64-3344

ADKINS, Cecil Dale, 1932-

THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF THE
MONOCHORD.

State University of Iowa, Ph.D., 1963

Music

University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan

COPYRJGHT BY

CECIL DAIE ADICTNS

1964
 THE THEORY AND :PRACTICE 01'' THE MONOCHORD

by

Cecil Dale Adk1.ns

.~

A dissertation subnitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the Department of Music in the Graduate
College of the State University of Iowa
August 1963

Director: Associate Professor E. Eugene Helm

Chairman and co-director: Professor Themas s. Turner
Demonstrer toutes les divisions
du Monochorde, et consequemment
toute la science de la Musique.
Marin Mersenne in the
Harmonie universolle

11
 FOREWORD

The relation of the monochord to musical theory

and practice is often referred to by writers on music, but
seldom explained. This study was originally undertaken
in order to satisfy the writer's curiosity about aeveral
seemingly unanswerable questions. These questions were
originally raised by Leonard Ellinwood's incomplete dis-
cussion of the monochord in his translation of the Musica
1
----··-
of Hennannus Contractus, and by J. Mur:ray Barbour's ·
unexplained citation of the symboiic monochord of Robert
2
Fludd. In the course of answering these questions it
became apparent that the monochord played a praninent part
in Western music from the time of the Greeks to the present
day. Furthermore, it was discovered that little 1nfonnation
about the monochord was available outside the original
sources.
The dissertation is an attempt to make accessible
for the modern reader, in the form of a comprehensive

1. Hennannus Contractus, Musica Hennannus Contractus,

tr. by Leonard Ellinwood (Rochester: Eastman School
of Music, 1936), 23.
J. Murray Barbour, Tuning and Tem!erament (East Lansing:
Michigan State College PreSS';' 195 ), Frontispiece.

iii
survey, the theoretical and practical applications of the
monochord. The use of the monochord, covering a period
of about 2, 500 years, is referred to in virtually every
early theoretical work that discusses the elements of
music. By surveying these sources it is hoped that one
will gain an understanding of how the monochord influenced
the development of theoretical principles and how changing
musical practice is reflected in discussions of the mono-
chord.
The study is based on published theoretical texts
in Greek, Latin, English, Romance, and Germanic languages
(as the original language or translation) whether as first
printed editions, re-editions, or photographic reproduc-
tions of editions. The main omissions are unpublished
treatises and works originating in non-Western sources,
these being omitted mainly because of inaccessibility.
Within these limitations the author has tried to examine
and evaluate all writings dealing with the monochord fran
the early Greek era to the present day.
The only other known study of the monochord was
written by Sigfrid Wantzloeben in 1911, and it is only a

iv
brief survey. 3 In order to fill in the blank spots left
by Wantzloeben 1 s somewhat sketchy approach, this disserta-
tion is divided into four ms.in parts. Chapter I is a dis-
cussion of the techniques of the monochord. Chapters II
through V survey the theoretical aspects of the instru-
ment 1 s use. Chapte1•s VI and VII cover the practical appli-
cations of the monochord, both in teaching and in musical
performance. Chapter VIII is a discussion of the philo-
sophical uses of the instrument, and is based on the manner
in which the monochord serves as a representative tool of
number symbolism, mainly in the Renaissance and Baroque
periods.
The translations of quoted material, unless other-
wise noted, are by this author. In many cases, in order
to avoid repetitious discussion, the translations are such
that they should be regarded as paraphrases rather
than literal translations. In quoting translations by
other authors, their spellings and punctuations have been
retain~d, as b.a.ve the mechanical details of the few un-
translated quotations. In all quotations, translated and

3. Sigfrid Wantzloeben, Das Mono chord als Instrument und

als §z_stem (Halle: E1irliardt Karras7°T9ll}.

v
otherw1.se, the original sources are c1 ted so that the
interested reader may compare our interpretation with his
own, if he so desires.
The only abbreviations appearing in this work are
the use of GS to represent the Scriptores ecclesiastici
4
de·musica of Martin Gerbert, CS to represent the Scriptorum
de mus ice. med.11 aevi of Edmond de Coussemaker, 5 MP for the
6
Patrologiae cursus canpletus of Jacques Migne, ~ ror
Beihefte ~ Internationalen Musikgesellschaf~, and Mg
for The Musical Q,uarterly. (The latter two abbreviations
appear only on Table 6, page 93.)
r~wish to acknowledge, with deepest appreciation,
all those who assisted in the completion of this study: my
family whose patience was admirable, and Professors Eugene
Helm and Thomas Turne1•, who ha.ve contributed immeasurably
in bringing this work to fruition. Thanks a.re also due to
th~ staff of the University of Iowa Library through whose
agency much of the material used in this work was obtained.

4. Martin Gerbert, Scrittores ecclesiastici de musica,

3 vols. (San Blasian s, 1784), facsimile ea.
{Milano:
Bollettino bibliografico musicale, 1931).
5. Edmond de Cousseme.ker, Scriptorum de musica med11
aevi, 4 vols. (Paris, 1867), f'acsiDiT1e ecL (Milano:
~ettino bibliografico musicale, 1931).
6. Jacques
I.etina,
vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • iii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. ix

Chapter
I • THE MONOCHORD • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1

Acoustical Systems applied to the

Monochord • • ·Q • • • • • • • • • • • • 12
The lfanual Technique of the Monochord • • 18
Methods of Representing Monochord
Di vi s ions • , • • • c • • • • • • • • 29

II. THE MONOCHORD IN THE GREEK ERA • • • • • • • • 35

Greek Musical Writings from abcut
500 B.c. to A.D. 500 • • • • • • • • 35
The Greek Musical System • • • • • • • • 39
Greek Di ·17isions of the Monochord • • • • 49
III. THE IIONOCHOE> IN THE MIDDLE AGES • • • • • • • 68
Musical Treatises in the Middle Ages • • 68
The Development of the Medieval Scale
Sy stein • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 81
The Di visions of the Monochord 1.n the
Middle Ages • • • • • • • • • • • • • 95

IV. THE MONOCHOHD IN THE RENAISSANCE • • • • • • • 191

Monochord Treatises of the Renaissance • 191
The Tunings and Temperaments of the
Renaissance • • • • o • • • • • • • • 198
The Monochord Di visions of the
"Rena is sane e • • • • • • • • • • • • • 205

vii
 v. POST-RENAISSANCE USES OF THE MONOCHORD • • • • 285
General Orientation of Treatises
Dealing w1 th the Monccbord
after the Renaissance • • • • • • • • 285
Post-Renaissance Scale and Acoustical
Developn.ents • • • • . • • • • • • • • 290
Post-Renaissance Uses of the Monochord
Considered Chronologically • • • • • 296

VI. THE DIDAC1!C USES OF THE MONOCHORD • • • • • • 337

Greek Usages of the Monochord as a

Teaching Device • • • • • • • • • • • 338
'Ihe Medieval Pedagogy of' the Monochord • 341
T.he Teaching Uses of the Monochord in
the Renaissance and Iater Eras • • • 356

VII. THE INSTRtrnENTAL APPLICATIONS OF 'lHE

MONOCHORD • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 361
The Monochord as a Performing
Instrument • • • • • • • • • • • • • 361
The Descendants of the Monochord • • • • 372
The Monochord as an Aid in Instrument
Construction • • • • • • • • • • • • 405
VIII. THE SYMBOLIC AND RELIGICUS USES OF THE
l'YIONOCHORD • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 422
Elements of Pythagorean Symbolism • • • • 426
The Infusion of Pythagoreanism into the
Christian Era and the Middle Ages • • 438
The Ha:m.ony of the Spheres in the
Musical Writings of the Middle
Ages 'and the Renaissance • • • • • • 441
The Symbolic Use of the Monochord • • • • 457
APPENDIX • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 474
BIBLIOGRAPHY • • • • a • • • • it • • • • e • • • • , 480

viii
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Diagrams

(Diagrams of specific monochord divisions are easily Page

identifiable by those captions which consist of a
name and the title of a treatise.)
1. Medieval diagram of the monochord. • • • • 3
2. The basic intervals of Greek music. • • • • • 14
3. The Euclidean constructicn. • • • • • • • • • 26
4. The mesolabium. ...... ..." ..... 28
5. Linear representation of a monochord
division. • • • • • • • • • • . . . . • • 32
"
6. Sample diagram of a monochord division. • • • 33
7. The Aristoxenian division of the
tetrachord. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 46
s. A linear representation of Ptolemy's
moncchord. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 52
9. Ptolemy's first helicon. • • • • • • • • • • • 54
10. Ptolemy's second helicon. • • • • • • • • • • 56

guclid, Sectio canonis (.£!_. 300 B.C.). • • • • 59

'.ristides Qu.intilianus (fl. A.D. 150),
· -~ musica. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 61
13. The monocbord division of Th.eon of
Smyrna us. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 64
14. Boeth1us (ca. 480-529), De institutione
musica-.- • • • • • --:- • • • • • • • • • • • 99
15. Boethius 1 s division of the Tetrachordon
Hyperbolaion in the th~ee genera. • • • • 102

ix ""'
 16. Boethiµs•s three-genera division of the
Greater Perfect System. • • • • • • • • • • 103
17. Hucbald (ca. 840-930), De institutione
ha·I'Dloiirca. • • • •--:- • • • • • • • • • • • • 111
18. Anon. 2, GS I, 338-342, Tractatus de musica
( .£.!.. Wo) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 113
19. Anon. La Fage, 193-194, Si vis metiri monochordi
(2nd hall' lGlih C. ) • - •--:- • • • • • • • • • • 114
20. Notker Labeo (d. 1022), De mus1ca. ......
. 116
21. Odoranne (ca. 985-1045), De divisione
Monochordi. • • • •--:- • • • • • • • • • • • 117
22. T'ne letter notation of Herm.annua Contra.ctu.s. . . 118
· 23. Anon. 4c, Gs I,345a-347a, De mensura monocordi
( .£!.. 12ib c.) • . . -:- . . . . • ~ . .--:-. . 120
24. Anon. GS I, 122, Cita et vera divisio monocord1
inOiatonico genera(.2!,• 900). • • •--:--:- • 122
25. Anon. 1, GS I, 330-338, Musica (10th C.). • • • 124
26. Anon. 4a, GS I, 244a-345a, De mensura monocordi
(.£!_. 12th c.). . . . .--:- . . . . . . . . 7 • 126
27. Anon. La Fage, T!J-74, Monocordum campositurus
(£!.· 10th c.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
28. Anon. GS I, 173-212, Scholia. enchiriadis
{ca.. 900 ) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 132
29. The central octave of the Greater Perrect
System. • • • • • • • • • .
• • • • • • .• 134
30. The major disdiapason. • • • • • . • • • • • • 135
31. The Daae1an scale. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 138
32. Anon. MP CLI, cols. 693-694, Monochordum
en'Chir1ad1s (£!.. 1000). • • • • • • • • • • 141
33. Anon. Ia Fage, 74, ComBositio monocordi secundum
enchiriadem ( ~. 1 th C. J • • • • • • • • • 142

x
34. Odo of St. Maur (Cl~my), n;alogus
(~. 1000). • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 145
35. Aribonis, De musica (1070). • • • • • • • • • • 149
36. Theoger of Metz, Musica {late 11th C.). ..• • 149a
37. Guido d'Arezzo, Microl~~ (~. 1026). • • • • 150
38. Jean de Muris {ca. 1290-1351), Musica
spec i1la ti va:-- • • • • • • • • • • ~ ...• • 1_53

39. Philipp& de Vi try, Ara !!£!!_ (£!_. 1318). .... 155

40. Anon. (Tunstede), CS IV, 208-220, guatuor

p_rin_cipalia (ca. 1350) • • • • • • • • • • • 157
41. Prosdocimus de Beldemandis, Libellus monocho~di
( .£!.. 1413) • • • • • • • • • • •-:- . • • 159-160
42. Ugolino d'Orvieto, Declaratio musicae
Disciplinae {.£!_. 1446). . •.•. • • • 161-162
43. Gui~o d'Arezzo, Micrologus (~. 1028). • • • • 164
44. Aribonis, De musica (1070). • • • • • • • • • • 168
45. J. Af'fligemensis (Cotton), Tractatus de musica
(~. 1100). • • • • • • • • • • --:- • • • • • 169

46. Anon. 4b, GS I, 345a, Mansura mon0chordi

{~ • 12'£h c • ) . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • 171
47. Hugo von Reutlingen, Flores musieae (1332). • • 174
48. Georgie AnseJ.mi, De musica (1434). • • • • 176-177
49. Anon. Steglich. gu.aestiones in musica
( £!.. 1100) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 186
50. Anon. Le Cerf, Paris, MS. B.N. Latin 7295, fol.
111(~.1475) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 208
51. Franchinus Gaffurius, Theorica musica
( 1492). • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 210
52. Andreas Ornithoparcus, Micrologus (1517). • • • 212

xi
53. Henricus Grannnateus, Aritbmetica applic1rt
(1518). • ••••••••••.••• • • • 215
54. Johannes Gallicus, Ritus canendi velustissum.us
et novus ( ~. 1520). • • • • • • • • • • • 217
55. Giovanni Maria Lanfranco, Scintilla di musica
( 1533) • • • • • • • • • • • • :-• • • • • 219
56. Martin Agricola, Musica instrumentalis deutsch
(1545). • ••••••••••••••.•• 221
57. llenricus Glareanus, Dodecachordon (1547). ... 226
G:t O;~ef'fo Zar lino,
58.
( 1558). .'lst1
• .. .tutioni
. . . .harmoni.ce
....
~ • 0 • • 229
59. Wolfgang Figulus, rausica practica
~
(1565). • ••••••••••• . . . . . . 231
60. Vincenzo Galilei, Dialogo della musica antica
et moderI_!! (1588). • ••••••••••• 233
61. Lemme 'Rossi, Sistema musico ( 1666). ...... 236
62. Salinas's demonstration of the consonances. • • 239

63. Anon. Dupont, Pro clavicordis faciendis (2nd

half of 15tr.l°C. ) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 240
64. Anon. Ie Cerf, Paris,·MS. B.N. Latin '7295, fol.
128 (£!.. 1475) • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • 242
65. Ramos de Pareia, IEusica. pract1ca ( 1482). • • • 245
66. Ludovico Fogliano, :Musica theorica ( 1529). • • 250
67. Gioseffo Zarlino, D1mostration1 harmonica
( 1571). • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .... 252

68. Francisco Salinas, De musica libri septem

( 1577) • • • •--:- • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 256
69. Athanasius Kircher, Musurgia universalis
( 1650) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ..... 257
70. Lemme Rossi, Sistema musico (1666). .... . ~ 259

xii
71. Gioseffo Zarlino, · Istitution1 harmonica
( 1558). • • • • • • • . • . • • • • • • • • 262
72. Lennne Rossi, Sistema musico (1666). • • • • • • 263
Rossi's triangulation for the meantone
temperament. • •••••••• • • • • • • 264
74. Rossi's geometric.construction of two mean
proportionals. • •••••••••• ... 266
75. Johann Neidhardt, Beste und leichteste
Temperatur (1706) :-: • • • • • • • • • 304-305
76. StrAhle's geanetrical determination of equal
temperament. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 316
77. Henri Choquel, I.e. musique rendue {1762). • • • 324
78. The Cribrum monochordi of Wilhelm of Hirsau. • 350

79. The monochord diagrams of Theoger of Metz. • • 351

80. Linear representation of the monochord showing
the position of the consonances. . • • • • • 352
81. The manual demonstration of the apotome. • • • 354a
82. The action of the organistI'Ulll and
hurdy-gurdy. • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • 37 5
83. Odo of St. Maur· ( Cluny), r.anodo organistrum
construatur (£!_. 1000 • • ••••••••• 380
84. Anon. 1, GS II, 283-286, De mensura fistularum
in organis (£!_. 11th 0-:-). • •••••••• 382
85. Aribonis, ~ muaica (1070). • • • • • e • • 410
86. Mersenne's determination of the diameters of
organ pipes. • • • • . • • • • • • • . • .. 411
87. Diagram from Abdias Trew's Diaputa.tio
musica. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 412

88. Juan Bermudo, Declarac16n de Instrum.entos

musicales (1555). • -:-• • • • • • • .... 417

:r..111
89. John Dowland, from the Varietie of Lute
Lessons (1610). • • • • • -:-.--;-: • • • • • 418
90. Ptolemy's representations of the universe. • • 459
91. Zarlino's geanetrical demonstration of the
intervals of the just tuning. • • • • • • • 475
92. Salinas's helicon. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 477
93. ·Harington' s geanetrical demonstration of
intervals. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 478

Plates

1. A Renaissance monochord. • • • • • • • • • • • • 5
2. Renaissance woodcut of Pythagoras and the
first monochord. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 10
3. Fogliano 1 s demonstration of the consonances. • 247
4. Fogliano's monochord. • • • • • • • • • • • • • 249
5. The monochord of Abraham Bartolus. • • • • • • 272
6. Trew's diagram of the monochord. • • • • • • • 278
7. Ne1dhardt 1 s monochord diagram for the one-
twelfth comma temperament. • • ~ • • • ... 306

s. Warren's tonometer. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 311

9. The monochord of Daniel Berlin. • • • • • • • • 326

10. The monochord of Mullinger Higgins. • • • • • • 332

11. A nineteenth-century monochord~ • • • • • • • • 333
Guido demonstrating the monochord for Bis~op
Theobald. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 345
13. A. monochord perfomiance of the eal'J.y
twelfth century. • •••••• • • • • • • 367

xiv
14. Religious and secular music. • • • • • • • • • 369
15. A monochord of the thirteenth century. • . • • 3'71
16. The o rgani a trum. • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • 3'76
17. An organistrum.. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3'77
18. Two players of the cinfonia. • • • • • • • • • 3'78
19. Late medieval drawing of a clavichord. • • • • 387
20. A Dutch woodcarving of a clavichord. • .•. • 388
21. Angel playing a clavichord. • • • • • • • • • • 389
22. Centaurs playing a dicer.de and a
hurdy-gurdy. • • • • • • • • • • • .• .• 392
23. Detail rrom "Ia Fuente de la vida 11 by a
disciple of Van Eyck. • • • • • • • • • • 393
24. Hans Burglonair: Kaiser Maximilian und die
Musik, 1516. • • • • • • .
• • • • • • . • 394
25. Hans Memling: Concert of Angels, ca. 1490. • 395
26. Holbein: Der Krilmer, £!• 1525. • • • • • • • 396
27. Glareanus's trcmba marina. • • • • • • • .•. 399
28. Praetorius's tromba marina. • • • • • • • • • 401
29. Mersenne's tromba marinas • • • • • • •.• .• 402
30. Nicolas. de I.a.rm.essin: A Musician's Dress,
ca. 1700. • .• • .• • • .• • .....• 406
31. Ganassi's method of fretting the viol. • • • • 415
32. Gibel's tuning pipe • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 420
33. A symbolic illustration of the monochord. • • 424
34. Title page f ram Robert Fludd' s Utriusque
cosmi. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . • • • • 454

xv
35. Frontispiece from Athanasius Kircher's
Musurgia uni versalis. • • • • • • • • • • 456

36. A s-ymbolic monochord of the eleventh

century. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 460-461

3?. Gatfurius's symbolic representation of the

monochord. • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • 463
38. The monochord diagram of Glareanus. • • • • • 464
39. Abraham Bartolus 1 s symbolic monochord. • • • 466
40. The monochord ot ~obert Fludd. ....... 468

41. Christopher Simpson's analogy between music

and astrology. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 472

Tables

1. The Greater Perfect System. ......... 40

2. Tetr~chordon Synemmenon. • • • • • • • • • • • 42
3. Arist1des's system of string lengths. • • • • 65
4. Medieval letter notation. • • • • • • • • • • 93

5. Smmnary of descending monochord divisions. • 127

6. Summary of ascending :nonochord d.ivieions. • • 179
7. The Aristidea~ numbers used as string lengths
for the three genera. • • a • • • • • • • 182

a. The monochord division of Walter Odington. 189

9. Zarlino's string lengths for the
Tetrachordon Hypaton. • • • ...• • • • 203

10. Reinhard=s list of tones and semitones. • • • 271

11. Colonna's table of string lengths. • • • • • 274

xvi
 12. Mersenne's table of consonances and
dissonances of the monochord. • • • • • 281-282

13. Werckmeister's st:ring lengths based on

8100 uni ts. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 299
14. Ne1dhard.t 1 s string lengths for a multiple
division of twenty-six notes. • •• .... 303

15. Neidhardt's basic string lengths fo:r the one-

twelfth connna temperament. • • • • • • • • • 307

16. Neidhardt' s four one-twelfth comma

temperaments. • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • 308
Neidhardt's string lengths for the four one-
twelfth comma temperaments. • • • • • ... 308

18. Warren's string lengths for the tonameter. • • 312

19. :Meckenheuser 'a string lengths for a tempered

monochord. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 314

20. Lavena's string lengths for the monochord. .. 317

21. Marpurg's string lengths for the monochord. • • 319

Robert Smith's string lengths for the
22.
monochord. . • • • • • • • • • • ...... 323
23. Berlin's chromatic octave for the monochord. • 325
.. 24. Young's string lengths for the monochord. • • • 328

25. Stanhope's string lengths for the monochord. • 329

:x;vii
 1

Chapter I
THE MO NOC HO RD

~onochord -- A contrivance consisting of a

single string which is stretched over a lengthy
wooden resonator to which a movable fret is
attached .so that the pbrating len.gth of the
string can be varied.

This def'ini tion, taken from a contemporary music diction-

ary, varies little from the scores of definitions given in
musical writincs of the past 2,000 years, indicating that
the monochord is probably the oldest of man's musical
instruments still surviving in unaltered fonn. The usual
instructions for building a monochord direct that the
instrument should be constructed on a flat sur.face, and
should have three bridges and a string. The flat surface
serves as a foundation for the bridges and also as a table
upon which to mark the placement of the movable bridge
( re.ferred to as "fret" in the Harvard Dictionary defini-
tion). The resonating box, mentioned above, is only one
of a host of alterations made upon the basic design, and
with the exception of a few minor changes, all the altera-
tions seem to be directed at incr~~sing or enhancing the
tone.

1. Willi Apel, 11Ji!onochord," Harvard D.lcti.onary of Music

(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press7"'°1958),
454-455.
 2

Ptolemy (fl. second century), in his directions for

constructing the monochord, states that the edges of the
end bridges {magades), at -Che point where the string crosses,
are to be as nearly spherical as possible. He further
specifies that the string should be of a consistent diameter
and that tl:"Le bridges are to be of equal height so that the
string will be parallel to the table. The movable bridge
is to be very thin, and somewhat higher than the end
bridges. 2
The monochord in its early form, and in the f om.
utilized throughout the Middle Ages (Diagram 1), was a table
or plank (AC) upon which were erected two bridges (EB & FD).
The string was stretched across the bridges {EF) and
securely fastened at the ends (AC). A movable bridge (K)
was then placed underneath the string, dividing it into
two sections (EK & KF). T'.ae marks indicating the placement
of the movable bridge were then inscribed on the table,
underneath the string, between the two end bridges (B & D).
The only major change in the instrument was made
after 1500 when one of the end bridges was replaced by a
nut, and the movable bridge was removed. By lowering the
remaining bridge, the string was placed close enough to the

2. Ingemar D&ring, Ptolemaios und Porphyries ftber die

Musik (GBteborg: Elander, 1934), 35-36. ~ ~
 •

Diagram 1. Medieval diagi•am of the monochord. 3

K F

3. Boethius, De musica, ed. G. Friedlein.(Lipsiae:

Teubneri, !867), Bk. IV, Cap. XVIII, 349. This diagram
illustrates what appears to have been a misconception
of the medieval writers. Ptolemy's directions indi-
cate that only the edge of the bridge is to be rounded,
but many later writers have taken this to mean that
the bridge is to be constructed in the fozm of a SEIJli-
circle; for example, in the accompanying illustration
:f'rom Glarenaus 's Dodeca.chordon (Bas'el: Petri, 154'7):

These writers frequently refer to this kind of bridge

as a hemisphere or a semisphere. Another instance of
this usage may be found in Zarlino's Dimostrationi
harmonica (1571).
 4

table so that the pitches could be produced by pressing the

string against the table or top of the resonator (Plate 1).
This procedure, however, must have greatly reduced the ac-
curacy of the pitches by further stretching the string, and
by rendering the pitches capable of slight instantaneous
alteration, governed perhaps by ear rather than calculation
such as one might produce on a violin. 4
Andreas Ornithoparcus, in 1517, gave an account of
the manner of constructing an instrument like the one
shown in Plate l:

4. In trying to determine the accuracy of the monochord,

this writer bas concluded, from experiments with the
instrument, that, under casual conditions, the closest
positioning of a bridge is limited to approximately
0.5 millimeter, which, on a one-meter string, ~s an
error of about four cents. These experiments were
conducted with a bridge as nearly as possible the same
height as the end bridges; thus the margin of error
of a "slightly higher" bridge could only have been
increased. When one realizes that the Pythagorean
schimna is only two cents and the Pythagorean canma is
twenty-three cents, and that the average person's
hearing discrimination in the octave below middle C
is restricted to pitch differences of approximately
six to twelve cents (cf. Charles Culver, Musical
Acoustics [New York: McGraw-Hill, 195~ , 29), it
quickly becomes apparent that microtonic intervals,
in theoretical discussions at least, were probably
as much an intellectual developnent as they were an
audible phenanenon. In any case, the accurate repro-
duction of many intervals on the mbnochords described
seems highly dubious. An attempt by Ptolemy to over-
come these inaccuracies is described on p. 66, fn. 33.
 5

5
Plate 1. A Renaissance monochord.

A monochord, that is, an instrument of one

string, is thus truely made. Take a peace of wood
of a yard long, or what length you please, of two
fingers bredth, and so thicke, make it hollow in
the middle, leaving the ends of it-unhollowed.
Let it be covered with a belly peace well &noothed,
that hath holes in it, like the belly of a
lute • • • • This done, in the extreme points,
set little props to hold the string, least the
sound of the string be dulled with touching the
wood. This readied, set to one string of wyre,
strong, big and stretched, so that it may give a
sound which may be easily heard, and you shall
have your monochord perfect.6

5. Athanasius Kircher, Musur~ia universalis, 2 vols.

(Rome: 1650), Bk. III, 1 7~
6. Andreas Ornithoparcus, MicroloB§s, tr. by John
Dowland (London: T. Adams, 16 ~), 22.
 6

Later writers describe the construction of mono-

chords of a variety of sizes and shapes, many of which are
equipped with more than one string. Technically these
mul ti_-stringed instruments should not be called monochords,
but the consensus was that if the strings were tuned in
lµlison the designation was to be retained. In sane in-
stances, monochords with many strings were tuned in octaves
and perhaps other intervals, and in these cases the use of
the instrument like an ordinary monochord caused the reten-
tion of the name. The following account from Glareanus's
Dodecachordon of 1517 describes the construction of a
multi-stringed monochord:
• • • I ordered a quadrate, hollow piece of
wood to be made by a carpenter, rather plainly
(as the expression goes), three feet long, a
quarter of a foot thick, a third of ~. foot wide
with two immovable bridges at the extremity of
the length and with one movable bridge. I spread
.four strings over this, so ·that one string became
the theme, as it were, and I related the remain-
ing subsidiary strings to it .for division in the
three genera of modulating, although I .found af . ._. r-
wards that two strings were sufficient; we have
made use of this instrument satisfactorily enough
.for what we wished to investigate and we still
use it at present.7
In spite of a multitude of re.f:tnemen ts, the ins trum.en t ·
remains virtually the same toda·y as when an unknown Greek

7. Heinrich Glareanus, Dodecachordon, tr. by Clement

Miller (unpublished dissertation, University of
Michigan, 1952), 136.
 7

combined the words~ (single) and chorde (string) into

the name monochord.
According to tradition, the monochord originated
with Pythagoras {ca. sixth century B.C.), and it was this
invention which enabled him to formulate certain theories
that, in the opinion of most writers, serve as a basis for
what is known about Greek acoustical theory. Whether it
was his own invention or an acquisition from his travels
in the Middle East, is not known. However, he is credited
by Nicomachus with the addition of an eighth string, to the
Greek lyre, which eventually enabled the Mese to serve as
the midpoint of the system. 8
Pythagoras is said to have been successful in the
development of his theories because of his earlier discovery
of the relationships of string lengths -- which he is re-
puted to have made in a most curious manner. Sir Thanas
Stanley's History of Fnilosophy contains a quaint trans-
lation of Nicomachus 's account of Pythagoras's discovery.

a. Nicomachus, !lths.goric~ harmonicas manuale, Bk. II,

La.tin trans.n Marcus Meibom, Aritinttuae musicae
auctores septem, 2 vols. (.Amsteloda : Ludovicun
Elzevirium, 1652), Vol. I. For a detailed explanation
of the far-reaching effects of the addition, see
J. F. Mountford, "Greek Music and its Relation to
?.Iodern Times," The Journal of Hellenic Studies, XL
(1920), 13-42. ~
 8

Pythagoras being in an intense thought whether

he might invent any instrumental help to the ear,
solid and infallible, such as the sight ha th by a
oanpa.ss and a rule, and by a Dioptre; or the touch,
or by a balance, or by the invention of measures;
as he passed by a smith's shop by a happy chance
he heard the iron hammers striking on the anvil,
and rendering sounds most consonant to one another
in all canbinations except one. He observed in
them· these three concords, the diapason, the dia-
pente, and the diatessaron; but that which was
betl1een the diatessaron and the diape:ute he found
to be a discord in itself, though other?Jise useful
for the making up of the greater of them, the dia-
pente. Apprehending this came to him from God,
as a most happy thing, he hastened into the shop,
and by various trials finding the difference of the
sounds to be according to the weight of the hammers,
and not according to the fashion of the hammers,
and not according to the force of those who struck,
nor according to ·the turning of the iron which was
in beating out: having taken exactly the weight
of the hammers, he went straightway home, and to
one beam fastened to the walls, cross from one
corner of the roo~ to the ·other, lest any differ-
ence might arise from thence, or be suspected to
arise from the properties of several beams, tying
four strings cf the same substance, length, and
twist, upon each of them he hung a several weight,
fastening it at the lower end, and making the
length of the strings altogether equal; then strik-
ing the strings by two at a time interchangeably,
he found out the aforesaid concords, each in its
own canbination; for that which was stretched by
the greatest weight, in respect of that which was
stretched by the least weight, he found to sound a
diapason. The greatest weight was of twelve
pounds, the least of six; thence he detel'!!lined
that the diapason did consist in double proportion,
which the ~eights ~~emsel~e~ did shew. Next he
found that the greatest to the least but one,
which was of. eight pounds, sounded a Diapente;
whence he inferred this to consist in the propor-
tion called Sesquialtera, in which proportion the
weights were to one another; but unto that which
was less than itself in weight, yet greater than
the rest, being of nine pounds, he found it to

. ..
 9

sound a Diatessaron; and discovered that, propor-

tionally to the weights, this concord was Sesqu1-
tertia; which string of nine pounds is naturally
Sesquialtera to the least; for nine to six is so,
viz., Sesquialtera, as the least but one, which
is eight, was to that which had the weight six,
in proportion Sesquitertia, and twelve to eight
is Sesquialtera; and that which is in the middle,
between Diapente and Diatessaron, whereby Diapente
exceeds Diatessaron, is confinned to be in Sesqui-
octava proportion, in which nine is to eight. The
system of both was called Diapason, that is both
of the Diapente and D.tatassaron joined together,
as duple proportion is canpounded of Sesquialtera
and Sesquitertia; such as are twelve, eight, six,
or on the contrary, cf Diatessaron and Diapente,
as cluple proportion is compounded of Sesqui tertia
and Sesquialtera, as twelve, nine, six, being
taken in that order.
Applying both his hand and ear to the weights
which he had hung on, and by them confirming the
proportion of the relations, he ingeniously trans-
ferred the common result of the string upon the
cross beam to the bridge of an instrument, which
he called Chordotonos; and for stretching them
proportionably to the weights, he invented pegs,
by the turning whereof he distended or relaxed
them at pleasure. Making use of the foundation
as an infallible rule, he extsnded the exper:Unent
to many kinds of instruments.

9. Sir Thomas Stanley, History of Philoso~y (1701), 387,

quoted in Sir John Hawkins, 2r""Genera1 sto~ of the
Science and Practice of Music, 2nd ed. (Lonlin:- ~
Novello,~53), vol.!"';" ~-10. 'lhe relationship of
the weights to the pitches is obviously unsound, both
in regard to the hammers and to th~ weights attached
to the strings; yet this anecdote was transmitted un-
altered from Pythagorean times until the end of the
sixteenth century, when Galileo Galilei made note of
the error in a treatise entitled Discorsi e D:tmostra-
zioni Mathematiche intorno a due nuove Scienze. See:
:Meibom, note in Antiquae mUSiCae, ii GaudentiUS 1 II 37 •
Plate 2 shows a typical Renaissance representation of
Pythagoras's experiments {from Franchinus Gafurius,
Theories musicae, facsimile ed. [Roma: ~eale
lccademia d'Italia, 193{), p. VIf.
 10

Plate 2. Renaissance woodcut of Pyths.goras

and the first monochord.

Although the origins of the instrument are shrouded

in the haze of antiquity, its usage can be definitely
traced to about 300 B.C., when, according to Greek writ-
ings, the monochord seems to have been most often a tool
of the mathematician. 'lhis is partly evidenced by the
fact th.at most of the musical studies of the period appear
as the works of those authors whose main literary contri-
butions are concerned with mathematics. One should bear
 11

in mind, however, that Greek scholars were frequently

active in many areas of knowledee and that combinations
such as music and mathernatfcs were only a manifestation of
a rich intellectual tradition. In these surroundings the
monochord was used as a device to provide both visual and
aural representation of the mathematical ratios of the
intervals. There is also evidence that the monochord may
h~ve found, among the Greeks, some small favor as a per-
forming instrument (see Chapter VII) .•
In the :Middle Ages the .monochord not only fulfilled
the basic functions allotted to it by the Greeks, but it
also served as the pr1.ncipal method of expounding details
of music theory -- that is, it was employed frequently in
explanation of the ma thema ti cal manner of determining inter-
vals and scales as well as utilized as a pitch-producing
instrument for the teaching of singing. The Renaissance
and later perio~s utilized the instrument to a great extent
as a practical means of experimenting with scalar variants,
and to a lesser extent as a pitch-producing medium for the
tuning of keyboard instruments. A system of acoustical
representation expressed in the form of string lengths,
which was derived from the mono chord, also found great
favor with theorists, canposers, and mathematicians in this
latter era. S'YJllbolic use was made of the monochord in this
 12

era to illustrate the unity that existed between man and

his environment -- both physical and sp1ri tual. As more
accurate devices for pitch experimentation became available,
the monochord fell into disuse, surviving in the twentieth
century only as a laboratory instrument for the demonstra-
tion of str1ng vibration and other phencmena.

Acoustical Systems Applied !£ the Monochord

The di visions of· the monochord are usually. repre-

sented in musical literature by means of proportions, string
lengths, or cents. The first two methods have a tradition
almost as old as the monochord itself. The third, a fairly
recent innovation, is greatly favored by most contemporary
writers on acoustics. A full-scale explanation of these
systems is not requisi i;e to an understanding of the mono-
chord, but it is nevertheless necessary for the reader to
understand the vocabulary utilized in this study.

Proportions
The Pythagorean concept of monochord division by
proportions is based on two means: the arithmetic mean and
the harmonic mean. The arithmetic mean is equidistant fran
the extremes, and the harmonic mean exceeds and is exceeded
by equal parts of the extremes. For the non-philosophical
 13

purposes of this discussion it is important to know only

that the arithmetic mean of 6 and 12 is 9 (that is,·9 is
3 more than 6 e.nd 3 less than 12), and that the harmonic
mean of these two numbers is 8 (that is, 8 exceeds 6 by
1/3 of 6 and is exceeded by 12 by 1/3 of 12). The numbers
6, 8, 9, and 12 p1.,cvide the basic material of the Pytha-

gorean acoustical system.

The relationships of these numbers provide four
•
Pythagorean intervals': 6:12, the diapason (octave); 6:9

and 8:12, the diapente (fifth); 6:8 and 9:l2, the diates-
se.ron (fourth); 8:9, the tone (major second). These rela-
tionships are demonstrated in Diagram 2. When these
•
ratios a~e reduced to their lowest whole-number expressions
(e.g., when 6:9 is reduced to 2:3), they can be given
names. From right to left in Diagram 2 they a.re called
multiplex and super-particular proportions; from left to
right, sub-multiplex and sub-superparticular proportions. 10

10. Present-day understanding of the proportions is based

on the five species of proportions expounded by the
theorists of the late fifteenth century. Of these
species (i.e., genus multiplex, genus superparticulare,
genus superpartiens, genus multiplex superparticulare,
and genus multiplex superpartiens), only the first
two are used in connection with the monochord. Willi
Apel, in The Notation of Polyphonic Music, 4th ed.
(Cambridg"i';!t1ass.: Th0'"Med1aeva1 Academy of America,
1953), 146, defines these two species as follows:
(Footnote continued on p. 14.)
 14

Diagram 2. The basic intervals of Greek music.

J io.pa.son
dio.pente
dio.tesso.l"of\

f;
l
6
l tone
jI I
q 12

·~L__.I _ d io.te.ssQ.~on _
d io..pente.

10. (Continued from p. 13.)

"In tenns of modern arithmetic, the first
genus.comprises all fractions the denominator
of which is 1, e.g., lroportio dupla equals
2/1; tripla equals 3/ ; guadrupla equals 4/1,
etc. Th& second genus comprises all fractions
the numerator of which is one more than the
denominator. In Le.tin terminology, these frac-
tions were indice.ted by the prefix sefiiui-,
which actually means addition of the If: 1
plus 1/2 equals 3/2. In conjunction with the
terms -altera, -tertia, -iuarta etc., it desig-
nates the fractions 3/2, /3, 5/4, etc. 11
The inverted fractions are indicated by the prefix
sub-; e.g., proportio sub-sesquioctava means 8:9.
 15

Multiplex dupla, the simplest of the proportions,

is the ratio ·betVleen 12 and 6. This is called dupla be-
cause it is reducible to 2:1 or 2/1. It will be noticed
that when expressed as 1:2 or 1/2 it is called sub-dupla.
Other multiplex and sub-multiplex proporti ens used on the
monochord are, in their reduced forms: 3:1, tripla; 1:3,
sub-tripla; 4:1, quadrupla; and 1:4, sub-quadrupla. The
super-particular and sub-superparticular proportions are:
9:6 (12:8) as sesquialtera ·(3:2), or 6:9 (8:12) as sub-
sesquialtera (2:3); 8:6 (12:9) as sesquitertia (4:3), or
6:8 (9:12) as sub-sesquitertia (3:4); 9:8 as sesquioctava,
or 8:9 as sub-sesqu.~ octava. These proportions furnished
the Pythagoreans with the four intervals represented in
Diagram 2, that is, dupla as the diapason, sesquialtera as
the diapente, sesquitertia as the diatessaron, and sesqui-
octava as the tone. The sesquitertia proportion is often
represented by the Greek word epitritos and the sesqui-
octava proportion by the Greek epogdous.
Vlhether an octave, for example, is expressed as
dupla (that is, by doubling a given length of string) or
as sub-dupla (that is, by halving a given length of string),
and whether the other proportions are expressed with their
larger terms first or last (e.g., 3:2 or 2:3 or 3/2 or 2/3),
may seem of small import at this time; but a clear
 16

understanding of the relationships of both kinds of pro-

portions to interval production is necessary for understand-
ing all kinds of monochord divisions. The application of
these proportions to a tensioned string results in a manual ·
division of the string. A manual.dlvislon may be here de-
fined as a linear mechanical operation performed upon the
monochord or upon e representation of the monochord. The
manual division is the only kind of monochord division of
any musical importance in Antiquity and the Middle Ages.

System _2! String Lengths

Because of the cumbersomeness of the proportional
system and the inaccuracies of the manual division, sane
investigators used the system of string lengths, a system
which found its greatest favor in the post-medieval period,
in place of the manual division. If, for example, a string
is assigned a length of 10,000 units of measurement, its
upper octave would be regarded as having a length of 5,000
units. This system is most effective as an accurate, though
simple, ·system of abstract representation. It is, however,
not easily applicable to physical reproduction of pitches
upon an actual monochord.
 17

System of Cents .
A nineteenth-century addition to the other two
methods of acoustical representation is tha system of cents.
Introduced by Alexander Ellis, it has been widely adopted
as the standard means of interval representation. The cent
is defined as one one-hundredth of a semitone of the
equally-tempered scale; thus a semitone equals 100 cents,
and an octave equals 1,200 cents. Some modern writers
apply the system of cents to all acoustical representations,
thereby providing a unifonn ·basis for the comparison of
intervals. However, the end result of a monochord division
is often not as important or interesting from ~~e historical
poi~t of view as the means by which it is attained. The
manifold monochord divisions of the Middle Ages are all
different and all interesting, but all utilize the same
four proportions (dupla, sesquialtera, sesquitertia, sesqui-
octavo), and in the end achieve approximately the same
result. Therefore, in order that one may best understand
the Greek and medieval approach to the study of music
through the monochord, and perhaps ga:tn an insight into
the peculiarities of the medieval mind, all divisions in
this period, as well as other periods, will be exa~ined,

e.s far as is .feasible, in t..lie light of their own times,

while representation of intervals by cents will be limited
 18

to those treatises which utilized tb.1.s system at their

inception.

The !ilanual Technique of the 'Monochord

=== :::a:i ==== -=i=======

T:~e technique of the monochord as represented by

the manual division of the string is divided into three
categories: the first comprises diatonic divisions made
up of superparticular proportions that can be applied to·
the monochord by means of a canpass; the second cC!ll.prises
the varied methods of adding chromatic semitones to a dia-
tonic division and, as an extension of this technique, of
proportionally dividing an interval into more than two
equal parts; the third canprises divisions whose notes are
determined mathematically in tenns of string lengths and
applied to the monochord by means of a ruler. Of these
classifications, the first represents all of the monochord
divisions of the Greek, medieval and early Renaissance
periods. The second was used mainly in the Renaissance era
and the third is the main method of the post-Renaissance
period. Since the manner of dividing a monochord by means
of the system of string lengths and a ruler (the third
category) is self-explanatory, it will not be dealt with
further in this section. The techniques of the other two
categories will be presented, not as specific divisions
 19

of a particular tuning, but as general concapts necessary

to a full understanding of the instrument.

The Manual Di.vision of Diatonic

~erparticular Tunings
The manual divisions of the monochord in the Greek
and medieval eras are based upon an extension of the super-
particular relationships discussed in the preceding section
(i.e., dupla, sesquialtera, sesquitertia, sesquioctava). In
analyzing a given division one will notice that it is usually
based on a preponderance of either superparticular propor-
tions or sub-superparticular proportions. The initial note
of a division based on a plurality of superparticular pro-
portions is found as a part of the total length of the
string, and the remaining notes are determined, not in rela-
tion to the length of the entire string, but in relation to
the string length of the initial note. Divisions using
mainly sub-superparticular proportions usually have the
total length of the string as the initial note and the
succeeding notes are related to this length.
Thus the descending division will contain a majority
of divisions of the chosen length of the string into 3 and
8 parts, while the initial division of the ascending divi-
sion is contingent upon measurements of the whole string
into 4 and 9 parts. For example, if a.given portion of
 20

the string's length is divided into 8 parts, a tone may be

produced by adding one of these parts to the eight, making
nine, which gives a superpart1cular proportion of 9:8
(sesquioctava). Conversely, if the string lensth is divided
into 9 parts, one part must be subtracted in order to pro~

duce the tone, which will be in a sub-sesquioctava (8:9)

proportion. The note resulting from the ·sesquioctava divi-
sion ( 9: 8) will be a tone 1 ower ~'ii.an the fundamental tone ,
and the resultant note of the sub-sesquioctava division
(8:9) will be a step higher. In the same manner, a sesqui-
tertia proportion (4:3) will gener~te a note a fourth lower,
and the sub-sesquitertia proportion will produce a note a
fourth higher. This principle is, of course, also appli-
cable to the other superparticular proportions and to the
multiplex proportions.
The end result of these two types of division is
either a descending or an ascending division of the string.
When one utilizes the superparticular proportions, the divi-
sion proceeds in a descending manner, that is, from the
higher-sounding pitches to the lower, through the use of
longer and longer portions of the string. The use of a
sub-superparticular proportion produces an ascending divi-
sion, with shorter and shorter portions of the string. A
division may also utilize both types of proportions, in
 21

which case it may be said to be an alternating division.

However, since any division must consist of a majority
of ascending or descending divisions (depending on the
first division), it may be classed as an alternating-
descending or an alternating-ascending division.
As a means of clarification, the two following
div:l,sions for determining the notes of a tetrachord are
offered. The first proceeds in a descending manner,· the
second in an ascending manner. It will be noticed in the
course of the division that the descending division has
its semi tone between the lower· tv:~o pitches, and tha. t the
semitone of the ascending division appears between the
upper two pitches. This arrangement of the tetrachord is
a result of the method of determining the semitone, since
the simplest method of finding the Pythagorean semitone is
to subtract two whole tones from the diatessaron (four~~).

The descending division for determining the ~tra­

chord. (For this demonstration a point 25 cm. from the end

of a one-meter string has been selected.) The first note
will have a sounding length of 25 cm. By taking a sesqui-
oc tava proportion (9:8) to this pitch, one will find the
second pitch of the tetrachord, a whole tone lower. TW.s
second pitch will have as tts sounding length a string
28.125 cm. long.
 22

9
8 x 25 cm. = 28.125 cm.

The third pitch may be found in the same manner, that is,
by means cf a saRquioctava proportion to the second pitch.

Its string length will be 31.641 cm.

9
8 x 28.125 cm. = 31.641 cm.

The fourth pitch is found by means of a sesquitertia

proportion (4:3) to the first pitch and would have a sound-
ing length of 33.333 cm.

~ x 25 cm. = 33.333 cm.

The division of the tetrachord may be summarized thus:

.. Pitch 4 3 2 1

String
length 33.333 era. 31.641 cm. 28.125 cm. 25.00 err...
Proportion 25611 Jl.. ~
243 8 8
Interval semitone tone tone

11. The ratio of the Pythagorean semitone (256:243) is not

directly applicable to the manual division, since any
mechanical division of the string into 243 and 256
units would be grossly impractical. This ratio is
found as a sort of by-p~oduct by subtracting the sum
of the two whole tones \ -2..x Ji_ .al) from the fourth
( 4 • 81 - 243 ). 8 8 - 64
3" ~ 64 - 256 Procedures such as this illustrate
a cardinal principle of monochord division: canplex
ratios are·deteIII?lined by calculation with simnle
ratios. The corollarI to this principle· is tnat in
most theoretical writ ngs all ratiosL both simple and
canplex, are basically associated wivh mathematical
calculation rather than with measurement.
 23

The ascending division for determining the

tetrachord. For this division the entire sounding length
of the monochord 's string {1 meter) may be used for the
first pitch. The second pitch is found by means of a sub-
. sesquioctava. proportion (8:9) to the first pitch; thus
the second pitch has a length of 88.889 cm.

· ·100 c:::::., x. ~ = 88.889 cm.

The third pitch is sub-sesquioctava to the second and has

as its length, 79.023 cm.

88.889 cm. x ~ = 79.023 cm.

The fourth pitch is sub-sesqui tertia to the first pitch

and has a length of 75 cm.

100 cm. x i = 75 cm.

This division may be summarized thus:

Pitch l 2 3 4
Length 100.00 cm. 88.889 cm. 79.023 cm. 75.00 cm.
8 8
Proportion
9 9 -243
256
Interval tone tone semi tone

The completion of either this division or the de-

scending division in the manner of the Middle Ages would
result in a two-octave scale whose lowest note would be
the entire length of the string. The ascending division
 24

begins with this lowest note, but the descending division

begins with a note two octaves higher than the fundamental
pitch of the string. The proportion of the double octave
is quadrupla (4:1) and it is for this reason that a point
25 cm.· from the end of a one"'1D.eter string was chosen for
the example of the descending division. A manual division
of the monochord done in this manner, that is, by using only
sesquioctava and sesquitertia proportions, will provide a
Pythagorean tuning of the scale. In observing only the
completed division, one is not able to distinguish between
ascending and descending divisions, since their only differ-
ence is in the manner of determination.
These two ldnds of division, ascending and descend-
ing, exerted great influence upon the development of Western
music. In general it may be said that Greek writers up to
A.D. 500 utilized the descending division; medieval scholars
used both ascending and descending divisions; and later
writers (Renaissance and post-Renaissance) preferred the
ascending division. The specific reasons for these usages
will become apparent in the ·ensuing chapters.

The :Manual Di vision of the Chroma tic Scale

There are three methods of determining semitones
by means of the manual division of the monochord: an
 25

extension of the superparGicular ratios, an arithmetical

division of the tone, and a mean-proportional division of
the tone.
In superparticular tunings one has the option of
dividing to produce either of two canplete and different
(different even for notes which are 11 enha:rmonic equi-
valents") sets of chromatic notes. These are obtained
from sub-sesquialtera proportions as ascending perfect
fifths from B-natural, or from sesquialtera proportions as
descending perfect fifths from F. This phenomenon is due to
the idiosyncrasies of the superpart1cular tunings and will
be discussed in detail in Chapters III and IV. In this
study the ascending semitones are called sharp semitones
and the descending semitones are called flat semitones.
Arit:mietic semitones are determined by an equal
division of the difference between the string lengths of
two given notes. Even though the resulting semitones are
of unequal size, this method was frequently used in the
post~aedieval period.
Equal semitones are determined from mean-proportion-
al s tr~.ng lengths and are usually f'ound by means of the
Euclidean construction. This geometric construction of the
semitone is determined by describing a semicircle upon the
sum of the string lengths of two notes taken as a diameter,
 26

and then erecting a perpendicular at the juncture of the

two lengths; ~he length of this perpendicular is the string
length of the mean-proportional note. In the following
diagram (Diagram. 3) the string lengths of the two given
notes are AB and BC; the string length of the proportional
note is BD.

Diagram 3. The Euclidean construction.

