeitai. host' einai phane3> ron, hoti to eiremenon diastema estin
4> apo tes barytates diatonou, epi ten
5> barytaten chromatiken. he de syn6> tonotate diatonOS tes barytates
7> diatonou, diesei esti syntonotera.
[Macran:]
> He men oun barytate chromatike lichanos tes
> enarmoniou barytates hektoi merei tonou oxytera estin, epeideper
> he chro|matike diesis tes enarmoniou dieseos dodekatemorioi
> tonou meizon esti. Dei gar to tou autou tritemorion tou tetartou
> merous dodekatemorioi hyperechein, hai de duo chromatikai ton
> duo | enarmonion delon hos toi diplasioi. touto de estin
> hektemorion, elatton diastema tou elachistou ton meloidoumenon.
> Ta de toiauta ameloideta estin, ameloideton gar legomen ho me |
> tattetai kath' heauto en systemati. He de barytate diatonos
> tes barytates chromatikos hemitonioi kai dodekatemorioi tonou
> oxytera estin. epi men gar ten tou hemioliou chromatos lichanon |
> hemitonion en ap' autes, apo de tes hemioliou epi ten
> enarmonion diesis, apo de tes enarmoniou epi ten barytaten
> chromatiken hektemorion, apo de tes barytates chromatikes epi
> ten hemiolion dodekatemorion tonou. to || de tetartemorion
>>
>> and from the lowest chromatic
>> to the hemiolic lichanos
>> is a twelfth part of a tone.
>>
>> Now a quarter
>> is composed of three twelfth parts,
>>
>> so that it is clear that
>>
>> from the lowest diatonic
>> to the lowest chromatic lichanos
>> is the interval stated.
>>
>> The highest diatonic lichanos
>> is higher than the lowest diatonic
>> by a diesis.
******************
Put them all together into a song that would help Aristoxenus's students remember this
important part of his lecture:
[25.11 ...]
[25.11 ...]
[19]
[19]
[21]
touto de estin hektemorion elatton dia- [21] This is a sixth part, an interval
stema tou elachistou ton meloidoume- smaller [22] than the least of the
[23]
non.
melodic [23] ones.
[22]
***************************
> Ek touton de phaneroi gignontai hoi topoi ton lichanon hekastes;
==========
The enharmonic genus -------------------[1.24.15-21]
> Touton houtos horismenon pros toi baryteroi ton > menonton phthongon eilephtho to
elachiston pyknon; touto > d' estai to ek duo dieseon (enarmonion elachiston; epeita > deuteron
pros toi autoi; touto de estai to ek duo dieseon) > chromatikon elachiston. esontai de (hai) duo li|
chanoi > eilemmenai duo genon barytatai, he men harmonias he de chromatos. > >> let us take
the smallest pyknon, placed next to the lower >> of the fixed notes. This will be the one
composed of two >> enharmonic or two of the smallest chromatic diesis. The two >> lichanoi
thus specified will be the lowest in each of the >> two genera, one in the enharmonic, the other
in the chromatic:
Extracting what is relevant to this genus:
[1.24.15-21]
>> let us take the ... _pyknon_ ... composed of two enharmonic
>> ... dieses. The ... [_lichanos_] thus specified will be the
>> lowest in ... the enharmonic [genus].
THIS ALREADY APPEARS ABOVE
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
[2.50.23-24]
> Mia men oun ton diaipeseon estin enarmonios en he
> to men pyknon hemitonion esti to | de loipon ditonon.
>
>> One of these divisions is enharmonic, in which the _pyknon_
>> is a semitone and the remainder a ditone.
> [2.50.22 ...] Mia men [23] oun ton diaipeseon estin enarmonios,
> [24] en he to men pyknon, hemitonion esti;
> to [25] de loipon, ditonon.
>
>> One of these divisions [of the tetrachord] is enharmonic, in
Assuming the Pythagorean 'limma' 256/243 to be the 'semitone', and the 'enharmonic diesis' to
be exactly half of this, we get:
1
1
0.000 mese
1/((9/8)^2)
0.790123457 -407.820 lowest enharmonic lichanos
(3/4)*((256/243)^(1/2)) 0.769800359 -452.933 lowest enharmonic parhypate
3/4
0.75
-498.045 hypate
Other than the statements already presented, which describe the enharmonic _lichanoi_ and
_parhypatai_ as all those lower than the lowest chromatic, and most musicians tuning the
_lichanos_ higher, near the chromatic, Aristoxenus makes no other description of the intervals in
the enharmonic genus. This table may thus be assumed to designate the enharmonic which he
considers 'that far from being the most contemptible ... is perhaps the finest', and the one which
is 'plain enough to those who are familiar with the first and second groups of ancient styles'.
[1.23.5-10]
The chromatic genera -------------------The determination of the two lowest shades of Aristoxenus's chromatic genera will prove to be
the most confusing and difficult of all his divisions.
The 'relaxed' shade of the chromatic genus - part 1 --------------------------------------------------Again extracting what is relevant here:
[1.24.15-21]
> let us take the ... _pyknon_ ... composed of ... two of
> the smallest chromatic dieses. The ... [_lichanos_] thus
> specified will be the lowest in ... the chromatic [genus].
Aristoxenus has already defined the 'least chromatic diesis' as 1/3-tone. Assuming an exact 3part division of the 9/8 'tone' for this diesis (~67.970 cents), and measuring two of them upward
from _hypate_, we get:
ratio
(3/4)*((9/8)^(2/3))
0.811265 ~-362.105 lowest chromatic lichanos
(3/4)*((9/8)^(1/3))
0.780031 ~-430.075 lowest chromatic/diatonic parhypate
((3/4)*((9/8)^(2/3)))/(3/4) 1.081687 ~ 135.940 size of pyknon
(9/8)^(1/3)
~1.040042 ~ 67.970 least chromatic diesis = 1/3-tone
('Chromatic/diatonic' specifies the lowest _parhypate_ which the
chromatic and diatonic genera both have in common.)
On the next page, however, Aristoxenus presents another description which contradicts this
one.
[1.25.11-14]
> He men oun barytate chromatike lichanos tes enarmoniou
> barytates hektoi merei tonou oxytera estin,
>
>> the lowest chromatic _lichanos_ is higher than the lowest
>> enharmonic by a sixth part of a tone, ...
[1.25.32-33]
> apo de tes enarmoniou epi ten barytaten chromatiken hektemorion,
>
>> from the enharmonic to the lowest chromatic _lichanos_ is a
>> sixth part of a tone, ...