AL..-----------------le~---------C
A-------------------8
e--------o
e-------c

The Euclidean construction is effective for find-

ing one mean proportional, but in order to determine more
than one proportional string length, one needs to resort
 27

to a more ccmplicated device such as the mesolabium. The

mesolabium, also of Greek invention, consists of a series
of square frames (Fig. 1, Diagram 4), contrived so as to
allow them to be overlapped and pushed together (Fig. 2).
James Gow, in his Short History ££. Greek Mathematics, ha.s
clearly explained the operation of this device:
If AB, GH be the two lines between which
it is required to find two mean proportionals,
then slide the second frame under the first and
the third under the second so that AG shall
pass through the points C, E, at which the dia-
meters of the second and third frames, respec-
tively, cease to be visible. Then cn EF are
the required two mean proportionals. 12
This device may be used to find any number cf mean propor-
tionals between two lines by merely increasing the nl.!l'lber
of frames.
While the mesolabium and other geometrical methods
of detennining mean proportionals arA not frequently en-
countered in connection with the monochord, 13 they are often
used in placinG the frets on stringed instruments. Murray

12. Jam.es Gow, A Short Historz of Greek Mathematics

(London: Cambridge Univers'fE'y Press, 1884), 245-246.
13. Besides the mesolabium, which was used by Zarlino
( p. 260, below), apparently only two other geo-
metrical methods of finding multiple mean propo:cion-
als were used on the monochord. These are described
on PP• 263 and 266, below.
 28

Diagram 4. The mesolabium.

B 0 H

Barbour, in his Tuning~ Temperament, briefly describes

many of the alternate systems of determining mean propor-
tionals .14

14. J.MU1'?9y Barbour, Tuning s.nd Temperament (Ea.st

Lansing: Michigan State--croilege Press, 1951),
Chapter IV.
 29

Methods .2f. Representing Monochord Divisions

Because the monochord of the Greek and medieval

periods was almost always employed as a didactic device,
its users attempted to make the division as effici.ent and
as accurate as possible. The efficiency of a monochord
division depends on the relation between the number of
separate measurements made and the number of notes produced.
For example, a division that will produce 15 pitches in 7
measurement.a is much more efficient than a division that
needs 17 measurements to produce 15 pitches.
The results of these efforts are particularly
noticeable after 1450, since after this time each new divi-
sion often produced a new variation of a given tun:l.ng. In

many cases it was indeed the desire of the musician to

change the tuning, but in not a few of these cases, the
musicis.n only desired a simpler method of division. It
would seem that the appearance of an altered tuning bothered
the Renaissance musician little, for in view of the inaccu-
racy of the monochord, a variation of a few cents (in some
cases as much as 22 cents) was a small sacrifice to pay
for a more efficient division. A case in point is Ramos
 30

de Pareia, 15 who stated that ·the Pythagorean tuning is

"useful and plensing for the theorists, but tiresome for
singers and irksome to the mind. But because we have
promised to satisfy both [singers and theorist~ , we shall
simplify the division of the mouochord. 11 Later he stated:
11
So therefore we have made o.11 our divisions very easy,
because the fractions are common and not difficult. 1116
Murray Barbour takes this to mean th.at "His reason for
makfa~g the new division was solely to simplify the cons truc-
tion Q..e., divisiori] of the monochord. 1117 In many cases
this desire is not overtly stated, as it was by IWmos, but
it inay be suspected that it served as the underlying cause
of many of the new tunings of the Renaissance and succeed-
ing periods.
Therefore, in addition to the efficiency of a divi-
sion (the relationship of the number of measurements to the
number of pitches produced), a second criterion of a good
division is how closely it approximates the musical or
acoustical result desired by its author. In other words,

15. Bartolcme Bs.mos de Pare ia, Musi ca Prac tic a ( 1482),

ed. Johannes Wolf (Leipzig: Breitkopf und H!rtel,
1901), 60.

16. Barbour, ~· cit., 91. The brackets are Barbour's.

17. Ibid.
 31

does a given division achieve accuracy as well as effi-

ciency, or is one sacrificed for the other? It is not,
however, the intention cf this writer to pass judgment upon
these points, but only to provide a logical basis upon which
the reader can make his own decision.
The best path to an understanding of the monochord
would be to have the reader actually divide the monochord
according to the verbal directions of the author, as was
done by the users of the original treatises. Since this is
impractical, a diagrammatic procedure will be used through-
out this study. 1he following is an explanation of this
procedure.
In the older writings, directions for dividing the
monochord are usually presented in a verbal manner, similar
to the following:
The ends of the string as determined by
the fixed bridges are marked AB. AB is the
Proslambanan.enos.18 One-half of AB is CB. CB
is the Mese. One-half of CB is DB. DB is the
Nete Hyperbolaion. DB is divided into 8 parts.
One of these parts added to DB gives EB. EB
is the Paranete Hyperbolaion.
From this one can see that a set of verbal directions, un-
less followed mechanically, can be confusing. Some

18. The Proslambanomenos, as the lowest note in the Greek

Greater Perfect System, means "added," but it is used
by these writers to mean the total length of the
string.
 32

c ann1enta. tor fl have reduced these directions to a series of

equations. For instance:
AB is the length of the string. tAB=CB.
CB=Mese. ~B=DB. DB=Nete Hyperbolaion.
1/8 DB+Db=EB. EB=Paranete Hyperbolaion.
This kind of direction is simple, as is a linear repre-
sentation of the monochord (Diagram 5), but neither kind
allows the reader to see quickly and easily the direction
and efficiency of the division.

Diagram 5. Linear representation of a

monochord division.

A. c E D B
1 I I I I

As an alternative to these plans, the following

diagram (Diagram 6) will be utilized from time to time to
explain prototypes. By using a series of perallel lines
to represent successive measurements, one can easily show
the relation of these measurements to the whole string.
The measurement of the superparticular division, that is,
those producing lower pitches, are numbered fran right to
 33

Diagram 6. Sample diagram of a monochord division.

A c. E D 8
----··-- ·-t
I I
St~ps p,.o,...,,.t ions
c
I
I

---- ----- J.
8't
c. D 6
2. -----··-- --4-- I
3 ... - - ~·~ "1 '1 s,,t-~ *i

left (see step 3 of Diagram 6); sub-superparticuls.r divi-

sions (producing higher pitches) are num.bered from left to
right (steps land 2 of Diagram 6). The linear representa-
tion of the complete division is presented on the top line
of the diagram. The particular measurement of each step
is listed under 11 proportionS' at the right end of each
line. By observing the completed diagram one can
quickly ascertain the most important facts concerning a
division. This representation has the added virtue of
 34

visually showing the ascending or descending nature of

th.e division. 19
When viewing the various aspects of a monochord
div:i.si on, one should keep in mind the main things pertinent
to a discussion of the monochord:
l. The efficiency and accuracy of the division.
2. The kind of scalar tuning or temperament
produced.
3. The uses of the comyleted monochord.
Conclusions based on these points will enable the reader
to observe the changes that occurred in the use of the
monochord and the effect that these changes had on the
music of Western civilization.

19. This diagram is designed mainly to represent divisions

consisting of superparticular proportions in which
the manner of division and not the end result is of
more interest. The manual process of divisions de-
termined by means of arithmetical divisions, mean
proportionals, and mathematically calculated string
lengths is not as important as the kind or tuning
or temperament produced; for this reuson this kind
of division is not suited to the diagram. Instead
of trying to represent it by this method, it will
be presented in the manner used by its author.
 35

Chapter II
THE MONOCHORD IN THE GREEK ERA

Greek Musical Writings from About 500 !;.,C. to ~ 500

The main period of Greek influence upon the develop-

ment of the monochord encompasses aPProximately 1,000 years.
The writers of musical treatiaes in this millennium may be
divided into two groups, of which the first belongs to the
period before the birth of Christ, and the second to the
first five hundred years of our era. The chief members of
the first group, men who were instrumental in developing
the basic outlines of Greek philosophy and mathematics, are
Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Aristoxenus and Euclid. The
secor.d group -- composed mainly of Plutarch, Theon of
Sr;.yrnaus, Aris tides Qu!ntilianus, Nicomachus of G~rasa,

Cleonides, Gaudentius, Ptolemy, Porphyry, Bakchieos the

Elder, and the author of a treatise of uncertain date, pub-
lished by Bellerman and known as the treatise of Bellerman's
Anonymous expanded and preserved the basic concepts set
forth by the first group.
Pyt:.'-- __ l")ra s 1 s teachings are available to the modern
reader only throueh the writings of his disciples. The
fragments of Ph.tlolaus (~. 450 B.C.) are the earliest
 36

surviving accounts of the Pythagorean doctrines. 1 The works

of Plato (427-347 B.C.) contain many passages that present
the ethical and philosophical side of music, and are inti-
mately involv~d with Pythagorean ntmlber-symbolism. The
practical uses of music are described by Aristotle (384-322
B.C.) in his Metaphysics. None of these writers, however,
offers such specific information on the intervall1.c theories
of the Pythagoreans as one finds in the Sectio canonis of
Euclid(~. 300 B.C.).
The symbolic-mathematical concepts of interval
structure presented by the Pythagoreans was opposed by
Aristoxenus (born ca. 354 B.C.), who, in his Hannonics, ad-
vocated an intervallic system based on musical practice.
These are the essential differences in the two philosophies:
the Pythagoreans d.irected their attention to the fonnation
of musical intervals by means of mathematical ratios, often
to the exclusion of aesthetic considerations; on the other
band, the Aristoxenians regarded the ear as the final
judge, not only of musical practice, but in theoretical
details as well. · In a discussion of Ptolemy's Harmonics,
2
J. F. Mountford points out that:

1. Vincent Hopper, Medieval Ntmlber S1ibolism (New York:

Columbia University Press, 1938), 4.
J. F. Mountford, "The Harmonics of Ptclemy," Trans-
actions of the American Philological Association,
LVII (1926);-73.
 37

The Pythagoreans were inclined to find

ra.tios where they did not exist, and to obtain
the results they expected in spite of imper-
fections in their method and equipnent, and in
defiance of the evidence of their senses. The
Aristoxenians went astray as soon as they
touched upon the discords, and their character-
istic dogma that an octave contains six tones
was quite properly the object of Pythagorean
derision.3
Musical writers of the early Christian era reflect
the opposing theories expounded by Aristoxenus and Euclid.
The Pythagorean musical philosophies are transmitted mainly
hy Theon of' Smyrna.us (£!_. 125: Expositio rerum mathe-
maticum), Aristides Quintilianus (first-second century:
De musica), Ptolemy (second century: Hannonics), and
Porphyry (third century: Connnentary on Ptolem:y's Ha.nnonics).
The Aristoxenian doctrines were propounded by Cleonides
(second century: Isagoge har.monica), and Bakchieos the
Elder (fourth century: Introductio artis musicae). A more
neut;ral position, that is, a partial presentation of both
philosophies, is 8iven by Gaudentius (second century:

3. Aristoxenus defines the tone as the difference between

a fourth and a fifth (cf. H. s. Macran, The Harmonics
of Aristoxenus [Oxford, 190~ , 180). The ratio of
tnis tone is 9:8. When this ratio is raised to the
sixth power (i.e., when six such tones are added
together) it gives a ratio that is a camna (531441:
524288) greater than the ratio of the octave (2:1):
(9)6 - 531441 ! 2 : 531441
a - 2s2144 • 1 524288
 38

Introductio harmonica), and to sane extent by Aristides

Quintilianus. Plutarch (.£!,• 50-100) and Bellerm.an's
Anonymous do not seem to subscribe to either philosophy.
The above listing comprises most of the known
sources dealing with the theoretical .. "E1spects of Greek music
up to the time of Boethius, and of these men only Euclid,
Theon, Aristides, Nicomachus, Gaudantius and Ptolemy give
specific in:f'onnation about the monochord. Many of these
works reach us, not as the direct product of musical
prac tj.ce, but as a historical ccmpile.tion of belief's
gleaned :f'ram an oral tradition that extended back to
Pythagoras, and rrom selections made :f'rom other tracts
that are no longer extant. This paucity of material
coupled with the procrustean treatment accorded it by some
commentators creates an entanglement of details not unlike
the Cretan maze. In his introduction to Greek acoustical
theory, Gustave Reese quotes a disillusioned Professor
of Greek who said: "Nobody has ever made head or tail of
Greek music, and nobody ever will. That way madness
lies. n 4

4. Gustave Reese, Music in the Middle Ages (New York:

w. w. Norton and Co.,-Y94'0T, 2o.
 39

The Greek Musical System

The whole of the Greek musical practice can be

conveniently discussed in reference to th~ Greater Perfect
System. By disregarding differences in intonation, the
intervallic structure of the system may be approximately
expressed in terms of the modern two-octave scale A-a'. 5
The Greater Perfect System was based on four tetrachords
which in practice were determined from the highest to the
lowest pitch. Each tetrachord was made up of a succession
of four descending notes which, in the basic diatonic
pattern, formed the intervals TT S (tone, tone, semitone).
The four tetrachords of the system were named, in descend-
ing order: Tetrachordon Hyperbolaion, Tetrachordon
Diezel.l.oO'lllenon, Tetrachordon Meson, and Tetrachordon Hypaton.
The Greater Perfect System was canpleted by the addition
of an extra note at the bottan of the scale, called the
Proslambananenos.
The syste:~. evolved so that the middle two tetra-
chords (Diezeugmenon and Meson) were placed in a disjunct

5. In connection with th.e monochord the intervallic

structure of the Greater Perfect System is called a
minor disdiapa.son by this writer (meaning that the
succession of notes resemble a modern natural minor
scale). A two-octave scale containing major ,.nstead
of minor thirds is called a major disdiapason by the
writer.
 40

position, that is, separated by a tone. For practical con-

siderations, such as the normal voice range and the range
of the instruments, these two tetrachords served as the
focal point of the system. The two outer tetrachords of
the system were conjunctly joined to the two central tetra-
chords, that is, through common notes. Table 1 shows the
relative positions of the tetrachords of the Greater
Perfect System. The names of the individual pitches were
determined in pa.rt by the name of the tetrachord and in
part by the position within the tetrachord.

Table l. The Greater Perfect System

aa Nate Hyperbola ion
g Paranete Hyperbolaion
Tetrachordon Hyperbolaion
f Trite Hyperbolaion
e Nate Diezeugmenon
d Paranete Dlezeugmenon
Tetrachordon Diezeugmenon c Trite Diezeugmenon
~ Paramese
a Mesa
G Lichanos Meson
Tetrachordon Meson
F Parhypate Meson
E Hypate Meson
Tetrachordon Hypaton D Licha.nos Hype.ton
c Parhypate ~ypaton
B Hypate Hypaton
A Proslambanomenos
 41

For purposes of modulation there also existed a

Lesser Perfect system that was constructed from the lower
two tetrachords (Hypaton and Meson), plus a third tetra-
chord connected conjunctly to the Mesa. This tetrachord
was called Synemmenon and provided the notes a, b, c, and
d 6 in the customary S T T arrangement. The Tetrechordon
Synemmenon is shown in Table 2.

6. In this study all scalar representations will be

given with the lowest pitch at the left and will be
read in ascending pitch order from left to right. or,
as in Table 1, they will have the lowest pitch at the
bottan and will be read in ascending order from bottan.
to top. Tri.is standardization of procedure does not
imply ascending determination of the scale, i.e., from
lowest to highest pitch, since in all cases the direc-
tion of determination will be made apparent.
Wherever pitches are designated by letter in this
study (as in Table 1), the system ascribed to Odo,
which became standard after the tenth century, will be
used, not only since it would seem appropriate to the
greater part of the study, but because it may avoid
confusion on the part of the reader who turns frc:m
this work to the original sources.
Odo's system uses a double set of seven letters (A-G
and a-g, plus aa) to represent the two main octaves
of the Greater Perfect System or in the modern sense
A-a'. Notes occurring in the third octave will be
represented by a continuation of the double letters,
i.e., aa bb,l:fq, cc, etc. This system also uses b
(b-molle) to represent B-flat and q (b-quadratum.) to
represent B-natural (See Willi Apel, The Notation of
Polyphonic Music, 4th ed. @ambriqge,Jlass.: The -
Mediaeval Academy of America, 195~, 21, for further
discussion of the evolution of ~~e B-flat and B-
natural). The reader will note the use of the b (for
B-flat) in Table 2 and also in the discussion of the
Tetrachordon Synemmenon above. Many sets of direc-
tions for the di vj.sion of the .monochord utilize a
different set of letters for the pitches A-G and a-g.
In these cases the relationships of the pitch names
will be dealt with on an individual basis.
 42

Table 2. Tetrachordon Synemmenon

d Net~ Synemmenon
c Paranete Synemmenon
Tetrachordon Synemmenon
b7 Trite Synennnenon
a Mese

It was possible to alter the pitch of ~~e two inner

notes of. each tetrachord, thus providing a means cf varla-
tion from the fundamental S T T arrangement (see fn. ~ ,
p. 41) of each tetrachord. These two variable notes were
called Kinoumenoi ("movable") • The two outer notes, how-
ever, were considered to be invariable in their relation
to one another and were designated Hes totes ("fixed").
The variability cf relationship of the inner notes of a
tetrachord provided thrde main types of tetrachords, col-
lectively called genera. These three geners. of the tetra-
chord were named diatonic, chromatic and enharmonic.
Many sources designate a genus by placing gre8test
emphasis on the size of the lower intervals. Thus the
diatonic genus is said to contain a semitone at the bottan,
with the remaining space filled by two tones: the chro-
matic, two semitones, plus a remainin: interval of three
semitones; the enharmonic, two quarter tones plus a ditone.
A canparison of the many variants of each genus shows,
7. See explanation on p. 41 , fn. 6 •
 43

however, that, within limits, the upper interval in the

enharmonic and chromatic genera and the upper two intervals
in the diatonic se~ to be the real determinants of genus.
In a tabulation of all of the variants l:tsted by Ptolemy,
J. F. Mountford shows that in most of the determina t5.ons
of the enharmonic genus the main fe.a ture was the major
third with a ratio of 5:4; in the chranatic genus, the minor
third with the ratio of 6:5 was the most common; and in the
diatonic, the two whole tones ranged in size from 10:9 to
8:7. Therefore he concludes that "firstly, the distinction
of genus depends essentially on the size of the largest
interval and secondly, as far as the smaller intervals are
concerned, one genus merged imperceptibly into another. 118
Of the three genera, the oldest was probably the
enharmonic, anL historical sources indicate that it was
also the first to fall into disuse. The reasons given for
its gradual extinction are named by Macran as the diffi-
culty of determination of the quarter tones, and the fine-
ness of ear and voice required to perform it. 9 Aristoxenus

8. J. F. Mountford, "The Musical Scales of Plato's

Republic, 11 The Classical g,uarterly, XVII ( 1923),
l25-l36. see-p. l3:3 of Mountford's article for a
more detailed explanation and comparison of the
intervals.
9. H. s. Macran, The Harmonics of Aristoxenus (Oxford,
1902), 247.
 44

points out that by 300 B.C. it was little used, having

been superseded in practice, first by the chromatic and
then by the diatonic genus. The theor~.sts, however, con-
tinued to give explanations and ratios for the enharmonic
genus. For example, Ptolemy gives a total of twenty
variants of the three genera, selected by Archytas,
Eratosthe:ti'es, Didymus, Aristoxenus, and himself. The
variants of these scales represent Ptolemy's interpreta-
tion of what each of the above authorities thought was a
typical tetrachord of each genus, and as Mountford notes,
there were actually an indeterminate number of combina-
tions.10
The disappearance of the enharmonic genus fran
musical practice is reflected in the arr.all number of sur-
viving interval determinations for this genus. Except
for the five variants given by Ptolemy, no sets of d1rec-
t1 ons for determining this genus ·by means of the monochord
are known to have existed among the Greeks. However, the
lack of historical precedent diu not prevent medieval
theorists from providing lavish discussions of this genus
in the sections of their treatises dealing with the mono-
chord.

10. Mountford, "Musical Scales," 133.

 45

The theories of the Pythagoreans and the Aristo-

xenians diverged not only in their determination of the
number of notes in the octave, but also in the means of
visually or aurally representing these notes. The
Pythagoreans, relying heavily upon the mathematical deter-
mination of intervals, utilized the monochord to represent
these intervals, whereas the Aristoxenians, depending upon
the ear, represented intervals by means of fractions. The
Aristcxenian method was based upon the division of a large
interval into segments. By equating the smaller intervals
to a certain number of these segments these theorists ar-
rived at a fractional equivalent for each of the intervals
contained within the larger interval. In the diatonic
genus a tetrachord divided into thirty parts had its tones
equated to twelve parts and its semitone equated to six
parts. The tetrachord may be represented by a line
(Diagram 7) and the segments by parts of a line. 11 This
kind of representation is at best only an approximation,
and is not directly applicable to a length of string,

11. Macran, ..2.£· cit., 249.

 46

Diagram 7. The Aristoxenian division of the tetrachord.

I 2 J 1 ~ 6 'I 8 't I~ I/ ll IJ I+ 1' 16 " IS 1q 21 ~I U J] 2.'I ~S 'Z'

Hy po..te Po.,. hypo.le Lic.f\Cl.nos

since the of equal units of length does not bring

a~dition
12
about similar increments of pitch. ·
Pythagoras had discovered that one-half (sub-dupla)
of a vibrating string produced the octave; two-thirds (sub-
sesquialtera) produced a fifth; three-fourth..~ (sub-sesqu.1-
tertia), a fourth; and conversely, one-third (tripla) pro-
duced a twelfth, and one-fourth (quadrupla), the double
octave (also called the quadruplum). 'Jhese ratios provided
the calculations for the Hestotes of the Greater Perfect

12. This system, like the system of cents, requires

logarithmic calculation before it can be applied
to a string. Equally tempered tones are given equal
values of 200 cents each, but two consecutive equal
divisions of the string will not produce two con-
secutive equal tones. For example, on a one-meter
string the difference of lengths (as related to the
whole string) required for two consecutive whole
tones are not equal portions of the string, but are
approximately 11 cm. for the first and 9.7
for the second. 'lhus, consecutive equal whole·
tones require consecutive equal proportions •

._..
 47

System, i.e., Nete Hyperbolaion, Nete Diezeugmenon, Para-

mese, Mese, Hypate Meson, and Hypate Hypaton. The other
necessary intervals of the scale were found by means of
superpositions of the fifth.
The tone was found by adding two fifths, whose sum
differed from the octave by a ratio of 9:8:
3 2 • 2
(2) -:- I : 9:8

The Pythagorean major sixth was the difference between

the sun of three fifths and the octave:
(3)3.:..
2 •
2
I -- 27:16
The Pythagorean major third was the difference between the
sum O.L four fifths and the sum of two octaves:

The Pythagorean major seventh was the difference between

the sun of five fifths and the sum of three octaves:
3 5 •
(-)
2 -• 2)3 : 243:128
(I

Other Pythagorean intervals of scme importance

·are the apotcm.e and the Pythagorean comma. The apotome
is the difference between the Pythagorean semitone (limma,
leimma) and the tone:
9 • 256 - 2187:2048
8 • 243 -
 48

This interval is also the difference between the Pythagorean

minor third (32:27) and two tones, as well as the difference
between the sum of seven fifths and four octaves.
The Pythagorean camna is the difference between the
linnna (semitone) and the apotome:
256 2187
243 -: 2m = 531441:524288
This comma is also the difference between:
three Pythagorean major thirds (81:64) and one octave;
four Pythagorean minor thirds (32:27)and one octave;
twelve fifths and seven octaves;
twelve fourths and five octaves;
13
six tones and one octave.
From the existing sources it is difficult to ascer-
tain the extent of practical usage of the variants of the
genera, but it is apparent that most of them were not in-
cluded in the writings of the theorists in any form except
that of a mathematical ratio. These sources show that,
with the exception of the division of t.~e chromatic genus
by Theon, the Pythagorean diatonic scale with intervals of

13. See the discussion of this latter difference as a

point of contention between the Pythagoreans and
Aristoxenians, p. 37. A more detailed explanation
of the various methods of calculating these inter-
vals may be found in Wilhelm Dupont, Geschichte
der musikalischen Temperatur (Kassel: BMrenreiter,
ffi5J, 2f'f'.
 49

9:8 (tone) and 256:243 (semitone) is the only scalar divi-

sion that was employed by the Greeks in conjunction with
the monochord.

--
Greek Di visions of the Monochord

The two methods of dividing the monochord found in

Greek writings are the manual division and the system of
14
string lengths.- Of these two, the manual division is
the older since· it is supposed to have originated with
Pythagoras, while the other system is a product of the
first or second century of our era. Even after the intro-
duction of the string-lengths system the manual division
was still the only musically significant method of dividing
the monochord, since the measurement of the monochord by
the system of string lengths was considered to be of little
practical value. The Greek development of the manual divi-
sion produced the basic tecbniq~e for all future divisions
of the instrument.
The manual divisiJn of the monochord stems from
Pythagoras's discovery of the proportional relationships
of the consonances. The method of demonstrating the

14. See this writer's definitions of these methods on

p. 16, above.
 50

consonances attributed to Pythagoras by Gaudentius is but

an extension of the principles of the harmonic and arith-
metic means. The relations of these means is made clear
in Gaudentius's description o~ Pythagoras's technique in
which a string is divided into twelve parts so th.at the
diapason is six parts, the diatessaron nine pa~ts, and the
dia.pente eight:
He stretched a string over a canon15 and
divided it into twelve parts. ~e sounded the
entire length and then the half, i.e., six parts,
and found the whole to be consonant to the half
at the 9c tave [ sub-dupla]. Af'ter th1 s he again
sounded the whole and three-fourths and recog-
nized the diatessaron [sub-sesquitertia]. As
he sounded the whole and eight parts [two-thirdiil
he found the diapente [sub-sesquialteraJ. The
remaining proportions he ascertained in a simi-
lar manner.16

15. The word "canon," defined in Liddell and Scott's

Greek-English Lexicon (New York: Harper and
Brothers, 1846), 703, as meaning "made by rule," or
more specifically "in theoretical music, a rule by
which the notes of the scale are measured," is
found in all of the Greek sources dealing with the
monochord. In many of these sources it is used
synonymously with the word monochord. In its
strictest sense, however, it seems reserved for in
structions on dividing the string, or for the dia-
gram that is to be placed under the string to facil-
1 tate the exact placement of the bridge, just as
the word monochord, in its strictest sense, is
reserved for reference to the instrument.
16. Gaudentius, Introductio harmonica, Bk. I, 14, Latin
trans. in Meibom, Aritiquae musicae, 2 vols.
{Amstelodam1: Elzev1rium, l652), I.
 51

Nicomachus of Gerasa describes the smne kind of

demonstration. Although he does not utilize the exact
numbers of 6-8-9-12, his account of Pythagoras's discovery
of ttle proportional values of the consonances by means of
the hammers (quoted earlier, pp. 8.9 } assures us that he
was aware of their sigrificance. The on of Smyrna us also
similarly discussed t.'li.e proportions of the consonances, as
found in the canon, in the twelfth chapter of his Expositio
17
rerum mathematicl.ml.
A variation of this method of demonstrating the
consonances is desc~ibed by Ptolemy. In the eighth chapter
of the First Book of the Harmonics, he writes:
A string stretched over the canon will show
the proportion of all consonances in the best
and most accurate manner. This is not accan.-
plished by means of any given tension [pitch],·
but by means of the succeeding explanation, ac-
cording to which no inaccuracies can creep in.18
After describing the physical properties of the instrument,
he gives the method of finding the consonances by means
of the mo·vable bridge. He establishes the length of t...°11.e
string as ~G, divides it in half at K, and divides KG in

17. Sigfrid Wantzloeben, Das Monochord als Instrument und

als System (Halle: EE:rliardt Karras-;-!911), 13. --
18. Ingemar Dflring, Ptolemaios und PorphArios 'liber die
Musik (d8teborg: Elanders,J:934), 3 • - -
 52

half to provide LG (Diagram 8). After a.gain emphasizing

the equality of the string's two halves by means of the
unison (EK=l: KG•l), he completes the demonstration by
moving the bridge in successive stages to the right from
K to L. Thus when EK stands in the proportion of 4:3 to
KG, it produces the fourth; when EK is in the proportion
of 3:2 to KG it sounds the fifth; when EK is twice as long
as KG it sounds the octave; when EK equals eight parts and
KG three, the sound produced is the eleventh; when EK is
three times as long as KG, the string will sound the
twelfth; and when EK stands in the proportion of 4:1 to
KG, the sound produced will be the fifteenth, or the
double octave. 19

Diagram 8. A linear representation of Ptolemy's

monochord.

19. Ibid., 36-37.

 53

Although Ptolemy's system is accurate, it cannot

be said to be any more so than the metliod attributed to
Pythagoras b~ Gaudentius. Ptolemy's system is also diffi-
cult to construct, since it requires measurements of the
20
string into 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 11 parts, whereas
Gaudentius's Pythagorean division needs only one twelve-
part measurement to show all the consonances. Tne inclu-
sion of the tone (9:8) in this system would necessitate
a seventeen-part division, which is perhaps why Ptolemy
21
avoided it. He did, however, devise a less complicated
manner of arriving at the tone. Tnrough the use of a
geometrical structure which he called the helicon
(Diagram 9), he was aole to illustrate the consonances
by means of intersecting straight lines and to show the
relative string lengths for each pitch. This device
is also important to a discussion of the monochord

20. This kind of division of the string was also used

by many later writers.
21. Several medieval theorists beginning with Boethius
(ca. 480-529) included the seventeen-pa.rt division
ozr-the tone (9:8). Athanasius Kircher extended
the technique to include all sorts of intervals
for which he used a string divided into 256 parts.
(Note: Although Kircher was a seventeenth-century
theorist, his ideas on the monochord belong essen-
tially to the Renaissance, and will be discussed
in that context. Seep. 255 ff.)
 54

Diagram 9. Ptolemy's first helicon.

[~

M 0

because of the practical application that he made of its

principles (Diagram 10). 22 The side of the square AC
represents the fundamental. The lines BF and FD represent
the unison. AC-BF represents the octave (2:1). EK
divides the square in half, and at the point where it is

22. Ibid., 60-63. Appendix I contains several ·other

helicon-like figures from later eras. These later
diagrams, unlike Ptolemy's, are complicated geo-
metrical figures and do not have any instrumental
application. They are, however, useful devices
for the visual demonstration of the proportional
lengths of lines.
 55

intersected by AF shows the twelfth (HK:9, EH:3}. The

line IM is placed parallel to EK at the point (G} where
BC intersects A:?· GM:LG is an octave. The lines IG and
EH are in the proportion of 4:3 and illustrate the dia-
tessaron, and AC:GM (12:8) shows the diapente. HK and MG
are in the proportion of 9:8 and illustrate the tone.
Ptolemy also includes a variation of the helicon,
which is described as follows (Diagram 10). AB!C is a
rectangle. The line DE equals- CD and is constructed as a
parallel extension of CD. The line CG equals one-fourth
of CE. The line CH equals one-third of CE. The lines
GL and HJ.IT are parallel to AC. The diagonal AFE intersects
the lines AC, GL, HN, and BD in the following proportions:
GK=3/4 of AC and 3/2 of DF; HM.=2/3 of AC and 4/3 of' DF;
GK•9/8 of HM. Concerning the line OPE, he points out that
a straigh~ line originating at E and intersecting AC at
any point, will produce the same proportions between the
lines CO, GQ, HR, and DP as are described in relation to
the diagonal AFE.
Ptolemy discusses both of these figures as if they
were instruments. He regards the lines AB and CD in both
diagrams as the fixed bridges. The lines vertical to these
bridges are the string, and the diagonals (AF in Diagram 9
and AFE in Diagram 10} represent the movable bridges. To
 56

Diagram 10. Ptolemy's second helicon.

A L N

each of these "instruments" he attributes distinct advan-

tages. Of the first he notes that one does not need to
measure the placement of' the string IM (Diagram 9) since
its position is shown by the intersection of the diagonals.
The advantage of the second is that the bridge A..'H'E, if'
fastened at E, can be moved to any point between A and C
and will provide .the correct proportions between the
strings.
 57

Euclid appears to be the earliest of the Greek

writers to provide a full manual division of the Greater
Perfect System. The Sectio canonis is a series of propo-
sitions of which the nineteenth and twentieth give direc-
tions for the di vision. Proposition XIX contains the
method Zor determining the Hestotes, and Proposition XX
shows the determination of the diatonic Kinoumenoi. The
following ~aragraphs contain Euclid's directions:
XIX. The length of the string is to be AB,
and it is to be divided into four equal parts at
G, D, and E. Thus BA, since it will be the low-
est sound, is called the bombus [= a hollow deep
sound]. AB is the supertertius of GB; therefore
GB will be a diatessaron higher than AB, and since
AB is the Proslambananenos, GB will be the Lichanos
Hypaton. AB is the duple cf DB and thus will
sound an octave below the latter which is called
the Mese. Again, since AB is the quadruple of EB,
EB is the Neta Hyperbolaion. GB is divided in
half at Z, which sounds an octave higher than GB;
thus Z is the Neta Synennnenon [or the Paranete
Dlezeugmenon]. Take away one-third[ DH] of DB,
and DB will be sesquialtera to HB, and will sound
to HB the interval of a diapente; thus HB will ·be
the Neta Diezeugpienon. Make H& equal to HB and
0B will sound an octave lower than HB; thus eB
will be the Hypate Meson. One-third part of 9B
will be 9K. 9B will sound a diapente below KB
which is called the Paramese. Finally, make IK
equal to KB which will sound an octave higher than
LB. Thus LB will be the Hypate Hype.ton, and all
of the 1.nµnovable sounds will be placed in the
canon.
xx:. To find the Paranete Hyperbolaion 1
divide EB into eight parts and place MB in a
sesqui~ctave proportion to EB. Then divide MB
into eight parts and place NB in a sesquioctave
proportion to MB. NB will be the Trite
 58

Hyperbolaion, and will be a tone lower than MB

which is a tone lower than EB. Then divide NB
into three parts and-make NX equal to one of
these three parts so that XB will be sesqui-
tertia to NB. XB will thus sound a fourth
lower and is to be called tiie Trite Diezeug-
menon. One-half of XB added to itself will be
OB and will sound a fifth lower. OB is the
Parhypate Meson. ~hen make OP equal to OX,
so that PB will be Parhypate Hypaton. Finally,
the fourth part of GB will be GR and RB will
sound a fourth higher and will be called
Lichanos Meson.23
The results of this division may be stlIIll!1arized by
means of the following diagram (Diagram 11). The division
is accomplished by ueasurements of 2, 3, 4, and 8 parts,
which produces a minor disdiapason (defined on p.39,above)
of Pythagorean intervals. It is divided in an alternating-
descending manner and produces fifteen notes in twelve
steps. Althoueh Euclid uses Greek names for the pitches,
he refers to the string lengths by means of letters.
Af'ter Euclid there begins a process of re-ordering these
letters into alphabetical sequence and a gradual discontinu-
ance of the Greex nSines. In the Middle Ages this process
evolved intc the uses of the IB.tin letters A-P to represent
the ascending minor disdiapason and eventually culminated,

23. Euclid, Sectio canonis, 23ff, in Meibom, .2.E.• cit., I.

 59

Diagram II. Euclid, Sectjo Canonis (~. .300 8.C. ).

Direct ion :Alternating·Descendtr19. Mea.surernents. Z,3, 4.8. Note'5: 15.

Completed Monoehord: Pytha~an Tunin<J.

A L G 8 DK Z~ E'
Ir--~1-+-I-+-I ··---+l-+-1_..,l-1-1-.+-I1-1-41~11-1+-I4-I· - - - - - ,
1 P 0 R X NM I
.Ste~ G D c P..-oport iotis
' A_ _ _ _ _ __.,__---"z""-------t----~----t
I ..... ., e'4
T
z
2--------l z 8 I

H
3 - - ·--··---··--·-·- - . - ___,_ _ _ _ _ _o_ I z. B!
3

4 ---t--- 8&,
---------~-
'"' I
K e
51-----------------'-----11-----2__ • Bz
3
L.
6 z B ?.
I
7 _ _ _ _ _ .. __ _ ~ 9
e
81-------- ~9
8
9----·--------- --------·----. ---------~----~-- .... i ..-'--4---=-z-.+---'---B--iS

IO
0 3
x z B ~
----- z
p
z 0 x

IZ.....__
G R
z ,
 60

in the eleventh century, in the seven-letter series A-G

24
used for modern pitch names.
Aristides Quintilianus realized the same result
from his division as did Euclid, but introduced a varia-
tion in the manner of determination. Whereas Euclid used
the alternating method throughout his division, Aristides,
once he had detennined the Hestotes in the same manner as
Euclid, proceeded in a strictly descending manner by
sesquioctava proportions to find the Kinoum.eno1 (Diagram
12). This, in a sense, makes the division clearer to
follow since the notes were determined consecutively, but
at the same time makes it less efficient in that the
sesquioctava proportions are more difficult to divide than
the sesquitertia and sesquialtera proportions.
Theon of Smyrnaus, a contemporary of Aristides,
intro~uced a simplification of the method for determining
25
the Hestotes. By dividing the length of the canon into
twelve parts he was able to place six notes in the manner
shown in Diagram 13. Except for the Param.ese, which was
~

found as a sub-sesquioctava proportion to the Mese, the

24. The medieval evolution of the use of letters in con-

nection with the division of the monochord and as
notational s-ymbols is discussed on pp.91-3,below.
25. Wantzloeben, .2.12• ~., 21-23.
 61

Diagram 12. Ari.,tldes Quintilianus <fl. A.D. 150 >a De,miUsicg.

Direction :Alternating-Descendi113-Measurements: Z" 3" 4, B. Notes: 15.

Completed Monochord: PCJthagorean Tl.lnin9.

A L G e 0 R p· K X Z HN M E'
-1 ~--1--1~-+-1-~~1-1--1-~l--+l-l--+l----ll-+-l-I-~~~--.,
I p I
Steps Pr-oportions
1'A G z D , E Bl~

G Z
l ----------------·------1--------------1 lz
D H
---·-- .. '
·-··-------~--··--t------------3 z
e 1-4
4 -- - - - - - - - - t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 . l
I
s
----------1z 3

L
---t·-~--=--~-·--+---~~--=---~~~~1
t
1 ______ M, te 7 ' S 4 3 2 I 9
i
B N9MS' 7 I 9
i
9.,..__ __ x ,z 8 7
' s .. 3 2 I e
s
IO't----
R,
I
D 8
I
7
' ~ .. ~ z
s•
0 s R z
"i------------+l-'-;l-8 -+l--t---+~-+---=--4-~+-,;_·~___.
7 6
I I
3
I " i
s ... 3 2
-e
9
 62

rest of the notes were determined by means of sesquioctava

proportions in the manner used by Aristides. Again, the
same results are reached as those obtained by Euclid, but
they differ in that Theon 1 s division produces the fifteen
notes in only nine steps. This twelve-part sectioning of
the entire canon is often cited in reference to the placing
of the consonances (fourth, fifth, and octave), but it ap-
pears to be also the earliest representation of the other
notes by means of a twelve-part division.
Theon is also said to have been the first to intro-
duce the manual division for both the Trite Synemmenon and
the chranatic genus. He established the Trite Synemmenon
26
in a sesquioctava proportion to the Trite Diezeugmenon.
The develupment which provided the basis for division of
the chromatic genus was ~~e use of the sub-sesquioctava.
proportion. He first determined the Paramese as eight-
ninths of the Mese and then found the chrOJr£tic Paranete
Diezeugmenon as eight-ninths of the Parames6. The deter-
mination of the latter note was impossible by any other
method then in use. 27 Theon, in adopting the sub-sesqui-

26. Ibid., 23-24.

27. Can.pare this Greek method with the technique intro-
duced by Boethius in the fifth century. See p. 99,
below.
 63

octava proportion as a means of determining the tone,

was the only one of the Greek writers to utilize this
proportion (8:9) on the monnchord.
The second method of acoustical representation,
the system of string lengths, was used by some writers in
conjunction with the manual division of the monochord or
as a substitute method of representing the disdiapa.son.
The system of string lengths, although original with the
writers of this period, did not prove to be a popular means
of representing intervals. Aristides comments to this
effect when discussing his own system of string lengths:
"The arithmetical explanation of the system is too de-
tailed on account of the size of the numbers, and for this
reason one does better to use the manual division. 1128 The
system of string lengths is discussed by only three writers
of the Greek era: Theon, Aristides, and Ptolemy.
Wantzloeben attributes the earliest representation
29
of this kind to Thaon. This series of string lengths
is said to have utilized a oasic string length of 41,472
units of measurement. Theon is not recorded as having

28. Aristides Quintilianus, De Musica, Bk. III, Chap. I,

La tin trans. in Meiban, op. cit., II.

29. Wantzloeben, .2.E.• cit., 31.

 64

Diagram 13. The monochord division of Tb.eon of Smyrnaus.

2 3 'I S b 7 8 CJ IO 11 12.

Mese
Hypcite Maton Nete HyperboloJon
Lic.hClnos H~paton Nete Oiextu9menon
P...01tlClm ba.nomenos

completely divided any one of the genera by means of this

series. Aristides devised a series based on a string
length of 9,216 units. Meibom states that the complete
system was not present 1n all of the manuscripts that he
had access to, so he supplied it in a completed form in
30
his edition of the De musica. Meiban's canpleted system
is probably the correct rendition of the series, since
the same numbers appear in many later manuscripts, of which
some date back as far as Boethius. In any case the appli-
cation of the proportions of the Pythagorean scale to the
number 9216 results in the following division of the dia-
tonic genus (Table 3), which is the same set of numbers
--1
given by Meiban~ and the many writers of the Middle Ages
who discuss the system.
Although Ptolemy discusses Aristides's series of
string lengths, he does not use it as his main system of
.. scalar representation, nor does he use the manual division
30. Meiban, .21!.• c1 t., 312.
31. ~-, 317.
 '65

Table 3. Aristides's system of string lengths~ 2

2304 Nate Hyperbclaion

2592 Paranete Hyperbolaion
2916 Trite Hyperbolaion
3012 Nete Diezeugmenon
3456 Nete Synemmenon and
Paranete Dlezeugmenon
3888 Paranete Synenmenon
and Trite Dlezeugmenon
4096 I'aramese
4374 Trite Synemmenon
4608 Mese
5184 Lichanos Meson
5832 Parhypa.te Meson
6144 Hypa.te Meson
6912 Lichanos Hypaton
7776 Parhypate Hypaton
8192 Hypate Hypaton
9216 Proslambanomenos

32. This set of string lengths is frequently used in

later sources in theoretical discussions that do
not include the monochord. In a sense it serves
the same purpose in the Middle Ages that cents do
today -- except that ceEte numbers are proportional
and can be used on a string without further calcu-
lation. Because of these well-known uses the
numbers are briefly referred to by this writer as
11 Ar1stidean numbers."
 66

33
of the monocho~d. Instead he uses a basic string length
of 120 units, which can be transferred to the instrument
without much difficulty. Ptolemy was. probably influenced
in his choice of means by the number of divergent systems
that he had undertaken to present. Not only did he have
to represent the simple ratios of the Pythagoreans, but
there were also the abstractions of the Aristoxenians and
a host of other scalar divisions that, were not determinable
by means of the usual manual monochord technique. The
final result, in the opinion of many modern writers, was
a scientific and orderly treatise that preserved for

33. Aristides's string lengths are discussed in Ptolemy's

Ha:mionics, Bk. I, Chapter 10. Ptolemy does not pre-
sent a manual monochord division of tte minor dis-
diapason in any of his writings because he felt that
the monochord was too inaccurate. For his own pur-
poses he used a fifteen-string monochord that, ac-
cording to him, eliminated the errors encountered in
dividing the smaller intervals of the upper octave.
He used seven strings of this device for the lower
octave and eight for the upper; the seven strings
were tuned to a unison and the eight were tuned, in
unison, an octave higher. In representing a scalar
tuning on this instrument he divided each note of the
lower octave on a separate string. These same meas-
urements were then applied to the eight strings re-
served for the upper octav·e, and since these strings
were already tuned an octave higher they sounded the
notes of the second octave. 'lb.is procedure, he felt,
was a more accurate and a more scientific method than
any kind of division one could make on a single
string. (See DB.ring, .2.E.• cit., 103.)
 67

posterity many of the aspects of Greek music that would

otherwise have been lost.
In the monochord divisions of these Greek writers
there seems to be a clear indication of a desire to make
their acoustical investigations as accessible as possible
for the practical musician. This is evidenced by the
trend toward simplification of the manual monochord divi-
sions and the attempt to present audible representations
of the various scale patterns. This trend is emphasized
by their dislike of the rather abstract mathe~atical

system of string lengths, so even when this type of repre-

sentation was the only practical solution to a clear
understanding of the scale patterns, as in the case of
Ptolemy, it was presented in a fonn that was applicable
to the monochord.
 68

Chapter III
THE MONOCHOm> IN THE MIDDLE AGES

Musical Treatises .!.a~ Middle A§es

The several hundred years that fonn the transition

between the Greco-Roman period and the Middle Ages are
characterized by a noticeable lack of original thought
among scholars. For the most part, the writers of this era
were attempting to summarize and present in accessible fonn
those aspects of classical philosophy and liberal arts
which seemed most attractive. The summaries presented by
these writers are generally poor representations of clas-
sical thought for two reasons. First, there was a certain
disinclination of both writers and readers to delve into
the more abstruse concepts of Greek philosophy and science;
and second, these authors followed a long line of can.pilers
and canmentators who had long since lost contact with the
original works. Stahl states that these "late encyclo-
pedia ts were removed fran classical Is.tin authors by five
or six, and fran Greek authors such as Plato and Aristotle
by ten intermediate sources, and in many cases the
 69

separation was even greater. Yet they give the impression

that they are handling the original works. ul
Pringle-Pa ttiaon, in the article on 11 Scholasticism 11

in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, points out that until the

thirteenth century the scholars of the Middle Ages were
ignorant of Greek and that they possessed no philosophical
works in their Greek originals, 2 Their sole source of
Greek culture was the Is.tin translations and commentaries
of the late Is.tin encyclopedists. The following sources
encanpass the total material that the scholars of the early
Middle Ages had at their disposal. Of fundamental impor-
tance were Boethius's versions of tb9 Categories and the
De interpretatione of Aristotle, his summaries of mathe-
matics and music, and his translation of the Isagoge of
Porphyry. The Timaeus of Plato was available in the version
of Chalcidius, as was sane general information on the
Platonic doctrines in the commentary with which Chalcidius
accanpanied his translation of Apuleius's De !1ogmate
Platonis. This latter work was chiefly Nee-Platonic, like

l. William H. Stahl, introduction to his trans. of

Ambrosius Macrob1us 1s Commentar; on the Dream of
Scipio (New York: Columbia trri~ersilY"""Press, Tg'52), 9.
2. Andrew Seth Pringle-Pattison, 11 Scholastici sm,"
Enc!f lo~aedia Britannica, 11th ed. (New York: Encyclo-
pae a rltannica, 1911), XXIII, 348.
 70

the infonnation available fran Macrobius's commentary on

Cicero's Sannium. Scipionis and the writings of St. Augustine.
The available works of Augustine, mainly used in the study
of logic, consisted of the Principia dialecticae, which is
mainly concerned with grammar, and the Catesoriae decem,
of doubtful authenticity, which is a rapid summary of
Aristotle's Categories. This list of sources is concluded
by the Satyricon of Martianus Capella (mainly devoted to the
seven liberal arts) and the De artibus ac liberalium.
- ------
literarum. of Cassiodorus. The Etymologiarum. of Isidore of
Seville is mainly a reproduction of Cassiodorus. 3
Of this list, the works of Boethius, Cbalcidius,
Macrobius, Cass1odoru.s, and Isidore are all commentaries of
4
the sort discussed above. It would be or little importance
that these five were not writing from firsthand knowledge of
their sources except that the basic materials for the study
of music within the Quadrivium consisted entirely of the
works of Boethius, Cassiodorus, and Isidore until the begin-
ning of the ninth century. 5 Aristoxenian influence is said

3. Ibid.
4. Stahl, .21?• cit., 9.
5. Gustave Reese, Music in the Middle Ages (New York:
w. W. Norton and do.,--r94n'T, 125. ·
 71

to have been perpetuated in the Middle Ages by Cassiodorus,

while Boeth1us, by way of the influence of Ptolemy, pro-
mulgated the teachings of the Pythagoreans. The De musica
-
: of Boethius is the only musical writing of these three
authors th.at contains infonnation about the monochord.
Many modern scholars, among them Mountford, Gevaert,
and Reese, observe that Boethius had no firsthand knowledge
of Ptolemy's Harmonics, and that the confusion between the
Greek and Medieval modal systems is to a great extent attri-
butable to him. 6 Boethius •s misunderstandings, however,
extended much furtba r than his interpretation of the modal
system, for, as will be shown, his conception of the manual
division of th& monochord was presented without a true
understanding of his material. In the writings of the later
Middle Ages the ph!'ase "secundum Boethius" {according to
Boethius) is often used along with the presentation of a
monochord division. The use of these words places an aura
of Boetbian prestige upon the work and simultaneously im-
plies that Boethius•s teachings are utilized in the course
of the treatise -- yet only two of the manual monochord

6. Cf. J. ~.Mountford, "Greek Music and its Relation

to Modern Times," Journal of Hellenic Studies, XL
(1920), 13-42. ~
 72

di visions examined in this study follow the pa·ttern estab-

lished by Boethius.
The teachers and students of the early medieval
period were unaware uf the deficiencies of the works through
which they became acquainted with Greek thought, and which
were the fundamental materials in the study of the seven
liberal arts. The seven liberal arts, which were the legacy
of the earlier Roman schools, were well adapted to fulfill
the aims of a religious life as set forth by the Church.
Music, as one of these arts, was considered necessary for the
proper interpretation of the Scriptures; and musicians
(singers) were necessary for the perfonnance of the reli-
gious rituals. 7 In the earlier centuries of the Middle Ages
(the sixth through the tenth), the writings of Boethius,
Cassiodorus, and Isidore were used for both speculative and
practical requirements of the curriculum; and, if one may
judge from the content of these writings, the emphasis was
directed more toward the association of sounds and numbers
than toward the practical necess~.ties of the perfonner. In
any case the requirements of a religious life resulted in
the fonnation of several kinds of schools. In eighth-century

7. Cf. Nan C. Carpenter, Music in the Medieval and

Renaissance Universities (Nonna~ University of
Oklahana Press, 1958), 13-15.
France, for e:xampleJ the Carolingian renaissance stimulated
the establishment or severel new schools. Charlemagne's
chief educational officer, AlcUin, began the reorganization
of the palace school and the monastic schools throughout
the Empire. But it may be said of Alcuin, in spite of his
educational advances, that bis writings were still in the
tradition of the La.tin encyclopedists -- that is, imperfect
8
and hurried summaries.
Music as taught in these schools followed the same
pattern as that of the other arts, which, in times of intel-
lectual revival, were able to provide a wide culturs.l back-
ground, but in times of ignorance and stagnation were
limited to a dry and perfunctory study of just enough
material to provide a bare functional understanding of the
subject. The lack of practical musical training in these
periods of stagnation resulted, at least in such larger
centers as Rome, in the establishment of special singing
schools for the purpose of training singers in the liturgy. 9
Musical writings used in the monastic schools of
the sixth through the tenth century generally follow ·the

a. James Welton, 11 Educa tion," Encyclo~edia Britannica

11th ed. (New York: Encyclopaed!al3ritann1ca, 1911~,
VIII, 954.
9. Cf. Carpenter, ~· cit., 16-17.
 74

order and content of material established in the treatises

of Boethius, Cassiodorus, and Isidore. This arrangement
,,,.. ,,,,..
is exemplified in the Musica disciplina of Aurelian of' Reane
(mid-ninth century) which praises, in its first chapters,
the disciplines of music. These chapters are followed by
the definition of music and statements concerning its inven-
tion, its effects, and its divisions, that is, musica
mundana, humana, and instrumentalis. Before concluding
with a specific discussion of' the modes, this treatise, like
most others, explains the intervals and the mathematical
10
proportions of the intervals.
After the tenth century the task of formal education
was shifted to the schools of the great cathedrals, mainly
owing to the increase of religious asceticism in the monas-
teries. This change provided the impetus for m,0re practical
instruction in the art of music because of the freer atmos-
phere of the cathedral schools, and, as a result, the prac-
tical musical treatise became an accepted part of the
musical curriculum. There appeared in this era a strong
duality of purpose in musical writing, which to some extent
was only a continuation of the duality first established in
the writings of the Greeks. As defined by Aristotle, all

10. Aurelian of Rlan6', :Musica disciplina, Q§. I, 27-63.

 75

knowledge was divisible into two categories, one theoretical,

the other practical. 11 This div:f.aion, already observable in
the divergent paths of the Pythagoreans and Aristoxenians~

resulted in the production of two main kinds of musical

treatises: the speculative and the practical. These charac-
teristics are frequently merged in a single work, which is
nevertheless often classified as speculative because of a
preponderance of such material; all practical treatises, on
the other band, contain some speculative material.
Speculative treatises are largely concerned with the
scientific and philosophical aspects of music. Treatises
of this kind may be further classified into two different
groups according to the intent of the author. The first
group canprises the hortatory introductions, which are pri-
marily designed for the student of philosophy whose interest
in music is directed towards its value as a mental disci-
pline. In these works the main object is to justify the
study of music by showing its categories and its relation-
ships to the other arts. Boethius's De musica is probably
the best-known example of this group. Shorter works of
this sort are often incorporated into larger philosophical

11. Aristotle, Aristotle's Metaphysics, tr. by llichard

Hope (New York: Columbia University Press, 1952),
II, 1, 5-7.
 .....
76

works, which introduce music as one of the seven liberal

arts.
Speculative treatises of the second group, in which
the elements of music were submitted to a more detailed
discussion, were designed for the more involved student of
music. This kind of treatise, known as the eisagoge, was
rigidly organized after the ~ttern followed in the treatise
"' "' although, of course, differences
of Aurelian of Reane,
appear in the points of view emphasized. Another good
example of this kind of treatise is the De he.nnonica
institutione of Regino of Pr&n.
In general the speculati~re treatise, serving in part
as a prototype for all musical treatises in the Middle Ages,
also continued as a separate genre. Later speculative works
are represented by the Monochordi netarum of Adelboldi
(d. 1022), and the Tracta.tus ..!!! musica of Jerane de Moravia
(second half of the thirteenth century).
The practical musical treatise is a develOJJillent of
the later Middle Ages (that is, after the tenth century).
It is not generally concerned with the philosophical or
mathematical aspects of music, but with music as a sounding
art, either instrumental or vocal. Such treatises can
usually be grouped into two classes. Members of the first
group, designed primarily for singers, contain brief
 77

illustrations of practical matters for immediate consumption.