[1.25.14-16]
> epeideper he chro|matike diesis tes enarmoniou dieseos
> dodekatemorioi tonou meizon esti.
>
>> ... since the chromatic diesis is greater by a twelfth part of
Aristoxenus here invokes the concepts of a '1/6-tone' and '1/12-tone' to use in interval
measurement. Assuming equal divisions of the 'tone' gives us:
ratio
and it is clear that he expects the ~17-cent size of the latter to be perceptible.
He explains by simple mathematics that since the 'chromatic diesis' is 1/3-tone and the
'enharmonic diesis' is 1/4-tone, the difference between them must be 1/3 [= 4/12] - 1/4 [= 3/12] =
1/12-tone. But upon closer examination, it appears that he must be using this as an
approximation, as the numbers do not agree with all of his descriptions.
Let us first use his 1/6- and 1/12-tones in our calculations.
Assuming the 'lowest enharmonic _lichanos_' to be a Pythagorean 'ditone' below _mese_ as
described above, the 'enharmonic diesis' to be exactly half of that, and the '1/6- and 1/12- parts
of a tone' to be as above, this description gives us:
ratio
(1/((9/8)^2))*((9/8)^(1/6))
0.805787 ~-373.835 lowest chromatic _lichanos_
(3/4)*(((256/243)^(1/2))*((9/8)^(1/12))) 0.777393 ~-435.940 lowest chromatic/diatonic
parhypate
((1/((9/8)^2))*((9/8)^(1/6)))/(3/4)
1.074383 ~ 124.210 size of pyknon
((256/243)^(1/2))*((9/8)^(1/12))
1.036524 ~ 62.105 chromatic diesis = 1/2-limma
Two of these dieses do indeed comprise a _pyknon_ which is exactly 1/6-tone higher than the
'ditone' enharmonic _lichanos_, i.e., exactly 1/6-tone larger than a 'limma' semitone.
Comparing this with his earlier definition of the 'chromatic diesis' as '1/3-tone', we find it to be
~5.865 cents smaller, the same amount by which we found our 'enharmonic diesis' to be less
than an exact '1/4-tone'. It seems thus far that Aristoxenus's characterizations of the smaller
dieses as 1/4- and 1/3-tones is simply an approximation.
[2.51.4-8]
> [4...] Hoti d' esti [5] meizon to hemiolion pyknon
> tou malakou, [6] rhadion synidein.
> to men gar enarmo-[7]niou dieseos leipei tonos einai;
> to de, [8] chromatikos.
>
>> It is easy to see that the hemiolic pyknon
>> is greater than that of the soft chromatic,
>> for the former falls short of being a tone by an enharmonic diesis,
>> the latter by a chromatic diesis.
Extracting what is relevant to the genus under discussion:
>> ... the ... _pyknon_ ... of the soft chromatic ... falls
>> short of being a tone ... by a chromatic diesis.
If we assume the 'chromatic diesis' to equal 1/2-limma plus 1/12-tone, and thus the _pyknon_ to
equal the 'limma' semitone plus 1/6-tone, subtracting that _pyknon_ from the 9/8 'tone' leaves a
small interval that is close to, but does not equal (and in fact is roughly 1/12-tone larger than),
this chromatic diesis:
ratio
If we measure from the opposite direction, subtracting the same 'chromatic diesis' from the 9/8
'tone', we arrive at a value for the _pyknon_ which is larger than either of the two we have
calculated thus far:
ratio
And doubling this interval (i.e., subtracting the enharmonic _pyknon_ composed of two 1/2limmas [= one 'limma' semitone] from the relaxed chromatic _pyknon_ spanning an interval of
2/3-tone) gives a result that is nothing like 1/6-tone, but rather is almost exactly the same as our
'enharmonic diesis' of 1/2-limma:
ratio
If our value of 1/2-limma for the 'enharmonic diesis' is correct, then an exact 1/3-tone is certainly
the wrong value for the 'chromatic diesis'.
> [2.50.28] malakou men oun chromatos esti diai-[29]pesis,
> en he to men pyknon ek duo chro-[30]matikon dieseon elachiston synkei-[31]tai;
> to de loipon duo metrois metrei-[32]tai;
> hemitonioi men tris, chromatikei [33]de diesei hapax.
> hoste metreisthai trisin hemitoniois, kai tonou tritei merei hapax.
> [34]esti de ton chromatikon pyknon elachiston,
> kai lichanos haute barytate tou [2.51.1] genous toutou.
>
>> [2.50.28] The division of the soft chromatic is that
>> [29] in which the _pyknon_ consists of two of the [30] smallest chromatic dieses,
>> [31] and the remainder is measured by two units of measurement,
>> [32] by the semitone three times, and by the chromatic [33] diesis once [,
>> so that the sum of it amounts to three semitones and the third of a tone].
>> [34] It is the smallest of the chromatic _pykna_,
>> and this _lichanos_ is the lowest in [2.51.1] this genus.
([] Indicates translation omitted by Barker 1989.)
We have a problem here because 'semitone three times' probably does not refer to an equal
multiple of a single size of semitone, but rather probably means some combination of both sizes
of Pythagorean semitone, since a 9/8 'tone' is comprised of one each of the 256/243 'limma' and
2187/2048 'apotome'.
It seems that we should re-define the 'least chromatic diesis', but the measurement for the
relaxed chromatic genus that best fits Aristoxenus's descriptions is the definition of 'least
chromatic diesis' as 1/3-tone.
ratio
0.000 mese
0.75
-498.045 hypate
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(256/243)*((9/8)^(1/6))
1.074383 124.210 pyknon = limma + 1/6-tone
(9/8)/((256/243)*((9/8)^(1/6)))
1.047113 79.700 tone - pyknon; pyknon = (limma + 1/6tone) --> DOES NOT EQUAL CHR DIESIS
(9/8)/(((256/243)^(1/2))*((9/8)^(1/12))) 1.085358 141.805 pyknon = tone - (1/2-limma + 1/12tone)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------(9/8)/((9/8)^(1/3))
1.081687 135.940 pyknon = tone - 1/3-tone
((9/8)^(1/3))^2
1.081687 135.940 pyknon = two 1/3-tones
- this is the only soft chr that works
((9/8)^(1/3))/((256/243)^(1/2))
9/8
1.125
really close to a 1/9-tone
((9/8)^(2/3))/(256/243)
NOT EQUAL 1/6-tone
(256/243)^(1/2)
1.026758
1.0264
45.112
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The 'hemiolic' shade of the chromatic genus ------------------------------------------The calculation of the hemiolic chromatic _lichanos_ presents an intriguing problem.