The writings of Guido and Odo are two of the earliest works
to appear in this form. The second group, intended for
scholars and can.posers, treats of music in great detail,
"drawing upon speculative, mathematical theories of inter-
vals and proportions as a background for artistic probl~s. ttl2
The Musica of Hermann~s Contractus exemplifies the learned
work or this kind.
In the late Middle Ages the cathedral schools ·
evolved into the great medieval universities. With the rise
of these institutions the speculative treatise again came
to the fore, now combined with many elements of the prac-
tical treatise in the fonn of an encyclopedic speculum.
These canprehensive musical works, best represented by the
Speculum musicae of Jacques de Liege, canbine, in separate
books, all of the mathematical-philosophical treatments of
music with discussions of material more closely related to
its actual practice. In turn, the medieval speculum. was
used as a model for the great encyclopedic works of the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, of which Mersenne's
Harmonie universelle and Kircher's Musurgia universalis are
perhaps the most famous.

12. Carpenter, .EE• cit., 28.

 78

In both practical and speculative treatises an

attempt is always made to explain the proportional basis
of the intervals. Since these works were always didactic,
their authors attempted to devise systematic approaches to
the discussion of intervals, and in many, the monochord is
utilized as a means of both aurally and visually represent-
ing the intervals and their proportions. In all kinds of ·
treatises the exposition of the monochord is essentially the
same, although in some the manual division is replaced or
paralleled by the system of s trj.ng lengths. The important
point is not whether the division is manual or otherwise,
but where within the treatise the discussion of the division
is placed. In the writings of Odo and Guido and other works
with a more practical purpose, the division of the moncchord
and the explanations of its uses are generally placed immedi-
ately after the introduction. In the more speculative
treatises, on the other hand, the discussion of ·the mono-
chord is frequently relegated to the end of the work or at
least placed after the main theoretical discussion. A
further distinction is that the practical treatises tend to
use the ascending division of the monochord and speculative
treatises the descending division. These trends are also
observable in the encyclopedic works and treatises of the
fourteenth century, in which, however, whole books or
 79.

sections are devoted to the discussion of the monochord.

The techniques used in ·the demonstrations will be explained
in the following pages.
In th.is respect it is interesting to note the
general trends of these discussions in the speculative
treatises of the period. Boethius, as was mentioned ea~li­

er, is the only one of the later La tin writers to discuss

the monochord. After Boethius, the next apJ>.:Jarance is in
the De harmonica inst1tut1one of Hucbald (.£!.· 846-930) and
the works formerly attributed to Hucbald. 13 The treatment
accorded the monochord in these writings establishes the
style of the monochord divisions to be found in many later
speculative treatises. In general the speculative discus-
sions are vague and complex, the manual divisions are of
little practical value, and many of the later writings
th.at are patterned after the D:tmensio monochordi discuss
the monochord after the system of string lengths.

13. Anonymous, Cita et vero divisio monochordi, GS I, 122;

Anonymous, 15IiiiinSToliiOriochordi, GS I, 122-12'57 In
this study anon~ous treatises are listed accordin~
to Heinrich Hflschen's list in the article 11 Anon-ymi
in Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart (vol. I,
501?.fT. Treatises such as -:cEe above, not listed by
Hftschen, are labeled by the title of the treatise,
accanpanied by the source as in Hftscben's list.
 80

The evolution toward more freedan in both medieval

schools and musical treatises is paralleled in the use or
the monochord. With the rise of practical treatises, especi-
ally those of Odo and Guido in the early eleventh century, 14
"f>t'"

the discussions of the monochord take on a new appearance.

To some extent the discussion is simplified, as is the
manUE.l division, and the authors generally take piins to
use the monochord to their genuine advantage. In these works
the monochord is presented as a useful teaching device.
This is entirely apart from its second, semim.ystical usage
in the speculative treatise, in which it often seems to
represent the mysterious forces of the Pythagorean number
philosophies that are ever-present in the Middle P.ges.
These two approaches to the monochord form such strong
traditions that they not only survive throughout the Middle
Ages, but continue to appear in many of the treatises of
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

14. The reader will note in this study that the Dialogue
de musica, generally thought to be "the work of Odo
Of Cluny (d. 942), is attributed to Odo of st. Maur
(fl. 1006-29). This attribution, in agreement with
the recent research of Hans Oesch, is made by this
writer because the techniques applied to the mono-
chord by Odo are anachronistic to the tenth century.
For Oesch's comments on the two Odos, see Hans Oesch,
Guido~ Arezzo (Bern: Paul Haupt, 1954), 37-53.
 81

The Develo:pnent of the Medieval Scale System

In the Middle Ages the monochord exerted great in-

fluence in each of five areas having to do with the develop-
ment of the scale system: Pythagorean tuning, scale ex-
pansion, genera, letter notation, and pedagogy. The
development and extent of the first four will be generally
outlined in the remainder of this section. The pedagogical
use of the monochord will be discussed in Chapter VI.
For all practical purposes the diatonic disdiapason
of the Greeks may be said to be the only scale of any con-
sequence used in the Middle Ages. This scale, used only in
the Pythagorean tuning, was retained in its original form
(resembling the interval order of the modern natural minor
scale) until about 1000. The second half of the Middle Ages
saw the range of the scale expanded both up and down, while,
in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, chranatic altera-
tion of the diatonic notes became a common practice. The
chromatic and enharmonic genera of the Greeks survived in
the Middle Ages only in the theoretical discussions of the
speculative treatises; the medieval tunings of these genera
do not correspond to any of the tunings surviving from the
Greek era, and appear to be purely arbitrary detel'J1linations
devised by Boethius to complete his explanation of the
tonal system.
 82

Concomitant with the expansion of the scale was the

adoption of many varieties of letter notation. Letter
notation, as is pointed out by Apel, remained generally
restricted to theoretical studies throughout the Middle
Ages, attaining true practical 1n1portance only in the
Garman keyboard literature of the Renaissance 15 -- although
various attempts were made to utilize letter notation in
the vocal music of the ninth through the eleventh centu-
ries .16 Letter notation also occurs in some instrumental
music of the fourteenth century. l'l.

15. Apel, The Notation of Polyphonic Music, 4th ed.

(Cambridge, Mass.: Mediaeval Kcademy of America,
1953)' 22.
16. Ultter notation in vocal music may be found in the
following manuscripts, among others:
Monophonic music
Paris Bibl. Nat. lat. 13.765, fol. 5, tenth-
eleventh century; Paris Bibl. Nat. lat. 7211, fol.
146-48, late eleventh century; Montpellier Faculte
de Medecin, H. 159, eleventh century; Florence
Bibl. mediceo-Iaurenziana, no. 158 (new series,
not part of catalogue], fol. 25v, 71, 113.
Polyphonic music
Paris Bibl. Nat. lat. 7211, fol. 128, late
eleventh century; Paris Bibl. Nat. lat. 10.508,
fol. 89, tenth century; Oxford Bodl. Lib. 572;
eleventh century (the only polyphonic music not
found in treatises); Montpellier Faculta de
Medecin, H. 384, fol. 122-23.
17. Robertsbr1dge Ms. Brit. Mus. Add. 28550, early
fourteenth century.
 83

Pythagorean Tuning
The Pythagorean tuning remained the standard tuning
for all scales throughout the medieval era for three reasons.
First of all, this tuning was the easiest to determine and
reproduce aurally on the monochord; second, the Pythagorean
tuning was the only one available to the medieval musician
from recorded historical sources; and third, this tuning was
important to the medieval musician because of its relation-
ship to Pythagorean number symbolisms and the number s:ymbol-
isms of the early Church. Of these three reasons the second
and third are the most important and appear to be the main
reasons for the SUZ'Vival of the tuning. The Pythagorean
tuning of the scale is based on the relationships of the
numbers 1-4. The numerical progression of these digits
provides the consonances of the octave (1:2), fifth (2:3),
and fourth (3:4). The foimation of these intervals on the
monochord is simple and accurate because it is necessary to
make divisions of only 2, 3, and 4 parts, and because the
simplest measurements produce the most accurate intervals.
Since the monochord was the only available means of musi-
cally reproducing accurate scale patterns, the consonances
of the Pythagorean tuning were well suited to it and cer-
tainly did not place any severe obstacles in the way of the
practical musician.
 84

The lack of other t'Wl1ngs, as stated in the second

reason, was perhaps a greater factor than ease of division
in the survival of the Pythagorean intervals. As was
mentioned earlier, the only available musical sources in
the early Middle Ages were the works of Boethius, Isidore
and Cassiodorus. Boethius is the only one of these three
to discuss the practical application of intervals to a
sounding medium, and he presents only Pythagoraan inter-
vals. Ptolemy's Harmonics, the most important pre-medieval
source to present alternate tunings, was apparently unavail-
able to medieval scholars before the appearance of Manuel
Bryennios's commentary in the fourteenth century -- and
Bryennios also deals mainly with the Pythagorean aspects
of Ptolemy's work. 18
Medieval respect for the basic concepts of number
symbolism, presented as the third reason, also greatly in-
fluenced the survival of the Pythagorean tuning. The
Christian concept of the relationship of numbers stennned
from the Pythagoreans' connection of nu:iber and reality.

18; John Wallis, O~era mathematica, 3 vols. (London:

1699), III, 35. This volume contains, besides
Ptolemy's Hannonics, the commentaries of Porphyry
and Bryenn!os*s Hannonica. Confirmation of these
observations is also given b,r,J.Iurray Barbour (Tuning
and Temterament (East Iansing: Michigan St. College
Press, 951], 2), who wrote that "just intonation
• • • was unknown throughout the Middle Ages."
 85

The gec:metric conception of mathematics as aet forth by

the followers of Pythagoras culminated in the construction
of canplex solid figures, of wh.tch the simplest, based on
the number four, was the tetrahedron. The statement of
Fhilolaus, the first writer on Pythagorean principles, that
"all things have a number and it is this fact which enables
them to be known," 19 does not differ materially fran.
Augustine's remark: "Neither has 1 t been without reason
numbered among God's praises, 'Thou ha.st ordered all
things in number, and measure and weight'. rr 20 Since medi-
eval religious and scientific speculations, which were based
on the number symbolisms originating in the Augustinian
period, prohibited alterations of this basic scheme, it
was not until the Renaissance that ~~e idea of extending
the first four digits in the form of the just thirds was
advanced. 21 The extension of the progression to give the

19. T. L. Heath, A Manual of Greek Mathematics (Oxford:

Clarendon Preis, 1931)-;-ss.
20. Hopper, £E• £.!!•, 78.
21. Although the theorist Walter Odington (De speculatione
muslce[ca. 1300], CS I, 183-250, I, 198Twrote that
consonan':f""tbirds as used by the singer had the ratios
of 5:4 and 6:5, it was not until the early sixteenth
century that theorists felt free to use the just
thirds without apology. The Musica theorica of
Lodovico Fogliano, published In 1529, was one of the
earliest theoretical works to use these intervals
freely.
 86

major third (4:5) and the minor third (5:6) provided the
necessary scientific and symbolic impetus to the final
breakdown of the authority of the Pythagorean ratios.

Scale Range
The two-octave range of the Greek Greater Perfect
System was retained in theoretical discussions until the
early eleventh century. Since this two-octave scale was
applied to the monochord, same of the treatises on the mono-
chord explain why there is used only a scale of two octaves,
instead of one or three. The restrictions stem generally
frcm the same pseudo-scientific and religious inhibitions
that were placed on the alteration of interval ratios.
Hennannus Contractus, for instance, takes care of both prob-
lems, that is, range and intervals, in the second chapter
of his Musica:
Proportions of the Monochord
Also it will not be unprofitable to consider
here why the proportion of the quadruplum. is more
suitable than any other for the whole system of
music. Here, first of all, it strikes the care-
ful observer that the origin of the quadruplum. is
found inunediately among the prime roots of all
numbers, i.e., one and two, for the ratio of one
to two furnishes the duplum or octave. Two multi-
plied by itself gives four, which, combined with
one, produces the quadruplum., i.e., a double
octave. Within these limits, i.e., one and four,
are naturally included the numbers two and three
 87

which form the fifth and fourth in superpar-

t1cular proportions, for the ratio of two to
three fonns the fifth, and three to four the
fourth. The ratio of one to three constitutes
the octave ocmbined with the fifth, in triplum
proportion. Consequently, since the fifth and
fourth differ by a tone, the latter joins con-
sonances, although not itself a consonance.22
Aribo (1070), like Hermannus, also maintained the archaic
restrictions upon scale range. In two consecutive chapters
he explains why ranges of one or three octaves are not
suited to the monochord.
Why One Octave Does Not Suffice
for the Monochord
One octave is believed not to set the
limits of the monochord for three reasons.
First, this range would· seem too small for
those who have untrained voices which they are
unable to adjust [1.e., to make the necessary
octave transpositions] to the pitch of the in-
strument and who are, at the same time, unaware
of the difficulty of such an adjustment (just
as one cannot place the bowed neck of an un-
tamed horse in a small round collar). Secondly,
a higher voice charms the ears more pleasingly,
just as a slender body charms the eyes [that
is, in a monochord of one octave, the available
notes would be of a low pitch and would not be
as pleasant as the second or higher octave].
In the third place it is natural for the voice
to seek changes of its own accord, just as some-
times we proceed into pleasant places volun-
tarily and not out of necessity [Here the one-
octave monochord would not allow a singer to
improvise beyond its range, and Aribo evidently
feels this art to be a pleasant past:bn.e.J.

22. Hermannus Contractus, Musica He:rmanni Contracti,

tr. by Leonard Ellinwood (Rochester: F.as~
School of Music, 1936), 19-20.
 88

Why There Are Not Three Octaves

in the Monochord
The highest sound of the instrument does
not permit the monochord to be eJt:tended to three
octaves since this highest so.lll'.ld is harmonious
with none of the lower notes LAribo evidently
feels that the notes of the third octave are
too difficult to play.in tune and tbat they are
too shrill l. For example, b07s with young un-
changed vo!ces sing so unharmon1ously that even
a man who knew the songs could not tell them
fran the c;yi.ng of a bird or the chirping of a
cr1cket. LTo support his statements he appends
the following quotation fran Horace:]
It is to be expected that limits finally
be set, beyond and without which truth
cannot be firmly kn()wn. 3
lHorace Sa tire I) 2
These restrictions still exerted some force even in the early
fourteenth century. Engelbert, Abbot of Admont (d. 1331),
discusses the manner of division of the monochord and com-
ments that it is always extended through two octaves,
basing his reasons mainly on the fact that everything is
constructed that way -- that is, the monochord, the bells,
the organ are all measured into two octaves. He further
camnents that one rarely or never hears singing that encam-
24
passes three octaves.

23. Aribonis, De mus1ca, ed. by J. s. van Waesberghe

(Rome: American Institute of Musicology, 1951),
7-a.
24. Engelbert, De musioa, GS II, 327.
 89

These comments by Hezm.annus, Aribo, and Engelbert

do not, of course, represent the actual feel1ng of the
majority of musicians, but are instead anachronisms of the
same kind that appear in the writings of many Renaissance
and Be.roque musicians who still favored the Pythagorean
tuning several centuries after it bad fallen into general
disuse.
In the early eleventh centu1-oy Odo added the Greek
.[' to the lower end of the disd1apason and a few years later
25
Guido recorded its extension upward a perfect fifth. In
the later Middle Ages, the permitted.range was slowly ex-
tended to three octaves by means of two higher notes (ee
and ff), and one lower note (F belowr). These additions
do not, however, occur in the same treatise. 26 In the
early fifteenth century the monochord of Georgie Anselmi
was extended to a full four octaves.
The last century of the medieval era also saw the
first fully chranatic division of the scale. This chromatic
division appeared in the Flores musicae of Hugo von Reutlingen

25. For a detailed account of the significance of the

addition of the .r see pp.140-6, below.
26. The addition of the ee and ff occurs in the Ars Nova
of Philippe de Vi try (.£!.• 1320) and the low Tis--
first found in Hugo von Reutlingen's Flores musioae
of 1332.
 90

in 1332, but it was almost a century.later before any other

theorist discussed the possibilities of the cbran.atic scale
in such detail. Prosdoc:lmus de Beldemandia, in the Libellus
monochord.1 of 1413, divided all of the chromatic variants
possible by means of Pythagorean intervals. These studies
helped pave the way for the later collapse of the Pytha-
gorean system by pointing out the flaws in its tuning.

Chromatic !:BS! Enharmonic Genera

The introduction of the chromatic and enhannonic
genera into medieval theoretical writings can be attributed
to Boethius, who presents one version of each scale --
neither of which corresponds to surviving Greek versions.
Boethius's chromatic and enharmonic genera are presented in
the fonn of the string lengths system based on the Aristi-
27
dean nun.bars. The same tunings appear in many of the
speculative treatises up to the end of the Middle !ges.
In sane of these works the discussion consists of a verbatim
presentation of Boethius's text, as in Anon'3'1JlOUs 10 (GS I,
313-330), Adelboldi, J erame de Moravia, and Jacques de Li~ge.

In other tenth-century treatises there are successful manual

monochord divisions of the three genera based upon Boethius's

27. See fn. 32, p. 65', above.

 91

string lengths. These determinations occur in the Anonymous

Dimensio monochordi (GS I, 122-125), Anonymous Steglich and
Anonymous 1 (Q.§_ I, 330-338). In the later medieval and
early Renaissance treatises it is difficult to tell when
the genera lose their supposed theoretical significance
and are presented for their value as historical material.
The reasons for the continued discussion of these genera are
apparently connected with the same mystical-religious asso-
ciations responsible for the long life of the Pythagorean
diatonic scale, for it is certain that these genera never
appear outside the speculative areas of music theory.

Letter Notation
Aside from the influence of Pytbs.goreanism on the
intervals of the scale, the most important theoretical con-
tribution to practical music in medieval times is letter
notation. The adoption of letter notations is one of the
relatively few places where theoretical determination pre-
ceded practice, although for the moat part it appears th.at
the use of the lettsrs as musical notation was not the prime
reason for their invention. With the exception of the
Dasiean notation, which was derived from the Greek symbol
for the.word daseia (rough breathing), 28 all other letter

28. Reese, ~· cit., 136.

 92

notations may be shown to have ·been first developed as points

of reference in theoretical discussions of the monochord.
This usage, originating in the monochord divisions of the
Greeks, was continued by Boethius, who uses four different
series of Latin letters, two of which are directly connected
with the monochord. The other two sets serve as convenient
abbreviations of pitch names. 29
In all there are at least eleven different letter
systems used in the treatises of the Middle Ages. Within
several of these systems there is considerable variance in
the initial and final notes of the series. Table 4, in ad-
dition to canparing these systems with the modern pitch
names, lists the sources and dates for these notations in
both theoretical and musical works. The accanpanying graph
shows the longevity and overlapping usage of these notations.

29. The attribution of these letters to Boethius has been

periodically challenged by musicologists over the last
several hundred years. Since none of the surviving
MSS antedate the ninth century, some writers say that
the letters were inserted ,by later scribes. However,
since the use of the letters penneates Boethius's text
(at least in the Friedlein and Migne editions) it
seems reasonable that, unless the text of the treatise
was considerably revised in the ninth century (which
is doubtful), there is no real basis for this conten-
tion. For sources describing the controversy, see
Reese, QE• cit., 134, fn. 13. Note also the discrep-
ancy in--wb.a~wo modern authorities call Boethian
notation. Reese (Ibid.) describes A-LL as the main
type, while Apel (~otation .2f Polyphonic Music,
21) says it is A-~
Classif'ication Notations
Modern F G A B c d e f g D. b c 1 d' e' f'' g' a' b 1 c" d" e" f'" g"
I A B c E H I M 0 x Y CC DD FF KK LL

II A B c D E F G H I K L M N 0
III A B c D E F G H I K L IA N 0 p

IV F G A B c D E F G A B c D E F

v A through S used to represent the pitches of' the Daseian scale

VI A B c D E F G H M N 0 p Q R s
VII A B c D E F G H I K L M N 0 p

VIII {F) !' A B c D E F G a ~ c d e f' g aa(,; cc dd ee 1'1') 30

IX c D E F G A B c
x A B c D E F G A

XI b c d e f' g h i [k 1 m n 0 P] q (r s t v]31

Sources
I Boethius (ca. 500: Friedle1n, 334); Anon. Dlmensio monochordi (ca. 900:
GS I, 123);-Adelboldi (d. 1022~ GS I, 303); Jerane de Moravia (tliirteenti
century: cs I, 139); Jacques dc:; Liege (ca. 1313: see f'n.100, p.lW,below).
Music: Paris Bibl. Nat. lat. 7211, f'ol.-.r46-148 (tenth-eleventh century).
•\I .\, ''• •• ............... _! •• , ~••". •o. • -••"' " • .L II .. 11• , .. • 'IUht.u: _:_o,. •U••••n.1&.l'\~--•W.L·~-- • · • :;- • .,... , - · 1.u. ......h · .... u- ...... , __ ..__,_.._._

h•••• - ·•••·""'''" ....,., •'""'"
II Boethiua {Fr1edle1n, 337).
III Boethius (Fr1edle1n, 343; Boethius's exact intent is unlmown); Anon. 2 (ca.
900: GS I, 342); Anon. Steglich {ca. 1100: BIMG, Ser. 2, vol. 10); Walter
Odington Cea.. 1300: cs I, 203); Anon. La FageTCa. lOOO; Diphtheroira~hie,
193); Anon-:l:a Fage (ca. 1000: Diphtherogra~hie-74). :Music: Par s 1h1.
Nat. lat. 13.765, :ro1:-5 (tenth-eleventh cen ury~; Montpelller Faculte de
Medecin , H. 159 (eleventh century).
IV Hucbald (ca. 840-930: GS I, 118); Anon. Dimensio monochordi {GS I, 123);
Anon. 10 Televenth century: GS I, 312); Notker Labeo (d. 1022:- Piper,
Schriften Notkers, 851); Anon-.-4a (twelfth century: GS I, 344); Anon. 4c
( tweif'·th century: GS I, 345) . -
v A.non. Ia Fage (~. 1000: Diphtheroeraphie, 73).
VI Anon. l (tenth century: GS I, 232).
VII Anon. Scholia enchiriadis (~. 900: GS I, 209); Hucbald (!S XLII, 78).
VIII Odo (fl. 1006-25: GS I, 251); Guido (995-1050: GS II, 3); Wilhelm of'
Hirsau {d. 1091: GS-II, 155); Theoger of' Metz (eleventh century: GS II
186); A!'ibo (10'70:-GS II, 197); J. A:ffligemensis (ca. 1100: GS II:-232);
Anon. 4b ( twe l:f th century: GS I, 345) ; Anon 4e ( tweI":rth century: GS I,
347); Iem.bert (ca. 1240: CS-Y, 251); Jerane de Moravia (Cs I, 74);:l5'. de
Vit:ry (ca. 1320:- CS III, 15); Jacques de Liege (see above; Class. I);
Hugo vo'il""Reutlingen-(1332: Beck, 76); Anon. Quatuor ~rincipalia (ca.
1350: CS IV, 208); Anon. 1 (ca. 1400: CS II, 434); Prosdocimus de-Belde-
mandis "{T413: CS III, 248). "llusic: Paris Bibl. Nat. lat. 10.508, fol.
89 (tenth century); Paris Bibl. Nat. lat. 7211, fol. 128 (late eleventh
century); Robertsbridge Ms. ~rit. ~us. Add. 28550 (early :fourteenth
century); Montpellier Faculte de Medecin, H. 384, :fol. 122-23.
IX Odo (GS I, 303, for oreanistrum); Anon. 1 {GS I, 347).
••· u•· • •"'"''t• •••n\1h•. ._ \ .. \•\\"• •\\\\\\,\\\h·.\\\\\.•t.,1.···• -~'l''I ' '\ht\1'')0\\\ .. · ·'."\,'\\" ' ·\''"·"'•~'" " ' ' •' .,. •· • ,,,. ... , '"~·~ .... • . . . . . . . . ··• •· · " • ·• ••
X Aribo (Waesberghe, 45); Anon. 4d (twel:fth century: GS I, 347).
XI Jean de Muris (1290-1351: GS III, 253).
 Pe riot.ls af Use
Centuty
6 7 Cf 10 II 15 lb
r
II
1[
Ir
1l
~
EI
1ZIII
][
K"
:xr:

Table 4. Medieval letter notations.

1\:.1~~ .1•o't\••.•p
1
1 '• '""·•'"I·.' '·'1'.0'·'•'•11;11 ·••l:~o·!'tl,,I\ t ;\l\\1l•.. 1:l,1'"~l\.;.1'.\\"1'•\ 0 ,,,\ '\t'l' \:1,\1\1.IHL,IU\UH ,11'.• • '•"'l\•lo. ' ' ' ' " · " ' ' ' ,, • " " ' ' 1 ' " , , . , . , ' ' ' ' ' · · · · · · · , •"'' '• , , ... , •• , . ''''>'"' • ·.•.··'""'''''•I• ··1.11t.111···· ~,, •·o•••tt•t• ·••'•~", 111
1
,,.,, ''''"• •• , • .,.,., ,
1 01
,_ ,.
01
., , , _
1
• ----

30. The lowest note (F) and the five highest notes (~~cc dd ee ff) do not
appear in sc:me sources.
31. .Wiuris gives only the note "q" in the upper octave. The bracketed notes
are supplied by this writer.
 94

Subsequent chapters will delve further into the

manner in which the monochord influenced the developnent of
medieval music. In spite of all the information available,
there remains a cloud of doubt suspended over the medieval
use of such notational devices as letters, and one cannot
help also wondering whether there are not additional moti-
vations which made possible the survival of theoretical
structures like the chromatic and enharmonic genera -- and
to some extent, even the monochord itself. It is doubtful
that the continued existence of many of these structures
can be passed off as respect for auctoritas or considered
as the fulfillment of a pious duty, for, just as the Pytha-
gorean scale was supported by means of religious and scien-
tific dogma, it is logical to believe that, to some extent,
the monochord also fell under the mantle of this dogma, or
under the mantle of the mystical power that sustained the
dogma itself. In Chapter VIII an attempt is made to define
this elusive power, or at least sozrie aspects of it, and,
through its expressions in conjunction with the monochord,
to point out the effects that this religious and scientific
speculation had upon the practice of music.
 95

~ Di visions £!. _2 M.onochord ~ ,2 Middle Ages

. _.The music theorists of late Ar1tiqui ty had already

developed the technique of the monochord far beyond the
fundamental pattern established by Pythagoras. The mono-
chord divisions in use at the end of this
. period consisted
of several kinds of manual divisions that were used to
demonstrate the consonances and provide the intervals of
the Greater Perfect System {patterned after Euclid). The
Aristidean numbers were also in use as a means of repre-
senting string lengths. At the beginning of the Middle Ages
this me. terial was available to the theorist only through
intermediate sources.

Boethius, 2 Model
Since Boethius was simultaneously the culmination
of one era and the beginning of another, the use of the
monochord in the Middle Ages was largely dependent on his
sunmaries of the writings of his predecessors. Since
Boethius is the only writer known to have discussed the
monochord in the six-hundred-year period between Ftolemy
and Hucbald, it is upon his writings that the medieval
theory of the monochord was based.
Boethius presents three different divisions of the
monochord in the Fourth Book of the De musica: a division
 96

illustrating the consonances, a manual division of the

Greater Perfect System, and a numerical division (based on
the Aristidean numbers) of the three genera.
Boethius's illustration of the consonances is based
on the method originated by Ptolemy. 32 This method utilizes
the two segments on either side of the movable bridge to
produce the intervals, whereas the usual Greek method, pre-
sented by Nicomachus and Gaudentius, used a segment of the
string in relation to the whole string to produce these
intervals. Fran the later Middle Ages only two discussions
of the use of the monochord in this manner were found by
the author. The first, copied verbatim from Boethius's
Chapter XVIII, is in Adelboldi's treatise of the early
eleventh century. 33 The second is found in the De
speculatione musice of Walter Od1ngton (E!:.• 1300). 34
The text of Boetbius's manual division of the
Greater Perfect System, which is found in the fifth chapter
of the Fourth Book, follows:

Boethius, ..QE.• cit., 348-349. For a full explanation

of this me~od as used by Ptolemy, see pp.;l-2,above.
33. Adelboldi, Musica monochord1 netarum, GS I, 304.
34. Walter Odington, De speculatione musice, CS I, 208.
 97

The length of the string is AB. AB is

di Vided in to four pa:rts through tluiee p\>int·s,
which are CDE. AB is the duple of DB and AD,
and DB and AD are the duples of AC, CD, DE, and
EB. Therefore AB will be the lowest, that is,
the Proslambanomenos. DB, moreover, is the
Mese because it is hal:f' of the total, and_ just
as AB is twice the length of DB, DB is twice as
high [i.e., an octave higher] as AB. For, as
was said above, the relation of length and high-
ness of pitch have been inverted. For to the
r
degree tr.at a sound is great high] in pitch,
to the same degree it will be small [ 1 • e. , short]
in length. Therefore EB will be Nete Hyper-
bolaion and since EB is half as long as DB, it
one-fourth of AB tn
will be twice as high in pitch. Because EB is
length it will be four times
as high in pitch i.e., two octaves higher].
Therefore, as has been said, the Nete Hyperbola1 on
will be twice as high as the Mese, the Mese is
twice as high as the Proslambanomenos, and the
Nate Hyperbola1on four times as high as the Pros-
lambananenos. The Proslambanomenos will sound to
the Mese a diapason, the Mese to the Nete Hyper-
bolaion a diapason, and the Proslambanomenos to
the Nete HyperbQlaion a bisdiapason. Therefore,
AC, CD, DE, and EB are equal parts. Moreover,
AB is four of these parts and CB three, and there-
fore AB is sesquitertia to CB. Since CB is three
equal parts and DB is two, CB will be sesqu1altera
to DB. CB is three equal parts and EB is one,
and therefore CB is tripla to EB. Therefore CB
will be the diatonic Licha.nos Hypaton and will
sound a diatessaron to the Proslambananenos. This
same Lichanos Hypaton will sound a consonant fifth
to the Mese, and to the Nete Hyperbola.ion it will
sound an octave and a ~i:f'th.
If a ninth part (AF) is taken away from the
total, AB, there remains FB which contains eight
parts. Therefore FB will be Hypate Hypaton and AB
to FB is a sesquioctava proportion which is in
music a tone. Likewise we divide AB into three
sections. AG will be one part and GB will be two
parts. AB, the Proslambananenos, will sound to
GB, which is Hypate Meson, a consonant fifth con-
stituted of the sesquialtera proportion. Moreover
CB to GB will be sesquioetava and will contain a
 98

tone because it agrees with the rule. For the

Liohanos Hypaton (CB) to the Hypate Meson (GB)
canprises a tone. AB to CB has the sound of
the diatessaron and AB to GB has the sound of
the diapente. Likewise CB to DB has the sound
of the diapente. Moreover GB to DB, that is,
Hypate Meson to Mese, bas the sound of the dia-
tessaron. Licha.nos Hypaton (DB) is separated
£ram Hypate Meson (GB) by a tone.
If' I take a fourth part of CB, it ~ill be
CK. Therefore, CB to KB will hold the sesqui-
tertia proportion. Moreover KB will be sepa-
rated from DB by the sesquioctava proportion,
and therefore KB will be the Licha.nos Meson.
CB, that is, Lichanos Hypaton, to KB, that is,
Lichanos Meson, will sound an adjacent fourth.
Again, if a ninth part is taken away from DB,
there will be DL. Therefore, LB will be Para-
mese. Moreover, if the fourth part of DB is
taken away, there will be IX and MB will be the
Nete Synemmenon. :Moreover, if a third part of
DB is taken away, there will be DN and NB will
be the Nate D:tezeugmenon. Moreover, if KB is
divided into two equal parts there will be KX
and XB, and XB will be the Paranete Hyper-
b olaion. 35
The results of this division may be clearly seen
in Diagram 14. Boethius, in his instructions, establishes
the use of measurements into 2, 3, 4, and 9 parts in an
ascending direction. The places of the missing notes are
marked in the figure with asterisks. These notes are:
Parhypate Hypaton, Parhypate Meson, Trite D:tezeugmenon,
and Trite Hyperbolaion.
Information about Boethius's source for this
ascending division is not available. It would appear that

35.. Boethius, ~· cit., 314-317.

 99

D1agrrm1 14. Boethiu5 (ca. 480-5Z8), De inst;tutione musica.

Direct 1011 AJcending(incompletelMeasurements: Z,3,4,9. Notes: II.

Completed Monochord · P~tha9oreon Tuning.

AFC G KDLMNXE 8
. - - I_ __.,_ ~• -·-t----+_!!_____ f-+--+-1~*-+l~j•--1!--+--------.
I
Steps Pro~rtio,,,
I
1
A c D a
EI ... 814-
--- I
·--+------· ~ I
I I

zA f • ~-
S'
•-f 7 I e I , B §
" I I ~
I I
I I I I

A I

c
·r K
2 I
I
3

.,
B 2
3
4 I I I z I 3 I B3
I I I
4
D L
5 I I I & I .S I ~ I f' I 6 I 7 I 9 19 B e
I I I I I I I I I
9
D M
6 -- 4 -~
t- I
I z
I 3 I
I
... B 3
4
D N a B
7 3
f
I I I I
I I I

K x B I
8
--+- I I
I
z
z
 100

this aource did not contain any of the Greek descending

divisions, and that the 1nfonnat1on available to him only
discussed the general types of measurements to be made,
without specific demonstrations. Commentaries on Ptolemy's
Harmonics are often cited as Boetbius 1 s source of info:nnation
for the structure of the modal system, :36 and they may also
have been his source of information about the monochord.
Some corroboration of this conclusion is offered by Ptolemy
since he does not discuss the manual division of the mono-
chord, but does mention the ratios of the intervals and the
Aristidean series; further.more, Boethius bases most of his
discussion of the monochord upon the Aristidean series. In
any case one wonders why Boethius failed to complete the
manual division. He must certainly have been aware of his
anissions, for he does not subsequently mention the manual
division in his treatise -- but this awareness of the error
evidently did not include sufficient knowledge to enable him
to correct the division, if indeed he deemed it necessary.
Boethius's numerical division (based on the Aristi-
dean numbers) of the three genera occupies the greater part
of Book Four. This presentation is made purely in an
abstract mathematical sense, since he uoes not discuss the

36. Cf. Mountford, Journal of Hellenic Studies, XL, 1:3-42.

 101

position of the numbers in relation to the instrument. In

order to maintain simplicity in the discussion of the string
lengths, Boethius adopts a series of letters fran A to LL
(A-Zand AA-LL). In most of his text these letters are
substituted for the Greek note names.
Beginning with the Nate Hyperbolaion, which is as-
signed the number 2304 and designated LL, he canpletely
divides the Tetrachordon Hyperbolaion through all three
genera. This procedure is followed for each of the other
tetrachords, including the Synenmienon. The method used to
·divide the T1~trachordon Hyperbolaion is condensed as follows:
A, the Proslambananenos ( 9216), is divided
in half at O, the Mase (4608). One-half of 0 is
LL, which is the Nete Hyperbolaion (2304).
Take the eighth part of 2304, that is, 288,
and add it to 2304. This sum is 2592 and is KK
or Paranete Hyperbolaion. The eighth part of KK
is 324 and it is added to 2592. Th.is produces
2916, which is FF or Trite Hyperbolaion. This
same FF will also be the chranatic Trite Hyper-
bolaion and the enharmonic Pal'(lnete Hyperbolaion.
One third of ·LL will be 786. This number added
to LL or 2304 will give 3072, which is DD or the
Nate Diezeugmenon. This Nate Dlezeugmenon is
the same in each genus.
One-half of the difference between KK and
LL is 144. This number added to KK gives 2736,
which is HH or the chranatic Paranete Hyper-
bolaion. One-half of the difference between
•

102

FF and DD is 78. The sum of this number and

2916 is 2994. This number is the enharmonic
Trite Hyperbolaion and is marked DD.37
This diVision of the tetrachord is then summarized by means
of a diagram (Diagram 15). The completed monochord is
shown in Diagram 16. 38

Diagram 15. Boethius's division of the Tetrachordon

Hyperbolaion in the three genera.

DO FF. KK. LL.

Dia..toriic Net e Die1. r . .it H1perb. ~.,l! Hyperb. (Vcte. Hypt.,b.
30 7i. z.q JI, 2.5 q?, 2..3 O'f
$. T. T.
HH.
e 0. Tr-1f1 H. ~r'llll de H. Ne.te. H.
30 1z 2~ /b 27 3'7 2.3 O't
1 5. 5. s. s. s.
E. r:.
i D. r.,.,z eH. Rtr11.11•~H. tVe.te H.
?l z: Y4~
I
~.
•• '" T. T.

37. Boethius, .2E• cit., 318-322. The proofs offered by

Boethius concerning the relationships of the pitches
are deleted from this presentation; that is, state-
ments such as 11 0 is an octave to A and LL is an
octave to 0 and a double octave to LL," are omitted
for the sake of clarity and brevity.
38. Some later appearances of this diagram use GG instead
of HR; HH instead of KK; II instead of LL. Cf.:
GS I, 123, 307, and 326ff. In order that the reader
may easily refer to the printed texts of Boethius
and later medieval authors, the following explanation
of their use of Roman numerals (continued on p. 104)
 ~Dlagraa 16. Boetb1ua 11 three-genera division
of tbe Greater Perteet Systea.

XVI.

•
T

IXVI.
,·

.
T:'·
T

•·
I.
'·[

T
\'illl. cc.
XVI.

T• i.•

(11'rom Friedlein, .U· ill·,_ 334.)

 ...... . ·.,t·,.·: ...
·,
··: : ••• -
... ···. . .
"'!,
• r
• - • ; • ~ . ' ..
l· .... •i
........
. . . ·.~: ! ... - .
. , .·:
.;:·~::..:; .•'
.......
:. :
~.:
~
.. . . - ,
. ... : .
"· ·_;·
. -·
·
.....q.tl..······•· ·. v.:· .:_. ·."
....
~·· ' . 0. ..
·u.-· " ·-
.. I -:._. .Irita.,.....
. . . ..•..
,......,.._
T.

--
-~L··
V.c.~:. <~r+r
nt-rvm
dlal-

•
-T

f.>r..xxml

·•
. ·T. . T• .

.::-
....... •. 1.....
I Dit J>CVllL
T ..... ...
·. .,· . . ~ .;
·. ··-~ ·.... :. ~ .

'.,,.
...
. , ·.) ... ' .. . .
~
. ....
.. ·"'
,•

..
,· :
::
.~·;.I,'
·:..
.
·'.,,.
. ... . .
.

.
·'•

..
. ..
. . . -
....:.. ... ... I . .. .

_... ·:.·~·.DCVIU,
T..
.T .
. •
.
~
•
T
. ·.. j·

. ...
-
''· .· .
.· .
,.
.. ... ·.··

.•

i
i

I
I
 ..·. ,, ...
-;_'.}·?';/:~-err:::;. . ;;

!'.~ ..
r

f_OJ.

'.
.. ~
. ·.. ..
.. . r~>:··:
.".··
·· .. - ···~ ;

...:,: :;
.
.;.·. ·
•·.·
.
.· • ..... ....
DelCriptio p•;:· IJlt~tllAtDdilo
-: . ·~ ·~: :,-.. •.. ~-~.:.;.!";·
. ...... .... ..... ..•
.-t .. ;,•.... -....· '~·:::,::<>/.:-~?/. "· : ~.; ...
. :~"
.•·
...
. .. -"":... ~ ,..···.... .. -·- ·., :_,: ·.. ....
; . ~··· ~:
,. ·:
. .-·--· ~-.. .. ;_;.!_~;:·;~~~.~;.~.:.
.....\
: ... ·.. ··.\. :~
-;.. ........ ,. .-· . -
:::·;·:·-.: _., .........
··:
:'l:: ·..:.·~-:-·. ~ ·~·~· . .. . ~ . ~. . -~:· .
, ..
. ... ,.
.,,·, .. '•;· ' ..
t·-:..·; .... ~ .• ··.:.·~··-~···
"l, ··. '. ·'·:·: ~~ :)' .. ·_.:: .. ::·.. ~:~.... ·.:·· :··..~,..
::~~·_i.:::: •... ·.. . ... ;··. ._: ...:, ..
,. -
-:
... ,.
~ .. · ....
.. ·. :
~ .-......; ~· '. ~

. .. ·. ......
~· ~
. ..... ...
·
.... ·. ~, ..
.··
:DD..::··: ~~ n~".;.'·· "··:·-;·..... ,..: Kit. '.:.· •.

T• · ..
.........
: 1·. -

: ~.
·T
• ~ .. .. LXm1·
. .·
,.
.T·
EE.

.
·::·~·}.:--:.--
. ..• ,. ~
.... •·' ....
·.. ·:-- ~

' ..
T·..
:.·· ... ...

.- . : ~· · i..,
··.·:
·.,.

..
 104

Boethius 1 s manual and numerical divisions of the

monochord, in addition to establishing the trends of medi-
eval treatment of the monochord, also serve in part as the
fundamental patterns for the later fornis of letter notation.
The set of letters used in the manual division are placed
in the order of di vision (in the manner used 'by Euclid);
those used in the numerical division are placed alphabeti-
cally and are not influenced by the direction of the division.
In the course of his theoretical discussion, Boethius
uses two other sets of abbreviations (A-0 and A-P). These,
however, are not used in conjunction with the monochord,
but appear instead in discussions of the consonances and
the modes.

38. (continued fran p. 102) is offered. All of the early

printed works, as well as the manuscripts, use Roman
instead of Arabic numerals. Reading of these numbers
is not difficult if one is aware of certain procedures.
For example, large numbers consisting of several digits
are presented in groups of Roman numerals, separated
by periods. In addition to this, a dash is placed
over the first group of a number larger than 999.
Thus II. CCC. III!. is the number 2304. The first
group on the right side of a number is always 99 or
less; the second group from the right represents
hundreds; the third group, thousands. A number such
as 4096 is represented only by two groups; the left-
hand group still retains the dash: !III. XCVI. Sane
printed works, such as Gerbert 1 s Scriptores, do not
consistently retain the dash markS over the thousands,
in which case canparison with the decipherable numbers
in the series is necessary. The Ran.an symbols for
fractions are given in GS I, 315, fn. f.
 105

The writers of the later Middle Ages, using the

techniques given~by Boethius, established three .main trends
of monochord divisions. The first main trend, descending
manual division, is based upon a canbined interpretation
of Boethius's manual and numerical divisions. The second,
ascending manual division, is based only on Boethius's
manual division. The first of these two trends may be said
to be representative of Boethius's intentions, whereas the
second is representative of his actions. The third trend,
numerical division, continues to use the Aristidean numbers.
These three may be further divided into sub-groups whose
differences are limited to variations of the main trends.
Each of these three trends will be presented sepa-
rately, with the divisions in each group discussed in chrono-
logical order. Since the individual peculiarities of each
division are dependent upon a clear understanding of the
basic concepts, the representative divisions of later
authors will be discussed in some detail.
The remark that two of these main trends of mono-
chord treatment in the Middle Ages are both based on
Boethius may at first seem somewhat cryptic. However, it
is merely a case of d1 vi ding the monochord to achieve the
result intended by Boethius, by not following his direc-
tions; or dividing the monochord according to his
 106

directions, and not achieving the desired results. '!hat

is, although Boeth1us intended to give directions for a
manual division of the Greater Perfect System made up of
Pythagorean intervals, he was unable to attain this end
because he directed that this be done by means of an ascend-
ing division. This is, of course, impossible, because the
manual method of finding the semitone consisted of slib-
tracting two tones from the diatessaron, the remainder being
the semitone. The Greater Ferfect System, if the reader
will recall, has the following interval order:
A B C D E F G A ~ C D E F G aa
TS T TS TT TS TT S TT

The fact that there is only one tone at the lower end pre-
vented Boeth.1 us .fran determining the position of the stJni-
tone by means of the ascending division, so, as a result,
his manual division lacks not only the lowest but all of
the semitones. 39 However, Boeth1us, undaunted, did supply
the missing semitones in his numerical division of the
tetrachords.

39. It is possible, by means of an alternating~ascending

division, to place the lowest semitone; and, as may
be noted, nothing prevented Boethius from finding
the semitone between E and F by an ascending division,
since it is preceded by two tones. Several later
medieval divisions do complete the system in this
manner after commencing according to Boeth1us 1 s
directions. See PP• 129, 139, below.
 107

later authors, in attempting to divide the mono-

chord according to Boetbius's directions, undoubtedly
discovered this error. In one case they combined Boeth1us's
desires with his numerical d1vis1.on easily done since
Boetbius'a num.erical division proceeds in a descending
manner, and it was a relatively easy operation to apply
this method to the manual division of the instrunent. The
resulting manual division proceeds in a descending manner,
much like the earlier Greek manual divisions.
In the other case, the authors, realizing the flaw
in Boethius's manual division, corrected it by simply adding
an extra noteJto the bottClll of the disdiapason, t.hereby
provi.ding the necessary two tones at the lower end of the
scale:
G A B C D E F G a ~ c d e f g aa
T TS T TS TT TS T TS TT

This second procedure resulted in the second trend based on

the ascending manual division which, as will be seen, even-
tually became the standard medieval division.
There is, of course, the possibility that the post-
Boethian writers who used the descending division had access
to the Greek treatises that explained the descending divi-
sion; however, since research by this writer has largely
ruled out this possibility, it is believed that the medieval
 108

descending division was based on an inte1"prete.tion of

Boethi.us. Available evidence seems to indicate that the
ascending division came about in the way described above.