[1.24.26]
> Meta tauta triton eilephtho pyknon pros toi autoi;
>
>> consider a third _pyknon_ placed next to the same note [_hypate_]...
[1.25.30-31]
> apo de tes hemioliou epi ten enarmonion diesis,
>
>> from the _lichanos_ of the hemiolic chromatic ... to the enharmonic
>> _lichanos_ is a diesis ...
Assuming that the 'enharmonic diesis' is always 1/2-limma does not agree with both of these
propositions simultaneously:
ratio
(256/243)^1.5
1.081311 ~135.337 1/2-limma * 1.5
(9/8)/((256/243)^(1/2)) 1.096063 ~158.798 tone - 1/2-limma
If, however, we assume that the bottom 'tone' of the tetrachord must be composed of not two
256/243 'limmas' but rather of one 'limma' and one 2187/2048 'apotome', as was normally the
case in Pythagorean tetrachord theory, then Aristoxenus's 'enharmonic diesis' in this genus
would actually indicate two different sizes of interval: in some places equal to 1/2-limma and in
others equal to 1/2-apotome.
If we make the 'enharmonic diesis' above the _pyknon_ equal to 1/2-apotome, and make the
size of the _pyknon_ itself, spanning an interval 'one and a half times the enharmonic
_pyknon_', equal to the limma plus 1/2-apotome (that is, three 'quarter-tones' distributed as two
1/2-limmas and one 1/2-apotome), we arrive at a value for _lichanos_ which agrees with both of
Aristoxenus's descriptions:
ratio
We can thus see that 'one and a half times the enharmonic diesis' is an approximate measure,
doing double duty in dividing both sizes of semitone.
Armed with a good measurement for _lichanos_, let us revisit this statement:
[1.25.30-31]
> apo de tes hemioliou epi ten enarmonion diesis,
>
>> from the _lichanos_ of the hemiolic chromatic ... to the enharmonic
>> _lichanos_ is a diesis ...
Eliminating (3/4)*(256/243) from the above calculation for _lichanos_ leaves an 'enharmonic
diesis' which equals 1/2-apotome:
ratio
providing further evidence that Aristoxenus meant to imply a division of the 'other' Pythagorean
semitone here.
His statement that 'each of [the hemiolic chromatic] dieses is one and a half times the
corresponding enharmonic diesis' is troubling because it seems to imply an enharmonic
_pyknon_ which spans a 'semitone' composed of 1/2-limma plus 1/2-apotome, an interval totally
uncharacteristic of any other Greek music-theory, and one which in fact divides the 9/8 tone
exactly in half - which is something that most Greek theorists argued was 'impossible':
((256/243)^(1/2)) * ((2187/2048)^(1/2)) = (9/8)^(1/2)
It seems best to assume that here Aristoxenus used the word 'corresponding' also in an
approximate way.
In any case, the location of _parhypate_ poses a problem because it is unclear whether
Aristoxenus really meant to divide this _pyknon_ exactly in half, and if he did not, exactly what
division he did intend.
Dividing the hemiolic chromatic _pyknon_ exactly in half gives:
ratio
Considering his equation of this diesis with 1.5 * the 'enharmonic diesis', calculating 2/3 of this
hemiolic chromatic diesis gives an 'enharmonic diesis' of:
ratio
which is ~1.955 cents less than an exact 1/4-tone, ~7.820 cents less than 1/2-apotome, and
~3.910 cents more than 1/2-limma.
Lacking any more concrete means of determining a measurement, we will assume that this
particular 'enharmonic diesis' will be multiplied by 1.5 to give the 'hemiolic chromatic diesis'
calculated immediately above, thus locating the _parhypate_ and giving the tetrachord:
1
1
0.000 mese
(3/4)*(256/243)*((2187/2048)^(1/2))
0.816497 ~-350.978 hemiolic chromatic lichanos
(3/4)*(((256/243)*((2187/2048)^(1/2)))^(1/2)) 0.7825423 ~-424.511 hemiolic chromatic
parhypate
3/4
0.75
~-498.045 hypate
-------------The 'relaxed' shade of the chromatic genus - part 2 --------------------------------------------------<< we still have not determined with certainty the relaxed chromatic _lichanos_ >>
[1.26.1-2]
> from the lowest chromatic to the hemiolic _lichanos_ is a twelfth part
> of a tone.
ratio
0.000 mese
0.75
-498.045 hypate
Aristoxenus presents this genus quite simply, without elaborate explanation. Even tho he claims
that the _pyknon_ is divided into two 'equal semitones' <<<<< DOES HE ??? >>>>, it is likely
that he means to imply the usual Pythagorean chromatic division of the tetrachord, employing
both the 'limma' and 'apotome' semitones in the _pyknon_.
If we calculate the 'characteristic interval' or 'remainder' of 'three semitones' at the top of the
tetrachord as either a tone plus an exact 1/2-tone or a tone plus an 'apotome', our _pyknon_ is
smaller than a tone:
ratio
1/((9/8)^(3/2))
(1/((9/8)^(3/2)))/(3/4)
1/((9/8)*(2187/2048))
0.832393 ~-317.595 lichanos = tone + apotome below mese
(1/((9/8)*(2187/2048)))/(3/4) 1.109858 ~ 180.450 pyknon; CI = tone + apotome
1/((9/8)*(256/243))
0.84375 ~-294.135 lichanos = tone + limma below mese
(1/((9/8)*(256/243)))/(3/4) 1.125 ~ 203.910 pyknon; CI = tone + limma
1
1
0.000 mese
1/((9/8)*(256/243))
0.84375
-294.135 tonic chromatic lichanos
1/((9/8)*(256/243)*(2187/2048)) 0.790123457 -407.820 tonic chromatic parhypate
3/4
0.75
-498.045 hypate
0.000 mese
-294.135
1/((9/8)^(3/2))
0.838052481 -305.865
0.790123457 -407.820
1/(4/3)
-498.045 hypate
0.75
[1.25.26-28]
> He de barytate diatonos tes barytates chromatikos hemitonioi
> kai dodekatemorioi tonou oxytera estin.
>
>> The lowest diatonic _lichanos_ is higher than the lowest chromatic
>> by a semitone and a twelfth part of a tone.
ratio
[1.25.26-30]
> He de barytate diatonos ... epi men gar ten tou hemioliou chromatos
> lichanon | hemitonion en ap' autes,
>
>> The lowest diatonic _lichanos_ ... is a semitone from the _lichanos_
>> of the hemiolic chromatic
Since we have located the hemiolic chromatic _lichanos_ more confidently than that of the
relaxed chromatic genus, let us make use of it in our calculation of the relaxed diatonic and
measure both of the Pythagorean semitones above it:
ratio
As in the hemiolic chromatic, the 'three enharmonic diesis' is here likely to be some combination
of 1/2-limmas and 1/2-apotomes.
We will probably do best to measure downward from _mese_, assuming 'four dieses' to mean a
9/8 tone, and locating _lichanos_ either 1/2-limma or 1/2-apotome from that:
1/(9/8)/((256/243)^(1/2)) 0.8660254 ~-249.022 mese - tone - 1/2-limma
1/(9/8)/((2187/2048)^(1/2)) 0.8601775 ~-260.753 mese - tone - 1/2-apotome
The latter value here matches the one calculated above as an 'apotome' higher than the
hemiolic chromatic _lichanos_.
1
0.000 mese
-498.045 hypate
There is no reason to assume that Aristoxenus had in mind any other division than the usual
Pythagorean diatonic, for this genus. This puts the 'limma' semitone at the bottom and two
regular 9/8 tones above it:
ratio
1
1
0.000 mese
1/(9/8)
0.888888889 -203.910 tense diatonic lichanos
1/((9/8)^2) 0.790123457 -407.820 tense diatonic parhypate
3/4
0.75
-498.045 hypate
The complete set of intervals deduced ------------------------------------(decimal and cents rounded off to several decimal places)
all
2/(9/8)
1200
mese
***
5
2/((9/8)^2)*(2187/2048)*((256/243)^(1/2)) 1.732050808 950.9775004
relaxed diatonic lichanos - pyknon=s+1.5s - 1.5s=apotome+d - d=limma/2
2/((9/8)^(5/4))
1.726192966 945.1124978 relaxed diatonic
lichanos - diesis=tone/4
2/((9/8)^2)*((256/243)^(3/2))
1.708738042 927.51749 relaxed diatonic
lichanos - pyknon=s+1.5s - 1.5s=limma^(3/2)
***
4
2/((9/8)*(256/243))
1.6875
905.8650026 tonic
chromatic lichanos - pythagorean - tone+limma
2/((9/8)^(3/2))
1.676104963 894.1349974 tonic chromatic
lichanos - equal division of tone ***RULED OUT BY 1.24 'pyknon=tone'
2/((9/8)*(2187/2048))
1.664786872 882.4049922 tonic chromatic
lichanos - pythagorean - tone+apotome ***RULED OUT BY 1.24 'pyknon=tone'
***
3
2/((9/8)*(256/243)*((256/243)^(1/2)))
1.644095102 860.7525048
hemiolic chromatic lichanos - 'pyknon=tone-diesis' - diesis=limma/2 - 2.51 RULES OUT ALL
OTHERS
2/((9/8)*(256/243)*((9/8)^(1/4)))
1.63853473 854.8875022 hemiolic
chromatic lichanos - 'pyknon=tone-diesis' - diesis=tone/4
2
2/((9/8)*(256/243)*((9/8)^(1/3)))
1.622530767 837.895002 relaxed
chromatic lichanos - 'pyknon=tone-diesis' - diesis=tone/3
2/(((9/8)^2)*(256/243))*((9/8)^(2/3))
1.622530767 837.895002 hemiolic
chromatic lichanos - 'pyknon=1.5 enh. pyknon' = tone^(2/3) - SAME AS ABOVE - NOTE HOW
CLOSE TO NEXT ONE
2/(((9/8)^2)*(256/243))*((256/243)^(3/2)) 1.621966188 837.2924944 hemiolic
chromatic lichanos - 'pyknon=1.5 enh. pyknon' = limma^(3/2) - 'pyknon=tone-diesis' diesis=hemiolic chr. Diesis=~limma^(3/4)
1
2/((9/8)^2)
***
6
diatonic parhypate
***
5
2/(((9/8)^(5/4))*((9/8)^(3/4)))
relaxed diatonic parhypate
***
4
2/((9/8)*(256/243)*(2187/2048))
tonic chromatic parhypate - pythagorean
1.580246914 792.1799965
1.580246914 792.1799965
2
2/(((9/8)^2)*(256/243))*((9/8)^(1/3))
1.560062867 769.9250014 relaxed
chromatic parhypate = 'diesis=1.5*enh.d.' = tone^(1/3) - NOTE HOW CLOSE TO limma^(3/4)
***
3
2/(((9/8)^2)*(256/243))*((256/243)^(3/4)) 1.559791423 769.6237476
hemiolic chromatic parhypate = 'diesis=1.5*enh.d.' = limma^(3/4)
1
parhypate
all
--------------------------
2/(((9/8)^2)*((256/243)^(1/2)))
2/(((9/8)^2)*(256/243))
701.9550009 hypate
6 1/(9/8)
0.000
mese
*** 6 1/((9/8)^2)
*** 5 1/(((9/8)^(5/4))*((9/8)^(3/4)))
*** 4 1/((9/8)*(256/243)*(2187/2048))
parhypate - pythagorean
2 1/(((9/8)^2)*(256/243))*((9/8)^(1/3))
0.780031434 -430.075 relaxed chromatic
parhypate = 'diesis=1.5*enh.d.' = tone^(1/3) - NOTE HOW CLOSE TO limma^(3/4)
*** 3 1/(((9/8)^2)*(256/243))*((256/243)^(3/4)) 0.779895711 -430.376 hemiolic chromatic
parhypate = 'diesis=1.5*enh.d.' = limma^(3/4)
1 1/(((9/8)^2)*((256/243)^(1/2)))
0.769800359 -452.933 enharmonic parhypate
6 1/(((9/8)^2)*(256/243))
0.75
-498.045 hypate
5 1/(4/3)
0.75
-498.045 hypate
---------------------------------I have attempted to make use of the limma and apotome wherever possible, since Aristoxenus
always describes tones and semitones in Pythagorean terms - see 2.55.
Monzo's measurements for Aristoxenus's genera --------------------------------------------------Here is a table of the intervals in cents, measured downward from _mese_ (cents values
rounded off to the nearest cent):
------ chromatic ------ -- diatonic -enharmonic relaxed hemiolic tonic relaxed tense
0
mese
-204 \
-249
|
-294
|
-351
| lichanos
-370
-408
-408
-430
-438
-453
-498
-498
-498
|
-408 -408 <
|
| parhypate
/
-498
-498 -498
hypate
267
347
231
And the sizes of the intervals in cents: (cents values rounded off to the nearest cent)
------ chromatic ------- -- diatonic -enharmonic relaxed hemiolic tonic relaxed tense
mese
408
370
351
294
249
204
68
79
114
159
204
60
68
90
90
90
lichanos
45
parhypate
45
hypate
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Problem in Aristoxenus's 'hemiolic chromatic genus' --------------------------------------------------It is obvious from this table, where the 'hemiolic chromatic diesis' is slightly larger than the
'semitone' ('limma'), that Aristoxenus's calculations break down in describing the shades of
chromatic, particularly confusing the 'relaxed' and 'hemiolic'.