Descendin~ Manual Divisions

!.!! the Mi dl e Ages
The first main trend of medieval manual monochord
division, mentioned earlier as a combination of Boethius's
intent and his arithmetical division, may be further divided
into two sub-groups. Both of these groups consist of
descending divisions, differing in that group 1 consists
of descending divisions, and group 2 of alternating-descend-
ing divisions, much in the manner of the manual division
of Euclid.
Group 1: descending divisions. The De 1nstitutione
harmonica of Hucbald (.£!.· 840-930) appears to be the first
medieval treatise after Boethius to discuss the monochord.
Hucbald's discussion consists of a set of directions for a
descending manual monochord division. Since this is the
first of seven divisions in group 1 dealt with in this study,
Hucbald's directions are presented in full as follows:
In the first octave, E has [contains] all
of F and its eighth, 1.e., sesquioctava. Dall
of E and its eighth, i.e., epogdotmL. Call of
F and 1 ts third, which is sesqui tertia or epi-
tri ta, i.e., a fourth. Ball of C and its
eighth, which is a tone; or all of E and its
third which is a fourth; or all of F and its
 109

half which is a fifth. A all of B and its

eighth, i.e., a tone; or all of D and its
third, which is a fourth; or all of E and its
half, which.is a fifth. G has all of C and
its third, which is a fourth. G, moreover,
which is Trite Synemmenon, has all of D of the
first octave and its halt, which is a fifth.
In the second octave: F has all of G and
its eighth, which is a tone, or all of Band.
its third, which is a fourth, or all of C and
its balf, which is a fifth, or all of F doubled,
which is an octave. E all of F and its eighth,
i.e., a tone; or all of A and its third, which
is a fourth; or all of Band its half, which is
a fifth; or all of E doubled, which is an octave.
Dall of E and its eighth, i.e., a tone; or all
of A and its half which is a fifth; or all of
D doubled which is an octave. C all of F and
its third, which is a fourth; or all of G and
its half, which is a fifth; or all of C doubled,
which is an octave; or all of the first F
doubled and its two-thirds, which is an octave
and at the same time a fourth. B all of C and
its eighth, i.e., a tone; or all of E and its
third, i.e., a fourth; or all of F and its half,
i.e., a fifth; or all of B doubled, 1.e., an
octave, or all of F tripled, i.e., an octave
and likewise a fifth. A all of Band its eighth,
which is a tone; or all of D and its third, which
is a fourth; or.all of C and its halt, which is
a fifth; or all of A doubled, i.e., an octave.
Gall of C and its third, i.e., a fourth; or all
of G doubled, i.e., an octave. Fall of G and
its eighth, i.e., a tone; or all of Band its
third, i.e., a fourth; or all of C and its half,
~hich is a fifth; or she third F quadrupled,
i.e., a bisdiapason.4

40. Hucbald, De institutione harmonica, GS I, 122-123.

The readeF""is cautioned to beware of~he several mis-
·takes printed by Gerbert (corrected in this transla-
tion). In general these errors substitute C or G
for E. A corrected Latin reading may be found in
Jacques Migne, Patrolo,iae cursus can!letus, series
Latina, 221 vols. (Pars: Gardiner, 844-55),
CXXXII, Cols. 925-926.
 110

The notation used in this division consists o'f the

letters F-F, which are the same as A-aa. The directions
use measurements of 2, 3, and 8 parts, and the author
laboriously explains each of the possible means of deter-
mining each note. In the diagram (Diagram l?), the simplest
measurement given in each case has been used. 'Ihis division
does not indicate that the first F should be placed one-
quarter of the string length from the end (as is shown in
Diagram 17). The lack of this direction, that is, a four-
part division to determine the place of the first F, prob-
ably indicates that this division is abstract, and, although
it is here arbitrarily applied to a string, it would also
be just as applicable to a set of numbers or a set of pipes.
The division as given produces sixteen notes in fifteen
steps.
The Tractatus de musica of Anonymous 2 (.£!!!:.· 900)
gives essentially the same division as Hucbald's. 41 'lhis
division, which utilizes measurements of 2, 3, 4, and 8
parts, ~reduces fifteen notes in twelve steps. 'Ihe use of
i
the letters A-P to represent the Greek note names is

41. Anonymous 2, GS I, 338-342. The division as printed

by Gerbert is""""Iacking some words and one whole measure-
ment. A corrected reading may be found in Sigfrid
Wantzloeben, Das Monochord als Instrument und als
System (Halle:--Ehrbiirdt Karras, 1911), 41:-- ~
 111

"Diagram 17. Hue bald (ga. 840-9.30), De institutione harmonica.

Direct ion: De5Cet'ldin9. Measurements: Z,3,8. Note:s: 16.

Completed Monochord: Pythagorean Tunirl<,3.

F" GA B CD £ FG1,..,GA B CD E F
1----1-1--11~--· II I I t-i I I II I I -.
I I
Steps Proportion~
I I
t--·--
E,. F.,
I I I 7 I ' I s I .. I .a I z I I I Jl
I I I I I I I I I

D9 E
z t----- ·---- ----- - I I 61 ., I • I $ : " : :I : z: I

c 4
F
3 z I
.3 -- ·--·- -----·- -- ·--· I I
I
I
I
I
I

,. I 51 ., I
I

4 - -· - · - - - - - --·--
6 c
- l'le I
., ~ I ~ I J
I I

A9 B 8
s --···---- - - ·+ I I '1~ I
~
I
4
I
3 1
I
r I
I
I

G c , I I
6 - - - · · - ----· - I "' I
I
I
I
I
I

7 ,.________ G,~.,. D
z
> I
·- ·-· I I I
F'" z r t
I
a - ----- --- --- --------- I
I
I
I
I

E £ z
9 ·-·-------+···---· 2 I I
I
D z
D
I
. &
10 ,. . ----t-·-·· I I .!

11, _ _ __ cI a
c J.
·-· I
I
I
I
1.
8I 8I ~
IZ __ .,L
-·- z I I
I I

AI z A !
131----- I
I
I
I 1.
~
G
14, ____ -t- z ~ I
.l
I

15 F 4 z F
+· ~ I
I
I
I
I
 112

probably derived fran Boethius. Diagram 18 illustrates

this division.
Adrien de la Fage bas reprinted two anonymous divi-
sions, which are said to date from the second half of the
42
tenth century. The first of these two divisions reserr.ble8
Anonymous 2 in the choice of letters and in the number of
steps, but is a more difficult division since it uses only
three- and eight-part measurements. The second of the pair
of divisions adds Synemmenon (2) by means of a sesquioctave
proportion to the note marked K (1). Diagram 19 demon-
strates the technique of these divisions
The second of two divisions found in the Gita et
vero divisio monochordi (£!_. tenth century) is exactly the
same in every detail as Hucbald's descending division. 43
Notker La.bee (d. 1022) uses the notation F-F in
conjunction with the Greek note names. This division has
one less note and one less measurement than Hucbald's
division. The omitted note is the G (B-flat) synemmenon,

42. Adrien de la Fage, Essais de D:tatherographie Kusicale

(Paris: Au magasin de musI'Que u Bazar de l'Industria,
O. Legouix, editeur, 1864), 193-194.
43. This treatise, fo:rmerly attributed to Bernelinus, is
now listed as Anonymous 10, Q.§. I, 312-330.
 113

Diagram 18. Anon 2, GS I, 338-3+2, TH"J.Cta.tus de mus1co. (~.'JOO),

Direction: Descending. Mea.surements: Z.,3 ,4J8.

Completed Monochor-d: Pytho.9ore.an Tuni n~.

A D EF & H I K L MM 0 P
I
I
I 11 I I H I ti JI
St e
I Q H p Pi-oportion
~
•
I I
I
2. I
I
J I
I
I
.i
2 O'lPa
-. ""54 I
l, 2. I

N0 .
3 - -.-
M.
.
. q.8.'7.1..6.+
-, .
'
..
.).Z.I

p
. 4
I
I
I
3
.. 2.
.• I

5 .L
'
3 .p 2.
. I

~. K1. .1- I
'
I
1"
7 ~·
I
4- .
M
I
3
I
I ~ I
I
I ~
3

8 .
G-
I
3 -~
L 2. .
I
I
T
3

. .•f 3 ~ 2. . I 3
z
' '
10 E
'
3 +
. z. -.
I
z3
c 4 F 3 . I
II '
I I
I
•
I
2.
I
!
I}. B
I

I
+ ,E
I
3 I

I
4 .
I
I 4
3
 114

Diagram It Anon. L.~ Fa9e, 193-194, Si vis meteri monocord1' (Z11d. half 10th.CJ. I
I
I
Direct ion: Descending. Meas1jrements: 3, 8. Notes: 15. f
i
/
I
i
i

Completed Monochon::l: Pytnagore an Tuning. I

/
A 8 C D E F G HCZ} I K 1. MN Q P

I
.------t--il,____-+I --++--+-- I I 11 I 11 +I
I
I
Steps P.-oportiol"ls
1.._'A
_____ ~Di----------H ________.P~-------'1

z.,_ __________________ ------------- 09Pl!I ., " 5 ... .9 :3 I ~

NO
3 _ .. ·-- ___ ___ _ .. - - - - - - -.. ----·-------+j-9-+l-8+.!_f-!-1_5 4 .3 Z I ~
M p
4 --·- ------ -------·- -------------- --1 -~- ~----L+-2---1---.....j~
L!I s 1 , s ~ :s z 9
s ·--------+-~¥-! I I ' -I ' a
6 -· ·--- ---- ____.._ ·---------·-------1_!__~+~' Is I ... I 3 I~-+ I ~
7 ------- -------- -i-"" M s z ~
• ( Z) 1((1) .. " I ~
--··--·-- -----------------+-~-+!·+-7 " s :J z 8
G H
a -- ··-·---- -·-------- - I , 1-- '! +!..-1--'·-+ s I~ -t-1_>_I_2~--~.
g ---- - --- - - - - -- f !..-+i-"-li--7·--+--'--il,___s-+--4--+I-~--+-I_z--1!--'-~
101------------f- ~ I , ---+--z--+------1~
u~ ~ __y_ ~--r-~-+-.,---1f--'- _.1. ._s-_1--1 _ .., 3 z ~
1zL__ t-- " I ------'---+----'z""----+---'---...Jj
• Thi.s division is given as an e~tra .5tep in ihe Altera divi.sio
rr10(>;?Cordj. De la. F~e Essa.is , 153.
 115

for which reason the monochord produces fifteen notes deter-

44
mined by means of fourteen measurements (Diagram 20).
The division of Odoranne (£!., 985-1045) requires
seventeen steps to produce sixteen notes. 'lhe extra step
is necessary because he directs that the Mese and the ~·;t1te

Hyperbolaion be found by means of two-part measuretm'ts

instead of the custanary four-part measurement. T s divi-
sion (Diagram 2~) uses the Greek note names. 45 ,

Hermannus Contractus (£!• 1048) did not completely

divide the monochord, but his discussion of the properties
of the instrument implies a descending division of ~~e kini
under discussion. In his Chapter 4, Hennannus describes
the tetrachords in ascending order, but the measurements
are listed in descending order. 46 The first step is the

44. Paul Piper, Die Schriften Notkers (Freiburg:

J. C. B. Monr;-1882),

4:5. Migne, ..QE.• cit., CXLII, Cols. 809-814. To save space

the Gre0K note names in Diagram 21 are abbreviated as
follows: Pis the Proslambananenos; HH, Hypate
Hypaton; PHy ~·:' Parh:ypate Hypaton; LH, Lichanos Hypa ton;
EM, liypate Meson; IM, Lichanos Meson; M, Mesa; TS,
Trite Synemmenon; Pm, Paramese; TD, Trite D.lezeugmenon
and PS, Paranete Syne1IDJ1enon; PD, Paranete Diezeugmenon
and NS, Nete Synemmenon; ND, Neta D:tezeugm.enon; TH,
Trite Hyperbolaion; PH, Paranete Hyperbolaion; NH,
Nete Hyperbolaion. These abbreviations are also used
in Diagram 24, p. 122, below.
46. Hennannus Contractus, Musica Hermanni Contracti,
tr. by Leonard Ellinwood (Rochester: Eastman School
of Music, 1936), 23.
 116

Diagram 20. NotKer Labeo (d. IOZZ ), De musica.

D1recl1on: Descending. Measurements: Z, 3, 8.

Completed Monochord: P1Jtha9orean Tuning.

F" G A B CD E F GA B CD E" F
I
I I I 1-- ·-+ I I I I I I II I I
I
P'"oport ions
Steps
I I
E' F"~ , ., • S If S Z I
1
9
8
2 ...,.._____________________. DE 9
I' 1• 17 ' I
e
C F
I "' I ~ I z ' i
3
8 F
4 I
3
1
z 1.
t.
5 A, a. 7 s ... • • s
'
I
i
6 _________ G c
I ... .3 z 4
I 3
F
.z
7 ...__________ ·--------+---_::;.._----+--------1 z F
T
8
F E" 5
------ --------+I·_•____.1--"-•-+--7--+l--'''---"l--=-~--"-+-'~,__..-----1
2
8
D £
9r----·--- I , I • I 7 I ' I s--1-I_4--+l--,__z____ ~
8
10._______ ...... - ·----~-----"-:1_ _ _G+l---z---T-------1 3
2
II - - - - - · · ---4---:t-----+----a-'-----+F________. 3·
1
IZ _ _ A 9
• 1 .J ;r 9
8
G C
13,______+1---..------+-------+---2~---+-------I ~
3
14 F" F
---+---~----t------2_____________ ~
I
 117

01·a9ram 2.1. Odoranne (£$!.: 985-1045 ), De divisione monochordi.

Direct ion: Descending. Measurements~ Z,3, 8. Notes: 111.;.

Completed Monochord • PfJtha9orean Tuning.

P HH PH~ LH HM PM LM M fl.tTD PD ~DIN PH ,H
I I I I I I I~ I iJs Nls I I
5t eps M Proport ions
1
I: P z I
~·------1--~·------.J------~-------!z
M NH
z ---- --- -------------1-----'-------- 2 i
3,,__,, _ __
TU PM
4~----- --- ---J-2.+~~ I ~ I"' I a I " I ' j
5 - - - - - - - - ~D IH J I z I ' $ If

po ND
6 -- - ----- --- - ----- 1'1•1.,1~1r1•1'1' Ii
7_ ·-------------·------------1·1~1!--P-+..!.-., .1
2 I;
Pm MD
6 . - -- . ___ ,, ____ ------ - - - - - - · -·-· -- ---··- -+- -~- -·+- 4
_,.!_ __ t·--=·--+--'-_,.~
N5 ND
9 --·--------- I • I • I ., r' Ir I.,, I 2 I " I 1
:

10 P.5_. PO. .., ,, a z 1 9

---------------~-! I I' • 8
TS T~
11 ..... t ---·~·---·-- t ---··--·----t--'- i
12 1-------- ________ !:.r____ 3 _ ------~~--- 3 ___--+- i
~ PM TO
13 ------- __.. _____ ·-·t-- -~-------t-----'z~ ----+----------lj
141----- 1-/M "" M 1 2 4
---t I ·--------+-------i3
15 ----------Lt --~--
PH1;1 LM
r a I -----1i
16 --~-- --.. ~- - --+- 2 i
17 ---!4~--~----4M :. f---.:..2 ___4-----=-----'~
 118

highest note (aa), the second step is the octave (a), the
third step is the fifth below (D), and the fourth step is
the lowest note (A). The use of A as the lowest note of
the scale and the use of a descending four-part division
suggests that the remainder of the monochord would be
divided in a descending manner.
Hennannus mentions several kinds of notation, but
his strongest statement concerns the order of letters to
47
be used. He maintains that the S'YD1.bols themselves are
unimportant as long as the upper octave is a repetition
of the lower. The following facsimile from Brambach's
edition of the Musica illustrates Hermannus's contentions. 48

Diagram 22. The letter notation of Hermannus Contractus.

47. Ibid., 39.

48. Hennanni Contrac ti' Music a I ed. by wm·. B:rem.oach
( Lipsiae: Teubneri, 1884), f'ig. 3,.
 119

Because the anon'YJllOUS treatise, Mansura monochordi

Boet11 (twelfth century), printed by Gerbert, 49 is a canpi-
lation of five methods of dividing a monochord, it provides
a cross-section of twelfth-century knowledge of the instru-
ment. Each of the five different divisions which are labeled
a, b, c, d, and e i:µ ··this study will be discussed in the
section pertaining to its manner of division. The third
division of this group (Anonymous 4c, GS I, 345-347), pre-
sents a division similar to that of Anon. 2 (GS I, 338-342),
except that Anon. 4c uses the lotter notation F-F and thir-
teen steps to produce sixteen notes (Diagram 23). 50
The seven divisions that have been listed in group 1
of the descending divisions differ frc:m group 2 in that
group 2 consists of alternating-descending divisions.
There are four alternating-descending divisions in ttlis
group, all of which are found in anonymous treatises rang-
ing from the early tenth through the twelfth centuries.
These four treatises represent a continuation of the kind
of division p~esented by Euclid, although none are as effi-
cient as Euclid's. It must again be pointed out that

49. Q§, I, 344-348.

50. This division also divides the Trite Synemmenon,
whereas Anon. 2 does not. Another difference is
that Anon. 2 uses twelve steps for fifteen tones.
 120

Diagram 23. Anon. 4c,GSI . .345a-34 7a, De mensura monocordi (~ IZtACJ.

Direct ion: De~cendi119. Mea.surements: Z, 3, 8.

Completed Monochord: Pythagorean Tuni"9.

F G A 6 C D E" 6 CD E' F"

! I I I I I I I 11 I I I
I I
Ste~ P.-oport ions
I IF' B
I I ..
l
't
I I

Er
z ,,,,,,1,1s141312
I I I 1 I I I I
,,
I
s
6
,
3
-- -
't + F" ,
q,9.111,1~1'
I I I I I I
131111
I I I
8

+. I 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ' !
8 c '
5 ,9,.,7,,
r
•S1~13 111 I e
l I l l 1 I I I
8
.~ E'
- -.
3 I

I
Z· I
I ' 3
2.
7 ~
I " .
I
s
1
I z I
I
I

syn.
-, D
8 ~ I z I I 3
I I I
l
E" £I
I I.
I
I
~
I I
D D
10
I
2
-+- I
l
I

II er z c;. I
z.I
I l

IZ A z A
--- I I

I
I
~
I I
13 ~ • ~ I z.I
I I
 121

al though it is not definitely known whether these treatises

are directly derived from Greek sources or whether they are
reworkings of the ideas presented by Boeth:i.us, available
evidence points to the latter t?nclusion.
Group g: alternating-descending divisions. The
first anonymous treatise in group 2, the Ci ta et~~­

chordi in diatonico genera, dating from around 900, was

formerly attributed to Hucbald. It utilizes Greek names
for ths notes and produces sixteen notes in fifteen measure-
ments, in an alternating-descending division (Diagram 24).
The text of this division, a model of conciseness, shows
the manner in which each measurement relies upon the pre-
ceding ones. A translation follows:
One-half of the Proslam.bananenos is the
Mese; of this, moreover, one-half is the Nate
Hyperbolaion, of which the third part added to
itself is the Neta Diezeugmenon. Similarly,
half added to this same Nate Hyperbolaion is
P~ranete D.tezeugmenon, of which the fourth part
is Paranete Hyperbolaion. Of this, one-half
added to itself is the Trite Diezeugmenon; of
this, the fourth part is the Trite Hyperbolaion.
Moreover, the third part of the Nete Diezeug-
menon added to itself is the Paramese. Beholdl
you have eig'1t divisions, of which each gives
its own octave, that is to say, up to the
Proslambanomenos, and you will have fifteen
sounds, arranged in two octaves.51

51. Anonymous, Oita et divisio monochordi in diatonico

genera, GS r,-T22:
 122

Dia9ram2i Anon. .!l3I. IZZ, Cito etverodivi'lo monocordi in digtonjcogenera

(~900).

Direct ion: Descending. Measurements; Z, 3, 4. Note': (5.

Completed Monochord: P1:1tho9orean Tuning.

Pr HH -PHy LH HM PM LM t.f p,,, TD PO NDTW PH HH

I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I
I I
5teP5 Proportions
M
r'P I I z I I
I
2
z ~ I ~H z I
I
I 2
MO ., NH 4
3 - · · - - - - - -- . -· ·-·· ·-·· I
-I 3 I z I
'
I I I 3
PO NH
4 z 3
---------· I
I
:J I
I
I
I
I
z
5 ----- -
PD
I I
PU
I 2
I
, I 4 ~
4
TDI , PH z
6 ----
ro
I
+-
TH
I
I
I

2
3

7 z ~ 3
.. I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I " 4
8 ~ NO , z I ....
- I " I
I
I
I
I
I 3
LM P14
9 ---------t----·-2----· z
I
I ' T
PM TH
z
10 ·---- -----r- I
I T
II HM ND
2
I I
I I
T
LH PD
IZ
--+ I
I
2
T
PMI 'j · TD
13
I
I
I - z.I
1-1~ p""'
14 I I
·-··- 2
I I T
 123

Gerbert's Anonymous 1 divides the fifth tetrachord,

Synammenon, as an integral part of the diatonic division;
this division necessitates the addition of extra letters
to the note series, resulting in the notation A-s. 52 The
notes of the tetrachord Synemmenon are: I, Trite Synennnenon;
K, Paranete Synemmenon; L, Neta Synemmenon. The la.st two
notes of this tetrachord ( K and L) ·coincide with the Paranete
Diezeusmenon and the Nete Diezeugmenon, which are marked N
and O. The Trite Diezeugmenon is marked M. The directions
indicate that the Synemmenon letters are to be placed above
the line and those of the Di ezeugmenon below, as s.l-iown in
Diagram 25.
Anonymous 10 (GS I, 312-330) uses the same text
for its division as the anonymous Cita ~ divisio monochordi
in diatonico genera. Anonymous 10, fonnerly attributed to
Bernelinus, dates from the eleventh century. 53
The final alternating-descending division also uses
the letter notation F-F throughout its two-octave range.
This division, the first of five grouped under Anon-ym.ous 4
(GS I, 344-48), is designated Anon. 4a. Although Gerbert
is inconsistent in his use of minuscules for the superius

52. Anonymous 1, Musica, GS I, 330-338.

53. See p. 112, above and Diagram 24.
 124

Diagrarn25. Anon.1, ~I. 330-338 1 Musica (IO th.C. J.

D:rection:Altemat'!ilPcendilJ9. Mea.surements: Z,3,4. Note': 16.

Completed Monochord: AJthagorean Tuning.

A e c. 0 E' F" Q
I I I I I I I I
I MN 0 I
Steps Pr-oport bns
1 1A D .
I
.
H
I
s...
I
14

z I f7>
"" ~
, I
I
~ I I
!
I I I 3

C? ~
s I 2 . I 3
-··-··· I I I z
4
q
I
I
R I
r
z I

I • I .. 3
+
';
b
5 ~ 3 F! 2 . I 3
t!.J
I T
i
6 If I 9 , I 3 I .. a
N
I I I I
4
7 I
I
....
p
l
. • I
-. z I
-. I 4
3
M
a +
I
:I
q>
T
z
l
I I

z'
1-1
~ 4 I 3 I z I I 4
I I I I
3
B ... ~
IO I I :I I 2 ' I 4
I I I I
3
D G
I I I z. •I :J ' 4 3
I I l
4
12
c
I :I ~ i I I 3
I I l 2
13 7 F
. , 3
I
I I

'
2
I
I
" +
 125

(i.e., the upper or second octave), his rendering of the

letters is used in Diagram 26.
All of the descending monochord divisions (both
descending and alternating-descending) have several fentures
in canmon, which probably points to their common origin.
The most obvious feature is that they are all restricted to
the range of a minor disdiapason; furthennore, each one
utilizes one of three types of note designation, that is,
F-F, A-P, or the Greek note names; and finally, the only
non-diatonic note introduced in these divisions is the
B-flat in the second c~ tave .· and this not consistently.
The widest variance is noticed in the range required to
produce the fifteen or sixteen notes cc:mmon to all of the
divisions. The following tabulation (Table 5) will enable
the reader to see more easily the points of both sih1ilarity
and difference.

Ascendinf Manual Divisions

of the M ddle Ages
The ascending manual division of the monochord
represents the second medieval trend in the treatment of
the instrument. This division, which first appeared in-
completely in Boethius's De musica, became the standard one
of the last half of the Middle Ages. All available evi-
dence points to the completion of Boethius's division by
 126

Diagram26. Anon. 4a, ~I. 344a-345a, De men,ura monochordi (c;g. 12th.C.).

Direct ion :Alternatin9DesctnJir19. Measurements: Z, 3, 4. Notes :/G.

Completed Monochor·d: Pytha'9orean Tunin9.

s ' cJ
F G A B C D F ~f" b
E" CD e F'
I I I I- I I -+-I-I--1-I -1-11-il~li-------,
I I
5tep5 p,,.oport ions
I IF' B '4
"" ---------+· ·-+---- I

2
c F
4
- I
I
" I
I
:J I
I
'I I
I
I

3
b F'
3 z 3
I
I
3 I
I
I
I
I

z
4 .. l
b I
e z , I 4 3
I I I I
4
9. e 3
5 1----------- :J I
I I I·
I
d
I I
z
d D
3
6 ,__ --·-- _ .. _ _ - z I :J I

9
I
I
I

c:
I
I I
" 4
G c z I 4
7 1------·-- ---- I " I
3
I I 3

G,~"· d
a...._______ ----~
------ ~ I l. I I 3
I I I
z
£" e
9....._________ -----
------ -- ·----t---·---·L··----- -·- f I
·- 2I
d
D D z
:z
10 ---·------- ·---- -- I
I
I
I ' T
c
II
cI z cI I z
I I
T
A aI z
12
-·----+- ., I T
G G z
13 ..+- - I
I
T
 NAME DATE TYPES OF NOTATION N1.MBER OF IDMBER OF
MEASUREMENTS STEPS NOTES
Descending Divisions -- Group 1
Hucbald ca. 900 2,3,8 F-F 16 15
Anon. 2 ca. 900 2,3,4,8 A-P 16 15
Anon. 10 Tenth century 2,3,8 F-F 16 15
Anon. I.a !ate tenth 3,8 A-P 12 15
Fage century
N. Is.beo d. 1022 2,3,8 Greek names 14 15
Odoranne ca. 1030 2,3,8 F-F 16 ·17
Anon. 4c Twelfth century 2,3,8 F-F 13 16

Alternatin~-Descendine Divisions -- Group 2

Anon. Oita. ca. 900 2,3,4 Greek names 14 15
Anon. 1 Tenth century 2,3,4 A-S 13 16
Anon. 10 Eleventh century 2,3,4 Greek names 14 15
Anon. 4a Twel.fth century 2,3,4 F-F 13 16

Table 5. Summary of descending monochord divisions.

.....
ro
~
 128

the addition of an extra note beneath the lowest note of

the disdiapason. Although the exact origin of this addition
is unknown, 1 t appears fully defined in the D:talogus de
musica of Odo(.£!· 1000). The Greek£ as the symbol for
this note was used by Odo and all subsequent authors to
the end of the Middle Ages.
As a main trend, the ascending division may be sub-
divided into four groups, which, for the sake of clarity,
will be numbered 3, 4, 5, and 6, thereby forming a continu-
ation of the two groups already described as descending
divisions. The group falling in the main line of descent,
established by the division of Odo, is numbered 4. Group 3,
so numbered because it precedes group 4 chronologically
though not in importance, contains four ascending divisions,
none of which appears to be directly connected witl1 the
main trend identified with Odo. Group 5 begins about 1025
with the first division of Guido. Guido's division differs
from Odo's mainly in the upper range of the division; that
is, Odo's is more limited. Guido also presents another
extended division of an extremely simple construction.
This second kind of Guidonian division will be discussed
as group 6.
Group 3: pre-Odonian divisions. Group 3 appears
to be confined to treatises of the tenth century. The first
 129

of the four divisions dealt with in this study, fran an

54
anonymous treatise, was printed by Adrien de Ia Fage,
This division, using the letters A-P, is the same kind of
division of the minor disdiape.son observed earlier in
Anonymous 2 (Q.§. I, 338-342), but differs fran the latter in
th.at it is divided ascendingly after the manual pattern set
forth by Boethius (Diagram 14); unlike Boethius•s, however,
this division is can.plate, since it corrects Boethius•s
anission by locating the note C as a sesquialtera propor-
tion to the G -- that is, in e. dee.cending manner. Diagram
26 shows how the semitones are found. Since the use of
some descending divisions is necessary in order to canplete
the gamut, this division is classed as an alternating-
ascending division that uses only 2-, 3-, and 9-part measure-
55
ments. The letters M, N, O, and P are not given in the
treatise, but are supplied by this author. It should be
pointed out, however, that the alternating manner in which
this division is can.plated is uncommon in ascending

54. Le. Fage, E.E• cit., 73-74.

55. The alternating-ascending division, although appear-
ing frequently in the late Middle Ages, is not used
as a separate classification, as was the alternating-
descending division, since other stronger criteria
such as range and number of measurements provide a
stronger connection in the classifying of the divi-
sions.
 1:30

divisions, and that, while it achieves the correct resolu-

tion, it nevertheless locates the semitones in the descend-
ing ma:rmer used by the descending divisions. At this time
the true ascending division attempted by Boethius had not
yet cane.
The second division (Diagram 28) in this category,
found in the Scholia enchiriadis (~. 900), also uses the
letter notation A-P. 56 In this division the letters are
used to represent a major disdiapason (i.e., C-cc).
Since. this is the earliest known division of a
major disdiapason, some interesting speculations arise
about its origin. Reese, for example, offers reasonably
conclusive proof that Boethius intended the series A-P to
represent a descending minor disdiapason, 57 although we
have seen it used to represent the ascending minor dis-
diapason. 58 The author of the Scholia was aware that he
was di Viding the string in an ascending iuanner (see Diagram
28), but confusion surrounds his interval order:
A B C D E F G H I K L M N 0 P
TT ST T TS TT ST TT S

56. Anon:ymous, Scholia enchiriadis, Q§. !, 209.

57. Reese, E.E• cit., 135.
58. Diagram 18 above and Anonymous 2, GS I, 338-342.
 131

D1a9rarnt.1.Anon . . L~ Fage 1 73-74 1 Monocordum comP'>siturus (ca.IOth.C..).

Direct ion:· Ascending. Mea.st..trernents: Z,3,4. Note': 16.

Completed Monochord: Pythagorean Tuning.

A B C D E F G A i RK L MN 0 P
-1 --11----'-I-~1 --~1._I__._I- I I I I I 11 I I
I I
Steps p,..oport ions
1
1 A
H l ........ . .. -' .:!..:: .. -
.
I z
D
zA I
t- 2
---t------ z
I

A £"
z
f-··· -----~---
I " ·-----+ " 3
D G -
4--- I I z.
I ~
1--~---
I
3
I " 4
~ f
s
---- I
'(
·- I --- 3 I 1 I
I
I 4
3
Cf q .3
~- I
3
I
'Z
+- I

1
7 y
I - I f I
~ I
I
3 I
I
.. 3
4
8
F I I
( i I :J I If 3
I I I l
4
8
I
---------'·---·-·-·---·-+----·
R , I
I z
10 ~---- I ~I 2.
zI
II ';> L'i
I
I
I
a
zI
12 - ~ I ~ '1 I
I I
z
f" N
13 I I I 'Z' I
I I
2
14 q I 9 '1 I
I I
2
15 - ~ I ~ t. I
I J
z
 132

Diagram Z8. Anon. GSI. 173-212 ,Scholia enchjriadis (~. 900).

Direction: Ascending. Mea.surements: Z,3,4,9. Notes: 15.

Completed Monochord: Pythagorean Tuning.

A 8 c D E F GH I KL MN OP
I
I
I I I I I II I 11 I I
11 I
I
Steps P..-oport ions
h
11 A z I I
z
h
2 I
z
D
3 A z 3
1--- 4
£
4- A --- 2 z
3
h (L)
5 a 3
I " 4
Ii (M)
6 -·-·--- z. 3 z
3
7 A
8 , ,., 8 '9 8
t-z--~
" S'
' 9
8
6 c
t-··_.t_ 3 .. ~
' ' • 9 B
9
9
£
---------t-!_--i---& I
F
i .. -t-L.+_.!_ '7 ,, 9 §
9
10 ---
F I
G .z .I .. s ' " 8 '9 ~
9
h r s ., ,, e
II z 9
'I
" ' 5
12 ---
I K
• ., . 'f 8 , a
' ' 9
13 I
Nz ~
., ..
' " • • 8
9
,.. NO
---~ I 2 I • I ~ I s I' ,, • • 8
9
 133

His understanding of the ascending direction of tile nota-

tion, beginning with A, is consistent tb.l'oughout the treatise,
for early in the second part of the treatise he presents
this diagram:··
A.BC DEFGHIKLMNOP
.
Diapason Diapason
remissum. 59 intensun

Subsequent to this, and immediately preceding the presenta-

tion of the monochord division, he is engrossed in a discus-
sion of the consonances. The numerical representations of
these intervals conclude with the following diagram (Diagram
29).
In tl-i.is diagram the notes from left to right are
in descending order. The numerical designations are a re-
duction of the Aristidean numbers as used by Boeth:lus,
the Anon-ymous Dimensio monochordi (GS I, 122), and Anon'YIJloUs
10 (Q.§, I, 316f). When one compares these numbers, they
appear to be the central octave of the Greater Perfect
System (that is, from e-E descending); in fact, they are
the exact numbers given by Anonymous 10 (Q§. I, 317) for the
central octave (except for 364, which Anonymous 10 gives as

59. Anonymous, Scholia, 184. uD.lapason remissum" means

lower octave and "Diapason intensum. 11 means upper or
higher octave.
 134

Diagram 29. The central octave of the Greater

Perteet System

Tonus Ton us 5ernitonium To nus Tonvs Ton vs Se.mrt.

Z4 27
--~---
13 Z2D2] 36 to 17~0]
I

I i
I
f pcgdous Ep°'jdous Limma1
fMdous Epoqdoos Epogdous LirnmCA
N ~
....N ('I') ~ fl;)
cc
...... +- ~
I.I'
~ N N "'
~
..Q
CP
"' ~ ('C"\

- :.oitrH.vm
:oitritum \

5escuP, ICA.re 5 esc.v p Ia.l"'e

.. ..
· Duplum
-·

364i). The intervals of this central octave, in descending

order, are T TS T T T s. The Scholia contains the follow-
ing diagram immediately following the ascending monochord
division (Diagram 30).
The juxtaposition of the major disdiapason and the
descending central octave provides the basis for several
interesting speculations. It would appear that the author
has made the interval order of the descending central
octave the basis of his monochord division. Whether or not
 135

Diagram 30. The major disdiapason. 60

r---
i Dio.po.s on
---- -
--~-----~i sd ia.pci.$on
I Dia.pa.son
i I
IA H I
BCD EFG--- ----- K L fVI N 0 p
s TTT 5
D~~:~J;~~~~r TD~~~~:~-~
·-----
T T
- --- ·-·-----

1 Di o..te ssaron Dia..pente.

·-· -- -- ------

this was deliberate is not determinaol.e, and certainly the

..
inversion of the interval order appears to be a mistake --
unless the author was a ttemptir1g . to devise a solution to
Boethius's incanplete monochord. This latter conclusion
does not seem altogether improbable, since the use of the
letters A-P appears to be of Boethian origin. Furthermore,
because the discussion of the central octave has been en-
countered nowhere else in theoretical works of the Middle
Ages, one feels that this particular explanation was
concocted mainly as preparation fo~ the subseauent ascend-
ing di vision.

60. Ibid. , 209.

 136

The author Of this tract was apparently not ac-

quainted with the treatise of Hucbald or with the writings
61
attributed to Hucbald, since he does not seem to be aware
of the possibilities of the descending monochord division.
Hucbald, however, in the De institutione harmonica, does
make the following comment about the major disdiape.son:
Nor should anyone be disturbed if he finds
that the pitches of. organs and other 1nstrunents
are not arranged in this fashi en [ 1. e. , minor
disdiapason] or if they seem to exceed this
number of tones [ i.e., fi:f'teen notes 1. Our dis-
tribution is made according to Boethius, who has
e.xamined all this in relationship to num.bers,62
However, no learned person shoUld look down on
these instruments, since they have been in use
by wise men for a long time and were approved
by the greatest of minds. 'lhey contain, moreover,
the distribution we have enumerated. They too
are arranged properly according to the two quali-
ties of intervals, the whole and the half-tone,
and differ from the Boethian distribution only
in their beginning. They begin as it were from
the third degree of the scale. Moreover, the
large num.ber of strings, such as twenty-one or
more, are not used to extend the scale past
fifteen or sixteen but just repeat the lower
tones.63

61, GS I, 122-152.
62. Hucbald, in this place, points out his interpretation
and source of the minor disdiapason and hence the
descending division derived fran the Aristidean
numbers as used by Boethius.
63. Rembert Weakland, "Hucbald as Musician and fueorist,"
The Musical m!terly, XLII (1956), 78. The trans-
filion is Wea land 1s.
 137

These camnents by Hucbald indicate that he was

aware of the use of the major disdiapason, and its relation
to the minor disdiapason. The fact that he does not recog-
nize the necessity for the two whcle tones at the lower end
of the scale implies that he was ~ot cognizant of the
scale's origin or derivation, especially since its justi-
fication is relegated to the authority of wise men of past
ages. A discussion of the origin of the scale does not
appear in any of the treatises; yet it was an accepted
instrumental tuning early in the tenth century. For this
reason one must search elsewhere for the foundations of
this sys tam.
It seems apparent that this scale probably origi-
nated fran attempts to use the Boethian ascending division.
Whether the discussion of the scale in the Scholia is the
first usage, or an attempt to justify its previous existence
(as in the case of Hucbald's wise men), cannot be ascer-
tained, but it is nevertheless the earliest surviving divi-
sion of the major disdiapason. It is quite possible, then,
that this scale could have originated either as an attempt
to use the ascending division or as the result of a mis-
understanding or mistake in the ordering of the intervals
of the scale, as may be seen in the Scholia.
 138

The third and fourth monochord divisions of group 3

are also pre-Odonian ascending divisions and have an in-
direct connection with the Musica enchiriadis and Scholia
ench1r1ad1s. The Musica enchiriadis is unique in its dis-
cussion of the De.seian system. This system, based on the
tetrachord principle of the Greeks, 64 uses a set of four
letters as a medieval imitation of the ancient Greek nota-
tion. 65 The scale of this system is constructed entirely
of disjunct tetrachords, each consisting of T S T. This
arrangement of t:h~ intervals results in a tri tone between
the third pitch of a lower and the second pitch of a higher
tetrachord, and also an augmented octave between the third
note of every other tetrachord. This arrangement may be
seen in the following figure:

Diagram 31. 'Jhe Daseian scale.

~~~fA'~,l~~~~,K~~~
G,A ef#9%.g~.tt:
sbc DE FGa.9 cd
T STTTS TTTS TTT5TTT
I G-R~VES I IFINALES I I SUPERIORESI lf}(.ELLfNTESJ \5UPER EX.

64. Carl Psrl'isll, The Notation of Medieval Music (New

York: W, W, Norton and Co7; 1959), 29.
65. Apel, Notation.£! Folyphonic Music, 204.
 139

The author of the Musica enchiriadis did not pro-

vide a monochord division of this system, but Migne and
Ia Fage both print anonymous asce·nding di visions which
66
contain the proper order of intervals. One can only con-
jecture that these divisions were devised as aids to easier
learning of the gamut.
The tetrachords of Migne's division are divided
in the following manner. The first tone is found by means
of a sub-sesquitertia proportion. Since the semitone is
placed between the tw·o tones, it cannot be found by sub-
tracting the two whole tones of the tetrachord from the
diatessaron, as is the usual procedure. Hence the second
note is found by means of a sesquioctava proportion to the
upper note of the tetrachord and the semitone encan.passes
the space remaining in the middle. (Th.is procedure would
have been available to Boethius if he bad thought of it.)
The first note of the next tetrachord is then found by a

66. Migne, .5?.E• cit., CLI, Cols. 693-694, and Is. Fage,
op. cit., 7-g-;- Migne gives a division entitled
"'ionochordum. enchiriadis" which he says is fran
Raptorts sur les biblioth~3ues des d'partments
de roues~Append., P• 37 I ed-:-15. Ravalsson.
iJ.'lie manuscript source is not given nor is the date,
but the context leads one to place it in the tenth
century, mainly because of its title and its .use
of the notation of this century.
 140

sub-sesquioctava proportion, and the cycle is again re-

67
peated. The canpleted division is shown in Diagram 32.
La Fage 1 s anonymous division of the !Eseian system

(Diagram 33) is so similar to the alternating-ascending

division of the Greater Perfect System presented in Diagram
27, that one almost feels that the two divisions may have
been devised by the same author. Both divisions use the
A-P notation and both are limited to measurements of 2, 3,
and 4 parts. This De.seian division uses the letters A-8
and also finds the lower half-step (between Band C) by
means of a descending division; therefore, it should also
be classed as an alternating-ascending division. This group
of four divisions apparently represents a ,.transitional
period in the evolution of the manual monochord division.
Group 4: Odonian divisions. Group 4, beginning
with Odo (E,!• 1000), establishes the longest surviving and
most used type of medieval monochord division. Odo's divi-
sion, patterned after Boethius 1 s incomplete ascending divi-
sion, established the use of the double set of letters A-G
and the addition of the .r to the Greater Perfect System,

67. The abbreviations used in this diagram are: g,

graves; f, finales; m, medius; e, excellentes; se,
super excellentes. Thus l (ona)e is the first note
in the tetrachord excellentes.
 141

Diagram-'~. Anon. MP CLI. cols. G93u69+, Monocnordum erjchirjgdjs (~.1000).

Direct ion: A5cendin9. Measurements· Z,4,,~ 9. Note'; IB.

Completed Monochon::J: Pytna9orean Tuning.

z 3
I I I
I
r ·s T
steps
1 1tg

z. '" I Z9 t f
'
., • 8
9
3 -- -·-----1- ~- 9
ii
ir z
4 ----------·-4r I I • 8
9
If Zf ~
5 --+j-'-~I-=-'-+-l-='-1--~~ -+--=S'---1--~'-+--'-t-=.'--+-_..._-I
'9 8
9
31' 41
6 -----··-------+-'9'--l-=e~i-.:."~-=-'-+-S:::..-+--4-+-".3.._t--z--t--i 9
8
7 t------- 4f I lrrt £ , 4'
. --------~f--'--+-=-4--''--'1---+--=--+-.;;...._+--'-+~-+----i
$ " , 8 9 a
9
8 i-------- , ~
9

~--------·- ______________ ----~f__ __,___ sf:'-._!___3+-le________ l.

2

JQ'!--------
3,.,. 4,..
··-----------------+-.;....'-+-'''-+-""''-+-';;.+-..:.W-+-':..+...;."-+-·-+~ 9
, a.
4,.. le
11 ' 'Z

IZi---- • , e
9
13 ________ 3e~
I I J 4 ., e
9
14t---------------------~
 142

D1a9ra m 3.i Anon.'. L Q.. Fage 74. Comeo.sitio

1 mo11ocordi -'tcundum enchiriadem <ca. rlth. CJ.

Direct ion: Asce'1din9. Measurements: 2,3,4. Notes: IB.

Completed Monochord: Pyt.hagorean Tuning.

A .8 c D E F" G H I KL NoPQ RS
M
T
I I I I I I I
T
I I
11 I II I I I
TSTTTSTTT I
.ST TT ST I
.Steps Proport{""'
I~ A z I
I

Z A C? 1 ~
I I

3 A

5
G
 143

and increased the use of the monochord as a teaching instru-

ment as well. ·rt has been a recognized fact for some time
that the Odonian division was the first to use only the
sub-multiplex and the sub-superparticular proportions in a
68
complete division, but the reasons for these proportions
become apparent only upon examining the division devised
by Odo. 69 The division increased the range of the monochord
by one tone and included the B-flat only in the second
octave. Odo's canplete directions are given as translated
by Oliver Strunk.
At the first end-piece of the monochord,
at the point at which we have spoken above;
~lace the letter r , that is, a Greek G.
{This r, since it is a letter rarely used, is
by many not understood.} Carefully divide the
distance fran r to the point placed at the
other end into nine parts, and where the first
ninth f:ran I.' ends, write the letter A; we
shall call this the first step. Then, simi-
larly, divide the distance from the first
letter, A, to the end into nine, and at the
first ninth, place the letter B for the second
step. Then return to the beginning, divide
by four fran !' , and for the third step write
the letter C. Fran the first letter A, divide
similarly by four, and for the fourth step,
write the letter D. In the same way, dividing

68. Cf. Carpenter, .£!?· cit., 25, fn. 28.

69. The addition of the I' to the Greater Perfect System
may actually be the invention of some earlier
theorist, but since Odo's treatise is the earliest
extant work in whic·h this addition occurs, the
credit due the inventor of this system will be
given to Odo.

, I
 144

B by four, you will find the fifth step, E.

The third letter, C, likewise reveals the sixth
step, F. Then return tor , and fran it and
from the other letter3 that follow it in order,
diVide the line in two parts, that is in the
middle, until, without r ' you have fourteen
or fifteen steps.
When you divide the sounds in the middle,
you must mark them differently. For example,
when you bisect ~~e distance fran ~ , instead
of r , write G; for A bisected, set down a
second a; for B, a second ~ ; for C, a second
c; for D, a second d; for E, a second e; for
F, a second f; for G, a second g; and for a,
a second aa; so that from the middle of the
monochord forward, the letters will be the
same as in the first part.
In addition, from the sixth step, F,
divide into four, and before q , place a second
round b; these two are accepted as a single
step, one being called the second ninth step,
and both are not regularly found in the same
melody.70
This division, visually represented in Diagram 34, requires
sixteen steps to produce the seventeen notes.
The note represented by .r may have been in use
before Odo incorporated it into his monochord division,
but medieval writers do not give arry infonnation concerning
its musical or theoretical origin. Lucie Balmer, in her
study of the r' concluded th.at it was used musically in
the :Musica enchiriadis (.£!· 900), and by Notker Iabeo
(d. 1022), and that its designation as !'originated with

70. Oliver Strunk, Source Readings in Music History

(New York: W. w.
Norton and~o7; 1950), 106.
 145'

• Diagram .31'. Odo of St.Mo.vr (Ciuny>, Dio.lo<jus (~.1000).

Direction: Asce"ding. Measurements: z,4,q. Notes: t'1.

Completed Monochord: Pyth°'90 Yea.n Tuning.

r A
I
8 C
I I
D E F G- o. ~ ft~ d ~f ~
I I l I 1 l II r
o.
I
I
A 3. , . Proporti°!!5

z. A, a ,
5

s
I.

6
'I 8
l-
3
c 2. .J
' ... t3
A J) t3
4 a. •
B E a ,, T
5
c. F 4
t.1..
".r
'I G
'1. 3

3.
't-
T
I

8 0.. z.
t-
B tt
'f
,,, (.

D
c.
c.1·
z.
. T
'
"i:"
I

II '1. I
r
ll E e z.
F T
t
13 2. I
G-
-i:
14 -:a.. .-L
0.. i!.
15 0.. Q. z .L
F b
z
lb I 2. 3 +
-ft
 146

71
Odo. Medieval treatises restrict their comments about
this note to versions of the following representative ex-
planation offered by John of Affligemensis.
The moderns 1 recognizing that the previous
number of notes did not suffice for the perfonn-
ance or all melodies, and that this fault oc-
curred many times during the performance of the
second tone, placed the £' as the first note.
One may easily see this in the antiphon 0 Rex
gloriae Domine virtuun.72 - ~
Odo's exact reasons for adding this note are of
course not known. Whether this note was the result o'f the
correction of the Boethian division and a desire to simplif)"
the monochord division or whether it came as a practical
inclusion of a note already in use is not known. It ap-
pears, however, in view of the emphasis Odo places on the
monochord, that his main reason was to facilitate the
division of the instrument.
Only two other authors restrict themselves to the
limited upper range advocated by Odo: Aribo (1070) and
Theoger of Metz (late eleventh century). Aribo's reasons
for maintaining this range were quoted earlier (pp. 87-8,
above). Theoger, after discussing the eight string lengths

71. Lucie Balmer, Tonsystem und Kirchent8ne bei Joharmes

Tinctoris (Bern und Leipzig: Paul Haupt-;-!'935), 53-54.
'72. John of Affligemensis, Musica, GS I, 235.
 147

on the monochord of the ancients, makes the following

cClnments about the range:
For in these chords there exist seven
intervals; as time went on and the science of
music was advanced, there were many who in-
creased their knowledge of the art; and if ihe
number oi chords was increased, they added
eight -- not eight new ones, since nature
prohibits this, but the same ones, changing
their pitch (just as the voice of a boy changes
and becomes deeper) and separating or setting·
them apart. So also, then, assign to them
the same letters (the same given to the fonner
notes) with this difference (and only this):
that the lower notes are given a ca~ital letter,
and these new ones, a small letter.73
The divisions in these treatises differ fran Odo's
division by their addition of the B-flat in the lower
octave. Further difference is found in the number of
measurements required to produce the disdiapason. Odo, in
using sixteen steps to divide seventeen pitches, requires
one measurement per note. Aribo and Theoger, however, pro-
duce eighteen notes in eleven and ten steps, respectively,
by using four-part measurements instead of two-part
measurements for the upper octave. For example, a sub-dupla
proportion above C gives only c, but a four-part measure-
ment above C gives F and c. Tbis principle, exploited fully
by Guido, proVides the basis for group 6. The divisions

73. Theoger of Metz, Musica, GS II, 183.

 148

of Aribo and Theoger were probably influenced in this

direction by Guido's innovation.
Aribo 1 s division utilizes only 2-, 3-, and 4-part
measurE1J1ents in the f onn of an alternating-ascending divi-
sion (Diagram 35).
Group 5: Guidonian divisions. Guido's first addi-
tion to the division of Odo consisted only of an increase
in the range of the division up to dd, beginning with theI1.
Subsequent divisions based on Guido's extension and Odo's
technique of division fonn the main part of group 5; the
treatises in which they are found are all dated after 1300,
and, in a sense, they form a continuation of the treatises
discussed in group 4.
Guido's first method 74 of dividing the monochord
substitutes some sub-sesquitertia measurements for the
sub-dupla proportions used by Odo, and there is, of course,
a greater number of measurements, since Guido's monochord
contains twenty-one notes to Odo's seventeen. This divi-
115
sion is shown in Diagram 37.

74. Guidonis Aretin1, Micrologus, GS II, 3-4.

75. This method of dividing the monochord is reproduced
verbatim in the Speculum musicae of Jacques de Liege.
Jacques also copied the shorter Guidonian division
(group 6). Jacques's Chapters XVIII, XVIIII, and XX
are taken from the Third Chapter of the Micrologus
(GS TI, 4, 5).
Diagram 35. Aribonis, De musica. (1010).

Direct ion: f\sc.en din~ . Measurements: 2. ,3, 't.

Completed Monochord: Pyth~1orea.n Tuntnj.

r A
I
5.Y."' B
'nf.1
c
I
D E F G- o.~c cf e.f 1~
I 1 I I I I I I I I I 111 I
I I
Steps
I '!' I
cI
I
2. I
I
3
I
. p,...oport ions
If_
D d
z. r I
I
2.. I
I
3

A t D ~
,.
+-----· I
I
I
. I
I
I
I

4 A
I
l E
I
'1.. e I 3
I I I

5 B I + E
I 3 I z I 1
I I I I

b c
I I
F
I ~
c.
I 3 I 4
I I I I
F {3Yl1 .;
7 I
I
I
I
1- I
I
3 I
I
4
8 A I I
Q..
I i..
I I

q B I 9 2..
t- ----·--- -t---
0.
0...
10 - I
I
I ?'"
I
'2..

SY.fl • ·F
11 , 1nferr us 3 I ~ I r
I I I
 l49a

Diagram 3 6. Theoq er of Metz 1 l"lusi ca. t Late I Ith C. ).

Measurements: 2 1 't, q, Notes: 18.

Completed Monochord: Pytho.gorea.n Tuninq.

.r A b,,.,..B C D E F G- Cl. I
bsyn.
bC def f iI
I
I
I I I I I l-t-1 I 11 I 11
s;ep$ Pr-oPortions
I l1 I A 1
---~-
3 4 s (, '1 8 " lg
I '{"
A B ,. + 8 9
'
I 5
~
2. 3 '1
I I
3
c. 2.
c;.
~
<J ~ +
4
A D 2. Q. 3 a 4 ±
5 B E ). b 3
+ +
c F c + 4-
" D (G)
2.

2.
d
.)

3 4 4-
'I

s
E (Q.) . e. 3 4 1:
9 bsyn.z.. f 3 4 4-
10
b syn. F 2. 3
t...
 150

Diagram 37. Guido d'Arezzo, Microlosus (ca.. 1028).

Direction: Ase.end in~. Measurements: 2, 't > 9. Notes: 2.1.

Completed Monochord: Py-throrea.n Tunin<3· ~

I' A BC D E' & o. b ~ c a ef g tti~
I .I I I I I I I II I I t I I 1111 I I
I
Prcpo,..t~s
Steps
I r
1
l1
4 ,,
I r.l
I 2 • 3 I I 5 • " I I 8 I Cf
f
2 t I e'
I
1..

~
I
I

~
I
I
4 I
I
5
I

I
' '
I

I
I
'1 I
I
8 I
I
q
~
3 lr I
I
2.
.
I '?> I
I
4 ?.
+
4 ~ I D
I 2.. I 3 I t 3
I
B
I I I f
5 ,___ I I E
I 2. I
3 I + 3
I I . I I
:f
~ f +
{,
---- I
D
I
I G-
2. •
I
~
'
.I
q
3
4
'I I I I ;l. I 3 I 3
• l I • r
8 f I ~
I
2 I 3 I + 3
I
i:. 'b I I
+
Cf I
I
I
:;&.
I
3 I 4- 3
B
I
'q I ~
'f
IO .
I

c.
I I
I
~

a'
II I I <;: ~ I

rz
I
p I
I
d
I
.2
l.
I
I I 2.
E I ~ ~ I
13 I
I
'.f z.
14 F
I
I I 2. I
z.
G- I <3
15 I I i z. I
I
0... ' 0. z.
JI, I t ~ 2 I
I
b I g 1.
17 I I I 2.. I
]:
'6 '1;
18 .c.
1' I
R '2..
"f
I

1'1 I
I 'E.
i 'Z.. I
1
q ., d 1:
2.0 I 2
I

' ·"
I
I
j?
 151

Jean de Muris (1290-1351), writing in the first

half of the fourteenth century, discusses the three genera
in terms of the Ar1stidean numbers, like Boethius. Follow-
ing his extensive explanations of the ways of finding
intervals on the monochord, he presents a manual division.
This division, presented as the final chapter of the
treatise, is entitled "Now I agree with the monochord of
Boethius," a statement which is qualified by a later remark
that
modern musical practice has become more com.-
plica ted and the circumstances corresponding
to the method of Boethius have changed, and
for this reason the following division is
thus distinguished.76
The text of De ll~uris 1 s di vis ion follows:
If the chord a.b. is divided into two
equal parts at point i., there will be a.i. to
a.b. a diapason. Likewise, if a.i. is divided
equally at q., there will be a.q. to a.b. a
bisdiapason. Therefore if anyone divides a.q.
equally, there rises up the third octave • • • •
If a.b. is divided into three equal parts, of
which one of the three is a.f., then e.f. will
contain the second. [ Ha has not yet discussed
e., and since e. is also used in a different
position later on, this e. must be only a point
of reference.] Then a.f. to a.b. will sound a
diapente. It will sound to the diapason [a.i~
a fourth. Divide a.b. into four equal parts;
if one of them is b.e., then a.a. contains the
other three and will sound a diatessaron.

76. Jean de Muris, Musica speculativa, GS I, 253.

 152

The string a.b. is the ninth part of b.c.,

then a.c. to a.b. is raised one tone. If a.c.
is the ninth part of c.c., then there will be
between a.d. and a.b. a ditone; a.e. to a.d.
sings a semitone less, and thus a ditone with
a semitone is called a diatessaron. The [inter-
val of J three tones with the semi tone has been
divided, because it is already evident that a.b.
to a.f. will sound a diapente. Moreover, the
chord a.f. is the ninth part of f .g. and there
will be a.g. to a.b., a tone with a diapente.
Consequently a.h. to a.g. is found to be a
lesser semitone [limmal. [Thus a.1.J to a.b.
sounds a diapason and ls divided through all
tnnes and semitones. Then divide by means of
octaves until the instrument contains nineteen
chords.77
It is unclear whether Muris was consciously trying to modify
Boethius's division so that it would conform with contempo-
rary practice, or whether he was trying to correct it. In
any case the result is a Guidonian d1.v1sion comprising
nineteen notes (f'-dd), unique because it proceeds stepwise
from the right side of the instrument and uses letter desig-
nations extending from b to v (Diagram 38). 78
Philippe de Vitry, like Muris, introduced a cumber-
some and tedious monochord division; it may be said that
these late medieval writers did little in the way of making
the monochord a useful device, either for the student or

77. ~., 254-255.

78. In order to be fair to Muris, one should note that he
does not specify on which end (i.e., left or right)
of the instrument the a and b are to be placed, for
if the b were placed at the left end, the division
would proceed in the custanary manner.
 153

Diagram 38. Jea.n de Mur-is (~. IZ'I0-135J), Music°' 5pec.uJa.tiva.

Direction: Asc.enclin~. Measurements: Z.,'\, CJ. Notes: 19.

Completed Monochord: Pytn~oreQ.n Tvnin~.

[vt.s r-],,fpo I'\ "'L. K.] i . h g f e d c. b
1 I 11 I I ~ I I I I r I I t . I I I I
I I
.Ste~ Proport/""'
I 'a. I
2. bl
I
2.
q, I .i
I
2. i'
I
I
l
f p
3 0.. I
.
I
I
l.
I
3
-t
4 Q.. I I
1 I 3 ~ + l 3

5
I
4
I
,, I

er- q b
+
G. I I
I
'2. I

I
3 '
I
+
I
I
5 '
I
" '7
I
I

B
I
I
,d
8
q
I
c
t
b
l
0..

<.\ I
I I
I
:?..
'2.

J
I
I 3

4
I
I

.'
I

I
5 I

,,
I
" J q • .f-
I

I I
8
If
I
I I
I

I
5 I

I " I
I
,9
I
,'1
I·
e. t3
8 ~ I I z I ~ 4 I

I I
,ll.
I I
cI i
'f Q. I 2- I
,L
I

z.
I
z.
10
II
~

Q. I
I

~
I
I

2. ~
l
·"
I
I
2.
I
a
I ~ '2. f
''13 Q

Cl I
01
I a. ,9
l
I
~
J_
I
h I z.
l'l- 'l I ,P 2. I
l.
I
' z.
15 Q. I Y'
I 2 Jl I
I
2
lb a. I ~ a.
.L
I I
"l
r
I

Cl I 2. rn
I? I

18 Q. 1 r I
l. ~
I
 154

79
the teacher. Recent studies indicate that these works
(Vitry•s and Muris•sr·were widely used as texts in the
medieval institutions of higher learning, and it may be
that the influence of these authors contributed to the
decline of the monochord as a useful instrument in succeed-
ing eras. Vitry's division contains only measurements of
2, 3, and 4 parts, which results in an alternating-ascend-
ing division. The range of the division is extended up
to ff and Vitry designates G instead of I1 •
The divisions of two later anonymous treatises
80
(Anon. Qua.tuor principalia, fonnerly attri.buted to Simon
Tunstede, and the Tractatus de musica plana, formerly at-
tributed to Carthusiensis 81 ) closely resemble the Guidonian
division except that they use several three-part measure-
ments and the range of the division is left up to the discre-
tion of the user. Diagram 40, which shows these divisions,
is divided through only two octaves. The only difference
between the divisions of the guatuor principalia and the
Tractatus lies in the determination of the lower Synemmenon

79. Cf. Carpenter, .2E• cit., 64-68.

80. Anonymous, Quatuor principalia, CS IV, 208-220.
81. Anon'Ylllous, Tractatus de musica plana, CS II, 434-483.
 15'5'

D1aynzm 39. Philippe de Vitry Ars nova. 1 (co.. 1318).

Dlrect1cin: A.scendtn~. Measurement.s: 2,3,t. Not.es:Zf.

Completed Monochord Pytho..9orea.n Tunm~.

G- A 8 9 91f C D E" F G- A st»""' D ~ f G- AM'Off
1
I
I -t- f l l I I I I I I I I I I I 1111 I 11 I
I
.5tep5 Proportion;;
I Go I
I
G- t
1. - .Gr
I
I I
I
i
. I
-,:
) CT I
- ~ J. I :J I 4 .l.
+ 'c. I
I

I c.
I

'l. +
I
I
I(.
,c ;z.
t
5 I
c F
I I
t
"'T
---1- ------
I

'F
I
I
2

I
I
I
3
,F
I
I
4-
2.
t
z
I

:F
8
~ G- I
--- ----·-. -·- ..
---.-f..- ---- --~ I
I
\
I
, Ii:: 2.
t
-!I
10 D -l--- -I
.
.o )..

,D ,0 2.
2
II .. ---·· - I
t
--+----- -i0-----------
I

IZ ':' 3 J-:-- • I I
-t
~A
I
I :3 I ft 2 I

I~
I
'A I A,. 2.
z
-- I
I
z:
15 .A l ,E 1- ~

I{,
I I

.e I
I

~E 2.
tI
I I "I'
17 E I ,E ). I
T'
.~~
I I

18 4 E. ~ I l. I 4
~
:a~
I I
I 'I I '[i'f 2. I
~
I

20 ~9 I I
Blf 2. I
~
1

21 11" 3 ,f z. I I
..l.
22 '.ti' I
I
Bb
b
I
2.
~
I
I I
Bb 2
Z3 ,8 l -~
I
I
"T
 156

(meaning, in this case, the B-flat), which the fonner finds

by means of a dupla proportion to the upper b, whereas the
latter determines this note by means of a sesquialtera
proportion to F.
Prosdocimus de Beldemandis (£!.• 1413) also used
this kind of diatonic monochord division as a vehicle for
positioning the chrcmat1c semitones. The primary aim of
Prosdocimus's Libellus monochordi is to show the difficul-
ties encountered in the chrcmatic division of the Pytha-
gorean tuning, to which end he introduces two ccmplete sets
of chrcmat1cs into his discussion -- all found by means of
the usual multiplex and superparticular proportions (i.e.,
82
2-, 3-, 4-, and 8-part measurements). Prosdoc:lmus is
not, however, the first to divide the monochord ch:ran.ati-
cally. The Flores musieae of Hugo Spechtshart von
Reutlingen, written almost a century earlier (1332, rev.
ed. 1338), has a full ch:romatic division of the instru-
83
ment, although Hugo's treatise does not present all of
the available tunings of the chromatic notes as does
Prosdoc1mus 1 s. Prosdocimus stipulates, in the course of

82. 'l'h.1s division uses both sharp and flat sanitones.

See pp. 24-25, above for an explanation of both kinds.
83. See PP• 170-73, below.
 15?

DiagramtO. Anon.ffunstede), C5N,20B-ll0, Quo.tuor princ.i~iei (,o..1350).

Direct ion: Asc.endintj. Measurements: 2 > 3, 4 1 '1. Notes: 11.

Completed Monochord: Py~ha~r-eo.n Tu11 inq.

I' A b BC D E F Gr a b9c def.CJ
I I I I I I l I I I 11 I 11 =t I
I
St!f1S Proport(""'
I 'l' I A 2 ~ 4 .s ' s t
Z1--___-J...A__..:l:.___'"-~~::......_,i__:3:.__+--'--+--=-5---1~'=--+-_;_-+-~~;.__-+----1..---1~
~ 3
J~---------------!~------D~~;;_.,___--+-----------_;_------+----------~-------------j1
i
i...____________,~----------------2----------------+-------------3------------------t~
5 D, f"~ 1 s , ri g q .a.
b
c F
2-
9
3 3

, cr-:r.. 3 4 5' ,_ ,, e q,
'f
t
7
A Q 2
81---------+------------------------------------------+---------------------_;_----------------------l ~
<f 8 E::r 2 ..L
l.
c ~ c
101-------+---___;~---+----------i t
111----------------------------------+---------_:_------------~dr----------------~---------------1t
/2 1---------------------------+-------.!....-------------+ca-----------.....;;z;;.___---i J...
F z. z.
/) i:
~ 9 ~
A
IT t
IS F b 2- ' 4 t
b b
I'1 '------------1f.-.----------------------------~-----------------------------------------__. .6..
I
 158

the diatonic division, that the range of the monochord

should equal th.at of the Guidonian h.and (Diagram 41).
The monochord division of Ugolino of Orvieto (~.

1440) was designed for the same purpose as Prosdocimus's. 84

'O'golino's diatonic division is similarly constructed on a
strictly ascending pattern. This division is followed by
two canplete sets of sharp and flat semitones, including
divisions of the semitones between E-F and C-D into quarter
tones (Diagram 42). The usefulness of Ugolino's monochord
is debatable, since he begins the division with C as the
first note of a major disdiapason; at the end of this
division he adds the lower A and 9 •85 This manner of
division suggests th.at the monochord in this instance was
used more as a theoretical device th.an as a practical in-
strument. Contrary to Ugolino's directions, Diagram 42
begins with the first C placed away from the lower end
of the string so that the lower notes (A and B) may be
added later.
Group 6: Guidonian short method. The final group
of ascending monochord divisions (group 6) is based on the

84. Ugolino of Orvieto, Declaratio musicae disciplinae,

ed. by Albert Seay, 3 vols. (Rome: American Institute
of Musicology, 1962), III, 227-253.
85. A similar treatment is discussed below in connection
with the di vision of Franchinus Gafurius, pp. 207-209 •
 15'9

1-)1a9nzm t I. Prosdudmus. de Belderno.ndi.s 1 Libelfus monoc.hordi Cco..ltl3).

Notes :ZZ diatonic.

Completed M.:inochord Pyi:h~_goYecu\ Tuninq.

f A Bc D EF G- " b , c. d ef 9 I t4f 21
r----1. I I I I I I I 111 I II f l l l l l l
I
.St 7-f5 Rn::ipor t 1or1~
'., I f!r ).
~ ~---t ··£.__f 6
I
'1 . s Q
t
A
I

I B
I
i
I
3 + .5 6
.. ,, . I
A
' q
2
3
ri I
- I
I
c. iii.
I
I I
.3
I

+
I

' t3
. 'f
.r
I
'
4 I ,D l. 3

'
I
-- I
~
'
s I
F- 2 3
'
-
c I
I

F
I
I
.) . ~
t
",, ['
- I
I
I
G-
2 I
I
2-
'
.l..
t

,
I

8 ~ I
I
I

~ l..
zI
--- --------··-- z
q s
I I
I
z. I
I
' T
£:
~
JO . I I
I
2.
T
I

II p --
I ~ 2. I
I 2
/Z E I ~ 1.
+----- T
I

I~
F
I
I 't 2 I

,... I
<7
I I
I

~ 2..
l
2
I

·~
I
15 <!'- I 2. I
I I
T
~ I ~ 2.

'"
I
I 7
17 c I
'*- 1
t
·~
I

18 ~ l. I

1q
I
~ '\ 2.
z I
F I b 2.
I
.}
I

4
z
20 I
I I
I I
I
t
2/
I( I L M N o
bI
I
P
I
Q
.~
R 5 TV
2.
t
~~~•--1t~-,-1-t--t--1~"--il,---,-1~•;t~l-~t~IHlf---.&1 ~l-t.THIHlh1~
11 1
~l~1 ~1~1~'1~/+l*hH+l/~IJ~I~~~~
~ Z Y I )(' ~ .ll 4- S ~ 'I ll8 ~
I a b
2
~---

---1~1--~" __f_s_,_,_t---"-
~-~~~~~~~--+-r~~~~~~~~~~--.z

5 'f 3 ::z. ' I!

 160

(Di <lq ya.m 't I > continued.)

'Direction· /\sc.endin9. Measurements:2,3,4. No t e s : 2b chromr:atlc.

-- ,._ ------ ..

.Steps K L Propor-t ion~

31 I 2. 3 .4 3
• I
I
I

4 x
'
I M
T
I
2. I
I
~
3 iz
5 I
I
L
I ~
I
2. .
I
3
•
I f
J
t
'1
I
K l 0 I 2. I
T
?
L
. I f 2. I
I
M T
8 I ~ 2... I

q
I
I

N I ~ -i.
z I
' 0 T c;) 2
10 :a.
I
I
p •
T '2.
t
// I .I
I
'v y
/2 ~ I I ~ .L
13 4 ~ 3
T

J.
T
e.
x.
I
', T
I I
t
14 .f. 3 z.
r
I

x
I
I
I
I
I
t
IS + 3 I "'2. I
t
y
,,
I T

I~ !-. I I J. I 3 ~
.
I
3
,,
/? s:-
I
I

i
4
I
, , J I
I
2.

~
-.
I I
L
3
I

l'f 9 I
3 . ~
2
·- ..!..2
,.
I

y ~ .
1P
").}
.,
. I

I
·s 2-
1-
'
')(
' !-
22.
Z.3
I

:3
I
'
I '7
'2.

2
I
-z
zI
I I

2i 4 I
8. '2..

2S I I I
'!) ~ q zI I
't.. 'D: T
2" • Lt
' I I

-,.J:.
:z..
a
I
 161

Diagram t2. Ugolino d'Orvieto, Dec.l~ro.tio mu~1co.e d1sc.iplina.e ko.. Itt 0 ).

D1rect1on: Ase.ending Measurements: 2>3/f-,Ct Notes: ISd1"tonk.

Completed Monochord P_ythaqoreo.11.'Tvnin~.

A tt C D E F G A b l:i C D EF G- A 'IC
1 I I I r I I l I I I I 11 I I -++--------.
I I
.Steps Proportion~
I
I c;.
'
I
.pp 2-
I
' 'I ~ ~ 'I
I
B q
t
2
. I f: 2 3 •
•
f.. S'
." I 'I . s .q t
J
C-
I I F 3-
.
I 3
I

. +
t
4
I
f=
I
I
~
I
2. I 3
I

.. 4 3
r2.
5
c I G- I
2. .5
I T

' I?
I
I A
I
z.
.
I .:3
.,.
2

7 E
I
I f:t 2 I
I
3 .,.
2

B ~ 2. J:i I
£.
I I
q A 2.. ~I I ..1.
I
JO c.. ~ s:- "2. I
I
p T
II I D 2.. I
• I

E
a
12 E I 2. I

F 'F z
I} I
.&
I
'2.. I

14
15
Cr
I
A
I
I
I

A
2.
2.
'
I
z
I
t
~ ·~• 2.
"17 ·~
I
2
I

~
'
m
Ir I
T
' I
y m
I 'Y
c: v "' e x z (.)
r I •' I I' I ' I ~ I t-iTI ~ I I (ti
I
7 t 1a1~
~ 2..
a
I

F
I

J
I

H
'I>.:
. • . ...
I ~ I I

3 I I
H . 2-

4 I I .a ~ 2. I
I

5 L K
'
'2. I I
I

",, '".'
M
I L.
N
I 2..

0
. I
~
I
I

N
 162

(Diaqr~l'l'J 42> continued.)

Direction· Ascendin~. Measurernent.s: 2, 3, +,q; Not es: 26 droll14'C1c.

.Steps Proportion~
s' I 2.. I
T
0 p
'J - I l I z.. I

q 2
10
- L l . ~ 2. I

II I
,_ H R
2
2
I
ti
IZ
I}
B
T 4
.ss 4
.~ 3
z.
. .2.
. I
I .i.
~

--+- ~ I
!..
I
v I
• 3
Ii
15
r•
-r
I

I
.
~
.J,

><
I
I
'Z.
.3 z
,
3
I
r• v a.
I

3 4
'2
i.
'17" y
.
I
'I
I
I

~
' I
I
2.
3
I

/B •
I
I
v.
I
I

?
'q
z.
2
I
2
l<J
"')1 y . I
. I 2-
z
I

X> 't . 3
I:\
I 2. I
I

z.
' !.
3
2'
it
""' I
I I
I

·.
(.'\ l .
1£1
2.
I
2
I

E©F
I
2
I ., I
23
r
'l. 0
'I
®
I
'
I e
e
z.
I
3
..,
2.

2S T z. I :z
..,, • I T
C2>
•
I
e
.
~·
(!
2
1-
Zll l
. I I 2. L
I 2.
 , .I

163

second method presented t:ry Guido in the Micrologus (Chap. 3).

This division, although achieving the same results as
Guido's other method, is extremely efficient because the
twenty-one note range can be divided in only seven measure-
ments. While making a nine-part measurement of' the whole
string, Guido found that the proportions of certain other
notes coincide with some of the marks already made. By
tald.ng advantage of this discovery, he was able to place
eleven of the notes in two measurements. Guido's directions
for this division are translated below as they are given
in the Micrologus.
D1 vide f ran r to the end into nine steps;
the first step ends in A; the second is vacant;
the third ends in D; the fourth is vacant; the
fifth ends in a and the sixth in d; the seventh
in aa; and the rest are vacant.
Likewise fran A to the end is divided into
nine steps. The first step ends in B; the
second is vacant; the third ends in E; the
fourth is vacant; the fifth ends in q ; the
sixth in e, the seventh in ~q ; and the rest
are vacant.
Divide fran £ to the end into four parts;
the first step ends in D; the second in G; the
third in g; and the fourth is the end. Simi-
larly from C up to the end divide into four
steps; the first ends in F; the second. in c,
the third in cc; and the fourth is the end.
Divide fran b to the end into two steps, of'
which the first ends in bb and the second is the
end. Fran d, divide into two steps of which the
first ends in dd and second is vacant.86
This division is represented in Diagram 43.
86. Guidonis Aretini, ~· c1.t;, 5.
 164

Diagram i3. &u1do d 1 Arezzo, Mic.rolo':l us (~. 1028).

Measurements: 2, 4 J "1. Notes: 2).

Completed Monochord: Pytt-p.qo~Q.n Tvninq .

•
L' A BC D E F G- a b':=Jc d et q &~~a
I
I
I I I I I I I I I 11 I 11 I 1111 I
s;ep' Propadicns
I .C A
~
D
1 5 Cl & cl '7
a. '1-
1
- I 1.
- I I
z. A 8 E'- "l ~
1 .3 5 b .i

.3 .r c z. G-
l 4 it.
4
c F 2 .} ' 41 .i
F b f
5 z.. 3 ~ '1
b
b b
.z.
b I

d
-r
d q
'1 2. I
~
 165

Guido points out in the Micrologus that this divi-

sion, "although it is less easily memoriz'"d, nevertheless
constructs the monochord with greater speed.n 87 The canbi-
nation of these two factors may be one reason why Guido
presented this same division in verse in the Regula musicae
rhythmicae, 88 since metrical treatises were often devised
to help the student mem.orize musical facts and definitions.
Guido's rhythmical rendition of this division is extracted
fran Gerbert's edition of the treatise.
Item Gamma de novenis pass1bus, quos diximus,
Sicut primam passus primus, sic da t quartam tertius,
Primam quintus, quartam sextus, primam rursus septimus.
Primae quoque passus prim.us ut secundum statuit,
Sic et tertius in quinta finem suum terminat.
Quintus item dat secundam, sextus quintam renovat.
Primus quoque de quaternis Gannnae dictis passibus
Sicut tertiam demonstrat, sic secundus septimam
Tertius eamdem signat triplicatam septimam
Tertiam quoque quadrando, ut sextam efficimus.
Sic mos altero in passu tertiam rescribimus.
Quam quadrando rursus sextam alteram perficimus.
Sunt, qui addunt in acutis iuxta prim.am litteram:
Sed Gregorio non placet Patri haec lascivia.
At moderni sapientes bane neque comm.emorant.
Quamvis ergo apud quosdam ipsa fiat vocula,
Apud multos tamen iure dicitur superflua..
Altera vero secunda semper est authentica.
Nota caute, annes toni novem fiunt passibus
D1.atessaron quaternis, sicut supra diximus,
Diapente semper tribus, Diapason duobus.
Isto modo monochordum facile est fieri.89

87. Ibid.
88. Guidonis Aretini, Regula musicae rh:ytbmicae, GS II,
25-34.
89. Guidonis, Regula musicae, 26-27.
 166

Aribonis, in his discussion of the monochord,

records a division tbat is seemingly patterned after the
'
method described above -- that is, the production of several
notes fran one measurement. This division, however, is a
descending di vision with a range from I' to aa. The text
of this division, entitled: "Another measurement of the
monochord beginning from the highest notes," is translated
from Gerbert, with corrections supplied by Waesberghe. 90
The first step from aa [ Aribo does not
locate this note) produced tbl'ough a d.iatessaron
ends in e; the second is vacant; the third ends
in a; the fourth is vacant; the fifth ends in E;
the sixth in D; the seventh and eighth are
vacant; and the ninth ends in A. [One step is
found to be one-third of the distance fran the
end of the string to aa, or the distance from
aa to e.] dis found to be a diapente lower
than aa; then from d, by means of a higher dia-
tessaron, g is found. From g, the first step
lower, by means of a diapente, is c; the second
step is G; the third is vacant; the fourth is
S,i the fifth is vacant; and the sixth ends in
.1.. In order to make f from c we climb twice
two equal [jteps, and f is at the end of the
first (3:41 • From f, a diapente lower, the
first step ends in synemmenon; the second in F;
the third is vacant; and the fourth is the low-
est synemmenon. From e, a diatessaron lower,
the first step ends in ~ ; the second is vacant;
the third ends in E, already found; the fourth
is vacant; and the fifth ends in B.91

90. Aribonis, De musics, ed. by Jo S. van Waesberghe

(Rane: American Institute of Musicology-, 1951), 40.
91. Aribo, GS II, 222.
 167

This division, which produces eighteen notes by means ot

seven measurements, is shown in Diagram 44.
Most of the remaining divisions in group 6 vary
little from Guido's pattern. The division given by Wilhelm
of Hirsau (d. 1091) is an exact replica of Guido's (see
Diagram 43). Johannes Af'fligemensis also propounds a
similar division that differs from Guido only in its manner
of finding dd and bb (Diagram 45). For dd he specifies
the second step of a four-part measurement above d (sub-
dupla), and for bb the first step of a four-part measurement
above f, whereas Guido uses octaves (sub-dupla) to find
92
both notes (which is really the way Johannes finds dd).
The treatise of Jerane de Moravia (second half of the thir-
teenth century) copies the division of Johannes
Affligemensis. 93
The anonymous treatises Anonymous 4b 94 and Anony-
95
mous 4e are both divisions of this kind. The division

92. Affligemensis, ~· cit., 236.

93. Jerome de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, CS I, 14. 1

Jerome 1 s entire Chapter XIX, iicept i'or introductory

sentences, is taken verbat:bn fran Joba.nnes's Chapter
VI, GS II, 236.
94. Anonymous, 4b, ~ I, 345.
95. Anonymous, 4e, GS I, 347-348.
 168

Diagram tt. l\ribonis, De musica (1010).

Direct ion: De~c.endinq. Measurements: 2., 3 )t [8, 12]. Notes: 18

Completed Monochord: Pytho.<30YeQ.n Tuninq .

r A syn.~ C D E F G Q. 1y11~c. d et q a.
I I f I I I I I 11 f I
I I I I I I
I
S~ep~ A
q '1
D £
I

2.

'l
r c.
"
5 4 3
+
•s~"·
"
7 ~
 169

Diagram '1-5. J. Aff11~emensis (Cotton), Tra.cta.tus de rnus1ca. (c.a..1100).

Direct ion Asc.endirq . Measurements: t,9. Notes: 2.1.

Completed Monochord: PythGt<jot"eO.n Tv11in~.

f A
I
BC D EF & a. b"Jc cl ef f ~trc ~
I I I I I I I I 111 I 11 111! I
A 2
I
J D
I
1
,_5 ~ (,. d
"
t 8
Pr-opcrtions
q lj_

A I B '2.
E 4 ~ ~ 9 Cf .9..
3 5
" 'l

c. '2
G- 3 .i
c F ~
c. 3
c:.
c.
.!
F b z f 3 q
!
c;\ ) z. ~ .3 4 .i
f I
b
b a ~
.,. 4
 170

given in Anonymous 4e is exactly the same as Guido's

(Diagram 43) except that it adds the B-flat in the lower
octave by means of a dupla proportion to the b superius.
Anonymous 4d, however, not only modifies the later steps
of the division, but also attempts to place F at the end
of the fourth step of the first nine-part division. In
Guido's division this step is vacant. This placement makes
the F quite sharp; consequently the other f and the B-flats
are also sharp, since they are determined in the same manner
as Guido's f and B-flat. Th.is division is shown in Diagram
46.
The division given in the Flores musjcae of Hugo
von Reutlingen gives the first complete determination of
the chranatic scale (with ten' sem:ltones). Hugo's treatise,
in which sections in verse are interspersed, is divided
into four large chapters; the second chapter is devoted
entirely to the monochord. It was written in 1332 and
revised in 1338, and evidently exerted great influence as
a text, for it was printed not·only in Strasbourg in 1488,
96
but also at Leipzig in 1495.
Hugo, before presenting his division, explains in
great detail the various kinds of measurements to be used

96. Gustave Reese, Four~core Classics of Music Literature

(New York: Id.beral Arts Press, 19'57), 28.
 171

Diagram t6. Anon. tb 1 GSI 1 3'f-5o.., Mensvro. monoc.hordi (~ /2thC.).

Direction Ascendfn~. Notes: 2.1.

c..ompleted Monochord : Pytho.goreo.n Tuning (defective),

d d
r A BC D E F G- A b~ C D e f ~ &ta~ d
Q.

I I I I I I I I I III I I I t I 111 I
Proport io"'
3 D 4 ,, t 8 q 11_
+ 2
I I I I I I I

~ B E , ~ ~ 7 ~ •
2 I
I I
I
a. I
I
.J I
I
" I
I I
" I I
' ""
3 r I
y :l.
G- 3 ~
"
I
I I
(;.
I
I
c I
...
-.'
3
-.
.. .3
I T 4
F
I
I p z. f
I
3 1- i
I I
b
f ~ 4\
I
I

I
2.
I
J
.i
7 ~
I
I ~ I
L
I
I
:J

c ~
8 l
I I I
I
2.
 172

97
in the division. This discussion relates all of the
measurements to r , but Hugo Is main manual di vision begins
with the F below I' , a di via ion that"' as was mentioned
earlier, is nevertheless an adaptation of Guido's short
method. The following quotation begins with some prefatory
camnents concerning the physical apparatus. The end point
of the monochord is ~arked 0 (zero).
In the middle of the wood, draw a thin
line. In a convenient place near the end mark
the letter F and at this point the first
bridge is placed. 'Ihen divide the string into
nine equal parts. In the first place mark I';
in the second nothing; in the third C; and the
fourth nothing; in the fifth mark G; the sixth
c; and the seventh is g.
Make nine parts from .[1 to the end and
the first gives A; the second nothing; the
third D; the fifth a; the sixth d; and the
seventh aa. Next make nine parts fran A to
the end and in the first place mark B mi;
in the third E; the fifth b mi; the sixth e;
and the seventh bb mi.
Then begin from the first F and make four
equal parts and by the first place B fa; by
the second place F; and the third f. Begin
again from B fa and make four equal parts; in
the first place mark B as a half tone between
D and E; the second is b fa; and the third
bb fa.
Make nine equal parts from B mi up to the
end and by the first part place B as a semi-
tone between C and D; by the third place B
semitone between F and G; by the fifth place
B semitone between c and d; by the sixth place
B semitone between f and g; and by the seventh

97. Hugo von Reutlingen, Flores mus1cae, ed. by Carl

Beck (Stuttgart: 1868), 65-ao.
 173

place B as a semitone between cc and dd.. Fran

the semitone between D and E make four parts
up to the end; the first part mark with a B
semitone between G and a; mark the second with
B semi tone be tween d and e; and the third
with B semitone between dd and ee. Dtvide the
space between semitone d-e and dd-ee in half
and make g-a semitone. Then make two steps
fran c to the end and place cc. Do the same
with d and e and place dd and ee and the mono-
chord is finisbea,98
Hugo's division is presented in Diagram 47.
The final division to be included in this category
is found in the De musica (1434) of Georgie AnseJm1. 99
While this division does not follow the exact pattern estab-
lished for this group, it does use many techniques derived
from the method under discussion. Anselmi generally makes
one measurement for each note, but several of the sesqui-
octava divisions are shortened by dividing the diapente
into three parts and placing the tone at the end of the
first step (see steps 11 and 13 of Diagram 48). Another
curious division places the diapente at the end of the

98. Hugo specifies all notes with hexa.chord syllables as

well as with letters, e.g., G is g~ven as G sol re ut,
and a as a la mi re. B-flat appears as B ~a and-- ~
B-natural-asBmi-.- The other semi tones are all given
as B semitonium.. We have retained only the B fa,
B mi and B sem.itonium in order to keep the division
clear.
99. Georgie Anselmi, De musica, ed. by Giuseppe Massera
(Firenze: Olschk!"; 1961), 126-140.
 174

Diagram t 7. 1-i v~o von Reutlinqen) f/ore2 111u5iccteC 13.32 ).

Direct ion: At1cendin9. Mea.surements: 2/r,9 .. Note': 3t.

Completed Monochord: Pyeha.qc..-eQ.1, Tvr11nq. c

c.
F A &..Billi c
, , , , D
, f, ,F G
, . ,g..b~
.....d ef C( ~!'i ~I
a.
J..rm~,
I
I b ~ b b };b bb ~p,..oport ionsI
Steps
'F c c;. I
I I I
~
2.
I
I 3 I
I
+ +-· 5
I '* <r-
l
'I
' 1
8 I
I
q j_

2.
.c
I
I
A
I
a.
I 3
D
I . I s G\
I ""
d
l
. ,, Q.
~
T
e I
I
q

--···------t·- - I
A I 8..,;:a. 3
c s
bMi e ,, ~"';e q
I i "" I II "
l i
l

I
6to.. F
F I 2. .3 F 4
I I
I I

5
Bf.. B bfu. ~ft. +
I
I
I
I
~
--+ 3
-.
L'> rnj a B 4 s 8' ~ ,, ,.
I I
2.
-···I >
I I I - I "I 8 l
"
? B
I I
B
I 2. .
l3
I
3 ~
I
't
I I

8 - f3 I ~ 2. ~ I
I I I "i
c. I ~ z
- -· --- - '
I I

ID - ~-
I
I a &

JI ~ I
II 2. I
I I
l."
 175

second step of a three-part division of an octave (step 18

of Diagram 48). Both of these divisions conform to the
Pythagorean tunine of the scale. This monochord division,
like Hugo's, has a full set of flat semitones, the first
of which is established by means of a nine-part division
of the lowest whole tone (step 25). Diagram 48 uses the
letters g-g throughout the four octaves of the division,
but Anstlm.i also gives the same scale with the letters a-a.
Both of .these sets, however, represent the major scale.
The ascending divisions discussed in the foregoing
pages have several sets of traits in CC!lllllon. Group 3
combines the results of the descending division with some
of the techniques of the ascending types. :Bmploying mostly
sub-multiplex and sub-superparticular proportions, this
group utilizes the letter notation A-P in three different
kinds of scales (minor disdiapason, major disdiapason, and
the Daseian scale), and ranges from fifteen to eighteen
notes produced by an average of fifteen measurements.
Groups 4-6 also have several conunon features. All
use the Odonian notation (.r'-aa), except in the case of
Muris, Anselmi, and Ugolino; and all have ascending measure-
ments of 2, 3, 4, and 9 parts. The main difference is
noted in the efficiency of the divisions. Groups 4 and 5
generally produce one note per measurement, while group 6
 176

Diagram .'tB. Geov-qio AnCJ,efmi, De. mvsico.. (J't3l\-).

Direct ion: Aseen d in'J Measurements: Z, 3 ,4, q. Notes :2.CJ d;o.tooic..

Completed Monochord: f'yiho.'3 orea.n Tvn 1'nq.

~ , 1 1
? 1 , 1 i f 1, 1, rt, 1,j,\~.r.1~~)J1fn1r{jt 1
' • • • • • • • • • • • •• I
~~eps Proportl°;'
G I 9 2.

,
I .&

2 I ·~
I
1. s
I "i
I

'
3 I J.
I I
..1.
2
1 ' q ....
4 I

5 CJ I
, a.
..!..
z.
/,
,.
~-- I ~ 2.
d. 3 }..

--
I

? (;. I A 3 .~
~
2. '
I I I

8 ~ I ~
I 2. I 3
I I

q c I I c
I
' z.
l I

10 A I f. I. e .3
A
I I

b
11
I
I
I
l. I
I
3
'
I
b
}
2.

12
I)
'
e'
I I f "J.
I

• 3
I
I
b
I
l. I
I
J 2

,'
z

,.
I

I+
I
' I
b I f .7. 3 2
. I
'
I I .3
15 I ~ 3. ' ~ ... 3
•d I

d.
~
4t
lb ~ I . 2.
-1
3 ..3..
I? 91'h :acf' 2

'
I I

18 41.1~ .. d
•I -.
I -,
..!..
J
1q 0. I
I'
e. 1 e. ~ 1.
'20 ~· ~'
I I I
,Q
I
 177

(D iaq yam 48, cohtinued.)

Measurements: Z, 3 ,f>q.

.Steps Proportions
I .
21 I e, .a.b .. ~ I
-s
'I
I • • •

. .
~i~ "f
I

~--· -----·---··-- .
Q,fa :s~

b .. I :a. f 1>
3
I

i;. A • 5
~41JJN'fl Cf
G•~ c..d 2.. ~-a. 9•0.. 4
I ~ .i
I I I I
Cj•Q. cec:l '3 •O..
2'1 I I I I
I I I 2
Ge A I
d.~ 2.
dee 3
I I
I I I

G•A I A•'=t 3 ·-·cil•e

I
I
• I
l.
·-- I . I
-
A •b I
e•-f a. e.•f 3
30 l I I
I I I

A•b .. Q•b
31
I
I
I
2 Q!i:a
'
.
I

e.f e.. f.
3Z .
I I
'
"2. I
T
)3 dee I d·e 2. I
I I
I I 7
c..c:l
I I
,.J z I
I I
z
 178

averages about three notes per measurement. The monochord

di visions represented by these three groups engendered
several advances in the theoretical concepts of the period.
Within the time spanned by the appearances of these divi-
sions the range of the Greek two-octave system was expanded
in both directions as many of the earlier restrictions to
expansion were abandoned; the letter system which we now
use was established as the main late medieval system; and
the chromatic division of the scale was accomplished several
times in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries by means
of the monochord. The main points of these similarities
and differences may be readily seen in Table 6.

Numerical Division in the Middle ~

To this point all of the monochord divisions repre-

senting trends one and two have been discussed. These two
trends contain all of the monochord divisions with practical
musical significance that this writer has found. The third
trend, comprising groups 7 and 8, is represented by divi-
sions of the monochord in the three genera of tetrachords,
divisions that appear to have been reserved mainly for
theoretical discussions. Group 7 is the division of the
monochord in the three genera by means of mathematical
calculation. Group 8 is the manual diViaion of these genera
 NAME DATE TYPES OF NOTATION NLMBER OF NUrfBER OF
MEASUREMENTS STEPS NOTES
Group 3
Arion. la Fage ( 113) 10th century
ca. 900
2,3,4
2,3,4,9
A-P(A-aa)
A-P(C-cc)
* 15 16
Scholia Enchir1adis 14 15
Monochordum Enchir. cs:. 1000 2,4,8,9 (Das.) 15 18
Arion. la li'age ( 79} 'IUth century 2,3,4 A-P(Das.) 17 18
Group 4
Odo ca. 1000 2,4,9 r -aa 16 17
Aribo "!070 2,3,4 I' -aa 11 17
Theoger o:f Metz I.ate 11th cen. 2,4,9 · .r -aa 10 18
Groua s
Gui o 995-1050 2,4,9 r-dd 20 21
Jacques de Liege ca. 1313 2,4,9 r -dd 20 21
J. de Muris 1290-1351 2,4,9 b-v 18 19
P. de Vitry 1318
ca. 1350
2,3,4 r -:r:r
l' -g'4Hl-
23· 24
~tuor Prin. 2,3,4,9 16 17
on. l ~II,434) cs:. 1350 2,3,4,9 I' -g**
r -ee*~:·*
16 17
Prosdocimus 1413 2,3,4,9 21 22
Ugo lino ca. 1440 C-C*'"~
2,3,4,9 lr/ 17
Group 6
GUldo
Aribo
995-1050
1070
2 4 9
2:3:4
-dd .r
C -aa-ll-**-'.!-
7
7
21
18
WilheJm o:f Hirsau d. 1091 2,4,9 f -dd 7 21
Ai':fligemensis ca. 1100 4, 9 !' -dd 7 21
J. de Moravia !ate 13th cen. 4, 9 r -dd 7 21
Anon. 4e 12th century 2, 4, 9 G-d ( I' -dd) 8 22
Anon. 4b 12th century 2,3,4,9 r -dd 8 21
Jacques de Liege ca. 1313 2,4,9 l' -dd .. 7 21
Hugo von Reutlingen 'I332 2, 4, 9 F-ee**-a- .. 8 24
Georgio Anselmi 1434 2,3,4,9 g-g;a-a(C-c)~Hf 24 29
·* The parentheses 1nd1ca te the scalar pattern o:f the divisTon l.n-:-S.11 o:f
cases that are d1:f:ferent :from that implied by the notation.
the
** The author apeci:fies that the division may be continued ad in:finitun.
*** ])J.atonic division only. \
~ Descending division. ·
Table 6. Surmnary o:f ascending monochord divisions. ~
<D
 180

based on the mathematical calculations of Group 7, that

is, on the Aristidean numbers.
Group 7: division based on mathematical calculation.
Several of the thl'ee-genera divisions are given by their
authors only in the form of numbers. Besides Boethius,
there are four othsr medieval authors who utilize this
method. They are: Anonymous 10 (GS I, 312-330: tenth
century), Adelboldi (d. 1022), Jerome of Moravia (second
half of the thirteenth century), and Jacques de Li~ge (~.

1313). These five, including Boethius, com.prise eroup 7.

The discussions of the genera presented by Adelboldi,
Jerome, and Jacques are taken verbatim from Boethius 's De
musica. Adelboldi repeats Boethius's Book IV, Chapters VI
through XI, and Jereme repeats Boethius's Chapters III
through XIII, from the same book. Book V of the Speculum.
musicae of Jacques de Li~ge presents Boethius's Chapters
VI-XII. lOO
Anonymous 10 (GS I, 312-330) is much more detailed
than Boethius in his explanations of the numbers, and pre-
sents several different tables showing the various relation-
ships, including one of the diatonic genus that shows the

100. I:nfonnat1on about the Speculum musicae was kindly

given this writer by Roger Bragard, who is currently
editing the treatise for publication in the Cortus
scriptorum de musica series of the American Ins itute
of Musicology.
 181

derivation of the Aristidean numbers .from the sub-sesqui-

octava proportion. This table as given by Gerbert (I,. 316)
contains a misleading error in the placement of the names
Nate Hyperbolaion and Mese: they are related to the letter
G when they should be placed beside F (this treatise uses
the letters F-F to represent A-aa.). In the discussion of
the genera, Anonymous 10, like Adelboldi, uses the letter
series A-LL of Boethius, but in the variant described earli-
er in which GG, HH, and II are used in place of HH, KK,. and
LL. This variant is also used in the table in which Gerbert
illustrates the division of the three genera given in the
anonymous Dimensio monochordi (I, 122). Table 7 presents
the string lengths assigned to the notes of the three
genera by the above authors. Th.is same set o.f numbers,
used in many theoretical discussions of the period to repre-
sent intervals in mathematical calculation, was the only
set used by medieval writers·-- because this set of numbers
represents the proportions of the Pythagorean tuning. The
only deviation from this pattern found by the writer is in
the De musica of Georgie Anselmi (1434) in which the number
18432 is used as the .fundamental note; but even this ·is
only a doubling of the custanary fundamental number of
9216 that is used in Table 7.
 182

Table 7. The Aristidean numbers used as string lengths

for the three genera.
Note
Name Greek Name Dia tonic Chroma tic Enharmonic
aa Neta Hyperbolaion 2304 2304 2304
g Paranete Hyperbolaion 2592 2736 2916
f Trite Hyperbolaion 2916 2916 2994
e Nate D:tezeugmenon 3072 3072 3072
d Paranete Diezeugmenon 3456 3648 3888
c Trite Diezeugmenon 3888 3888 3992
Paramese 4096 4096 4096
b Trite Synemmenon 4374 4;)'74 4491
a Mesa 4608 4608 4608
G Licha.nos Meson 5184 5472 5832
F Parhypate Meson 5832 5832 5988
E Hypate Meson 6144 6144 6144
D Lichanos Hypaton 6912 r7296 7776
C Parhypate Hypaton 7?76 7776 7988
B Hyp~te Hypaton 8192 8192 8192

A Proslambancmenos 9216 9216 9216

Group 8: Manual divisions of the genera based on

the Aristidean numbers. Group 8 c.omprises the three-genera
manual divisions given in three medieval treatises of the
tenth and twelfth centuries, that is, manual divisions which
are based on numerical division. The earliest of these
 183

divisions occurs in the anon-ymous D:tmensio monochordi

(Q! I, 122-125). This treatise uses a manual technique
based on Boethius's mathematical calculations. The direc-
tions f'or this division are short and vague. The author
supplies string lengths and proportions for the diatonic
genus; the chranatic and enha:nnonic are referred to in terms
of tones and semitones. The letter series F-F is used in
conjunction with the Greek names as a means of identifying
the notes. The resultant division is represented by the
division shown in Diagram 16 (p. 103).
The other tenth-century division is found in
Gerbert's Anonymous 1 (GS I, 330-338). The diatonic part
of this division is discussed in relation to Diagram 25.
The chranatic and enharmonic divisions are given separately
fran each other and fran the diatonic di vision, and they
begin with the lowest notes. The same method is used in
each tetrachord and is based upon the intervals set forth
by Boethius. Following is the method of determining the
chranatic and enharmonic tones in the tetrachordon Hypaton.
Beginning with the diagram of the diatonic genus,

A B c D E
 184

he states:
B and C are led into the chromatic genus
and one-ha.11' of DE is placed retrograde to D,
between C and D. • • • Then B and C are led
i·nto the enharmonic as they are in the chroma tic
and diatonic and are divided in the middle by
a line.101
The completed monochord division would probably appear as
shown below:

Te~r~chordon Hyp~ton

I Enho.rmonic.

I Chroma.tic

A B c
I
D E
Dia.tonic

The chranatic semitones in this division are placed ac-

cording to Boethius's directions.
---- -
In the Dlmensio mono-
chordi this point is not clearly expressed in the direc-
tions, but is apparent from the numbers in Gerbert's dia-
gram, 102 an addition or omission which is probably attri-
butable to Gerbert.
The final manual division of the three genera is
found in the Qu.aestiones in musica, fo:nnerly attributed to
Rudolph of St. Trond (~. 1120), but more recently referred

101. Chapter III, GS I, 333.

102. Anon:vmous, Dimensio monochordi, GS I, 123.
 185

103
to as Anonymous Steglich. This discussion also begins
with a manual diatonic division using the letters A-P for
the minor disdiapason. This division, differing slightly
from the others discussed in group 1, is shown in Diagram
49. The manner of c anpleting the chrana tic and enharmonic
genera is explained verbally following .the diator:iic divi-
sion. The chromatic, he explains, is measured by dividing
the tones equally into semitones and grouping three of them
into one interval (trihemitone) and two semitones. He
completes the enha:nnonic in the usual manner, that is, by
dividing the semitone exactly in half to form two quarter
tones.
In terms of the chranatic intervals used by Boethius,
the chranatic Paranete Hyperbolaion (or any similar note)
would be quite flat. Boethius's string length for this
note is 2'736, and the string length of the note found in
the above manner would be 2754. However, Boethius 1 s deter-
mination of 2736 is about six units flatter than the same
note determined by means of the Pythagorean ratio of 4:3,
in which instance the string length would be 2730~.

103. Anon-ymous Steglich, ~estiones in musica, ed. by

Rudolph Steglich, Be~fte der Internationalen Musik-
gnellscbaft, 2. Folge, X (I9I"l •
 186

Diagram "t''l. Anon. Ste~ l&ch, Q ugest ion es in mv.sic:o.. (co..1100 ).

Direction: De.scendinc:;J Mea.surements: Z., 3, 8. Notes: ll>.