He states at 2.51 that the hemiolic chromatic pyknon is an enharmonic diesis less than a tone
above hypate: in cents, 906 - 45 = 861.
At 1.25 he says that the lowest diatonic lichanos is a semitone higher than the hemiolic
chromatic lichanos: 861 + 90 = 951 cents.
[1.25.26-30] > He de barytate diatonos ... epi men gar ten tou hemioliou chromatos > lichanon |
hemitonion en ap' autes, > >> The lowest diatonic _lichanos_ ... is a semitone from the
_lichanos_ >> of the hemiolic chromatic
So this works, if by 'semitone' he meant the 'limma' version, which seems likely to me.
The problem is where he says, again at 2.51, that the hemiolic chromatic diesis equals 1.5 times
the enharmonic diesis.
<<< One of Aristoxenus's most brilliant discoveries is that 1.5 * enharmonic diesis [=
limma^(3/4)] is almost exactly the same as '1/3-tone' [= tone^(1/3)] (less than 1/3-cent
difference): >>>
ratio
(9/8)^(1/3)
(256/243)^(3/4)
cents difference
~1.040041912 ~67.970
~1.039860949 ~67.669
~0.301
> ... the ... _pyknon_ ... of the soft chromatic ... falls
> short of being a tone ... by a chromatic diesis.
(9/8)/((9/8)^(1/3))
~1.081687178
cents difference
~1.013643265 ~23.460
In fact, 1.5 * enharmonic diesis [= (256/243)^(3/4)] gives the *relaxed* chromatic diesis and not
the hemiolic:
ratio
cents difference
As we have already seen above, this equals almost exactly the relaxed chromatic diesis of '1/3tone'.
There is thus no possible way that the hemiolic chromatic can have two equal dieses in its
pyknon which are 1.5 * enharmonic diesis, and still place the lichanos in its proper position 'an
enharmonic diesis less than a tone above hypate'.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ARISTOXENUS'S CONCEPTION OF TETRACHORDAL DIVISION (c)1999 by Joe Monzo
r. = relaxed t. = tense or tonic h. = hemiolic
d. = diatonic c. = chromatic e. = enharmonic
l. = lichanos p. = parhypate
Hemiolic chromatic
======= pitches tuned in the normal Pythagorean way
******* the hemiolic chromatic moveable notes
------- notes from other genera used for comparison
- - - - subdivision of the semitones into 4 parts, i.e., '1/8-tones'
/ 8:9 ======= t.d.l.
|
---limma |
------- r.d.l.
\
|
---|semitone
> 27:32 ======= t.c.l
\ enharmonic diesis
|= 1/2-limma
|
---|= 1/2-apotome
| + 1/2-apotome
apotome|
******* h.c.l.
<
<
|
---|1&1/2 enharmonic dieses |diesis
> 64:81 ======= e.l., r/t.d.p., t.c.p. |= 1/2-apotome + 1/4-limma / = 1/2-apotome
|
******* h.c.p.
<
limma |
------- e.p.
|1&1/2 enharmonic dieses
|
---|= 3/4-limma
\ 3:4 ======= Hypate
/
Relaxed chromatic
It is apparent from the diagram that each chromatic diesis could also be thought of as '1/3-tone'.
CONCLUSIONS ----------If our examination of Aristoxenus's tetrachordal divisions is correct, we see that his 'enharmonic
diesis' is usually considered to be 1/2-limma, but is sometimes 1/2-apotome, which are less
than 6 cents smaller and larger, respectively, than an exact 1/4-tone, and in Aristoxenus's theory
must be considered to be aurally equivalent to it:
ratio
=====================================================
POSSIBILITIES FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION --------------------------------------Appendix 1: Aristoxenus's fractional divisions ----------------------------------------------Comparison of various fractional divisions of the Pythagorean tone and both sizes of
Pythagorean semitones:
ratio
'1/24-tone'
(2187/2048)^(1/12) 1.005487253 ~9.474
(9/8)^(1/24)
1.004919689 ~8.496 ~0.978
(256/243)^(1/12) 1.004352445 ~7.519 ~1.955
'1/12-tone'
(2187/2048)^(1/6) 1.011004616 ~18.948
(9/8)^(1/12)
1.009863581 ~16.993 ~1.955
(256/243)^(1/6) 1.008723833 ~15.037 ~3.910
'1/6-tone'
Appendix 2: Cleonides's (4/3)^(1/60) -----------------------------------Later followers of Aristoxenus, particularly Cleonides, made use of a division of the 'perfect 4th'
into 30 equal parts in order to explain Aristoxenus's divisions. This was a result of combining
Aristoxenus's statement that 'the 4th is made up of 2&1/2 tones' with his explicit use of '1/12tones': 2.5 * 12 = 30.
[Cleonides, section 7; Strunk 1950, p 39-40]
> The tone is assumed to be divided into twelve least parts,
> of which each one is called a twelfth-tone. The remaining
> intervals are also assumed to be divided in the same proportion,
> the semitone into six twelfths, the diesis equivalent to a
> quarter-tone into three twelfths, the diesis equivalent to a
> third-tone into four twelfths, the whole diatessaron into
> thirty twelfths.
I think that Cleonides most likely also intended regular Pythagorean tuning for the basic
intervals, following Aristoxenus closely, but earlier in section 7 he mixes the use of 'equal' and
'equivalent' in his description of the shades of genera, and blurs our reception of his concept
very successfully.
His frequent use of 'equivalent' in describing the interval sizes seems to indicate that the division
of the 4/3 into 30 parts is to be taken very loosely.