Completed Monochord: Pytha.'3or-eo.n Tv n inq,

A BC D EF G H srK L MN 0 p
I I I I II I I I 11 I 11 I I I
I I
.Steps
D H p P.-o"°rt iot'1s
I IA J 4- '.1
I
I -+ I
I

2 -
~q?a
. , ,,5 + 3,2. . I
'
3 ------------ - - -- ~q?f I ? I ' :5 :4 3 2 I

. ,M 4
p
.
I .3 . z. • I

p
s .'L ~ I
•
2. I

'
I 3
z
~
I
3 I .a. I
I
I

J M
I
•
... ~
.' ~ I
I
I .!
3

8
s
I
I -- 3
N z. . I
I 3
z
,___ ____ ..... - ~
•
z. 0
f
I 2
T
10
F
I
I
2. N
. , ~
I

II ~
I
'2.. I I
.!
I
12
c l. I
• I £
I
' I
r
ll .~ 2 l

'
I
2
T
 187

The De speculatione musica of Walter Odington (£!_.

1300) contains a description of the monochord that does not
fit into any of the main groups of m.onochord divisions • 104
This monochord uses selected parts of six systems, derived
as follows:
1. Aristidean numbers (after Boethius?)
2. The letter series A-P, to which he adds Q-S
and .[" • (The A-P is probably also of Boethiah
derivation.)
3. .f' (after Odo) •
4. The upper tetrachord bb, ~ q, cc, and dd
(after Guido).
5. The calculation of the Synemmenon in three
octaves (after Guido and others) •
6. The Greek tetrachord names (incorrectly used
in reverse order).
Although much of Odington's theoretical presentation is
accurate, he divides the monochord in both directions --
apparently in ~ state of utter confusion. Most of his
directions are given in accurate measurements, but there
are many errors (which of course, may possibly be attribu-
table to Coussemaker). For example, one sentence reads:
Moreover if s [dd] be increased by an
eighth part, it will be K [cc]. Indeed if K
should be increased by an eighth, it will be
i (b-flat] and with h [a] makes a semitone.

104. Walter Odington, De speculatione musica, CS I,

203-207.
 188

Further on he says:
• • • and similarly, if a third of i
(b orq 1 is added to itself it will make o
[g], making with p [ aa] a tone. If q [bb
or q~) should grow bl a third part of
itself, it makes n (f] similarly a tone from
o rgl. If p [aa] should be increased by a
tb!ra part, it will make m r eJ, making with
n [f] a 3emitone.105
These machinations culminate in a table, reproduced below,
which accurately shows the state of Odington's erudition
in this matter.
Odington's presentation of the monochord is, of
course, atypical of the medieval discussions of the instru-
ment. Many of the monochord treatises of the period evi-
dence much understanding of the principles involved, and
it is felt by this writer that the myriad divisions show
a.n active use of the instrument by the theorists of the
period. The continued use of the monochord undoubtedly
contributed, in part, to the continued use of the Pythagorean
106
tuning -- a use decried by some modern acousticians.

105. Ibid., 206-207. Odington has also earlier used the

letters A-S to represent the Greater Perfect System
( p. 205) •
106. John Redfield, Music: A Science and an Art (New
York: Alfred A. Kriopf ,-1928), 69':"70'.~Rea?'ield
castigates the Greeks for not discovering just
thirds and asserts that the development of the
classical Sj'lllphony would have occurred 2,000
years earlier had it not been for the continued
usage of the Pythagorean ratios!
 189

108
Table 8. The monochord division of Walter Odington.

I
s To nus
.
= r
IJ. DCCXXVIII
MDCC CCXLI 111 Semitonium
.sC<I
....
s=.. ).I £ -
II XL\'111.
. -
I tonus · Semitonium A~ajus j
=
=
0
fl
\Q
L
-1!_
0
--II DXXXVHI
II CCCII
II DXCII
I longs
.
Semitonium
To nus
Ton us
== n II DCCCCXVI Semilonium
=· .m Ill LXXII 'fonus
0
=Q.)
~
a. a
"' 0
l
- 111 CCCCLVI Ton us
a I
C<I .,,.

8Q.)

r.nfS. - (j Q.) '5 0

k
i
Ill DCCCLXXXVIII
1111 XCVl I l.onus
Scmitonium
Scmitonium Majus I
·I .,5 ~ \
lei h
l Jill CCCXXllll I to nus Semitonium
Tonus
i:S 1111 DCVlll

!81
=
__K_
f
V CLXXXUU.
V DCCCXXXIL
Tonus
Scmitonium
.~
Q.)
N
= --
c VI CXLllll Ton us

f".,,
Q i:;1 8
0
=
·-g
""
Q
C'l:I
<I)
d
c
VI DCCCCLXII
Vil DCCLXXVL
Ton us
Semitonium
~ ~ Majus /
..Q
I
I i:S. b VIII CXCll l tonus Seniitonium
""'
Q.)
Cl, s =· ! b VIII DCCXLVIII
I
ton us Semitonium
I
»
.i:::
u
~
~ \
s:::i.
I
a· IX CCXVI . Ton us

!J
C'l:I

~ IQ r X CCCLXVIII
.E2 I \

But its use also provided t.b.e musicians of the period

with an effective means of teaching theoretical concepts.
The care with which the monochord is discussed
by the medieval theorists also points out an attachment
to the instrument which exceeds its value as a didactic
 190

device. For this reason it appears that the monochord

may have also served, at least in part, as a tangible
connection to the mystical unity preserved by the
Pythagorean numbers, a unity which :!.n turn served to
join all of the aspects of God and man into one being.

108. The table (frcan p .. 207, ibid.) erroneously uses

p for q.
 191

Chapter IV
THE MONOCHORD IN 'ffiE RENAISSANCE

Monochord Treatises of the Renaissance

=-======-• mi=::as111=:1=-=== ==- =======-======

The final centuries of the Middle Ages witnessed the

addition and acceptance of chromatic notes to the Pytha-
gorean tuning of the monochord. This acceptance, growing
out of an increased use of musica ficta, hastened the down-
fall of the Pythagorean tuning, since, as was shown in the
preceding chapter, it was possible to obtain two canplete
and different sets of chromatic semitones by means of this
tuning. Discontent with this aspect of 'the tuning, and the
increased use of just intervals (pure thirds and sixths),
is reflected in the monochord treatises of the early Renais-
sance. Judging from the comments of sane of the late
Medieval writers, just intervals had been in use by prac-
1
tical musicians as early as the late thirteenth century;
in the latter part of ~~e fifteenth century, writers began
constructing monochord divisions using these intervals.
The use of the monochord by the writers of the
Renaissance shows, at first, a continuation of most of the

1. Walter Odington in his De saeculatione musice (CS I,

198) noted that singers-Use thirds in the ratios of
5:4 and 6:5 more frequently than the thirds determined
by the Pythagorean tuning.
 192

early principles of monochord division, and, later, a com-

plete breakdown or loss of the techniques which had pro-
vided a strong tradition of monochord usage throughout the
Middle Ages. This breakdown is reflected, to a great ex··
tent, in the kinds of treatises in which use of the mono-
chord occurs. The medieval monochord was used for a compar-
atively limited number of purposes: first, as a pitch-
producing instrument for singers; second, in speculative
discussions to explain and demonstrate the intervals; and
third (though not as important), in writings specifically
directed toward the construction of oreans, bells, and
organistri.
In the Renaissance one finds the use of the mono-
chord distributed over a much wider area. Not only was
the instrument a subject of parts of theoretical writings
and treatises directed toward singers, but it was also
referred to by authors whose works dealt mainly with the
construction and tuning of all sorts of instruments. In
this latter role the monochord served frequently as a
theoretical device to demonstrate a particular tuning prin-
ciple which the author wished to apply to a new instrument
of his own invention. Monochord usage is furt~er referr3d
to in historical or encyclopedic treatises in which the
author demonstrates both the old and new systems of tuning
 193

and scale construction. In works of the latter kind, the

patterns of manus.l monochord divisions do not usually follow
the techniques espoused in the Middle Ages, but instead are
entirely new and generally very disorganized.
As a result of these trends, Renaissance musical
treatises which utilize the monochord may be classified into
four groups. These classifications, covering the period
from 1450 to 1666, help show the trend of the differing
treatments of the monochord. While it is generally under-
stood that the end of the Renaissance overlaps the beginning
of the Baroque era, and ~hat by the second half' of the
seventeenth century the Baroque idiom had become established
over much of Europe, the year 1666 is here used as the end
of the Renaissance era because that year saw the publication
of Lemme Rossi's Sistema musico, the last of the encyclo-
pedic discussions of the monochord.
The first of the four groups, extending from 1482
to 1565, consists of treatises whose employment of the mono-
chord is directed to singers. This is not to say, however,
that the treatises in this group, as well as in the succeed-
ing groups, do not consider aspects of music other than
vocal, but only that their treatment of the monochord is
directed toward the vocal side of music. Each of the works
in this group, as well as in the next (which covers
 194

instrumental treatises), espouses only one tuning of the ·

scale, which 1 a el ther the Pythagorean or the just tuning.
Representative examples of this kind of treatise are the
2
Musica Eractica of llamas de Pareia, published in 1482, and
the Micrologus of Andreas Ornithoparcus, 3 published in 1517.
The second group of treatises, spanning the period
from 1450 to 1618, utilizes the monochord to demonstrate a
specific tuning to be used with instruments in general or
with a new instrument. For example, the tuning of the mono-
chord presented by Martin Agricola in the Musica instru-
menta.lis deutsch, and which he says is of value in tuning
clavichords, organs and lutes, 4 is a Pythagorean tuning of
the diatonic scale into which he interpolates just semi-
tones. Another writer of the group, Fabio Colonna, presents
string lengths for a monochord which use an octave divided
into thirty-seven intervals. 5 This division is given
together with a description of a multi-manual clavier,

2. Ramos de Pareia, Musica practica, ed. by Johannes Wolf

(Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hirte!, 1901).
3. Andreas Ornithoparcus, Micrologus, tr. by John Dowland
(London: T. Adams, 1609).
4. Martin Agricola, itusica instrumentalis deutsch, 4th
ed. (Wittemberg: Georgen Rbaw, 1545), 61f't.
5. Fabio Colonna, La Sambuca Lincea (Naples: C. Vitale,
1618). -
 195

similar to Vicentino's archicembalo, called the Sambuca

lincea.
The third and fourth groups of treatises, extending
fran 1492 to 1666, tend to present the monochord ss a means
of aurally demonstrating the intervals of a tuning as a
part of the general theoretical discussion. The essential
difference between these two groups is that the third group
presents only one tuning, whereas the fourth presents
several. The best examples of group 3 are the Theorica
musicae of Franchinus Gafurius 6 and the Musica mathematica
•7
of Abraham Bartolus. The kind of discussion found in the
fourth group, that is, a discussion containing several
different monochord tunings, is frequently presented as a
historical survey, and even though the author may be trying
to promote a particular tuning, he usually discusses all
systems canprehensively. Treatises of this fourth group
tend to discuss the monochord in a separate section or
book of the treatise, and to present within this section
either a comprehensive description of one particular kind

6. Franchinus Gafurius, irb.eorica musicae, facsimile edi-

tion (Roma: Reale Accademia D1Ita11a, 1934).
7. Abraham Bartolus, Mus1ca mathematica, printed as the
second part of Heinrich Ze!sing's Theatri machinarum
(Altenburg, 1614).
 196

of tuning (as in the Fourth Book of K1rcher 1 s Musu.rgia

universalis) 8 or the main points of many {as in Trew 1 s
9
Lycei musici).
Chronologically these four groups of treatises pre-
sent an interesting picture of the shifting Renaissance
view of the monochord: from innovation to codification.
The one hundred and forty years fran 1480 to 1620 were the
period of greatest innovation in the Renaissartce use of
the instrument. F1or the most part, after 1620, the re-
mainder of the seventeenth-century writers (belonging to
group four) were engaged in recording the changes o~ the
preceding era. The following eraph shows the approximate
time span of each of the above grou~s:

Group I 1482--------1565
Group II 1450----------------------1618
Group III 1492--------~--1614

Grou.i:) IV 1558-------------------1666

In addition to these treatises, which deal speci-

fically with the monochord as a sounding medium, one should
mention the innunerable Renaissance treatises which base
their discussions of the theory of music on principles

8. Athanasius Kircher, Musurgia universalis (Rome: 1650),

Book IV.
9. Abdias Trew, Lycei musici (Rotenburg: :Mollyni, 1635).
 197

derived from the monochord. In nearly every theoretical

treatise of the period the i1.tervals and scales are pre-
sented in the form of ratios derived fran the vibrating
string. Whether the writer uses a monochord or a lute or
viol string is of little consequence, since all of the
principles involved were primarily discovered through the
use of the monochord. A good example of this kind of dis-
cussion is found in the Canoendium musicae of Rene
Descartes, written in 1618, which sets forth a theory of
consonances based on the division of the string. In this
case Descartes used a lute string to prove that all of
the consonances may be found by division of the string
into eight parts. 10
The following list of writers on the monochord and
the ensuing discussions of their works do not contain ac-
counts of the investigations of writers such as Descartes,
and it will suffice for the reader to oe aware that almost
every theoretical discussion of intervals in the Renais-
sance and later periods contains some techniques or ideas
derived from earli.er experiments with a monochord or a
like device. Below are listed, by surname, those authors

10. Ren6 Descartes, Canpendium musicae (1618), tr. by

Walter Robert (Rome: American Institute of
Musicology, 1961), 20ff.
 198

who made specific use of the monochord in recording their

experiments and investigations; because of its method of
oanpilation this list probably represents only a minority
of the Renaissance experiments and demonstrations in which
the monoohord played a part. The authors and· the dates of
their works are listed according to the classifications dis-
cussed above:
Group I. Ramis (1482), Ornithoparcus (1517), Gallicus
(1520), Lanfranco (1533), Figulus (1565).
Group II. Anon. Dupont (~. 1450), Anon. Le Cerf (~. 1475),
Grammateus (1518), Agricola (1545), Reinhard
(1604), Colonna (1618).
Group III. Ga1·urius ( 1492), Fogliano ( 1529), Glareanus
( 1547) , Salinas ( 15'7'/) , Gali lei ( 1588) , Bartolus
(1614).
Group IV. Zarlino (1558, 1571), Mersenne (1635), Trew
(1635), Rossi (1666).

The Tunings ~ Temperaments of the Renaissance

The predaninance of the Pythagorean tuning of the

monochord continued until well past the mid-seventeenth
century. The reasons for the survival of this tuning
throughout the Renaissance were undoubtedly more humanistic
than practical, and the reverence which the musician of
 199

the Renaissance as well as the medieval musician held for

this tuning, with its perfect fifths and sharp thirds, was
to a great extent based on the traditional significance
of the numbers determining its intervals. In spite of the
restrictions that this preservation of the old number
symbolism placed on the adoption of other intervals, the
breach was made, to the satisfaction of many, by the addi-
tion of the pure major (5:4) and the pure minor (6:5) thirds
that provided a logical extension of the first four integers
so esteemed by the Pythagoreans. It is evident, however,

~1at these pure intervals had been in actual use much longer
than the Pythagoreans would admit, for monochord divisions
using these intervals originate in the middle of the fif-
teenth century. Several of these early tunings were used
without notice, probably because they were not widely known;
but with the advent of ~mos's Musi~ practica in 1482 an
argument about the use of non-Pythagorean ratios·began that
• d f or severa 1 genera t•ions. 11 After these conflicts
survive
between the Pythago:i... eans and the innovators had subsided,
many writers not only utilized the just tuning, but devised
many variants of their own which they felt either improved

11. For a synopsis of these arguments see: Robert

Stevenson, Spanish liiusic in the Age of Columbus
(The Hague: Nijhoff, l960T, 56ff'. -
 200

the existing tunings or at least were better adapted to

their own instruments. The particulars of the conflicts
over the Oest tuning provide ~nteresting reading, but are
not directly connected to the Renaissance usage of the
nionochord.
The Renaissance divisions of the monochord are
mostly based on either the Pythagorean or the just tunings.
Variations of these tunings are provided by some authors
in the form of tempered fi.f'ths (mea.ntone temperament), while
others present several methods of de terminlng the chroma tic
semi tones in an otherwise exact just or Pythagorean tuning.
Divisions in equal temperament are also sometimes given,
but only in connection with mechanical methods of determin-
ing the proportional lengths of the string. In addition
to these regular tuninss there are several forms of irregu-
lar temperaments and many multiple divisions, that is,
divisions of the octave into more than twelve notes. Be-

fore exa.minins the application of these syster.1s to the

monochord, it would be well to d.iscuss the pertinent points
cf each tuning in order to understand the peculiarities of
ea.ch system better.
The Pythagorean system (described in detail in
Chapter II) consists of whole tones with a ratio of 9:8
and semitones with a ratio of 256:243. The intervals of
 201

a major scale based on these two ratios have the following

proportions:

c D E F G a '=I c
Ratio
between 8 8 243 8 8 8 243
intervals 9 9 256 9 9 9 256
Ratio between
intervals and· 1 8 64 3 2 16 128 1
fundamental 1 9 81 4 3 27 243 2

Application of these intervals to the manual division of the

monochord is simple and can be accomplished by simple divi-
sions of the string into 2, 3, and 4 parts. However, divi-
sions of 8 and 9 parts occur very frequently. 12
The just tuning, as it occurs in the monochord
divisions cf the Renaissance, is constructed of' two dif-
ferent whole tones with ratios of 9:8 and 10:9, and a SEllli-
tone with the ratio of 16:15. These intervals are most
frequently referred to as the major tone (9:8), minor tone
(10:9), and diatonic semitone (16:15). The intervals of
the major scale based on these notes have the following
proportions:

12. For a division using 2-, 3-, and 4-part measurements

see the division of Anonymous 1, P·l24, or Anonymous
10, p. 123 , both of which are alternating--descending
di v:i.sions. .Among di visions using measurements of 8
and 9 parts are those of Hucbald, p. 111 , for the
farmer, and of Odo, p. 145' , for the la. tter.
 202

c D E F G a Cr c
Ratio
between 8 9 15 8 9 8 15
intervals 9 10 16 9 10 9 16
Ratio between
intervals and l 8 4 3 2 3 8 l
fun dam en ta 1 l 9 5 4 3 5 15 2

This tuning not only avoids the sharp thirds of the Pytha-
gorean tuning, but .it has as many possibilities for chro-
matic alteration as the Pythagorean system; many of the
multiple divisions encountered in later Renaissance
writings are based on this multiplicity of chromatic al-
teration. Chromatic alteration of the just intervals is
ach5.eved in the same way as in the Pythagorean tuning,
that is, by means of extended perfect fifths.
In this ldnd of multiple division one encounters
several intervals not generally used in the more COilml.on
monochord divisions. Besides the two kinds of semitones
already discussed (the Pythagorean linnna, 256 :243, and the
diatonic semitone, 16:15), a third semitone is frequently
found. This semitone, with a ratio of 25:24, may be calcu-
lated as the difference between the minor tone (10:9) and
the diatonic semitone (16:15). Another common interval,
found in both the niul tip le di visions and the temperaments,
is the syntonic comma which has a ratio of 81:80. This
camma is most easily detennined as the difference between
 203

the major and minor tones. Zarlino, for example, pre-

sented a sixteen-division octave in his Sopplimenti
musicali which uses the four intervals descri.bed :innnedi-
ately above. 13 'lhe·following table, reproduced from
Za.rlino's SoPplimenti, shows his string lengths and ratios
for the tetrachordon Hypaton (the whole division is given
in tenns of the Greater Perfect System):

Table 9. Zarlino's string lengths for

the tetrachordon Hypaton.
NUMBER NAME AND LENGTH INTERVAL RATIO
9 b. 12150
semitone 256:243
8 D. 12800 L:tchanos Hypaton
conm1a 81:80
7 b. 12960
x. 13834 senli tone 16:15
6
semitone 25:24
5 c. 14400 Parhypa te Hypaton
semi tone 16:15
4 B. 15360 Hypa te Hype.ton
b. 16000 semitone 25:24
3
comma 81:80
2 b. 16200
semi tone 16:15
l A. 17280 Proslambanomenos

The temperaments used in conjunction with the

monochord in this period are the meantone temperament and
equal temperament. 'lhe meantone temperament results from
the regular diminution of the perfect fifths by sane

13. Gioseffo Zarlino, So~plimenti musicali (Venice:

Senese, 1588), Bk. I , Chap. XI.
 204

fractional part of the comma. The comma used in most divi-

sions is the syntonic (81:80), although occasionally the
Pythagorean camna is used instead. In actual practice
these commas a.re divided ·both proportionally and ar:t th-
metically. The detennination of equal temperament is
accomplished by the extension of the mechanical proportion-
al devices to all twelve notes of the octave instead of
just the semitones or the connna as in the meantone tempera-
ment. 14 In addition to the meantone and equal temperaments,
there are also a nurn.ber of irregular temperaments which
differ from the meantone in that they do not have every
fifth tempered by the same amo'Wlt.
Th.a appl:t.cation of the just tuning and its vari-
ants to the monochord is accomplished much as in the
Pythagorean tuning. The main difference between the two
systems lies in the kind of measurements required by the
manual just tuning. Besides the usual 2-, 3-, 4-, 8-,
and 9-part divisions required in the Pythagorean division,
the just t'Wling frequently requires 10-, 15-, and 16-part
measurements. The multiple divisions and the temperaments
do not require any further measurements than the division
of the comma •

14. See Chapter I, p.25t, for an explanation of the arith-

metic and proportional divisions, and for the extension
of these devic_es to two or more mean proportionals.
 205

The Monochord D.tvis1ons of the Renaissance

The most apparent difference betvJeen medieval and

Renaissance divisions of the monochord is the end result
of the divisions. The monochord divisions of the medieval
period were all presented in the Pythagorean tuning, and,
with the exception of the divisions of Hugo von Reutlingen,
Prosdocimus de Beldemandis, and Ugolino di Orvieto, all
were diatonic. Renaissance divisions, on the other hand,
are presented in many tunings, and almost without exception
are chromatic. Further differences are evident because the
medieval di visions tend to follow an orderly pattern of
division while the Renaissance d1.visions are more apt to
be disorganized and very inefficient. This latter occur-
rence was probably engendered by the use of a new tuning
for almost every division; furthennore, it seems apparent
that these divisions were stimulated by the need to repre-
sent the tuning aurally. In the Middle Ages, however,
the final result was already known and the efficient divi-
sion served as the quickest means to the end -- that is,
the medieval musician divided his monochord for the prac-
tical musical purposes of teaching and singing, rather
than for the purpose of heal"ing how the intervals sounded.
In any case the medieval tradition of the monochord did
 206

not seem to exert any great influence dUl'ing the Renais-

sance, for even in many of the· Renaissance di visions
using Pythagorean tunings, the tradition of efficient d1vi-
sion was lost.
Since the monochord divisions of the period under
discussion have little order or pattern within themselves,
the divisions are grouped according to the tunings they
attempt to portray, and they are discussed chronologically
within these groupings. Beginning with the manual Pytha-
gorean tunings, the remainder of the chapter will present
the manual just tunings and meantone and equal temperaments,
concluding with the use of the system of string lengths
15
by the writers of this era.

The Pythagorean Tuning

The Pythagorean divisions of the monochord in the
Renaissance appear throughout the period, although the
majority of them occur before 1565. In general they are
presented as part of a discussion on music theory, usually
in the early sections of the treatise. The earliest
Pythagorean division after 1450 found by this writer is in

15. Most of the divisions discussed within this section

are also presented in te:::'ms of cents and string
lengths or ratios by J. Murray Barbour in his book,
Tuning and Tem~erament (East Lansing: Michigan
State CO!Iege ress, 1951).
 207

the Paris manuscript, Biblioth~que Nationale,Latin 7295;

this MS was printed ·by Le Cerf in conjunction with the
treatise of Henri-Arnault of Zwolle • 16 In its manuscript
state ~he division is only a fragment and therefore incan.-
plete. It is an important d:i.vision because it reflects
the continuing medieval trend of expanding the range of
the monochord. This division uses three nine-part divi-
sions, beginning with the F below I', with.a full range
of three octaves and an augmented fourth (that is, to
B-natural). With the aid of the following dia.gram one
can see that this division lacks F, f, ff, cc, and the
B-flats. This division is based on the short method formu-
lated by Guido and the use of the low F may be due to the
influence cf Hugo von Reutlingen, who first used this note
on the monochord.
The manual division presented by Franchinus
Gafur:t us in his Theorica rr~usi cae shows a general lack of
l'l
acquaintance with the technique of the monochord. The
completed di vision, which begins With f' and extends to
aa, has a complete set of flat semitones, with the

16. Herein named Anonymous Le Cerf, this treatise is

dated about 1475. See: G. Le Cerf, ed., Les
Traites d 1 Henri-Arnault de Zwolle et de divers
AnonY!D:es (Paris: Picard-;-1932), 37rf-:-
l 7. Gafuri us, .2.E. cit. , Book V, Chapter IV.
 208

Diagram 50. .Anon. Le Cerf Po.ris, MS. 13.N. LQ.tin 72~5, fol.Ill c~.f't15).
I

Measurements: 'l.

Completed Monochord: PythQ.~orea.n Tuninq (incomplete).

-t g 0.. h c. d e a. hc. d .e q 0. h gah
-+- I I I I 1 I 11 I I I I I 111

l ' :•
I
S~ep' Pr-oPort io"5
c g c g . I
I
4
I !
" " 8 i
I ' d ~ d ~ ~ q
-·---~ 4 '1 8 q
I "
J IS
2 ~ I
3
-
~.
I
h ~
I I
.5
e ,.
I I
~
h
I
. e ,.,
I
h
I
a h
I i
 209

exception of the semitones between F and G. Gafurius's

inexperience with the mono chord is shown when he beg ins
the division with A as the total length of the string. In
order to add the I' to the di vision he has to lengthen the
string by an eighth part of the A, which he does as the
final step of the diatonic division. This factor is, to
say the least, a great inconvenience.
The semitones of this division are all flat semi-
tones. In both the Pythagorean and just tunines the mono-
chordist has the option of beginning the semitones frcm
either F or q. In commencing from F, the semitones (flat)
are added as a succession of descending perfect fifths,
i.e., B-flat, E-flat, A-flat, G-flat. If one begins from
r the semitones (sharp) ere added in a series of ascend-
ing perfect fifths as F-sharp, C-sharp, G-sha.rp, D-sharp.
This principle enabled Prosdocimus to' lament the difficul-
ties encountered in the use o:f musica ficta almost a·
century earlier, and is the same upon which many of the later
multiple divisions were formulated. Diagram 51 demon-
strates the monochord division of Gafurius. In addition
to the manual monochord division presented in Diagram 51,
Ge.furius used two sets of Pythagorean string lengths based
on the Aristidean numbers. 'lhese appeared in two later
treatises: the Angelicum .!.£ divinum opus musice of 1508
 210

Diagram 51. Fra.nchinu.s Ga.ffurivs, Theo rice\ musico. ( 1ltq V.

Measurements: 2,3/1·,8,9. Notes: 21.

Completed Monochord: Pyth°"'3orea.n Tunin9.

.rI
I
b
I
1 t-6~ r r Pr r r r r1 ?f ? 1f' r
.5teps
I
!:-. ~ a. q
I
A
I
I
'p
I
) I
I
4 I
I ' I
-. " I
I
ft I

1
8 I

'
2 I I 2. I 3 I 4
I I l l
c. q p•
3 'I
" . s
I I I I I 4 I ) I J. I
I I
' '
4 ~ I
I E
I
I
2. .
I
3

5
c
I I
F
I
... I J I 4
I I I

~
-·
D
I
I ' G-
I
I
~
.
T
~
. 1
A. ~
7
I
8
I t
8 I ~ I
z
I
c• I

<:-
"
IO
I

. D
'
I

~
l
I
l:
. F ~
II -. .L
I z
F- f
ll I I
I l T
/) f'" ~ I
I T
/4 ~I 'a I

A
l z
IS .(' 'I 8 'I ...
" S' 3 I
I I I I I I I 2 I .1..
' I I I I I I I e
lb
p q
bm.tf
t>
8
~
I
ll

'1
I
I
'I I
I '. . . I
5 I
I

4
4
I

J
>

.
I
I
a.
2.
•
I I q
T

" I
I
I
I
I
" I ' -, -.
I
I
•
'
I

t
IB p I f 2. I ) 4
t
I
I I I
'b b
/'1
U)
i
b
I
I

I
I

I
2

.
b
I
l

2.
3
+I
I I T
 211

in which he presents a diagram based on a. length of 531441,

and the Harmonia musicorum Instr'lml.entorum of 1516, where he
used a series based on 2304. 18
The Micrologus of Andreas Ornithoparcua, published
in 1517, uses a monochord division based on the Guidonian
19
short method, but with the addition of the lower F.
This division also adds the flat semitones through the
A-flat -- that is, it has a B-flat, E-flat and A-flat.
Ornithoparcus's treatise, which is staunchly Pythagorean,
was translated into English in the early seventeenth cen-
tury by John Dowland. Dowland's tuning of the lute, dis-
cussed in Chapter VII, is in part base·:~. on the Pythagorean
monochord tuning derived from Ornithoparcus's division.
Ornithoparcus's extremely efficient manual division is
shown in D:i.agra.m 52.
In 1518 Heinrich Grammateus published a monochord
division in his Ar1thmetica applicirt that is the earliest
known Pythagorean tuning of the monochord to use semi tones
determined by means other than the progression of perfect

18. · Franchinus Gafurius, An~elicum ac d1vinum opus musice

(Mediolani: Gotardum, 508), Cap. V, and Harmonia
muaicorum instrumentorum (Mediolani: Gotardum, 1518),
I/ •

19. Ornithoparcus, £12· cit., 22.

 212

Diagram 52. Andreo.s Ornithopo.rcus, Micr"ologus ( 1517).

Direct ion Ascend,;,~ • Measurements: 2,+,q. Notes:zq.

Completed Mo11ocho~d: Pythc.9orea.n Tuning.

~ta
F ut A 9f4l:f C D b t F G- b a. ga~ c dbef qbljtf ~~I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 111 ·ft Ill
I
Prope>rtio,,s
~iT 3 c + G- ·cI ,, 9 q I~
'
I I I§ 6 9 I
I I I I I I I I

Q.
vt A D clI
. " .
0.. 0.
2 + 6 8
. q
' f
~
I I
•I I I
I
I
I
I I I

A ~ E 4 ~ Q. . ~ e
I
I
I
I
l. I
I
3
I
I
I
s
I
' I
I I .q
I .i
F Bfo.. F f.
I I 2. I 3 I
I
4- .i
I '
5 BiCl I
b 1 b 'fo- 3 tt~ 4
I
I
I
.
b b :a. b ..
b +
' I
I I
I
'
b
.3

b ~ p
7 - I I I
I I
"f
8 c. I
c
c. 2. I
'
I
'· 7
d I a 2 I
I I
r:
10 -·-- Q. I· l· 2. I
' z:
 213

20
fifths. Grammateus's division of the diatonic portion
of the monochord is also sc:mewhat unusual in th.E.., he places
the boundaries of each tetrachord by means of suo-sesqu.1-
tertia proportions and then fills in the remaining notes
through the use of sub-sesquioctava measurements. He
curiously explains the proportions in terms of the Pytha-
gorean hammers and in his directions for tha divisions he
refers to the proportions only throuJh the hammers, often
remarking in reference to a sesquioctava measurement that
one is to use the proportions of the second and third
hammers (the first hammer is six pounds; the second, eight;
the third, nine; and the fourth, twelve). Gramm.ateus uses
the Euclidean construction to find the mean proportional
between each of his tones. In this manner he establishes
a division of the tone into two equal.semitones. 21 One
wonders at the size of apparatus needed oy Grammateus to
divide these intervals geometrically, for he says early
in his directions that the monochord should have a string
approximately six spannen long (40-48 inches). This kind
of chranatic scale would have ten equal semitones and two

20. Heinricus Gramrr.a taus 1 "Ari tbmetica applicirt oder

gezogen au.ff die edel kunst musica," Ayn new
kunstlich Buech (Nftrnberg, 1518). ~

21. See Chap. I, p. 25, for a discussion of the

Euclidean construction.
 214

slightly smaller Pythagorean semitones. The diatonic

part of Grammateud 1 s division is demonstrated in Diagram

G-rammateus is also· the first user of the monochord

to indicate an easily applicable set of string lengths for
his monochord. At the conclusion 'of his directions for
the manual division he says that the length of the table
of the monochord could be divided into one hundred parts,
on which one could place the notes of the octave according
to the following measurements:

Note Parts minutes 22

G sol re ut 50 0 0
F fa ut 56 15 0
Ela mi 59 15 5/9
D sol re 66 40 0
C fa ut 75 0 0
B mi 1
79 0 20/2'/
A re 88 53 1/3
I' ut 100

The monochord division of Johannes Gallicus is a

Pythagorean tuning of the Greater Perfect System based on
the Boethian technique, but like others, Gallicus corrects
Boethius's division by placing the Parhypate Hypaton as a

22. Instead of tenths, these sections of a part are

based on the minutes of a degree, that is, each
part contains sixty minutes. This division is, of
course, not quite as practicable as it might first
appear.
 215

Diagram 53. Henrie.us G-rOJT1moJeus, Ar-ithmetica. o.pplicirt (/518).

Direction: Ascending. Measurements: 't-,9 . Notes: 20.

Completed Monochord: PyHQ.'3 o ... ea.n Tu11i,,. ~

f A BC D E F G ~ h C~ d ef q at[~ al
I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I+ 114 11 I
I
.Steps Proport/""'
c. ..
I I4 [ rJ I
.
I

c.
z
F
I
I
a.
3 I
I
1
3

2 I
I
I I

IF
I p
I
I

:i..
3

3
I
I
' 1
T
3

I I I
..!
I I I
' 1
4 f
I
I ~
I
2 I
I
) f •
I
I
I
S
.
I
" II
'I
.I 8 I
I
'f
H
5 >--·
r
I
I tI
::i. I 'J I
I
i
.f t> '
(, I
I ~ l. I 3 1
+,
I
I I I

'I I I I &1 )
tI 4 I $I" I 'I 8 1 q
I
I I I ' I I I
A ,,
8 0.. I I
I
1

B
I )
.
I 1 I

'
s . I
' I
I
I
I
8 I
I
q

A I I
). I ) I .. I f I
' I
" I 8 q
' ' ' 0 I I I I
'
c. I
• • ., • .•
10 I
I
I
I " I
l
I
1
'
D I E
" I
I
I
I
2.

c;.
J
. .' ' "4 I
.I ? .,
I
g •
.I

"
I~ ,; 8 'l
ll. I
I ~

~I ~"'I
J. I I I

.
IQ I

" " '1

.
B
13
I I
c., dI ~
I\

l
"i I "
' t
~ .s 1 ..s..
"
I

' '
~.~1
I

" 8 Q

..
<t
I I
J 4 s
' 'I
• .l.
q
I~ 9,
I
ti
4 ~ ..;
J .. s "·'I 8
.. • .i. ,
l'I 't-1,i J.•
I 1C d
' "·., 8 .~
,
. a
~·~ ... ) lt.f f.i.•.• 8
' . q
a.' ~,:lo.. .C" . . 4
1 'l.O ,j e
T
 216

sesquioctava note to the Lichanos Hype.ton (Diagram 54. For

an explanation of the abbreviations of Greek note names
see p. n;.). 23 The more interesting aspect of this div~.sion

~ is the means by which Gallicus forms the chranatic notes.

·Grammateus solved the problem of the flat and sharp Pytha-
gorean semitones by dividing the tones in half proportion-
ally. Gallicus approached the problem in the s~~e way except
that he used an aritlmetic halving of the major tone in order
to produce the one intermediate note. The arithmetical divi-
sion of the major tone produces two semitones: the lower
and smaller interval has the ratio of 18:17; and the upper,
larger interval has the ratio of 17:16. The difference of
this manner cf division from the mean proportional, as far
24
as the monochord is concerned, is negligible.
Giovanni Maria La.nfranco's Pythagorean division of
the monochord was advocated by him only as a sounding de-
vice for sineers. For instruments he advocated a

23. Johannes Gallict<.s, Ri tus canendi et velus tissimus

et nevus (ca. 1520, CS IV, 29B-393T, 3l8ff.
24 •.. On the one-meter string, a mean semitone would have
a length of 94.281 cm., and the length of the
arithmetic semitone would be 94.414 cm.
 217

Diagram 5 LJ. }oha.r\ne 5 (;Q.llic.vs .1 Ritu.s ca.nendi velusiissvmus et novus (~. 1520·
Notes: }5.

Completed Monochor~d: Pytho..qov-ea.n Tun/".

p HH ~ LH HM PM L.1"1 M Rn TD PD ftl>llf PH NH
I I I I I I I . I II I II I I I
I I
Steps Proportions
I
Ip I tiff .3 1 s- - ,, . 8 9
I
8
l-
I I I " I I

'?f
'
I I I I

p LH ...
2
---- I
+·· I. I
I
) I
I

PHY'f Uf' ,., G.

,
---··· ----~+------~-- I I I I
4
I
J
I
:L I
I
I

p MM z. .3
----------
I 1
I
I
I

5 PHy
I
I ~~
I
2.
I .>
.
I ..
LH Lftl
---- +--' 2. I
I
.3 I 4

? p M I
-- I
I
Q
7
g ijH
I
Pm
I ...
I I

PHy TD
-------f ·-. . -----·---- .1 .. t
'a I
&..

10 Lff I fD 2 I

,,-·-
I
I ~

14-M I f'I D 2 I
I
z.
12 .
PM
I
I
TH
I
I
2
2
I

13
LM I
PH
I
I
I i .L
2

M I NH .1 I
I I 2
 218

25
temperament for which he gave verbal directions. His
manual division of the monochord is an ascending stepwise
division encanpessing only an octave and a major seventh.
Like many of the divisions of this period it begins on the
F below I' . This division is shown in Diagram 55. Earlier
in the treatise he dom.:>nstrates the three Greek genera by
means of the customary set of Aristidean numbers. 26
Martin Agricola combined a Pythagorean manual divi-
sion of the monochord with just semitones in a three-octave
division that he used in both of his discussions of the
monochord. 27 The semitones in this division, unlike the
Pythagorean semitones found in earlier divisions, are de-
rived by a succession of ascending perfect fifths from a
C-sharp that is detennlned by a sub-sesquinona (9:10)

25. Giovanni Maria Lanfranco, Scintilla di musica • • •

et la divisione del monochordo (BresCia: LOdovico
Bri'fE°anico, 1533,-:- The monochord division is given
on pages 126 and 129; the directions for the
temperament are on pages 132ff,
26. ~-, 2.
27. Martin Agricola, Rudimenta musices (Vitebergae:
Georgi um Rhaw, 1539), DV-v11; and Musi ca instru-
mentalis deutsch, 4th ed. (Wittem.berg: Georgen
Rfuiw, 1545), 61v-64v. The first treatise is in
I.s.tin and the second, in verse, is in German.
 219

Diagram 55. Giovo.nni Mo.rio. La.ntro.nco, 5c.mtille di mvs1co.. (1533).

Direction: Ascending: Measurements: Z,3, 4T, 5. Note': /5.

Completed Monochord: Pytho.qoyeQ.n Tuning.

F f1 A ~ c D fF ~ o..b~c de
I I I I I I II I I t 11 I I I
I I
Ste.f' Proport iot'1s
1 'r 1 4 t:; 'f I a.
I I
I
~ I
I
I
I
I

' " I
I
'1 I

'
6 I
I
9
~ A a ,, ,,
.
2 I
I
I I
I
I
'
~ I
I
4 I

'
I
I
" . I I & ' 'l
~
3
- ~
I
I I
'
c.
a I
I
~ I
I
4-
. I 5
•
I {. I
I
'1 I
I
e I

I
q .a.Cf
+F I I
I
:a.. I

'
3
J
2

c. Pa s "" . 9 Cf
~
I
5 "
"
I .) I
I
I I
' ' ' I I

D E ,, .,
- I

'
I
I
'l> I

'
1
.' I
I "' .' I

'
g • q
•
,, c
I I
F
I
r
a I '3
•
I .
' I

D q .
8 I
(
.
I
:a. I 3
'
1

.
0
t
I

E
I
r
I

r
0..
I
I

,r
:a.

2
>

I
I
l
I

3
1

I I
I
F I b
I 2. I .) . + ...t.
' ' 't
z'
G-
. I
c
'I 2
.• 3 . I
... .J..

3 G\ I
d .. '
l
t
.l
I
•
r I
'
~ F
I
I ~
I
2. I
z:
 ~o

28
proportion to the ~ • This monochord division (Diagram
56) is based on the technique of the Guidonian short method
which, in this instance, is extended to include the divi-
sions of the semitones.
The Musica instrum.entalis deutsch continues the
medieval tradition of writing treatises in verse.
Agricola's verse is often entertaining because of his
quaint Ge:nnan and the lengths to which he goes in order
to make the rhymes. Perhaps Agricola bad the same thought
in mind as Thomas Mace, who, defendine his own verse in
Musick's Monument some two and a half centuries later,
wrote:
I Hear, some Are, who do pretend to Spie
Faults ~n my mu.mes, but give no reason why • • • •
Yet for Their Further Answer, let Thsn. know,
'Tis for my Recreation, Thus I do;
And for my Pleasure, why I Thus sometimes
Link Sance, and Reason In, with Musick-Rhimes;
(Yea, Solid Matter too.) Let This SUf'fice
To Answer Those, who are so very Wise.29
Agricola's rhyming monochord division is presented in its
entirety as follows:

28. This C-sharp would have a length of 63.211 cm. on a

100-centimeter string. This differs from a Pytha-
gorean D-flat by only .006 cm. (the D-flat is 63.205
cm.), and is considered an amount indeterminable on
the monochord.
29. Thomas Mace, m:usick's Monument (London, 1676), fac-
simile ed. (Paris: Editions du Centre National de
la itecherche Scientifique, 1958), d.
 221

Direct ion: Asc.e..,cil1Vi1 , Mea.surgments.: Z., 8, 'i, lO

Completed Monochord: fY't"41oreaH Tuni"'r wit~ Tv~TSe.Jt.UT01;1e.s. •

F
I
I
I
F"'i
L'
I
(:,.-!.
AI IBf.'=IJ cI D t
c. .g
I ?' ~4 f f ~ r? ;nH
D.f
r{:~r G- 1
~ d' i 1 ~, ~'~'p ...oport .
u
l
Steps IOMS
r c '.9.
1 'F I z. 3
• G- 6 c ,, t.J •

Bto.. F bfQ. f f.
2. F 2. 3 .s ' l 8 ~

~
.D A D 4
a. d
0..
0.. ! ct q
I
2. '3
' q
A q E
4 ~ .) ~
'l q
• j_

s c.
'c:. 2. I
z.
b d ~ 2. I
2:
e
?' e • 2 I
T
q c ..\a.
8
D~
J 4
~~
,.
" "' ,, t

' ,
,. !fl.

'I
+·
c-t F-!
.. c4 fi ' t' I/
i.
'
J. .J

b b
ID b 2. I
z.
G~ o~
JI ')
3
2:
11
c;.! Cf &. .J .. .L
i
pf c.ir
.)
I~ .J
T
 222

Brevis Erstlich setz ein punct zu vorn an

Monochordi Des gleichen ein f, harte dran
dimensio Den Schlilssel negst unterm £1 ut
De.a fass und behalts in deinem mut
Darnach ein O das end bewar
Dis zil aller austeylung zwar
Ein punctlein mitten drein gemacht
Wird das rechte zylmas geacht/
Darvon zum r. ein linea zeuch
Drauff alle punct gstalt warden gleich
Den zirckel aus der hand nicht lass
Dann er ze1ght stets die rechte mas/
Drumb heist er ein meister der kunst
On ihm ist alle teylung umb sunst/
Endlich die leng f. zum O
teile in neun gleiche teil also/
Auffs erste tell wirdL'. gemalt
und auf'f uas dritte C. gestalt/
Im ftinften G. im sechsten c.
Im siebenden g solreut stehe
Die anderen tail las ledig stan
Und sich wie du handelst surtan.
2
Teile die vorige leng in acht teil
Und das ander Bfa ereyl
Das vierd f. / filnft bfa wil han
Das sechst f. I siebend ff. gwan.

Mache von .!'. und O. neun feld

Ins erst wird A. ins dritte D. gestalt/
Auffs fU.nf'ft a. sechst d. allein
dam siebenden ist aa.. gemein.
4
A. und o. in neun teil parthir
In das erst If./ ins dritt E. ffillr/
Das ftinfft ~· und sechst e. berftrt
Im siebenden wird ~~. gespilrt.
 223

Tm m1ttel dc~ und 0/setz{cc.

te
dd.
ee.
Es w1rd ein 1tzlich Octav zwar
Durch die Duplam 2 geteylt surwar/
'I
Drum.b die offt Dupla wird genant
Wie die Theoricis 1st bekandt.
(Von der Zuschreibung der semiton1orum)
6

Teile q. und O in zehen part

Das erst Cis / ander Dis bewart/
Das vierde Gis / sechst dis annimpt
Dem siebenden gis / achten ddis zimpt.
7
Cis und O in acht teil gemacht
Ins ander fis I ins vierd cis gbracht
Ins fihltft fis / sechst ccis gesatzt
Wird ein bequem teilung geschatzt
8

Zum lezten bb. auch darzu gehBrt

Una wird im mittel b.O. gesp8rt/
Also is die teilung verbracht
Und dis Instrument recht gemacht.
Wiltu solchs alles ergr'flnden
So thu ein se1t drauff binden /
und leg ein hBltzlein auffs erst F
Also das die seit drauff treff I
Mitten au.ff dem punct sol es stan
Als dann gewindts die rechte ban/
Des gleichten au.ff das 0 am end
Darnach halt an die seit behend
Ein hBltzl~in auff die seit gstelt
Beim buchstaben der dir gselt
Und lass weidlich brummen die seit
Also das man den klang verafieh.t/
Solchs thu segen der rechten band
Es say dir gsagt on allen tand /
 224

So wirstu gwislich h8ren

Und des Schftssels melodey sp8ren/
Es wird dir nicht seiln umb ein ha·r
Vers!chs so magsts arfahrn surwar.
Ich welt wol darvon sagan vial
Wann sichs schicket zu diasem zil
Was fftr nfttzbarkeit darinn ist
Verborgen und braucht mit list
Zur Theorick I und andera dingen
Welch die Musik dar thut bringen /
Aber es mag dar bey bleiben
Bis ich mehr darvon ward schreyban
Drumb lass dir an dam gnftgen hu
Bis ich dir mehr werd fftgen zu
(Von der addirung der andern semitoniorum)
10
Mach van Dis I 0 zwie gleiche part
setz den zirkel inn seiner art I
Ins Dis / und las ihn hinab gehn
So sichstu das Gis sol da stehn
11
Tail Gis I 0 nach dieser proportz
In vier gleiche tail I sag ich kurtz
nim zur rechtn dray teil darvan
So findestu wo Cis sol stan.
12
Teyle Cis und 0 inn zwey tail
Ias den zirckel inn schellem eil
Ans dem Cis hinunter hangen
So magstu das fis erlangen /
Das anderst end wirdts melden drat
Wo es sein eighe stelle ha.t.
So ist ein octav abpartirt
Mit allen semiton gezirt /
So thu wenn du h6cher wild gan
tTnd die andern Octavn anfahn
Doch ich wil dich unterrichten
Wied 1m kurtzer sold nachtichten/
Tell jedern in der ersten zeil
Mit dem O inn zwey gleiche teil
 225

Und ein buchstab ins mittel gsatzt

Wird die octav dr!ber geschatzt/
Als wiltu die Octav zuhandt
ObrEnn A. / alamire gnant /
Macha zwey teyl vom A. zum o.
Satz ins mittel punct a. aldo I
Also halb dich mit den andern
Die ein Octav hinauf'f wandern /
Wenn die ander Octav verbrocht
So hab ich noch waiter zuf'lucht
zur dritten Octav / als ich acht
Die wird nach der andern gmacht /
Und die vierd nach der dritten
So ha.lb dich inn andern Scbritten I
Wenn du mehr Octavn wild addirn
Must du diese practica f'lUlrn.30
Glareanus, in his discussion of the monochord,
pointed out that the semitones between D and E and G and A
were primarily used by organ builders and were not neces-
sary for singers. 31 His division (Diagram 57), following
the pattern of most of the Pythagorean divisions discussed
in this section, designates the lowest note as yy instead
of F. Glareanus also mentions the method of obtaining the
chromatic and enharmonic genera en the instrument, and
says in relation to the chromatic genus that one lowers
the third note of the tetrachord to form a semitone with
the second note, but he does not give specific measurements.

30. Agricola, Musica instrumentalis deutsch, 6lv-64v.

31. Henricus Glareanus 1 Dodecachordon (Basel, 1547), tr.
by Clement Miller ~unpublished dissertation, Univer-
sity of Michigan, 1950), 144ff.
 226

Diagram 5 7. Henric.u5 G-lo..re.a..nus, Dodecachor-don (15~7).

Mea5urements: 2,4,CJ. Notes: 2'i.

Completed Monochord: Pytha.'lorea..11 Tu,,in~ .

yy .r A c f F c;.I
~ I
B+~l:t
I I I
D
I
I
I I
Q.b~c.
I I l I 1 ~f ~ ~m~f
I I I
I s ~ s s s I
S~ep' Pr-opc:irtions
I yy ~
:z. J
c 4 G- ('.
'1 lq
I

" "
r A D 4 a. d ,, 0..
Q.
.i
2. 1 )
"
3 A ~ 2. 3 E
• q r. e 'I ~ I .!
4
Bfo.. 2.
f=
.'.) ~ 4 i.
~ s b 0
5 ~
• II
~
s s .z. s 3 s 1 j_
"7 s 5 2.
s I
~
t::
8 c. c. z I
2:
~·
d ~ 2 I
t:'
ee
10 e 2. I

T
 227

In tbe Istitut1on1 harmoniche, published eleven

years after Glareanus 1 s Dodecachordon, Zarlino presented
complete manual divisions for the three genera. Zarlino's
Pythagorean monochord divisions show Greek or early medi-
eval influences that many of his Renaissance predecessors
profess but do not reflect in their divisions. 'Ihese in-
fluences are the application of the Greek note names to
the Greater Perfect System, and an alphabetical notation
that presents the letters in the order of detennination
rather than according to the steps of the scale. Many of
the Pythagorean writers of this era pay homage to either
Guido or Boethius. In the case of three of these authors
-- Ornithoparcus, I.e.nfranco, and Glareanus -- the divi-
sions reflect only Guidonian influence, apparently through
a later source. The divisions of Ornithoparcus and
Glareanus use the Guidonian short method together with
the F below I' , a note th.at also appears in Lanfranco. It
is this writer's opinion that these authors, without ac-
knowledgment, borrowed their ideas from the Flores musicae
of Hugo von Reutlingen, published in 1488, where a mono-
chord division is found that apparently manifests the
earliest combination of these features. Such a connection,
1.f borne out, would indicate that Hugo's treatise exerted a
wider influence than it is ere di te.d with in many quarters.
 228

Zarlino's manual division is accomplished in an

alternating-ascending manner that determines the inner
notes of each tetrachord fran the upper note; that is, he
finds the upper note of the tetrachord through a sub-
sesquitertia proportion and then uses sesquioctava measure-
ments to find the other notes. In Diagram 58, below, the
letters A to Q represent only the points of division, and
in his discussion he relates these letters to the Greek
note names in the following order~

0 Neta Hyperbolaion
P Paranete Hyperbolaion
Q Trite Hyperbolaion
L Nete Diezeugmenon
M Paranete Diezeugmenon
N Trite Diezeugmenon
K Param.ese
R Trite Synemmenon
G Mese
H Licha.nos :Meson
I Parhypate Meson
D Hypa te Meson
E Licha.nos Hypa ton
F Parhypate Hypaton
C Hypate Hypaton
A Proslambananenos
The letter B is used to denote the end poi.nt of the string.
The manual division of the chromatic genus is accomplished
on the framework of the pre-existent diatonic genus. By
making a 19:16 proportion to the upper note of each tetra-
chord, Zarlino was able to place the third note accurately,
according to the tuning of this genus devised by Boethius.
 229

Diagram 5 8. Gioseffo Za.rlfrlD ·• I si:itut ioni ho.rrnontce ( 1558).

Measurements: t, 8, 9. Notes: lb.

Completed Monochord: Pytha.~oyea.1\:Tul'\inlj·

A C F E D I H G- R KN M LQ P o
1
I
I t- I I I I II l I I II I I I
I
.Steps
I I~ I J.. J .. s-
'
,, 8 .
Proport('!"
er 8
.
I I I I

l.
I I I I I I
7f
.D ;z. 3 l
". 3
2. I I I
I
E q D
I I
' 1
3 I
-.
. 8 . '1 . ~ I s I If I ) I 2. I
-1-
.
I
. ' I I I

,F ct ~ a
4

s
I

' f?
l
'7
I
I

'G ' I ~

:a.
I

I
4- I
I

~
3 I
I

I
::l
I

.
I
i
.3
,, i
~ q
(,
t 8 I I

'"
.s I 4 ~ z I .i..
,l"s
I

,, I

.,
I I I I
., I ' I I

B
- r
I
q H8
I I
'f
I
I I(
I
' &
'"
•
I
J I
$

1
I
' s
~
I
• ,, -.. " -.. ,,
I
.a. I

' I I
' I

'f ~ I !-
I
.. I 6 .
I
4
M1 L
0 1 1 'r"1'1'1"1"1a.1 I

N 1 M8
II
I I r ' I ' I s I ~ I J I ).. I I

ll . .
L I
0
'
:a. . > -. I ..
13 ~ -.?e . .,.". 1 • . 1.,. . 1
I I

Q p
I I I I
'
1
.
ct,t,•,,,$,~,J,.a,
. ' ' -.
I

"'/5 ~'l~8,'1
I I I
I

.
I ~
'
~I 4 I ) I .I. I
I
I
' I

'
Chr-of"T)l.tic. genus
A c . .F
I
I
-.
9
~.If p,, 15 14 ll. ..
' '
'". l'I I) II 10 5
'I • " J 1 I
I I I
 230

Diagram 58 shows this method applied to the tetra-

chordon Hypaton. The enharmonic genus is found 1n the
usual Boethian manner -- that 1s, by dividing the lower
semitone of each tetrachord in half arithmetically.
Wolfgang Figulus, writing in 1565, presented two
Pythagorean monochord divisions which used the two kinds
of division propounded by Odo and Guido. The main part of
F1gulus's discussion on the construction and use of the
instrument, although he attributes it to Guido, is taken
frc:m the first two chapters of the Diatogu.s of Odo.
Figulus's first division is exactly the same in every
respect as the division of Odo (Diagram 34). The second
division {illustrated in Diagram 59) is given by Figulus
in the following tabular fonn, and is an expanded version
of Guido's short rr.ethod. .J

Diatonicae Monochordi dimensionis typus

e~ duas1 Jedium. ee
78 d
6 c
5 b

3 ['
4 A~
in
J duas
duas
duas Par
novem &
medium
medium
medium
dd
cc
bb ·

prima A 3D 5a 6d 7 OIJ. J
2 F oct o secunda B 4F 5b 6f '7ff
l F novem prima !' 3c 5G 6c 7
Numeri Guidonis De monochordo in tabulam contract1 32

32. Wolfgang Figulus, De musica practica (Noribergae,

1565), g3.
 231

Diagram 5Gf. Wolfgo. n~ Fig ulus J De music.Q pructic.~ (I 5h5).

Measurements: 2,8> 9. Notes:ZS.

Completed Monochord: PythCl.~ol""e~n fu11ln9.

F rr c. EF at~~~-i
~
A 8 O· G- Cl.b~c. dI ef 9
I I I I I I I I I I 11 ff I II II
Pl"oportions
I
l. 3
c 4 G- c 9 Ii.
" 8

z. B :a
F
• b f ,, +
~
e
2. 1
'" i..
.r A :z.
D 0.. d ~
; 3 4
' " 'I 8 1..
A ~ :z. £ .. ~ e ~ q
~
1 3

b
" " b
I ~ I
7:.
c. 0
c. 2
'- .L
z
cl ~ 2
'1
-rI
e
8
e c 2.. I
z::
 232

Zarlino's division of the chromatic genus was used

by Vincenzo Galilei in the D:lalogo della musica antica ~

moderna of 1581. Galilei also used an alternating-ascending

division of the diatonic genus (but of different construc-
tion fran Zarlino 1 s) that featured the Odonian letters
instead of the Greek names to designate the notes (Diagram
60). 33 In his discussion of the monochord, Galilei first
presents the semitone with the proportion of 18:17, which
he later used to provide an approximation fo:;.- equal tempera-
ment on the lute and other fretted instruments. Murray
Barbour cites Galilei as the first to utilize this semitone
. 34
as a practical and effective means of fretting.
The Musurgia universalis (1650) of Kircher presents
the same Pythagorean division (including the order of deri-
vation and the uses of letters to signify the points of
division) as Zarlino's Istitutioni armon1che, out with one
difference: Kircher finds all of his semitones by means
of a 243:256-part division. This sort of division is, of
course, utterly impractical and shows that Kircher has no

Vincenzo Gal1le1, Dialogo della musica antica et

moderna (Fiorenza: Marescotti, 1581), facsimi'Ie ed.
(Rome: Reale Accademia d'Italia, 1934), 18.
34. J•·M~Barbour, Tunin~ and Tem~erament (East I.e.nsing:
•~chi.San St. College ress, 19 !), 57.
 233

Diagram 60. Vincenzo Ga.Ii lei , Dinloso de Ila. mu5ic::a. anbco. et moderno.. (1588).
Direct ion: Ascend in9. Measurements: Z,3,4. Notes :11.

Completed Monochord: Pytlwjo'l"eo.n Tun in~.

h c EF
A b
I
I
I I I
0
I I l
G-
I
0.. b h G
I I II 1 if 1 t I
I
Steps p,..opor-t ions
I 'A D
I
2. .
I
3 I
I
., '4

0 d.
2. A I
I
I
z.
2.

) A
'--·-
j .
E
I
;i. .
e. ,,
4
-- E:
I
I ...
l
~ 3 .e ~[sJ
s r
I
l. .
I
I ~
I
G- J
d. .a I I 3
I I
2.
c;.

'
'1 I I z.. ..L
I
z.
8 ~ ) ~ l. I I 3
I 2
c ~
.
I
- I I
I
2 I
2

ID f: ) c 2 I I 3
I • I I 7

II
I
F I .
+ z.
-r
I

IZ
b.
I
I
3 F
I
.a . I i
2.
b I b
1.3 I 2 I
I I T
 234

tlnderstanding of the monochord as a useful device; that is,

he was more interested in showing mathematical relation-
ships of the notes than in any practical usage of the in-
strument. 35
The last examples of the manual di vision of the
three genera in the Pythagorean tuning occur in the Sistema
36
musico of Lennne Rossi. Rossi is unique among Renaissance
writers about the monochord, for he alone seems to under-
stand, or at least to use, many of the techniques from the
earlier periods. This is clearly demonstrated in his
Pythagorean manual division, for which he presents two
methods. The first is an alternating-descending division
of the minor disdiapason, and the second is an alternating-
ascending division of the same notes. The first method,
which is shown in Diagram 61, differs from the second only
in the kinds of measurements required: the fonner uses
measurements of 2, 3, and 4 parts and the latter only 2-
and 3-part measurements. Rossi's division of the chromatic
genus is accomplished by constructing the sharp semitones,
F-sharp and C-sha.1' p above 9; the enharmonic genus is
divided by the usual Boethian method. Rossi's chranatic

35. Kircher, ~· cit., 195.

36. Lemme Rossi, Sistema mus1co (Perugia: La.urenzi,
1666), 24ff.
 235

genus differs from the Boethian division for the chranatic

Paranete Hyperbolaion, which is represented by the Aris-
tidean number of 2736, by b.34 un1ts; that is, Rossi's
F-sha.rp has a string length of 2730.66 units.
Rossi's three-genera manual division represents the
final use of this division to be found in the Renaissance,
as well as in later periods. In fact, Rossi, with the
myriad divisions that he presents, culminates 2,300 years
of monochord use in the Pythagore~~ tradition. Post-
Renaissance uses of the monochord are all based on the
system of string lengths, and the few manual divisions that
are printed in later sources are presented fran an histori-
ca 1 standpoint.

The Manual Di vision of the Monochord

in the Just Tuning - -
The division of the monochord in the just tuning
first appears about the middle of the fifteenth century.
Manual di visions utilizing this tuning actually appear less
frequently in the Renaissance than Pythagorean divisions do.
There are several reasons for this sparseness of just manual
divisions. This tuning was actually little better than the
Pythagorean tuning for chromatics and modulations, and most
users of the monochord found it simple to alter certain of
thA intervals -- especially since this tuning was not
 236

Diagram bl. Leh1rne Rossi) Sistema.. tnusico ((666).

Direction :Al~ernofi~·DescenJinq. Mea.surements: 2. 1 3, ~. Notes: lb.

Completed Monochard: Pytho.qoreQ.n Tim iri~·

A b c D E' F G-
I I I I I I I I
I I
Steps p,..oport ioti~
I I .4 I
I I
I z:
2
a. t i ~
I
I
I
I
' z
1 ~
3 !""---··--- ~
I
I . .) I
1
:i.. I I
.i
3
~ 4 e ~ .2 I .i
~
I I I I 3
E eI
5 - I
I
2. I

~ '2. '=;I I
1:.
I I
I
7 d
I 3 t
i
'2. I I
I I 1

d I q ,.
'
3.
8 I
I I I I

q c 3 ~ I
---- I
I I
:i.. I
I

cI I f 2 J 'I
10 I I
• I I

G-
II I
2. ~ I 2
I I
I

ll
I
F .. f
I
I 2
I

I~ ,0 .& ,d I .z.
I I
I
C· 2. c. I
I I
I
~
I
I

IS I
b .J f I
~ I
I
I 3
2.
 237

restrained by the same numerological beliefs that had been

associated with the Pythagorean tuning. Also, at this time
many writers began to find that the system of string lengths
was easily applicable to the instrument if the total number
of units was not too large; and again, there were no
hindrances of tradition, in the case of just tuning, to
prevent their using this system in preference to manual
division. Many advocated measuring out the units of the
length and then constructing the instrument around the al-
ready divided scale.
Althou&~ the number of manual divisions decreases,
there is a recogniza·ble increase in the number of' writers
who use the string to explain and demonstrate only selected,
mathematically calculated intervals. This Renaissance
application of the monochord, together with the surviving
string-lengths system, comprises the main post-Renaissance
uses of the instrument. The basic technique involved in
the selective demonstration of mathematically calculated
intervals is not of great consequence since the number of
divisions to be made is usually quite small. In the Greek
and medieval eras, consonances were usually demonstrated
in one of two ways: a selected length of the string was
sounded against the whole length of the string, or the
string was divided so that one portion proquced the desired
 238

interval in relation to the remainder. These two kinds of

demonstration survive throughout the Renaissance life of
the monochord, along with a new technique first devised in
the Renaissance. Essentially this new technique uses
either a 6- or an 8-part division of the string and can.pares
the intervals, not against the whole length or the remainder,
but against a longer or shorter segment divided from the
same end of the string. The diagram (Diagram 62) presented
by Salinas in his De musica is representative of this kind
of demonstration; it shows, by means of intersecting lines,
the possible canbinations of the six-part division. In
using this d~vision to demonstrate intervals one must re-
member that the sixth portion of the string, which is not
shown in Salinas's diagram, would be extended to the right
of the first number.
The earliest known just tuning of the monochord, as
evidenced oy an actual division, was unearthed by Wilhelm
Dupont in an anonymous manuscript, Pro clavicordis faciendis,
in the Erlangen University Library. 37 This division, begin-
ning on B, has a range of two octaves and a diminished

37. Anonymous Dupont, Erlangen Universit~ts Ms. Nr. 729,

fol. 202v-203r. This division was printed by Dupont
in his Geschichte der musicalischen Temperatur
(Kassel: BHrenreiter, 1935), 2o-22. In this study
the treatise is referred to as Anonymous Dupont.
 239

38
Diagram 62 .. Salinas's demonstration of the consonances.

fifth. The division as given by Dupont is incanplete and

has been logically completed in Diagram 63 by the addition
of steps 6-8 and 11-14. The chromatic notes, given letter
names in this discussion, are designated by the following
numbers in the manuscript: l+ is the semi tone between C

38. Francisco Salinas, De musica libri septem (Salamanca:

Gastius, 15'7?), facsimile ed. 'bj' Documenta Musico-
logica, Ser. I, vol. XIII (Kassel: BMrenreiter,
1958), 62.
 240

Diagram b3. A"on. Dupont> P.-o c.la.vic.ovdfs fa.ciet\d 15 (2nd l,Q.{f /SthC.).
Direct ion: A 5c:.end in1. Notes:3).

Completed Monochord: Jo&t Tuning.

d eb e f 9b 9 a.b a. b ~ ~ dbd e" ef~cta.L~~~f
I I I I I I I I l I + I I I I I 11 1111 II 11111 I
I I
.Steps
I 1bfhJ I cj
I
;3. I
I
) .
'
5
I b
7 I 8
I
c
, /0 ,
e II p ..
bltl1
f I!>
eI
I
l"f
Pr-oport ions
I
I
/~ I lb
I
'£.
2
G
1--f-- I f
I
~ 7
I
'3 ~
I
~ 4-

3 ..,___ ··----- --
f
f
I ~-Mo!ID:>J L
I
f• 3 ~
I
4 f
b '}+-~ll] b
4------- .
I I
l
2.
I
3 I 4 i
,
I

2.t{e,1,] l b eb
5 -
:&. I
-- ..!
I I I 2
.,
[e'3
- ltf.Jb]
4t[a.bJ

ctb
I

'
"3
eb
I
I
:a..

[p.•]
I
I 3
z:
? I 3 I 2. I 3
I
' 2
db 3t~~J db Gf b
8 ' I I '2. I 3 1 ±
q
' d ?b'
f

I 5 4 I .3 I 2. I
I 2.
I I I
' I
t
10
d I
d :z..
I
I
..L
2.
If .
Gt
I
.q ,d
I
J
.I
z. I I ~
3
~b
/l I I 9"' :2. I
I I
I
z
CA Cl.
/3 I
I
I 2 I
I I z:
d cl 2.
/t I
I
I
J.. •
I I z.
 241

and D; 2+, the semitone between D and E; 3+, between F

and G; and 4+, between G and A.
The anonymous fragments that Le Cerf edited with
the clavichord treatise of Henri-Arnault of Zwolle contain,
besides the divisions of the Pythagorean tuning already
discussed, a diatonic monochord division in the just tuning
39
(Diagram 64). This is an interesting division in that it
is accomplished in only four steps, and even more inter-
esting are the divisions of two sets of the notes ~and e,
a syntonic comma apart. The use of the double notes in
this division occurs apparently only as a demonstration of
the c o.mma -- although the author could have had in mind the
same purpose as that of Lodovico Fogliano, who, some fifty
years later, explained a similar occurrence in his monochord
division by pointing out that in practice neither the Pytha-
gorean third (81:64) nor the pure third (5:4) were used,
but that the canma between .the two was divided proportion-
40
ally by means of the Euclidean construction. In this
anonymous treatise, however, there is not an accompanying
explanation, but the occurrence of the commas points out

39. Le Cerf, E.E.• cit., 52.

40. Lodovico Fogliano, Musica theorica (Venetiis: 1529),
36. Fogliano's completed division is given below.
 242

Diagram bt. Anon. LeCerf, Po.ris,M5. B.N. La.tin 72.95Jol.128(ca.. l't75).

Direct ion: ·Ase.end ins. Measurements: B,'t,15. Notes:Z'.

Completed Monochord: J usi Tunin~ w1~h Commo.6.

c d ee. f 9 a.a.. b c. d eef ~ a be d.e cd

I I II I t II I I I 111 t I 11- 11 II

z (. d
.i
I

' 8

'} C c. c. B
I '1 ~

4--~--+-~~1--~-+-~)~~~-L~~~~~~~~'--'"~~~?-~..__.:...--+--~--~~
 243

the beginning of consciousness among musicians of an im-

proved instrumental tuning. This division is incomplete
in the third octave.
Probably one of the most disputed of all monochord
divisions is the one presented by Bartolome "Ramos in his
Musica Practica of 1482. 41 'Ihis division, using the letters
A-P, is apparently the earliest complete chranati.c non-
Pythagorean tuning of the instrument. Ramos's division,
although it had great influence on his successors, was not
devised as a new tuning, but merely as a simplified method
of division (see connnents on p. 30, above.); and Ramos
emphasizes repeatedly this feature of the division, even
to the point of stat i.ng:
We, however, for the sake of the young,
have divided ours by vulgar fractions and with
respect to continuous quantity in order that
the student may not need to know both arith-
metic and geometry, • • • provided only he be
informed of the first rud:l.ments.42
This division uses only two- and three-part measure-
ments throughout its twenty-three steps and includes both
flat and sharp semi tones. It is difficult to tell from
examining the steps of the division (Diagram 65) where 1tamos

41. Ramos, ~· cit., 4-5, 34-37.

42. Partial trans. in Oliver Strunk, Source Readings in
Music History (New York: W. w. Norton and Co., 1950),
202.
 244

deviates from the Pythagorean tuning, since he makes many

of his divisions fran points other than the ends of the
string, thus differing from the usual manner. This is
probably one reason why Ra.nios himself did not fully realize
the deviations from the usual Pythagorean division, al-
though he did supply a discussion of the intervals in tenns
of string lengths in the chapters following his manual
division. His main preoccupation was apparently the sim-
plicity of the division rather than the significance of
the just intervals. In the manual division, the notes
created by steps 3, 6, '7, 11, and 12 are the ones that
deviate from the usual Pythagorean ratios.
The division of the nionochord following the pre-
cepts of the just tuning next appeared, a half century
later, in the Musica theorica of Lodovico Fogliano.
Fogliano's use of the monochord is more interesting fran
the standpoint of the manual technique than from that of
the intervals which he devises, although it must be pointed
out that his proportional division of the syntonic connna
was a significant step in the developnent of the meantone
temperament. Fogliano 1 s treatise is divided into three
main sections, of which the first is devoted to a study of
the proportions, the second to the study of the consonances
 245'

Diagram 65 Ra.mos de Pa.reio. 1 Mvsicct f'r?l.Ctico.. ( lt8Z).

Direction· Asceridin13. Measurements: 2. 3. Notes: 2'-.

Completed Monochord: Chromodic Jv~t Iun_i_nq.

1b b c. 19 d 2.b e f ?.'I q Jb ~ j ~ ·"'-''L ,..11ht"O#p
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I 111 I
I I
.5teps Proportion~
I I'I. I I 2 q I
z:
2. ~ I ~ 2. :~ 2
I

3
Id
I I .t l. ',~ I

I I 7
+
5
'"
I
'h I
I

L l.
.P
I
2..
T
I

I I ..!..
I I ;z.

"? t I I
I
IL
I

l..
I
"
I
I
I
l. .P
I ""i'
I

I
I "1:
8 ~ I e.
I J.
m
I l ~ ~
•e. ~
I
'1 I I :a. I .l ~
/0 ,b :z.
I
;q I
I

'
;i.
I
h
I T
II I I ,k >- f1'l I
I I
2
/2 F- l. "/.. I
i
I
I
13 e.
I I .~ l. ,q .L
I I I :i
0
I CJ I I 2.
..L
I I z.
Se.mi tones
15 I b' '2. I
.L
1 I
b2. . I
I

'" 1b 1. I
I
I

:b1
l
I
pi z
l'1 I 2.. I '
'T
18 :bz. I
,,~ J. :b4 I
I I .. I 7
I'~
b5
11 I
I I
I
l.
~
I

'ZJ p ~9
• .iti ..!
I I I
,Z.q ,J'f
ll
J'r
I
I
: 3ei
)...
I
I
~
-t
:2l I
-,2
I I
,34 ,.
2J . I ,s'r
I T
I
 246

and numerical proofs of the intervals, and the third to

the division of the monochord.
Fogliano's monochord technique is ve~y unusual,
both in his demonstration of the consonances and in the
complete division of the scale. In setting up the instru-
ment he gives the following directions:
Therefore draw a longitudinal line
directly on the level surface. At about the
middle of this line, two points are marked
at a distance or three fingers apart: the
left is called A and the right B. Arter
this to the left of A make four equal pEl.I•ts,
designated c, D, E, and F: on the sight,
one part of equal size marked B G. 4
In using this instrument to demonstrate the consonances, he
places four bridges of equal height under the string, one
each at points F and G, one at Band the fourth moving
between points A and D. Succeeding demonstrations use
increasing numbers of segments on each side, with a maximum
of sixteen parts on the left and five on the right. The
following illustrations (Plate 3) reproduced from his
treatise demonstrate this adaptation of the monochord and
the intervals produced.
The same technique is also applied to the chro-
matic division 01· the scale. In the third chapter or the

43. Fogliano, .2E• cit., 12.

 247
Plate 3. Fogl1ano•s
demonstration of. the
consonances.
 248

third section he directs that one is to fold a long piece

of paper in half' and di vi de one .side, from which the marks
can be easily transferred to the other half. The right
end of the paper is marked K and the remainder of the mono-
chord is divided so th.at there are two like parts extending
from the highest note, which is toward the center, to the
lowest notes, which are toward the ends of the string. He
begins the division by placing q the distance of sixteen
equal steps frcm K. The size of the steps appears to be
inconsequential as long as they do not exceed the length
of one-fourth of the string. After the division is com-
pleted, permanent bridges are placed at K (the opposite
ends of the string), and two movable bridges are moved be-
tween C and c (there is only one c and it is at the center
of the string). This division, in addition to the usual
cbrcmatic notes, contains two commas and is completed in
an alternating-descending manner in fifteen steps. The
completed instrument is depicted in the following plate
and the method of division is shown in Diagram 66. In ad-
dition to the manual division Fogliano also presents a
complete discussion of the intervals based on a string
length of 3600 units.
Zarlino, in addition to the Pythagorean tuning,
also discussed manual divisions for the just tuning. The
 249

reJ:.t•
_g
()
0
§
a

•
 25'0

Diagram b6. Ludovico Foglia.no, Mvs1c:Ck theot"'ic:a. ( 152'i).

Direct ion: "5ce.nd i ~. Notes: 15.

Completed Monochord: Chr-omo.t1·c Just TOiling.

I
c dd be t- ~ beat ~ c
I 11 I I I I I I I I
t I
I I
.Steps Pro,,.,rt ions
I .
I 9,. .. 14 I) 11 11 I• , I 'I • t J a !(! .&

2. I I .!.a
IS
d
3 ···--- ~
15
'J 5 q 4 ?I 2. 5
4
e q
'f
~ 3 1.
1.
2..
e 'l :a. l 'I
" d )
q J.
3
'f
'I 1.
2

s c )
q
"' ...J.
2

q b 111b8 C3

c
-·-I· 5

f
'4 ) :a.
t
ID ~ )
1 3

c
1
II
c. .z. I

b"'1 b"'.,A ..,

z:
q t (. 5 4
12 )> 'J. j_
8
b '"°t:f 3
" -f b ,,,,.,,,a. ,,
2
11 ) 3
-r
d I .J
b'llb%
'I 5 ,, &
15
' -,A
 251

Dimostrat1on1 harmonica of 1571 is permeated with interval

'
discussions that are oriented toward the monochord. This
work, divided into four main sections, depends heavily upon
the reader's knowledge of the"monochord in its preeentation
of the interval studies. The main discussions of the mono-
chord and the manual divisions occur in the fourth section,
but throughout the divisions Zarlino refers the reader to
specific concepts presented earlier in the treatise.
In the first proposition of the fourth part, the
manual division of the monochord in the just tuning is pre-
sented. This is followed by divisions of the chromatic and
enharmonic genera in this tuning. In these divisions
Zarlino uses the same kind of letter notation employed in
his Pythagorean division, that is, the. letters A-Q, pre-
sented in the order of division. The two-octave diatonic
division is demonstrated in Diagram 67. The chromatic
genus is divided from the outside notes of each tetrachord
by making a sesquiquinta (6:5) measurement from the upper
note of the tetrachord, thereby producing the interval of a
just minor third. In the enharmonic genus he divides the
semitone at the lower end of each tetrachord by erecting a
just chranatic semitone (25:24) above the lowest note of
the tetrachord. In each of these genera he repeats the
same procedure for each of the five tetrachords.
Diagram b 1. Gio.seffo la.~ lino, Di most ro.tioni harmon1ce ( 15i /).
Direct ion: Asc.encli"9 ~ Measurements: t 8, 9.
1 Note': /5.

Completed Monochord: Jvst Tunin~.

e ~ dh km n
~r
a.. c. q
I
I
I I I I I f 11 I 1I 0

I
I
Steps Proport iotis
r 'o.. c.. s 7 g 'a
L 3 'I
" "l
7f
c. .d 3
1 1. 3 'f
'f
3 f to ~ s s 10
---- " " 1 J i
Cf
f ,, 5 i
+ ' 9

d
' 3 2..
.9..
8
.!;
'3 J. 3
~
. "' i
& I 10 q 8 ,, s I 4- l 2 I 10
I"
,, q
.
I
"f
8
i
'I G. l l.
'I "'
s ., 3 .a.q
---·-+-t-=-t- I " I s
I /( l
8 :&..
" c:r

, I( L 2.. .3 1 3
1
/0 I'\ L 'I I 10
' " 4 ) 1 I
T
11'1111'13 s z q
II
L-
'I
"
0
4 3 I
e
12. ~ 3 1 l..
'i
'L 0
s 4
13 10 9 ,., ' 1. I 10
Cf
p" q,. s z.
I~ ?
' 1
't
;J
 253

Although Zarlino presents much of' his discussion in

terms of' Greek techniques and names, he does relate these
to the Odonian letters in the latter part of the treatise.
He also gives a method by which one may determine string
lengths from the just ratios. Th.is is done much in the
same manner as that by which Anonymous 1044 demonstrated
the evolution of the Aristidean numbers f'rom the sub-sesqui-
octava proportion. Taking what he considered the character-
istic proportions of' each genus {16:15 semitone for the
diatonic, 6:5 minor third for the chromatic, and 25:24 semi-
tone for the enharmonic), he expanded them into a set of
string lengths based on 864 units for the diatonic, 1440
units for the chromatic, and 7200 units for the enhannonic.
The use of a greater number of units f'or each successive
genus is necessary in order to maintain the use of whole
integers to represent each note. This same f'eature is evi-
dent in the divisions of Salinas, who also presented his
monochord both manually and according to string lengths.
It is cul'ious that Zarlino resorts to the ancient
genera of the Greeks to explain the different divisions of
the scales, but equally curious is the persistence of the
names of the genera in discussions that no longer use the

44. Anonymous 10, GS I, 310-330. Seep. 180, above.

 254

Greek scale structure. Typical of this usage are the divi-

sions of Francisco Salinas, whose monochord discussion
culminntes in a twenty-four-part octave that he calls en-
harmonic, and which is neither the Greek enhannonic genus
or a true quarter-tone scale but is a multiple division of
45
the just tuning. Salinas's presentation of the manual
monochord divisions is perfunctory and one gets the impres-
sion that he is quite bored with it, especially when he
says: "It is easier to divide by arithmetic than by means
46
of a c ompa.ss."
Salinas's monochord divisions are presented in the
third book of the treatise, beginning with the fifth chapter.
He prepares the reader for the divisions by devising a system
of string lengths based on 180 units, which has the note C
as its lowest tone, and which gives just string lengths for
the notes up to e as follows:
C D D E F G a l:J c d d e
180 162 160,144 135 120 108 96 90 81 80 ?2,
He then uses the bracketed portion of this scale as the
basis of the manual division. The division proceeds in an
orderly fashion, but is never se:pa.rated from the string

45. See also Johann Neidh.ardt's multiple division of

the just tuning, p. 304, below.
46. Salinas, op. cit., 111.
 255

lengths -- which are the only clue that this octave repre-
sents only one-half' of the string. In Diagram 68 an allow-
ance is made for this half of the string, although Salinas
never uses it. One must, however, give Salinas credit for
the clarity of his presentation, especially in his d:l.agram-
matical representation of the division -- lhich is to a
great extent similar to the diagrams used in this study. 47
Diagram 68 includes all three of Salinas's separate divisions,
which, like those of Zarlino, are constructed progressively
from the preceding division. Salinas makes many of' the
divisions from predetermined notes rather than from the ends
of the string. The string lengths for these di vis:tons begin
with a fundamental length of 144 for the diatonic division;
the chranatic division has 2880 as its lebgth, which is
twenty times 144; and the enharmonic is given as 20 times
2880 or 5'1600 -- the increase being due in each case to a
desire to use only whole numerals.
Kircher 1 s division of the monochord is given primar-
ily as a demonstration of the just tuning. 'Ihis division
of one octave has no chranatic notes and is accompanied by
a set of string lengths whose lowest note consists of 1728)
units. The division (Diagram 69) is quite simple in its

47. ~., 111, 11?, 122.

 25'6

Diagram 66. Fr-o.ncisco Sa.linl\5 1 De. mus1c.o. libri septem (1511).

Direction: Alt~rno:lif"9. Measurements: '?,3,+,5. Notes: 2t.

ComF/eted Monochord: Multiple division.

E c;. o.. ~ c. dd e. .
1 I I I I I II I [j!N1.TOl\1C J I
I I
.Steps Proportion~
I 'E Q;
.a. e _g_
l E G- ft e
""
.)
2
~ .L
2.
4 y
I
·F Q
s z. z..·
I
b I
I

ii 0.. ."J
I
I

1: I

: I
T
(7 b
8 l.
J..
2
'l :a,:$ ~ 4it-5~
.!..
10 E #: l. t z
II
a. I bl.
T,
12. E1 l. tt ~ TI
rt 11 I I .
I I "]'
Q.
F M
; *# t
I
I
I
I I 11 tanhNcw1ejc:. !?r1it!I MTh d1ro-7ic]
I
#
:
13: z. : .!.
4 I
It ..L
z
15
f=
•. $ 4
sz.
'"
I 'l
b 2.
:a.
b b t
.1.
I
18
l'l
r: I 2. ~
" T
I

20
... I :a. l • .f ~
ft.
T
21 1-
• a

nn r irt m~ ~ti ~t~ ff

I
T
i~ ~m12lc.ted m11lt1~lf d111.•E1'*'1
 2'57

Diagram 6 Cf. Athl\no.sius Kir-c.hey, Mosur'J ia. uni versa.I is ( /b50 ).

Direct ion: AlteroQ.t1·n~. Notes: 8.

Completed Monochord: J 11st Tunin9.

A b c D E F c;. 0..

I
I
S~ep$ Pl'"oportiol,s
Q. I I
I
?:
2 A
D,o
E

E
2.
- z
3
3 q & 'I
" 6 4 ~ 10
?(
4 A
c 1 4- , i.
"
3
(>

5 ~
F 4 ". ,, i.
' 6
8
A
' r 8
~
2. J '7
I
"
~
F, G z. 'i s ,., 6 t:f 8
'
')

"?(
 258

construction but uses several unusual measurements, as may

be noticed in steps 4 and 5.
Lemme .Rossi's presentation of a manual di vision of
the just tuning is apparently designed, not only as a demon-
stration like Kfrcher's, but also to preps.re the reader
(and the monochord) for the varied temperaments which he
later presents of this tuning. His division (Diagram 70),
encompassing only one octave, is simply constructed, but
it does contain two tunings of the noted, a syntonic comma
apart. This monochord division, like Zarlino's and
Kircher's, is a division of the diatonic minor fo!'In of the
scale. Rossi also represents this scale by means of a set
of string lengths employing the number 41472 as the greatest
length.

Temperaments of the Monochord

The remaining manual divisions of the Renaissance
appear in the writings of Zarlino, Schneegass, and Rossi.
They are mostly meantone temperaments that use divisions of
the syntonic comma to effect the temperament. The earliest,
a two-seventh comma temperament, was given by Zarlino in the
48
Istitutioni harmonica; the second, a one-fourth cc:mma.

48. Zarlino, Istitutioni, 131.

Diagram 70. Lemme Rossi) 5istemo.. rnusico (/666).

Direction:_ De.sce.ndin~J Measurements: 2,3, 8J 'f. Notes: 10.

Completed Monochord: Just Tunin'3·

a. b '=1 c. dd ef.' f~
I I f II 11 t f
Proport iof.t1
I
~A I I 2 I I
I z
0..
~
2 I

I
I
I ' I
2
e 0.
I
I
4 't- 3
• '2 I I
.!
,'
I I
3
~ q ~ .z I
I l
I
T T' t
sle t.,4 • ' 'l ' S, 4 I, L I 10
I I I I I
"f
f q q
-,1 iS: ,5 4.3,.1., I
'
'11' I
I

' ' I I I I
8
d ~ ;a.
'I I
I " )
,
I
'
I
I ..i
3
f
I
!I 1
l
2.
-.'
I 3
2

q c. I
f z. ~
I I I 41 J
'
I I
'f
lo
Q.
I .
d z. 3 ..
f
I
I' I
I
"T
'
II
b '3 + 2 . I
I

I
I
I I 2 '
 260

temper:lment, appears at the end of the Dimostrationi

harmonice. 49 Zarlino, in discussing the second temperament,
admitted it to be superior to the first.
The two-sevenths comma temperament is rather diffi-
cult to construct. In his division, Zarlino divides the
minor d.1sdiapason using the letters a-u. However, all of
these letters are not used to represent notes, since a and
d represent the commas and ·o is ·the other end of the string.
The representation in Diagram '11 is not to scale because
of the necessity of dividing the conmia into seven parts.
Zarlino begins the division by erecting a syntonic connna
(81:80) at the end of the string. (This can be done in sev-
....
eral ways, but the simplest way is to make a sub-sesquioctave
[8:9] measurement as in any ascending Pythagorean division,
and then from this note to make a sesquinona [ 10: 9 Jpropor-
tion as in a descending division. '!he remainder between
this second note and the end of the string is the syntonic
camna. By repeating this technique one can place two commas
at the left end of the string. The mid-point of these two
commas [c] will ·oe the lowest note of the comple tad d1 vi-
sion.) Zarlino then divides each of the commas proportion-
ally into seven parts by means of the mesolabium.
In constructing the remainder of the division, parts

49. Zarlino, Dimostrationi, 283-287.

 261

of the commas are subtracted from or added to the note c

and the divisions are made so as to include the parts of the
camna. In Diagram 71 the parts of the-comma added or sub-
tracted from the stI'ing length cb are marl~ed in the left
margin in place of the numbers of steps 3 through 8.
The one-fourth connna temperament is constructed in
essentially the same manner as the two-sevenths comma tem-
.J

perament, but instead of all of the notes being tempered,

pure thirds are maintained between C-E, F-A, and G-l:f.
Because of the vagueness of Zarlino's directions, one feels
that by this time the moncchord had lost some of its charm
for him, and that he presented the temperament in this manner
more for traditional reasons than for practical application.
His explanation of this temperament may be found in the
Dimostrationi harmonica, pages. 283-287.
Lemme Rossi's temperaments, cf which there are five,
along with alternate methods of determining three of them,
are, in contrast to Zarlino's, easy to construct on the
monochord. He constructs the first temperament with a series
of double notes a corr.ma apart, determined by means of sesqui-
octava and sesquinona proportions frcm the same point. These
double notes are (in descending order) g ~' e e, d d,
• •
9 ~• I

The temperament of these notes is effected by an arithmetic

division of the commas in the manner shown in Diagram 72.
 262

Diagram 71. Giosef f o Zo..rllno,) ¥tit uhone

- ho.rmon·ice (/55 8).
... .,,.
Direct ion: Asc.e.nd in9. Measurements: 2,3, t,6J8, ~ ,l't Notes: 15.

Completed Monochord: MeCl.ntone lempera.rnent (two- severiths comma).

h
. K Ltm n 0 p Cj r' 5
l) e t q
I I I I I I 111 I I I I l I I
I
Proport(""'

~
2
e
f
4 c. 9 Cf 8
".a. J
" l"
f '2. , $ ?
+'
4
'"
-;;1 :t. ;J

,
.. '
2
Lf

a
". I
'2..

s ,,
1..
3
.) 4

K
" 8 .2.
s
:;r. > & ~
'I $
" 'l
"' q
L 2.. I
L'
JO e m l. I
'i:"
/I f l. (
2
12. 0 ~ I
-r
13 h p I
T
q,
I~ I
2:'
IS K r I
'T
lb L. J s I
2
I?
v t
J8 2. l
I
Diagram 12. Lenime Ros~i > Si2t-emo. rnusico 0666).

Direction: De.~cendih~, Measurements: 2,3, 4, 8, 'f.

Completed Monochord: Meo.ntone Tempero.ment.

a. q c d e f
I I
.Steps Proportions
2. I I I 2.
I I

,., i '+' z.
I

3
':I
q
, . :a. q
I '
I S
' ' I
I
'
I
I
8
fro f I , I ,, 1"
' I

4
---· e
'I
i
er

3
I
6 '

2.
+,
I
~
I
.1

I
' I to
9
.i
I I I I
I
3
<)
I
I
q
.
I

' '" I
t.
I s I
4
I
~
I
2. I
I
I '1
8
d e ,,
? I
10
I
q
I 8
I . "
I I !S I
I
1 I
I
) I
I
;a. I
I
I JO
Cf
81 I ~ 2. .) ~ $ '1 9 q a
! -- I I I
I
I
I
1

' " ' I I

I
I
I
~
~ . ,, .
, s
a q .9..
I
I
2. I
I
)
I
4 I
I '
' " -t I
~ I
I
II>
/0

10 I l. 3 4 3
''
I I
I I I

'f
/I ~.~ I
I I

~ lternperet/) z
/l ....
e. e.
I
'Te (tunperu#) t
13
dd
'111 '
I I
11,l I ) 2:
ci (te1np4red
I fl'f
14 Ill
Ill
I
'II ~ Cumpev-~) 2
c. 5 I 4 ~ I 5
15 I
I
I

' 2- I
I I I I
1'
f \ .. & z.
'" I
' 3 I
t
 264

This diagram, because of the size of the connn.as, represents

only the upper half of the string and it will be assumed
in this representation (as in the subsequent representations
of Rossi's temperaments) that the lowest note, a, has already
been derived by a sub-duple proportion. The alternate method
of dividing for this temperament utilizes a right triangle
and is constructed in the manner described in the following
paraphrase of Rossi& .
I. Place f sesquiquarta to aa.
II. g, as a mean proportional, is found by
means of the Euclidean construction
between f and aa.
III. Qonstruct a right triangle between B
Lthe end of the string1, g, and P.
The base of the triang!e gP equals the
distance between g and aa. Extend BP
to point ~' so that BQ is equal in
a-,.
length to Ba, and then aQ will equal

This triangulation is shown in Diagram '73.

Diagram 73. Rossi's triangulation for meantone temperament.

Cl 9 f ~ a. B
t-- j
,,
I
,
I ..:
...... .
,. p
Q
 265

Rossi ccmpletes the division with these directions:

IV. e is ths mean proportional of aa and~ ,
augmented by one-fourth comma.
v. c is sesquiquarta to e.
VI. d is the mean proportional of c and e.
VII. b is sesquiquarta to d.50
Rossi states at the end of this division that 9 ~an also
he found as the mean proportional to as, when s is placed
sub-sesquiqua.rta to a.
The next temperament discussed by Rossi uses ninth-
pa.rts of the conma in essentially the same manner as the
preceding division used halves and fourths. Most of the
tempering in this division is done by diminishing the fif'th
by two-ninths of the comma. The alternate method again
uses the method of triangulation discussed above, but in
this division Rossi finds all of the notes except a,~ , e
and aa by means of the triangle. 51 Subsequent divisions
present the method of aubdividine these temperaments into
semitones and quarter-tones, and also a chromatic division
constructed entirely of mean proportionals.
Most of the equal temperaments are constructed by
means of the mesolabium or sane other means of producing
multi-mean proportionals. Rossi gives one twelve-note

50. Rossi, P.E• cit., 62.

51. Ibid., 64.
 266

octave division that uses a geanetrical figure, said to

have been devised by Nicanedes, with which one can deter-
mine two means. The following diagram (Dia.gram /4) pre-
1

sents this method of determination. AB is the longest

string; BC is the shortest. '1.'riangle BCH is equilateral
and the side HC equals one-half AB. GB equals BC. CL is
parallel to GH ad infinitum. LM equals HC. CM and HL are

the two mean proportionals. In dividing the monochord

Rossi uses this figure to find d-flat and f as mean pro-
portionals between a and aa. Next, each of these ditones
is divided in half proportionally to find g, e-flat and 9.
Further application of the mean proportional produces b,
c, d, e, g-flat, and a-flat. 52

Diagram '/4. Rossi's geometric construction

of two mean proportionals.

52. Ibid., 88ff.

 267

Nearly all of Rossi's divisions are also given in

string lengths y•hose lowest note is always 20'/36. The use
of a camnon length for all of the divisions provides an
easy means of cClllparing the differences of each of the
temperaments. One other interesting division is a re-work-
ing of the two-sevenths canma temperament given by Zarlino
(see p. 262, above), in which Rossi substitutes a one-fourth
ccmma for the two-sevenths used by Zarlino. 53 In this divi-
sion Rossi adds and subtracts the portions of the connna in
a manner directly opposite to that of Zarlino 1 s division;
th.at is, when Zarlino increases the leneth of the string by
two-sevenths canma, Rossi decreases the length by the se.me
amount.
Appropriately, Rossi's treatise -- perhaps the most
ccmprehensive and complete description of manual monochord
techniques in existence -- is the last treatise to use this
kind of division extensively. Although the monochord sur-
vived in common usage after the end of the 11anaissance,
Johann Neidhardt is apparently the only post-Renaissance
musician to use the manual division of the instrument (see

53. Ibid., 68.

 268

54
Chap. V beJ.ow). - There are perhaps many reasons f'or the
discontinuance of the manual technique of dividing the
monochord, but the most prominent one seems to be the
adapM"'ion or the systems of str1.ng lengths to manual usage
by meaus of a ruler. This system, first advocated by
Grammateus in 1518 as an alternate to his manual division,
gained in popularity in the early seventeenth century and
eventually replaced the manual division as the most fre-
quently used method of dividing the monochord.
In any practical use of the i~strum.ent one must
remember that the length of string allotted to a note is
always proportional; that is, the length of an interval
equally divided into two smaller intervals will not be
divided in half, but will be divided proportionally.
Chapter I discusses some of the mechanical methods of pro-
portional division which were used on the monochord. In
the case of intervals constructed of superparticular ratios
(e.g., 9:8, 10:9) the proportional lengths are determined
by the fractions used. It is, of course, simpler to apply
these fractions to an actual manual division than it is to

54. The only possible exception to this is the monochord

division devised by Henri Choquel in 1762, but his
manual division is accompanied by string lengths which
can be applied to the instrument. His manner of manu-
ally producing the semitones leads one to conclude
that the division, or at least part of it, was first
calculated mathematically. See p. 324, below.
 269

construct the system of string lengths and then measure

them on the monochord. In the case of temperaments, how-
ever, the use of mechanical proportioning devices, or the
more canmon technique of ccmma-splitting, becomes a tedious
and often inaccurate task. For this reason the application
of the string-lengths system to the instrument became the
easier technique -- out not until saneone devised a system
by ~n1ich proportional lengths could be calculated mathe-
matically. In the second half of the seventeenth century
the invention of logarithms oy Bishop Caramuel finally led
to the developnent of this technique, so that at last it was
a simpler task to calculate an applicable set of string
lengths and apply them directly to the instrument, than to
construct a manual division.
:Most of the practical use of the monochord in the
post-Renaissance period, then, is based on the application
of a set of string lengths to the instrument. The first
writer to exploit this aspect of the monochord fully was
Andreas Reinhard, who published a work entitled Monochordum
in 1604 describing a clavichord of thirty-six keys and
twelve pairs of strings. Although Reinhard does not
directly advocate the use of his string lengths on ~~e mono-
chord, they are expressed in very sma 11 numbers, v1hich seems
to indicate that they were applied to this instrument or
 270

at least bad a part in the technique of placing the

tangents on his clavichord -- a technique developed through
the use of the monochord.
Beginning with the just tuning, Reinhard describes
the intervals in terms of a string of .forty-eight units,
after which he shows the derivation of the semitones fran
the just intervals by means of aritbmetical division. The
following table shows his calculation of the semitones:

G 40 A 36 H 32 d 26 2/3 e 24
F 45 G 40 A 36 c 30 d 26 2/3
85 76 68 562/3 50"2/3

pf" 42 1/2 r?38 b 34 ~281;3 crt"251;3 55

Subsequently he subdivides these lengths into three octaves,

based first on the length of .forty-eight units, and later
gives the same division based on a 256-unit string. The
following table shows the three-octave division based on
forty-eight units.
Reinhard's tuning was adopted ten years later by
Abraham Bartolus. Bartolus's applications of the monochord
are many and varied. To help in the use of the instrument
he devised a more accurate movable bridge which he called a
cochlea. Tbis bridge, shown in Plate 5 in the illustration

55. Andreas Reinhard, Monochordum (Leipzig: Valentin,

1604)' 36.
 271

Table 10. Reinhard's list of tones and of semitones. 56

First Second ·Third Interval

Octave Octave Octave
e
tc•
e 24 12 6 limma
r1' 25 1/3 g• 12 2/3 6 1/3 apotome
d 26 2/3 d 13 1/3 6 2/3 tone
ct
c
t:r
28
30
32
1/3
~·
g
q
14
15
16
1/6
--
c
i
7 1/12
7 1/2
8
a po tome
tone
limma
b 34 b 17 b 8 1/2 a po tome
A 36 a 18 a 9 tone
G• 38 g# 19 g. 9 1/2 a po tome
G 40 20 10 tone
F ... 42 1/2 ~ 21 1/4 ff • 10 5/8 apotome
F 45 f 22 1/2 11 1/4 tone
E 48 e 24 ~ 12 limma

of his monochord, bas a movable part (0) which can be used

57
to secure the string against the bridge (N).
In 1618 Fabio Colonna introduced, in connection
with a newly invented keyboard instrument called the
Sambuca lincea, a discussion of the monochord using a
multiple division of the octave into thirty-seven notes.
The aural representation of this division was provided by

56. Ibid., 38. Up to this point most letter notations

"EiVe been explained or represented in Odonian letters,
because it was thought that the earlier systems were
best related to that notation. Since later letter
representations of pitch are based on Odo's system,
the later systems will be used, as in ~einhard's
table, in the fonns given by their authors, without
furthe r explanation • ·
57. Abraham Bartolus, Musica mathematica, printed as
the second part of Heinrich Zeising•a Theatri
machinarum (Altenburg, 1614), 152ff.
 272

~
).

•
~0
t:
I
§1

J~
~
. '
~
._,, \ 0
..
rd
•
=
~
0
.d
~·
()
0
-..
.&:# s::
0
0
~
s
~
Q ~
:::
Q
•
~
ll)

G>
.µ
~
~

XI.XX}{
 2?3

means of a two-string monochord which he divides into

2000 units. 58 For his division he provides a set of string
lengths whose lowest note is 2000 units. The following
table (Table 11) presents Colonna's division. In this divi-
sion one will notice that there are two columns of numbers,
of which the second is always the difference between the
first column and 2000. ~is double set of numbers was given
by Colonna in order to point out that the remainder of the
string will produce a second interval consonant to the first.
The interval name listed between the mnnbers represents the
59
interval existing between the two lengths of the string. · '
This technique is but an expansion of the demonstration of
the consonances first propounded by Ptoleru~, in which he
demonstrated that a string divided into five parts yielded
a diapente if the bridge was placed at the end of the
third part. Colonna's reasons for pursuing this diVision
to such extremes is not known, but the attitude displayed
by his attention to detail is perhaps only a manifestation
of the inquisitive Renaissance mind.

58. Colonna, ..Q.E.• cit., 33ff.

59. Note that all of the intervals are listed as thirds,
fourths, fifths, sixths and octaves; but that the
second minor third from the top is really a minor
tenth, and that the third minor third is a seven-
teenth. Similarly, all of the intervals ·become in-
creasingly larger compound intervals in progressing
toward the bottom of the column. The range of the
notes thus represented covers seven octaves.
 274

Table 11. Colonna's table of string lengths.