Simply for the sake of analyzing this division, let us see what results if we assume that
Cleonides meant for the 4/3 '4th' to be divided evenly into 30 parts, and tabulate his statements:
interval
1/12-tones
tone
(12) 1/12-tones (4/3)^(12/30) 1.121955 ~199.218
semitone
6/12-tone
(4/3)^( 6/30) 1.059224 ~ 99.609
'1/4-tone diesis' 3/12-tone,
(4/3)^( 3/30) 1.029186 ~ 49.804
'1/3-tone diesis' 4/12-tone,
(4/3)^( 4/30) 1.039103 ~ 66.406
'4th'
(30) 1/12-tones (4/3)^(30/30) 1.333333 ~498.045
[Cleonides, section 7; Strunk 1950, p 40]
> In terms of quantity, then, the enharmonic will be sung by 3, 3,
> and 24 twelfths, the soft chromatic by 4, 4, and 22, the hemiolic
> chromatic by 4&1/2, 4&1/2, and 21, the tonic chromatic by 6, 6,
> and 18, the soft diatonic by 6, 9, and 15, the syntonic diatonic
> by 6, 12, and 12.
1/12-tones
enharmonic
3, 3, 24
soft chromatic
4, 4, 22
hemiolic chromatic 4&1/2, 4&1/2, 21
tonic chromatic
6, 6, 18
soft diatonic
6, 9, 15
syntonic diatonic 6, 12, 12
Because of his use of 4&1/2 1/12-tones, Cleonides is really using a conceptual division here of
the '4th' into 60 parts, (4/3)^(x/60). We will thus double all of our division-numbers.
interval
1/24-tones
tone
(24) 1/24-tones (4/3)^(24/60) 1.121955 ~199.218
semitone
12/24-tone
(4/3)^(12/60) 1.059224 ~ 99.609
'1/4-tone diesis' 6/24-tone,
(4/3)^( 6/60) 1.029186 ~ 49.804
'1/3-tone diesis' 8/24-tone,
(4/3)^( 8/60) 1.039103 ~ 66.406
'4th'
(60) 1/24-tones (4/3)^(60/60) 1.333333 ~498.045
1/24-tones
enharmonic
6, 6, 48
soft chromatic
8, 8, 44
hemiolic chromatic 9, 9, 42
tonic chromatic
12, 12, 36
soft diatonic
12, 18, 30
syntonic diatonic 12, 24, 24
ratio
1/((4/3)^(24/60)) 0.891301
1/((4/3)^(30/60)) 0.866025
1/((4/3)^(36/60)) 0.841466
1/((4/3)^(42/60)) 0.817604
1/((4/3)^(44/60)) 0.809801
1/((4/3)^(48/60)) 0.794418
chromatic parhypate
1/((4/3)^(51/60)) 0.783073
1/((4/3)^(52/60)) 0.779327
1/((4/3)^(54/60)) 0.77189
~-199.218
~-249.022
~-298.827
~-348.631
~-365.233
~-398.436
for comparison:
1/(9/8)
0.888889 ~-203.910
1/(81/64)
0.790123 ~-407.820
1/(9/8)/(256/243) 0.84375 ~-294.135
1/(5/4)
0.8
~-386.314
-398
-448
-498
mese
-199 \
|
-204 9:8
-249
|
|
-294 32:27
-299
| lichanos
-349
|
-365
|
|
-386 5:4
-398 -398 -398 <
|
-408 81:64
-423
| parhypate
-432
|
/
-498
-498
-498
-498 -498
hypate
MY CONCLUSION
ARISTOXENUS'S CONCEPTION OF TETRACHORDAL DIVISION
(c)1999 by Joe Monzo
If Aristoxenus could be said to be a precursor of any equal division of the 'octave', it would be
most accurate to claim him as an advocate of 318-tET, since this temperament can quite
accurately represent his implied tetrachord divisions.
- each tick-mark designates 2^(1/318) [= ~3.774 cents]
- every 6th tick-mark [notated 'xx'] designates 2^(1/53), the smallest 'octave'-based
temperament which accurately represents the Pythagorean comma, and thus clearly separates
the two different sizes of Pythagorean semitone: 2^(4/53) represents 256/243 [~0.341 cent too
large] and 2^(5/53) represents 2187/2048 [~0.477 cent too small].
Aristoxenus's measurements: e = enharmonic, c = chromatic, d = diesis, s = semitone, t = tone
relaxed hemiolic tonic
relaxed tense
enharmonic chromatic chromatic
chromatic diatonic diatonic
2^( 0/318) 0.0 ==
1/1================================================= MESE =====
MESE ===== MESE ==== MESE ===== MESE ===== MESE
.
^
^
^
^
^
^
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
(ditone) (3s + cd) [3s + ed] (3s)
(5d, 2.5s) (t)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2^( 54/318) 203.774 xx 8/9
===================================================|===========|
==========|=========|===========|==== lichanos 203.910
|
|
|
|
|
/||
|
|
|
|
| / ||
|
|
|
|
| / ||
-----(8/9)/((256/243)^(1/6))-------2/24 = 1/12-tone
|
|
|
|
|/
/ |
|
|
|
|
|
/ |
xx
|
|
|
|
/| (ed)
|
|
|
|
|
/| / |
-----(8/9)/((256/243)^(2/6))-------4/24 = 1/6-tone
|
|
|
|
/ | | |
|
|
|
|
/ | | |
|
|
|
|
/ | | |
|
|
|
| / | | |
2^( 66/318) 249.057 xx---(8/9)/((256/243)^(3/6))-------6/24 = 1/4-tone
|
|
|
| / lichanos |
249.022
|
|
|
| / /| |
|
|
|
|
| / / | |
|
|
|
|
|/ / | |
|
-----(8/9)/((256/243)^(4/6))-------8/24 = 1/3-tone
|
|
|
|/ /
| |
|
|
|
|
| /
| /
|
xx
|
|
|
/| /
|/
|
|
|
|
/|/
|/
|
-----(8/9)/((256/243)^(5/6))------10/24 = 5/12-tone
|
|
|
/
|/
|
|
|
|
| / |
/|
|
|
|
| / /|
/|
|
|
|
| / /|
/ |
|
2^( 78/318) 294.340 xx 27/32
=================================================|===========|
==========| (t) /lichanos (s) =|======= (t) 294.135
|
|
|/ / |
/ |
|
|
|
|/ / | / |
|
|
|
| / | /
|
|
|
|
/|(s + ) | /
|
|
------(27/32)/((2048/2187)^(1/6))----2/24 = 1/12-tone |
|
/|
(1/12-t) | /
|
|
xx
|
|
/ |
|/
|
|
|
|
/ /|
|/
(3ed,
1.5s) |
|
| / /|
|
|
|
|
| / / |
/|
|
|
------(27/32)/((2048/2187)^(2/6))----4/24 = 1/6-tone
|
| / / |
/|
|
|
|
| / / |
/ |
|
|
xx
|
|/ / | / |
|
|
|
|/ /
| / |
|
|
|
| /
| / |
|
|
2^( 93/318) 350.943 ------(27/32)/((2048/2187)^(3/6))----6/24 = 1/4-tone
|
/| /
lichanos (s)
|
|
350.978
|
/ || / ||
|
|
|
|
/ ||(1/12-t)||
|
|
|
xx
|
/ || / ||
|
|
|
|
/ || / / |
|
|
|
2^( 98/318) 369.811 ------(27/32)/((2048/2187)^(4/6))----8/24 = 1/3-tone
| /
lichanos / |
|
|
|
369.925
| / ||
/ |
|
|
|
| / | | (d) |
|
|
|
| / / | /
|
|
|
|
xx
|/ / | /
|
|
|
|
------(27/32)/((2048/2187)^(5/6))---10/24 = 5/12-tone || (1/6-t) | /
(1.5 ed) |
|
|
|| /
|
|| / / |
|| | / |
|| | / (cd)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2^(108/318) 407.547 xx 64/81
============================================= lichanos ====|
==========|==== parhypate parhypate parhypate 407.820
|
|
|
|
|
|
------(64/81)/((256/243)^( 1/12))------1/24-tone
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------(64/81)/((256/243)^( 2/12))------2/24 = 1/12-tone |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2^(114/318) 430.189 xx----(64/81)/((256/243)^( 3/12))------3/24 = 1/8-tone (ed)
|
parhypate |
|
|
430.376
|
|
|
|
|
|
2^(116/318) 437.736 ------(64/81)/((256/243)^( 4/12))------4/24 = 1/6-tone |
parhypate |
|
|
|
437.895
|
/ |
|
|
|
|
------(64/81)/((256/243)^( 5/12))------5/24-tone
| (1/12-t) |
|
|
|
|
| / |
|
|
|
|
2^(120/318) 452.830 xx----(64/81)/((256/243)^( 6/12))------6/24 = 1/4-tone parhypate
|
|
(s)
(s)
(s) 452.933
|
|
|
|
|
|
------(64/81)/((256/243)^( 7/12))------7/24-tone
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.5 ed) |
|
|
------(64/81)/((256/243)^( 8/12))------8/24 = 1/3-tone |
(cd)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xx----(64/81)/((256/243)^( 9/12))------9/24 = 3/8-tone (ed)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------(64/81)/((256/243)^(10/12))-----10/24 = 5/12-tone |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------(64/81)/((256/243)^(11/12))-----11/24-tone
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2^(132/318) 498.113 xx 3/4
============================================== HYPATE == HYPATE
=== HYPATE == HYPATE == HYPATE === HYPATE 498.045
relaxed
relaxed
hemiolic tonic
tense
enharmonic chromatic chromatic
chromatic
diatonic diatonic
interval
cents
instance
1/12-tone
15.037
1/12-tone
18.948
1/6-tone
37.895
enharmonic diesis
45.112
enharmonic diesis
45.112
enharmonic diesis
45.112
diesis
56.843
chromatic diesis
60.150
67.669
chromatic diesis
67.970
79.399
semitone
90.225
semitone
101.955
semitone
113.685
semitone + 1/12-tone
120.903
3 enharmonic dieses
158.798
tone
5 dieses
3 semitones
3 semitones +
enharmonic diesis
3 semitones + chromatic
diesis
ditone
I've realized that if one assumes Aristoxenus did *not* mean for his system to be tempered,
probably the most accurate interpretation would be to assume that he used geometry to make
equal divisions of small sections of a *length of string* on the monochord! This is a bit different
from my assumption (in my 'big diagram') that he used geometry to divide an abstract 'pitch
space'. However, the results of the two approaches are within a few cents.
I think these values are the most likely of all for Aristoxenus, unless one assumes that he
intended his system to be tempered. It is interesting to note that the enharmonic parhypate I
derived here is precisely the same string-length given some 835 years later by Boethius.
ARISTOXENUS'S METHOD OF 'TUNING BY CONCORDS'
(c)1999 by Joe Monzo
- tick-marks designate Pythagorean commas = 1/9-tones
relaxed hemiolic
tonic
tense
-D
D 4:3 498
/\
||
/ \
- C#
| |
C# 81:64 408
/ \
||
| |
/ \
/
\
| |
|
|
/ \
-C
/
\
C 32:27 294
| |
|
|
||
/
\
(4:3)
\
/ \
|
|
|
|
| |
/
\
-B
/
\ B 9:8 204 / \
|
|
|
|
/\
| |
/
\
/
(3:2) | |
/
\
|
(4:3)
|
| / \ |
|
/
\
/
\ | | /
\ |
|
- Bb
|
| / \ |
| /
\Bb 256:243 90 ---- Bb ---------- Bb
/
\ | | /
\ (3:2)
|/
|
|
|
|/
\(4:3)
| /
\|
|
|
/
\|
|/
\|
|
|
|
- A MESE
/
|
|/
|\
|
|
|
|\
/|
\
/|
|
|
\
/|
|(4:3)
/|
| \
|
|
relaxed
|
| \ / |
|(3:2)
/ |
|
|
- G#
\
/ | | \
/ |
|G# 243:256 -90
|
|
|
| \ / |
| \
/
\
|
|
\
(3:2) | |
\
/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
\/
|
| \
(4:3) \
|
|
\
/
||
\ /
|
|
|
|
|
-G
|
| G 8:9 -204 | |
\
/
\
|
|
\
/
\ /
|
|
| (262144:177147 ) |
(4:3)
|
| |
\
/
\
|
(3:2)
\
/
\/
|
|
|
|
|
- F#
|
|
F# 27:32 -294
\ /
\
|
|
\
/
| |
|
|
|
|
|
\ /
(4:3)
|
|
\ /
| |
|
|
|
| |
\/
\
|
|
-F
\ /
F 64:81 -408
|
|
|
| |
\
|
|
\/
|
|
|
||
\
|
|
-E
E 3:4 -498
|
|
|
\ |
|
| |
|
\ |
|
- D#
D# 729:1024 -588
|
- Eb
Eb 512:729 -612
Aristoxenus claims that the resulting 262144:177147 is a '5th', but it is a very narrow one of
~678 cents, and would not sound like a 'perfect 5th'.
Ingeniously, the resulting scale is not only composed of 12 tones, but is also perfectly
symmetrical around mese.
This tuning scheme also provides two 'tones' that are made up of 8 commas rather than 9:
(256/243)/(243/256) and (64/81)/(729/1024), both ~180.45 cents. These both play a part in
Aristoxenus's 'proof' that 2&1/2 tones make up a '4th'.
He is explicitly ignoring the Pythagorean comma which he has bumped up against here.
1999-12-1 new thoughts
Altho he shunned the use of ratios, what Aristoxenus intended in his theories can still be
quantified numerically, based on the fact that his prescribed method of tuning is patently
Pythagorean.
318-tET can be used very successfully to convey the entire extent of Aristoxenus's harmonic
theory, and altho he almost certainly did not have in mind an equal division of the 'octave' like
this, the mathematics of his approach to tuning ultimately do allow 318-tET to be used as the
simplest accurate metric by which to measure his system.
<<< closeup graph of 2^(x/318) vs (256/243)^(x/24) & (2187/2048)^(x/30) >>>
Additions 1999-12-3
Altho an examination of Aristoxenus's descriptions shows that a 1/24-tone interval separates the
hemiolic chromatic parhypate from that of the relaxed chromatic, Aristoxenus himself never
mentions any pitch-space smaller than a 1/12-tone.
Aristides appears to be the first author to specifically state that Aristoxenus divided the tone into
24 parts.
Boethius accepted this, and thereby extrapolated Cleonides's (4/3)^(30/30) (with which he may
not have been familiar) to (4/3)^(60/60), of which 24 divisions made up a 'tone' and 12 a
'semitone'. This division of course means that the 'tone' is not the usual 9/8 ratio, but rather
(4/3)^(24/60) = (4/3)^(2/5) [= ~199.218 cents].
Westphal 1883 ignores the Aristoxenian tradition of these divisions of the 4/3, and considers
Aristoxenus's 'quarter-tones' to represent 2^(24/24) [= 24-ET], and uses the equivalent
mathematical notation (with root signs) in his illustrations of Aristoxenus's divisions. This of
course implies a '4th' with not the rational interval 4/3, but rather the irrational 2^(10/24), which
is the same as the familar '4th' of 2^(5/12) [= 500 cents] in the 12-ET system.
Extrapolating Westphal's interpretation to include the 1/24-tones gives us 2^(144/144) [= 144ET].
note ratio
A
D
G
C
F
~cents
1
0
1*(4/3)
498.0449991
(1*(4/3))/(3/2)
-203.9100017
((1*(4/3))/(3/2))*(4/3)
294.1349974
(((1*(4/3))/(3/2))*(4/3))/(3/2)
-407.8200035
note ratio
~cents
A 1
0
E 1/(4/3)
-498.0449991
B (1/(4/3))*(3/2)
203.9100017
F# ((1/(4/3))*(3/2))/(4/3)
-294.1349974
C# (((1/(4/3))*(3/2))/(4/3))*(3/2)
407.8200035
G# ((((1/(4/3))*(3/2))/(4/3))*(3/2))/(4/3) -90.22499567
Next, Aristoxenus would temper the final two notes according to the formula (4/3)^(x/5) (i.e., 5
semitones per "4th"), then calculate one more concord from each of those:
F (((1*(4/3))/(3/2))*(4/3))/(3/2) = ~ -407.8200035 cents tempered to F 1/((4/3)^(4/5)) = ~
-398.4359993 cents, then Bb =(1/((4/3)^(4/5)))*(4/3) = ~ 99.60899983 cents:
This is the only method whereby one may obtain a final interval from this procedure which
sounds reasonably like a "5th", by following only the statements actually made by Aristoxenus.
This is the primary reason why i now consider this calculation to be the one which best
represents Aristoxenus's admittedly approximative descriptions.
Making use of this temperament gives a "tone" of (4/3)^(2/5) = ~ 199.2179997 cents, a
"semitone" of (4/3)^(1/5) = ~ 99.60899983 cents, and all of the small intervals described above
in Appendix 2.
144edo does indeed provide a very close approximation to these calculations, as shown here:
-400
mese
-200 \
|
-204 9:8
-250
|
|
-294 32:27
-300
| lichanos
-350
|
-366+(2/3)
|
|
-386 5:4
-400 -400 -400 <
|
-408 81:64
-425
| parhypate
-433+(1/3)
-450
-500
/
-500
-500
-500
-500 -500
hypate
Below is a tabulation of all the notes necessary for all six of the genera described by
Aristoxenus, with the fractions indicating EDO degrees taken from subsets of 144edo, using the
lowest-possible-cardinality EDO (listed from the top down, one 8ve only; the notes are in
my 144edo HEWM notation) :
enharmonic: 24edo
A
24/24
F
16/24
Fv
15/24
E
14/24
D
10/24
C
6/24
Cv
5/24
B
4/24
Bb
2/24
Bbv
1/24
A A 0/24 0/24
A A
0/36 0/36
12/12
9/12
8/12
7/12
5/12
4/12
C
B B
Bb
A A
3/12
2/12 2/12
1/12
0/12 0/12
12/12
10/12
F
8/12
E
7/12
D D 5/12 5/12
C C 3/12 3/12
B
2/12
Bb
1/12
A A 0/12 0/12
===========================================================
REFERENCES
---------Aristoxenus. c 330 BC. _Harmonika stoicheia_.
Athens?
Cleonides. c 100 AD. _Eisagoge_.
[English translation in Strunk 1950.]
Plutarch. _de Musica_.
[English translation in Volume 1 of Barker 1989]
Boethius, Anicius Manlius Severinus. c 505 AD.
[English translation in Bower 1989]
M - Codex Venetus. c 1150. Constantinople. (with corrections from many hands)
Ma - the original script
Mb - corrections before 1300
Mc - corrections 1300 or later
Mx - unidentified corrections
In Library of St Mark, Venice.
V - Codex Vaticanus. 1200-1400.
Va - original script
Vb - corrections by another hand
H - Codex from Protestant Seminary, Strassburg. 1400s?
Destroyed in war 1870.
Valla, Georgius. 1497. Cleonides: _Eisagoge_.
Latin translation of Cleonides.
Venice.
S - Codex Seldenianus. c 1500.
In Bodleian Library, Oxford.
R - Codex Riccardianus, 1500-1600. Florence.
concerning observations on the change of preference from the enharmonic genus to the
chromatic, see: yahoo tuning group, message 6947 [Wed Dec 15, 1999 6:46 pm].
updated:
1999.11.20
1999.11.22
1999.11.25
1999.12.03
2000.10.13
2003.07.20 -- added final section on 144edo approximation of (4/3)^(x/60)
Copyright 2005 Tonalsoft Inc. All rights reserved. Terms of Use Contact us Back to Top Home Encyclopedia
http://www.tonalsoft.com/monzo/aristoxenus/aristoxenus.aspx