Note Initial Interval Remainder

Length
A 1000 Unison (1:1) 1000
Major secon~ (9:8)
a•
G
1063
1090
1111
14/17
10/11
1/9
Minor third (6:5)
Major third ( 5:4)
936
909
888
3/1'7
1/11
8/9
1142 6/7 Fourth (4:3) 857 l/'l
F41: 1200 · Fifth ( 3:2) 800
F 1250 Major sixth (5:3) 750
E 1333 1/3 Octave ( 2 : 1) 666 2/3
1538 6/13 Major sixth (10:3) 461 'l /13
1411 3/l'l Minor third (12:5) 588 14/17
1428 4/7 Maj or thi rd ( 5 : 2 ) 5'11 3/7
1454 6/11 Fourth (8:3) 545 5/11
D 1500 Fifth (3:1) 500
1600 Octave ( 4: 1) 400
1739 3/23 Major Sixth (20:3) 260 20/23
1658 18/19 Einor third {24: 5) 341 lx29
c 1666 2/3 Major third (5:1) 333 1 3
1714 2/7 Fourth {16 :3) 285 5/7
B 1'177 7/9 Octave ( 8: 1) 222 2/9
1860 20/43 Major sixth {60:3) 139 23/43
1811 17/53 Minor third (48:5) 188 36/53
~ 1818 2/11 Major third (10:1) 181 9/11
1828 4/7 Fourth (32:3) 171 3/7
1846 2/13 Fifth {12: 1) 153 11/13
b 1882 6/17 Octave { 16: 1) 117 11/1'1
~- 1937 59/83 Major sixth (80:3) 62 24/83
1900 100/101 Minor third (96:5) 99 1/101
1904 16/21 Major third (20:1) 95 5/21
1910 30/67 Fourth (64:3) 89 37/67
x 1920 Fifth (24:1) 80
1939 13/33 Octave {32.:1) 60 20/33
1963 31/163 Major sixth (160:3) 36 132/163
1949 47/197 Minor third {192:5) 50 150/197
1951 9/41 Major third (40:1) 48 32/41
1954 20/131 Fourth (128:3) 45 105/131
1959 9/49 Fifth (48:1) 40 40/49
1969 3/13 Octave (64:1) 30 10/13
A 2000
 275

In 1635 two works were published which deal ex-

tensively with the monochord. The first, the Lycei musici
of Abdias Trew, is a summary of thirteen earlier methods
of dividing the monochord; the second is the Harmonie
uni verselle of Marin Kersenne. In both of the writings
there is a pervading atmosphere of scientific investiga-
ti on, m·ore so in Mersenne 's than in Trew' s since Y.ersenne
is more inclined to explain why rather than how, whereas
Trew is often content to explain briefly how a division
is constructed, or what intervals it contains, with little
ccmment on any of the principles involved. Trew writes
the speculative part in Latin and the practical part in
German (a device also observed in Otto Gibel's Proposi-
tiones mathematico-musico of 1664).
In the first part of the Lycei, Trew cives the
interval structure for the following thirteen divisions,
with only brief connnent about their construction:
1. The Pythagorean tuning.
2. The just tunings listed by Ptolemy.
3. The Aristoxenian method of interval structure.
4. The Pythagorean tunings of Archytas and
Boethius.
5. The temperament (meantone) of Cyriac Scbneegas.
6. The 18:17 semitone of Vincenzo Galilei.
 276

7. Johann Gerle's intervals for fretting the

Pandura.
8. Equal temperament determined by means of
twelve mean proportionals.
9. Equal temperament derived by mean proportional
di visions of pure thirds into equal tones.
10. A diatonic division accomplished by means of
the "divine section."
11. Contemporary just tuning.
12. A multiple division consisting of forty-three
notes per octave.
13. Another multiple division which he calls the
enharmonic genus, like number 12 in that it contains
forty-three notes in each octave.
Of these divisions or tunings, numbers '7, 10, 12 and 13
have not been discussed elsewhere in this study. Number 7,
the tuning of Johann Gerle, is given in sub-superparticular
proportions which are to be applied to the string. These
proportions are:

G A ~] 9 c c~J D

31 8 85 592 3 17 2
1 33 9 99 623 4 24 3

Trew does not give the determination of these intervals

in his text. Number 10 is an exotic division determined
in a very obscure manner. The following set of str1.ng
lengths has been calculated by this writer according to
what are believed to be Trew's intentions, although the
technique defies explanation:
 277

r 16
9 14.15
.n. 13.3
0 13
q 12.65
Q 12
D 10.7
M 10
s 9.85
~ 9
G 8

Division number 12 consists of an octave divided into

forty-three notes. 'Ihis division is obtained by dividing
the whole string into halves, thirds, fourths, fifths,
and so forth, through sixteenths. The division is can-
pleted by the addition of two intervals, 124:125 and 80:81,
to the lower end of the string. The thirteenth division,
also a forty-three-note octave, is constructed of succes-
sive perfect fifths, pure thirds, and htean proportionals.
This division is later utilized as the tuning for a three-
60
part piece entitled Symphonia generis enharmonia.
Plate 6 shows a diagram, appended to the treatise, in
which all of the tr~rteen divisions are compared. This
plate also shows, in the upper right corner, the kind of
monochord recoIID1l.ended by Trew.
The section on the monochord given by Mersenne in
the Harmonie universelle presents a scientific investigation

60. Trew, -2.E· cit., 38-39.

 ,
.r .'
~'-

j
!
l
'
l
;

>Plate 6. Tnw 1a diagram of the monochord.

' \

Jriw·\k#ttttidu e'Wt ...,µ.;-._.1i;._~.y;· ~-.~,

 279

of all of the aspects of the divided strtng as he under-

stood them. In this respect he states: . . . "I have
discussed it so amply and exactly that nothing more can
61
be desired." In reading "Mersenne 's account of the mono-·
chord one is inclined to agree with him. Although he
does not present any new divisicns or techniques, he does
touch upon practically every tuning discussed so far in
this study. Mersenne tends to prefer multiple divisions
(that is, octave divisions of more than twelve parts) of
the monochord and cites the dJvisions of both Colonna and
Salinas. His own favorite division is a nineteen-note
octave that he calls the perfect system. In proposition
IX of the "First Book of String Instruments" he presents
a table (Table 12) showing this division in all of its
aspects. The proposition itself has as its objective:
To explain all the consonances and dis-
sonances which appear in the monochord and in
the perfect system whether one compares the
whole chord with the parts that produce the
ordinary degrees, diatonic as well as chromatic
and enharmonic, or whether one compares each
degree or sound with all the string or with
its remainder: consequently the monochord
and the harmonic system will be considered
here in all possible fashions.

61. Marin Mersenne, Harmonie universelle, The Books on

Instruments, tr. by Roger Chapnan (The""""Iiigue:
Nijhoff, 1957), 46.
 280

He explains the table in this way:

~e table that folloVls explains rather
clearly this whole proposition, for it contains
six columns. The second of these shows the
letters of the [ GuidonianJ Hand, or of the
musical scale; the third divides the monochord
into all the intervals of the octave, which
ca:n be of use in harmony. The fifth contains
the numbers which show what remains of the
string, so that the numbers of the third and
the fifth columns opposite one another being
added always make the large number, that is
3600, which represents the whole number or the
lowest pitch.
The fourth explains the ratios which are
between each number of the third column and
each number opposite in the fifth. Now I have
put the nsme of the consonances in this foUI'th
column when they are found just, and the other
intervals or ratios with the numbers alone,
which signify the terins of each ratio. For
example the second number of the third column,
that is 1920, is to the second of the fifth
column, 1680 as 13 to 12.
But it must be obse1•ved that the first
number, which is always greater in this fourth
column corresponds to the numbe:.:• in the third
because it is the greatest; and the smaller
always represents that of the fifth coli.mm,
because that is always the smallest.
The sixth column represents the entire
string 3600 and contains a perpetual canparison
of this string with tha. t which remains of the
column. For example, 3600 makes the octave
with the first number of the fifth column 1800,
and 3600 is to the third number of the same
column, that is to 1600 as 9 to 4, and so with
the others. Now the greater number of the
ratios of the sixth column represent the whole
string and the lesser number represents the
 Table
Mersenne's table of consonances
I. II. III.
Octave [211] c 1800
major semi tone
Major seventh 15/8 B l:f 1920
minor semitone
Minor seventh 9/5 b 2000
camna
:Minor seventh 16/9 Bb 2025
major semitone
Kajor sixth 5/3 A 2160
major semitone
Minor sixth 8/5 Ab 2250
diesis
25/16 a• 2304
minor semitone
Fifth [3/2] .
....
\.; 2400
comma
40/27 G 2430
minor semitone
Tri tone 45/32 g 2560
diesis
25/18 r# 2592
minor semitone
Fourth 4/3 F 2700'
major semitone
Major third 5/4 E 2880
minor semitone
Minor third 6/5 eb 3000
die sis
?5/66 d- 3072
minor semitone
il'Iaj or tone 9/8 .D 3200
connna
Minor tone 10/9 D 3240
major semitone
Major s.emi tone 16/15 db 3375
dies is
liinor semitone 25/24 c:fl: 3456
minor semi tone
c 3600

62. Givan in Ibid., 36-37.

 282

12
62
and dissonances of the monochord.
IV. v. VI.
Unison 1800 Octave
15/14
13/12 1680 15/7
21/20
Major third 1600 Wajor ninth 9/4
46/45
9/7 1575 144/21
35/33
Fifth 3/2 1440 Maj or tenth 5/2
maj. semi.
Major sixth 5/3 1350 Eleventh 8/3
6'75/653
1152/653 1306 1800/653
653/600
Octave 1200 Twelfth 3/1
127 /120
243/127 [11711 1170 360/127
127/104
32/13 1040 45/13
65/63
18/7 1008 25/7
28/25
Twelfth 3/1 900 Fifteenth 4/1
maj. third
Fifteenth 4/1 720 Uajor seventeenth 5/1
min. third
Major seventeenth 5/1 600 Nineteenth 6/1
25/22
66/11 528 75/11
33/25
Twenty-second 8/1 400 Major twenty-third 9/1
mini tone
Major twenty-third 9/1 360 Major twenty-fourth 10/l
min. tenth
Twenty-ninth 15/l 225 -~ Twenty-ninth 16/l
15/25 l?J
Thirty-third 24/1 144 Minor thirty-fourth 25/1
 283

remainder of the same string. Finally the

first column contains tne ratios that the
whole string makes with the remainders of
the third column, and the greater number
always represents the whole string.63
Most of Meraenne's treatment of the monochord is
based on the system of string lengths. The only places
where he uses any of the manual techniques are in the
divisions of the consonances. It would be of little value
to the reader to repeat tnersem.e 's comments concerning
the monochord, since, for the most part, they are conden-
sations and re-workines of the techniques perfected by
his predecessors. Of greatest interest is his advocacy
of the instrument as a oasic means of regulating intervals
and demonstrating the differences of the pitches; he also
presents many practical applications. Mersenne's respect
for the monochord as a useful practical and scientific
device is summed up in the heading given at the begin-
ning of his section on tb~s instrument and at the begin-
ning of this study: "The demonstration of all of the
divisions of the monochord, and consequently all the
science of music • 1164

63. Ibid., 35-38. The brackets and the punctuation are

~translator's.
64. Mersenne, Harmonie universelle, Traitez des Instru-
ments ~ chordes (Paris: Cramoisy, 1636)-;-Bk. I,
Prop 'If':
 284

The Renaissance presents many contradictory views

of the monochord. In this era one observes a gradual
shift from the use of manual divisions to the system of
string lengths. At the same time there is a change from
the use of one tuning to the use of many. Finally the
monochord, or at least its system of techniques, is used
more frequently in the construction of other instruments,
and, conversely, the monophord gradually falls into
disuse as a pedagosical instrument. In later periods
the use of the monochord becomes very stereotyped; no
longer does it serve as the chief vehicle for musical
exper:lm.entation and teaching as it did in the Middle Ages
and the Renaissance.
 285

Chapter V
POST-RENAISSANCE USE OF THE MONOCH01ID1

Genera 1 ==Os::r•1-=e=n-=taa=t•is::omn ~ Tr ea t1. s es Dealing ~

the Monochord after the Renaissance
=

The changes ~hat have oeen recounted in the use

and diV1sion of the monochord throue;hout its history are
paralleled by the changes in the content and organization
of the n_usical treatises in which discussions of the mono-
chord appear. The monochord of the Gr.eeks was a product
of musical treatises whose chief interest was acoustical,
or at least directed toward the sounds and canposition of
scales. In the early Middle Ages the monochord still served
as the basis for explanations of scales; such explanations
existed in practically all of the treatises of this era,
whether dealing with acoustical or non-acoustical suojects.
I.B.ter medieval practice divided the use of the instrument
into two classifications, speculative and-practical, which
provided the basis for the specialization that was to be-
come prevalent in the Renaissance. Medieval practical
treatises were mainly concerned with the art of singing,

1. The designation "post~Renaissance" is used by this

writer to indicate the period extending from about
1670 to the present day.
 286

in which tne monochord was utilized as a pitch-producing

instrument as well as a means to explain theoretical
concepts.
The monochord in the practical treatises of later
eras was still used in connection with singing, as in the
practical medieval treatises, out, as was observed in the
preceding chapter, practical usage now included all sorts
of instrumental application. One of the major anachronisms
in post-Renaissance thought is that the speculative treatise
of the medieval sort reached a peak of development in the
seventeenth century with the encyclopedic works of Fludd,
Mersenne and. Y..ircher. Such works, with t.."1.e exception of
Mersenne's, bad little in them of practical value, and as
might be expected, the discussions of the monochord are
ver·oose and highly esoteric. In addition to its appearance
in the writings of the Renaissance encyclopedists, the
medieval speculative attitude existed in a group of
treatises whose authors had again taken up the Greek usage
of the monochord as an ideal means of describing scale
variants -- th.at is, tunings and temperaments.
Post-Renaissance treatises, in their treatment of
the monochord, show a general continuation of the Renais-
sance methods, the main difference. being that the later era
exhibited a still greater degree of specialization. Because
 287

of this specialization and the general adoption of the

system of string ·lengths, the post-Renaissance usage of
the monochord became stereotyped, and later discussions of
the instrument show little individuality and little of the
variety of division possibilities that are possible. The
practical use of the monochord in this period was limited
mainly to either the demonstration of acoustical principles
or tt1e tuning of keyboard instruments.
The post-Renaissance treatises in which discussions
of the monochord appear will be dealt with later in this
chapter in chronological order. However, within this
chronology the treatises may be classified into four
groups: practical musical treatises, that is, works like
counterpoint treatises or general theoretical treatises;
instr~ental treatises that cite the monochord as a tuning
aid without giving specific directions; instrumental works
that require the use of a divided monochord as a means of
tuning; and theoretical trea ti sea tha. t use the monoch1:>rd
to demonstrate sci en ti.fie ac ous tice.l principles. The first.
three classifications represent the use of the monochord
for practical musical purposes, and the fourth classifica-
tion represents scientific non-musical use of the 1.nstru-
ment.
 288

The first of these groups contains such works as

the Exercitationes musicae of Wolfgang Printz, in which
the sounds of intervals are demonstrated for the neophyte
2
composer by means of the monochord; or the Treatise of
Musick of Alexander Malcolm, whose main use of the monochord
3
is to demonstrate the intervals of the vibrating string.
Discussions of the kind given by Malcolm are ~onmon in
musical treatises up to the middle of the eighteenth century.
In the second group of treatises specific tunings or tech-
niques are not usually discussed, out the value of the
instrument as a tuning aid is described to the musician.
The Musica mechanica organoedi of Jakob Ad.lung is a prime
example of this group. 4
'!he main difference between the second and third

groups of treatises is that the third group actually pre-

sents a specific set of string lengths to be applied to
· the monochord, which in turn is to be used to tune a key-
board instrument. The tuning or temperament represented

2. Wolfgang Kaspar Printz, Exercita.tiones musicae

theoretico-practicae • • • (Dresden: J. c. Miethens,
1689), l8f'f.
3. Alexander Malcolm, A Treatise of Musick (Edinburgh,
l'/21) , 180f f. - -
4. M. Jakob Adlung, Musica mechanics organoedi (Berlin:
Birnstiel, l'/86), 54, l63.
 289

by these lengths is usually of the author's own invention

and, of course, he recanmends it hiehly. The musical
literature of eighteenth-century Gennany is particularly
rife with works of this kind, and several of the authors
became involved in a long dispute that gained the propor-
tions of the sixteenth-century argument between F..amos and
his adversaries. This group represents the majority of the
post-Renaissance treatises using the monochord. Any of the
works of Andreas Werckmeister or Johann Neidhardt would
serve as good examples of this group, since they were two .
of the most prominent users of the mcnochord as a tuning
instrunent.
Treatises that use the monochord as a oasis for the
demonstrations of acoustical principles make up the fourth
group. This kind of discussion of the monochord, f re-
quently only a part of a larger scienti1'ic work, originated
in the latter part of the seventeenth century, partly
tPrough the influence of the encyclopedias, and several
aspects of the demonstrations are still in common use. Tne
Ha.nnonies of :Robert Smith extensively illustrated these
5
principles in the mid-eighteenth century; and Helmholtz's

5. Robert Smith, Harmonies, or the Philoso~ies of

Musical Sounds, 2nd ed. (London: T. an J. Merrill,
1759).
 290

Sensations of Tone 6 and Jeans's Science and Mus1c 7 demon-

- -
strata the extent of later use of tre instrument.
In the case of the fourth group only a sprinkling
of works covering the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
have Deen cited, since the same principles and techniques
are used by all of the writers of this period. The mono-
chord usages of the other three groups are represented as
completely as poss~ble. The relative extents in time of
the various usages of the monochord in the musical treatises
of the post-Renaissance period are represented in the fol-
lowing graph:

Group I 1674 ------------- 1~43

II 1690 ----------- 1762
JII 1686 -------------------- 1806
IV 16'/3 ------------------------------------- 1956

Post-Renaissance Scale and Acoustical Developnents

A survey of scalar developments of the post-

Renaissance period does not show any extensive change in

6. Hennann Helmholtz, On the Sensations of Tone, tr. by

Alexander Ellis (Lonaon;-1s85), unabr!Qgeareprint
(New York: Dover., 1954J, 65-80.
7. Sir James Jeans, Science and Music (New York:
Macmillan and Co., 1940), --e?l-Y/7.
 291

kind fran the trends established in the Renaissance. For

the most part the scalar representations served as an
adjustment or r:·finement of interval :i;:a tterns that had been
in use for several centuries. 'lhese refinements consisted
mainly of the development of many irregular temperaments
and multiple divisions, expressed in tenns of string
lengths, which were practicable upon the monochord only
in a minority of cases.
~"he application of strine lengths to the monochord
is practicaole only if the number of units involved is small
enough to make their physical measurement feasible. The
appearance of so many sets of string lengths that do not
meet this requirement orings up a point that is of great
importance in the study of post-Renaissance tunings and
their association with the monochord: that tunings before
the early twentieth century which did not employ the mono-
chord were virtually worthless from the practical musical
standpoint. In general it may be said that before the in-
vention of modern electrical-acoustical devices, the mono-
chord was the only easy and practical means of accurately
representin3 a given tuning. (That the latter part of the
nineteenth century saw the aevelopment of many such devices
as tuning forks is of little importance here, since they
were not widely used for the audible presentation of scales.)
 292

These impractical tunings were mainly the product of mathe-

maticians whose interest in scale division was intellectual
and as much a matter of scienti1'ic as of musical interest. 8
For the most part their application -- if they ever were
applied -- had to be done by ear according to a set of
verbal directions. In any case, the tunings of the mathe-
maticians exercised little influence upcn actual musical
practice because of their impracticability.
The practicing musicians, on the othe~ hand, who
were interested in actual tunings, used the monochord in
order to give their theories some practical realization.
Murray Barbour, commenting on the practical value of tunings
and temperaments, corroborates this by stating:
Some of the theorists who have written on
tuning were able composers as well. When they
describe with precision a particular division
of the monochord, their theory may well have
coincided with fact. But the tuning theories
of the mere mathematicians do not carry so much
weight. Nor do the rules of thumb the musi-
cians more commonly presented.9
Because of the limitations of the instrument and
of the ear, tuning by means of a monochord may be presumed

s. For a list of a large number of these ma them.a ticians,

see: R. c. Arch:i.bald, "Mathematicians and Musicians,"
.American Mathematical Monthly, XXXI (1924), 1-25.
9. ·J.MuzwayBarbaur, 'lulling and Temterament (East Lansing:
Kichigan State College Press, 951), l85.
 293

as difficult and inaccurate as a tuning determined by ear,

but at least a tuning that was applicable to the monochord
was heard by its inventor in the most accurate way available
and was not just a series of numbers. In this connection
it must be pointed out th.at several of the eighteenth- and
nineteenth-century monochords were highly developed instru-
ments and great care was taken to insure as much accuracy
10
as possible. Therefore, in presenting the tunines and
temperaments of the post-Renaissance period, only those that
are said by their authors to be applicable to a monochord
will be discussed, which, as was pointed out above, occurs
only in a minority of the availaole tunings.
The demonstration of consonances by means of the
divided string occurs frequently in theoretical discussions
after the early sixteenth century. Ai'ter the beginning of
the seventeenth century several authors hinted at the in-
version of intervals in disct~sing observations made during
the course of these demonstrations. Notable among these
are the camnents of Descartes in the Compendium musicae in
which he mentions the derivation of the minor sixth as
the difference between the major third and the octave. 11

10. See below: the instruments of Warren, Berlin, and

Stanhope.
11. Rene Descartes, Comlendium musicae, tr. by Walter
Robert (Rome: Amer can Institute of Musicology,
1961), 20.
 294

A fully developed exposition of these ideas did not appear,

however 7 until the early eighteenth century when Rameau
explatned his theory of inversion in the Trait6 de la
Harmonie of 1722. In the intervening century Joseph Sauveur
had explained the relationship of a fundamental note and
its harmonics, and it was upon the development of this re-
lationship that Rruneau grounded many of' his ideas.
In a series of' articles published over a quarter of
a century, Sauveur carefully elucidated the scientific-
acoustical principles of the vibrating string. Probably
the most important point of his researches, and the one
which concerns us here, is the theory of strine partials:
the consonant relationship of certain segments of the
vibratin£ string to the whole string. By means of a series
of progressive arithmetical divisions (e.g., 1/2, 1/3, 1/4,
1/5, 1/6, and so forth) of the string he provided a sound
basis for showing that the vibration of a fundamental note
produces an infinite series of sounds which correspond to
12
the notes of a major triad. This discovery enabled Rameau
to prove that the re-ordering of the notes of a triad do
not produce new and independent chords, but only inversions

12. Joseph Sauveur, "Sur un nouveau systeme de musique,"

Histoire de 1 1 Academie Royale des Sciences (Paris,
1761), 12!"=1~. This is one o'f'tb:e earliest accounts
of Sauveur's work.
 295

of the original chord. There are, however, several earlier

accounts of observations made of the vibrating portions of
the string. The most notable of these accounts was given
by John Wallis in 1677, in which he observed and demon-
strated the nodal points of a vibrating string and further
J =3
discussed some of tha principles of sympathetic vibration. ·
Ace ording to Wallis, this phenomenon had been brought to
his attention by William Noble, a Master of Arts at Merton
Colleee, who had discovered them in 1664.
It had long been known {at least since the early
sixteenth century) that a string divided into successively
smaller parts, that is, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6, provided
notes that were consonant to the sound of ~he open string,
and that if the portions were made small enough a full dia-
tonic sea.le was available. This principle had been used
on the tram.ha marina for some time and the relation of the
notes produced by this instrument to those of the trumpet
14
had also been pointed out. It is ~urious, in view of the

13. John Wallis, "On the Trembling of Consonant Strings,

a New Musical Disc every, 11 Philostthical Transactions
of the Royal Society E! London, I ( 167'/), 839-842.
14. For a discussion of the tranba marina, see pp. 390-405
below. In the Philosophical Transactions of The
~Society of London of 1692 (XVII, 467::"470T;
Fraiieis RobertS-described some of these principles
in an article entitled "On the Defects and the
Musical Notes of the Trumpet, and Trumpet Marine."
 296

widespread use of the tranba marina, that apparently no one

discovered the principles of its note production before the
end of the seventeenth century; 15 and it is even more curious
that there seems to be no record of these principles hav1.ng
been ~iscovered in monochord experiments.
In addition to the subsequent use of the monochord
to demonstrate the theory of harmonic partials, further use
of the instrument is seen in demonstrations of the rela-
tionships between pitch and the length and tension of a
string. This principle, along with several other observa-
tions on the physical properties of the vibratins string,
was first stated by Mersenne in his Harm.onie universelle of
1635, and in succeeding eras it formed one of the scien-

tific applications of the instrument.

Post-Renaissance Uses of the Monochord,

=
Considered = = = -=-====
Chronologicallz

The Cursus seu mundus mathematicus of R. P. Dechales

is the last of the encyclopedias in ti1e tradition of Kircher
16
and Fludd to contain information about the monochord.

15. Cf. Mersenne 's discuss ion of the tromba marina,

Harmonie universelle, 4th Bk. ~f Stringed Instru-
ments, Prop XIII.
16. R. P. Dechales, Cursus seu mundus mathematicus, tomus
tertius, 3 vols. (Lugduni: 1674), III, 8-23.
 297

Decha.les presents some eccentric ideas in his theoretical

discussion of the intervals. His presentation of the
monochord is much like that of his contemporaries, but many
of his conclusions are unfounded, especially the expression
of ~~e Pythagorean limma by the proportion of 19:18 and his
attribution of the invention of temperament to Guido. The
temperament that he gives as Guido's is a one-fourth CODmla
temperament, which he describes in a list of tempered inter-
vals. No other directions are gi van foz• this di vision, and
its appl:i.cation appears, from the standpoint of the mono-
chord, to be as impractical as many of Dec hales 1 s other
theoretical concepts.
Andreas Werclaneister was adamant in his contention
that there are only a limited number of correct tempera-
ments, and he apparently favored temperaments of one-fourth
17
comma. In the Musicae mathematicae Hodegus curiosus
Werckmeister uses the monochord as a basis for his theo-
retical explanations. He maintains that the monochord
"must be used to represent to the ear what the numbers
18
represent to the eye." J1~ost of his string divisions in

17. The Musicalische Temteratur of Werckmeister was not

available for this s udy, and the above conclusions
are based on camnents mad~ by Murray Barbour, Tuning
and Temperament, 156-184.
18. Andreas Werckmeister, Musicae mathematicae Hode~us
curiosus (Franckfurt und Leipzig: Calvisii, 16 6),
12.
 298

this work, as in the Musicalische Paradoxal-Discourse, are

limited to demonstrations of .the consrnances and the
harmonic partials. In chapter VII of the Iusicae mathema-
ticae he explains three different results of a string
division, which he demonstrates in the following manner: 19

c
c
1-1
2-1 -cc -cc 1
1-1 c
c
c
1-1
1-2
c
c
c
c
3-2
4-3
g
f
g
f
2-1 s
3-1 e'
c
c
1-3
1-4
~
c 5-4 e e 4-1 ; c 1-5 ;
c·6-5 e -flat e -flat 5-1 ·~ c 1-6 ~

The first column produces tha intervals by dividing the

string successively into 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 parts, of which
the largest number represents the whole string. The second
column shows the interval resulting from the difference be-
tween the smaller number of column I and the remainder of
the string; and the third column shows the interval formed
'
between the remainder, that is, the difference of the two
numbers in column I, and the whole string. Werckmeister
apparently was not aware of the signif1cance of this latter
demonstration in relation tc acoustical concepts of string
harmonics. In this work he also lists a set of strlng
leneths, based on 8100 units, which he suggests can be
applied to the monoch~rd:

19. Wercloneister, Musicae mathematicae, 20.

 299

Table 13. Werc!mleister's string lengths based

on 8100 units.20
c 4050
h 4320
b 4500
a 4860
gis 5184
g 5400
fis 5760
f 6075
e 6480
dis 6912
d 7200
cis 7776
c 8100

We rclcrneis ter was one of the earliest of a number

of German practitioners who used the mcnochord to demon-
strate their scale divisions audibly, out he did not advo-
cate using the monochord to provide all the pitches for
tuning keyboard instruments. Instead he stated the.t the
monochord could not be divided accurately enough to serve
this purpose; in tuning he said that he used the intervals
of the monochord to show him the proper amount of alteration
required to change a perfect interval, after which he tuned
ea.ch fifth a little flat accorling to these directions. 21
Johann Bendeler concurred with \'/erclnneister on the validity

20. Ibid., '10. This set of string lengths is given by

Werckmeister in a two-octave division; only the
lower octave is presented here.
21. Andreas Werckmeister, Hypomnemata Musica
(Quedlinburg: Calvis11, 1697), 30.
 300

of tuning by means of the monochord, and sugcested that

it be reserved for the representation of theoretical ideas
~ 22
-- a purpose that it served well.
Not all the theorists of the time adopted the safe
attitude of Werckmeister and Bendeler, and in some instances
attempts to tune organs by means of the monochord led to
their great embarrassment. Philipp Spitta records one
such misfortune that befell Johann Neidhardt in a tuning
contest with Nikolaus Ba.ch:
The town church in Jena got in l:706 a new
organ, with three manuals and pedal and forty-
four stops in all. This organ was built by an
organmaker named Sterzing, according to Bach's
detailed specir'ication, and under his continual
supervision. At this time Johann Georg Neidhardt,
the musician to whom the demonstration of the
equal temperament is due, and who was afterwards
Capellmeister at K8nigsberg, was studying theology
in Jena. He was even at that time devoting his
attention to the most practicable way of distri-
buting the ditonic comma in which he a.Greed on
all the essential points with Andreas Werclaneister.
He hoped to arrive at the equal temperament on
the organ by means of agreement with the mono-
chord, a narrow box with one string stretched
across it, on top of which were marked, with
mathematic accuracy, the proportions of the
intervals with regard to the distribution of
the camna, sc th.at by the introduction of a small
bridge at the proper place the required tone
could be got with certainty. He now asked per-
mission to be allowed to employ this new method
of tuning on the new organ, and obtained leave

22. Johann P. Bendeler, Or~anopoeia (Franckfurt und

Leipzig: Calvisii, 16 O), 39.
 301

to make an experiment on it. Bach let him tune

the gedackt of one manual by the monochord, and
him.self tuned that of another manual by ear.
When the result was heard, Bach's gedackt
sounded right and Neidhardt's wrong. He, how-
ever, would not admit that his method was in
fault, but a steady singer was brought in and
made to sing a chorale in the unusual key of
B-flat minor, and he agreed with Bach's tuning.
Neidhardt had not taken into consideration the
fact that the pitch of a string at the moment
of striking is somewhat higher than it is
afterwards, nor how easily such a string gets
out of tune.23
Spitta further notes that Bach used a small tuning pipe to
establish the starting note in his tuning, thus maintaining
24
the mathematical stand-'11~d of t!.le intervals.
Neidhardt evidently felt that the monochord was
the best method available to the musician for audibly
representing temperaments, and over a span of twenty-five
years he published three works in which he presented many
varieties of temperament. In all of these he effectively
applied the temperaments to the monochord, if not to other
instruments. The first of these writings, published at
about the same ti.Tile as his disastrous contest with Bach,

23. Philipp Spitta, Johann Sebastian Bach, tr. oy Clara

Bell and J. A. FUller-Maitland, 3--voTs. (London:
Novello and Co., 1899), I, 137-138.
24. For a discussion of such a pipe, see Chapter VII,
PP• 419-20.
 302

is entitled Beste und leichteste Temperatur des Monochordi.

It contains both a set of string lengths and directions for
a manual division containing twenty-six notes. This tuning,
called a new equal temperament, is a multiple division of
the just tuning; it provided Neidhardt the understanding
necessary for the many irregular temperaments he presents
in later works. Following are the string leneths f'or this
tuning (Taole 14); the manual aspects of the division are
presented in Diagram 75.
Neidhardt presents several dozen temperaments in
all, but not all of these were applied to the monochord in
his writings. In the Sectio canonis of 1724, he lists
four sets of string lengths (based on 2000 units) for va.ri-
ous temperaments along with tables showing the parts of the
ccmma to be added or subtracted. The monochord used in
this treatise is constructed by erecting a circle of as-
cending perfect fifths and a circle of descending perfect
fifths, thereby providing two sets of notes a comma apart.
Each Pythagorean (ditonic) comma is then divided arithmeti-
25
cally into twelve parts. 'lhe specii'ic string lengths for
the monochord used in this treatise are listed in Table 15.

25. George N~idhardt, Sectio canonis (KBnigsberg, 1724),

7.
 303

Table 14. Neidha.rdt's string lengths for a multiple

division of twenty-six notes.26
48600
~ 51200
Major semitone,less one comma 256:243
Comma 81:80
H 51840 Minor semitone 25:24
B 54000 Comma 81:80
J31ll 546 75
1
:Major semitone,less one comma 256:243
Ad 57600
A Connna 81:80
58320 Minor semitone 25:24
Am 60750
Gisd Comma 81:80
61509 3/8 Diascbisma 2048:2045
Gis 62208 Minor semitone 25:24
G 64800 Comma 81:80
am 65610 Major semitone, less two commas
Fisd 68266 2/3 Comma 81:80
69120 20480:19683
Fis Minor semitone 25:24
pd 72000 Connna 81: 80
F 72900 Major semitone,less one comma 256:243
Ed 76800 Comma 81:80
E 7'7760 Minor semitone 25:24
F 81000 Comma 81:80
Disd 82012 1/2 Diaschisma 2048:2045
Dis 82944 Minor semitone 25:24
D 86400 Comma 81:80
J1l1 87480 Minor semitone 25:24
Cisdd 91125
Cisd Comma 81:80
92264 1/2 D.taschisma 2048:2025
Cis 93312 Minor semitone 25:24
c 97200

Plate 7, from this work, shows Neidhardt's representation

of the first octavo of this monochord.
In comparing the tables presentea oy Neidhardt, it
can oe seen how he portioned the comma among the notes of
the scale. In each table the intervals for the thirds are
given as a means of checking the divisions and to show the

26. Johann Georg Neidhardt, Beste und leichteste Temperatur

des Monochordi (Jena: J. Bielcken, 1706), 43.
 304

Diagram 75. Jo~o.nn Neid ho.l"dh B~ste und leichteste Tempero±ur(l70b).

Direction: Ascend;ng. • Measurements :Z,3,41 5, 6/t, JO, Note': 26.
I SJ /6,2.5',32,

Completed Monochord: Mui &iple Di vision.

I
~
l{-21 1
·D f·r E r G-~t"A f:fHF
~ kc1 ~4 b' Gil' A' 'ti
I I
1
c
I
I
steps Cis tr' Propol'"t iotu
1 'c 1 c. z I I
2
2C 5'
4
' 8
t
'L. .3

·.3 c ~ .).
.i
s
4 c. F

G-
2.
,.
3

5 2 3 2
3
bc 1 A J 4 s 3
6
7 a. q ,, ,,
3 4
" " H 8 10 12. If 15
!
I CI C"
I ~I ) I 4 I s I "I 'I I I I' I~ I II I l"I. I I) 1• IS I(, l'1 ,, PT v J.I :a:i. 211
Ii
2. C" l15 5 I q
'
2. 3 'f '}

f
I •

I>'' F's .$
3 :a.. 3 4

c" (;.IS
' -;-
4 z. 3 2.
j
c1s
z q B s • ., s
' I/

~
I c•"" > ,, 8 ·q ,, li
4
' /1 I&
I. 5 10 II 12. 13
lb
2. c: D"' l. 3 'l s 'I 10 .i
3l, 4 ,, 17 19 If 10 2.1 ~· Z'1 >• '"
lJ..
"
~ ) 10 1.a. I 2.:1. ZJ Zf M Z. U It .I&
l'9 IS "
x
 jo;

CD i aq r o. m 15, c.orit inue cJ.)

.Steps Propor-t icuu

4'c I I "l.. I 3 I 4 I 5 I b 15

'er
I I I I

D Ed
~ 5 s 9 8
" 7
I l. ?>
I I I I I I I I
I I
I I I I I I

D Fd
s 5
i---
I
I
I I ).. I
I ' I 1 I
I
I
' I
,, F
d
f,·~" II s ~ 'I B
I
I •
I
l.
I
' I
I " I
I
?
I
1f
8 D"' &"" .z. I 4
I
I
I I
I I
'
q D1scl I
G,,4
I I
'l. I
)
I
I "
0
E""
I
I
All"l
I
)...
I ~ I
q 3
I I

A~
I I
"f
I D I I
'l. I 3 z
'
I I I 3
2 C.5dd 3ni 3
I > _5
"
I l. I I
I
5
)
f~ I
H4
' I ~
I . 3.
I ....
G-'~ cisd
i .
I I I
I
.z..
,
I ) I
I
4

,, Cls"
I 2.
cisel
I I 2.
I I T
'\

Plate 7. Neidhardt' s monochord diagram :f'or the one-

twel:f'th camna temperan;tent.

c,::i
0
C>
 307

Table 15. Neidhardt's basic string lengths for the

one-twelfth connna temperament.2'7
c 1000.00
H 1053.49
Hm 1067 .8'1
B 1109.85
an 1125.oo
A 1185.18
.Am 1201.35
Gs 1248.59
Gsm 1265.62
F 1333.33
Gm 1351.52
Fs 1404.66
Fsm 1423.82
F 1479.81
Fm 1500.00
E 1580.24
& 1601.80
Ds 1664. '78
Dsm 1687.50
D 1'777. 7'/
nn 1802.03
Cs 1872.88
Csm 1898.43
c 2000.00

tempering applied to these intervals. Each ta.ole is accom-

panied by a set of s~ring lengths, and, in the fourth
temperament, two sets are given by Neidl1ardt in order to
demonstrate the difference between the arithmetical and
proportional division of the comma, which, as his table
shows, is nil. Tables 16 and 1 7 show the four temperaments
1

given in th~ Sectio Canonis.

27. Ibid.
 308

Table 16. Ne1dhardt's four one-twelfth camna temperaments. 28

Fifths Major Thirds Minor Thirds
Int. I II III IV Int. I II Ill IV Int. I II III IV
f :c 0 1 0 1 gs:c 10 10 10 8 a:c 6 6 6 9
b:f 0 1 l 1 ds:g 9 8 8 8 e:g 6 7 7 9
ds:b 1 0 1 1 b:d 8 6 'I 8 h:d 'l 9 9 9
gs:ds l 0 0 l f :a 6 5 6 8 fs:a 8 10 10 9
cs:gs 0 1 l 1 e:gs 10 9 9 8 cs:e 10 10 10 9
fs:cs 0 1 1 1 h:ds 10 9 9 8 gs :h 11 9 9 9
h:fs 1 1 l 1 fs:b 10 10 9 8 ds:fs 11 10 10 9
e:h 1 0 0 1 cs:f 10 10 9 8 b:cs 10 11 10 9
a:e 2 1 1 1 c:e 4 5 5 8 f :gs 10 11 10 9
d:a 2 2 2 1 g:h 5 '1 'I 8 c :ds 11 10 10 9
g:d 2 2 2 1 d:fs 6 8 8 8 g:b 10 8 9 9
c:g 2 2 2 1 a:cs 8 9 9 8 d:f 8 7 8 9

Table 17. Eeidha.rdt's string lengths for the four one-twelfth

cozmna temperaments.29
Note I II III IV
Ari th- Geo-
me ti cal metrical
c 1000.00 1000.00 1000.00 1000.00 1000.00
H 1064.25 1061.85 1061.85 1059.48 1059.45
B 1125.00 1122.45 1123.72 1122.47 1122.45
A 1193.23 1193.23 1193.23 1189.22 1189.20
Gs 1262.76 1262. '76 1262.76 1259.94 1259.91
G 1336.34 1336.34 1336.34 1334.84 1334.83
Fs 1420.61 1417.40 1417.40 1414.24 1414.20
F 1500.00 1498.30 1500.00 1498.31 1498.30
E 1594.58 1592. 'l8 1592.78 1587.43 15W/. 39
Ds 1685.59 1683.68 1683. 68 1081.82 1681. '78
D 1785.82 1 /85.82
1
l'/85.82 1781.82 1781.'19
Cs 1894.15 1892.01 1892.01 1887 • 179 1887.?4
c 2000.00 2000.00 2000.00 2000.00 2000.00

28. Ibid.' 12ff.

29. Ibid., 16-19.
 309

In addition to these four temperaments, Neidhardt

listed twelve more in a similar manner in Glntzlich
~1e

erschBpfte mathema tische Abtheilungen • • • of 1'132. 30

These temperaments are generally extensions of the tech-
niques of the first four. In pointing out the relative
merits of the four temperaments presented above, Neidhardt
wrote: 11 In my opinion the first is generally suitable for
a village, the second for a town, the third for a village,
and the fourth for the court. 1131 The fourth of these
temperaments is equal temperament.
Although Neidhardt participated in the tuning
contest with Bach, he evidently did not feel that tuning
by means of the monochord was the best method, for in the
Beste und leichteste Temperatur he advised that one tune
by tempering both the fifths and. the thirds and that it
was necessary, in order to be as accurate as possible, to
sharpen the hearing by playing the intervals on tJ:ie mcino-
chord. 32

30. Johann G. Neidhardt, GHntzlich ersch~fte mathema-

ti sche At>thellungen des dia toni sch-c am.a tischen
Temperirten Canonis li"Oiiochordi (KSnigsberg und
Leipzig: Eckart, l'/32), 21f'f'.
31. Neidhardt, Sectio Canonis, 15.
I

32. Neidhardt, Beste und leichteste Temperatur, 102.

 310

Although the Gann.ans were the most sophisticated

users of the monochord, early in the eighteenth century
some surprising and often entirely practical results were
ootained ·oy the otner Europeans as well. The Englismnan,
.Ambrose Warren, described the invention of a two-string
monochord that be called the tonometer (Plate 8). Warren
contended tba. t:
Any Singer or Player, with little Attention
and Argument are soon brought to co~ess Their
Inadvertency, and own They plainly hear and find
the Deficiency of those Fretted or Key'd Instru-
ments, Fram'd and Tun'd according to the ccmmon
Scale of only 'Ihirteen in an Octave inclusive;
and that They do indeed sing or play according
to this of 32 as occasion requires,33
For this reason Warren says that he invented the toncrneter
in order to help performers, practitioners, and instrument
makers to understand that which they do anyway. He also
demonstrated (by means of string lengths, based on a thir-
teen-inch string) how this scale could be applied to the
violin. The set of string lengths used by Warren on the
tonometer (Table 18) is based on 1000 units of measurement.
Neidhardt' s contemporary, Johann Meckenheuser, en-
countered the same d11'ficulty Neidhardt did in trying to
tune an organ with the monochord. Jacob Adlung relates

33. Ambrose Warren( The Tonometer (London: Cluer and

Campbell, 1'125 J, -r5'.
 311

Plate a. Warren's tonaneter.

t'

--

.~ "---" ·'
 312

34
Table 18. Warren's string lengths for the Toncmeter.
Note String Ieneth Dif'f erence
c 500.00 11.30
b-
Cb
511.30
522. 86 11.56
11.83
B 534.69 12.10
b'?l 546. '/9 12.37
a•
bb
a+
559.16
571.80
584.72
12.64
12.92
13.22
A 597.94 13.52
a~ 611.46
ab 625.29 13.82
g# 639.43 14.14
653.88 14.45
g+ 14.'18
G 668.66 15.12
Sf) 683.78 15.47
gb 699.25 15.82
f #t 715.07
f'+ 731.24 16.17
F 747.77 16.53
e!f 764.67 16.90
f'b 781.96 r1 .29
E 699.64 17.68
e-6 817.72 18.08
eo 836.21 18.49
d!Jt 855.12 18.91
d+ 874.46 19.34
D 894.24 19.78
d"6 914.46 20.22
db 935.14 20.68
ci/k 956.28 21.14
c+ 9'17 .90 21.60
c 1000.00 22.10

Meckenheuser 1 s trials with a new organ in the church at

Goslar in the early eighteent~ century. Mecl~enheuser,

conf'1.dent that he could tune the organ, premised the builder

34. Ibid •. , 19.

 313

tha.t in three days time he could bring the instrument to

perfection. However, at the end of three days of careful
work the organ was evidently in such a terrible state that
the vexed builder sent Meckenheuser away with the comment
that no matter how good a reckoner and mathematician he was,
he had shown the builder that the string and pipe could not
be tuned together. 35 Meckenheuser, whose string lengths for
the monochord are shown in Table 19, applied his measure-
. 36
ments to the monochord by means of a measurine stick.
M.eckenheuser's attitude toward his contemporaries is
polemical, and he seems to be aole to find fault with every-
one exceptMeckenheuser. Neverth.eless, in spite of bis
shortcomings, he or any of hiD predecessors would be able
to fulfill at least one of Johann Ma ttheson' s criteria for
a well-rounded musician: in the Vollkommene Capellmeister
Mattheson commented, in regard to the monochord, that
mathematical calculations cannot produce a canpetent con-
ductor unless they are applied with· the aid of a ruler;
moreover, he says that this process lays the intervals
before the eyes. 37

35. Jacob Adlung Anleitun~ zu der musikalischen

Gelarhtheit {Erfurt:ungnicol, 1758), 3ll.
36. Johann George Meckenheuser, Die so genannte: aller-
neueste, musicalische Temperitiir~quedlinburg:
Wipert!, 1727), 30.
37. Johann Ma ttheson, Der Vollkanmene CapelJmeis ter
(Hamburg: Herold, """'!739), 43.
 314

Table 19. Meckenheuser 1 s strin~ lengths for a

tempered monochord. B

c 1798 •• 095620
H 1906 1915170
B 2018 6498,.10
A 2140 •• 004860
Gis 2266 • 25'7310
•• G 2402 000000
Fis 2544 236240
F 2694 336840
E 2856 312040
Dis 3024 823960
D 3206 670136
Cis 3395 848640
c 3600 000000

A rather ingentous geometric division of the chro-.

matic scale, in equal temperament, was introduced in 1743

by Dlniel P. StrMhle. It is made up of a series of propor-
tional lines determined by means of an isosceles triangle
( Diahram 76). In order to find the string lengths, a line
QR is con~truc ted of' twelve equal uni ts. Using QR as a

base, the triangle OQR is erected with the legs equaling

twenty-four units of QR. A diagonal is extended from
point R, through P to M. P is placed on OQ a. t a point

seven uni ts from ~' and MR equals two PR. rfueref ore if ].fR
represents the fundamental pitch, then PR will ·be the
octave, and the points at which MR intersects the rays
extended f rcm 0 will produce lines of the desired

38. Ibid., 50.

 315

proportional length. Diagram 76, reproduced from StrHhle's

article, also demonstr~tes how this can be applied to any
length of string, for a line extended from 0 throughM
will permit the division of any of fundamental
numb~~

lengths as shown by the placement of KV, LT and Ns. 39

An irregular temperament of the monochord was

given by Levens in term3 of a string length of forty-eight

units, which resembled the system given by Reinhard more
than a century earlier. Levens emphasized the need of a
monochord to tune all instruments, especially the clavier.
The use of a sma.11 number of units in the division facili-
tates the application of the system to the monochord
(Table 20).
Georg Andreas Sorge was the next individual to
participa. te in the Ge nnan tuning skirmish. His humorous
dialogue, the Gesprl!ch zwischen einem Musico theoretico

39. •
Daniel P. StI'H.hle, 11 Nytt pa.fund, til at f1nna tempeI"a-
turen, i stHmmigen f8r Taonerne p~ claveretock dylika
instrumenteI', 11 Svenska. Vetenskapsakademien, Stockholm,
IV ( 1'743), 281-291. This diagram is similar to the
various helicon diagrams given by Ptolemy and Salinas,
differing only in that the helicons are all constructed
of superparticular proportions. Abdias Trew (see p. 27',
above) and Murray Barbour (Tuning and Temperament,
37-39) mention a similar construction for the meantone
temperament, that which was given by Cyriac Schneegas·s
in 1597, but this treatise was unobtainable at the
time of this study.
 316

Diagram ?6. Strlbl•'• geometrical determination ot equal

temperament.

0
 317

40
Table 20. Levens's string lengths for the monoc:hord.

Ut Ut Re
Re 1'11 Fa Fa Sol Sol La
La 81 Ut
Re 1'a Sol La Si
48 45 42 40 38 36 34 43 30 28 27 25 24
24 22t 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13~ 12t 12

und e in em Studios o musices, is often bitingly sarcastic, f'or

he ridicules many of his illustrious predecessors. In dis-
cussing the str1.ng lengths presented by.Neidhardt, Sore;e
says that in order to apply the complete number (including
the decimal) a ruler one hundred feet long and a monochord
two hundred feet long would be needed -- but then, he asks:
"What would one use for a can.pass ? 1141
In spite of his satirical attitude, Sorge was much
in favor of the monochord as a useful instrument. Toward
the end of the treatise he gives directions for a division
in equal temperament, determined by means of mean propor-
tional string lengths, after which he shows the application
of this system to the clavier. He discourses at length on
the tuning techniques to be used and recanmends a monochord
with a string about two feet long so that one can place it

40. Levens, Abreie '

.,, ""' des regles de 1 1 ha.rmonie ( Bordeaux:
J. Chapius, '743),"" 87. - -
41. Georg Andreas Sorge, GesprAch zwischen einem I1~usico
theoretico und einen Studioso musices (Lobenstein:
Sorge, 174sr;-e9.
 318

before himself on the clavier. His final comment states

that he had recently tuned his clavier by ear, and, upon
checking the results against his monochord, had found the t
42
his fi.fths were al l unequal.
Sorge's enthusiasm for the monochord was not shared
by Marpurg, who, except for occasional comments, ignored it
almost ca:npletely •. Only one of Marpurg 1 s many writings
gives any account of the manner of utilizing the system. of
string lengths in connection with the monochord. At the
end of the An.fane;sgrfuide of 175'/ he gives a set of string
lengths based on 9600 units, with accompanying directions
on how to apply them to the monochord. Marpurg favors the
use of a ruler to determine the intervals on the monochord
and he points out that all of the notes can be placed either
by means of the dif'ference oetween them, or by their differ-
ence from th~ fundamental.
Although the set of string lengths presented by
Marpurg for this demons tra ti on is be.sad on a length of
96000 units, in the actual use of these lengths he reduces
the total to 9600 and further says that a perfectly good
temperament could be made by a total length of 960 units.
The set of numbers is given cy Marpurg on the basis of
9600 units (Table 21).

42. Ibid., 78-80.

 319

Table 21. Marpurg's string lengths for the monochord. 43

Note Length Difference fran Difference from

the fundamental one another
c 4800
H 5085 4515 302
B 5387 4213 321
A 5708 3892 339
Gis 6047 3553 360
G 6407 3143 381
Fis 6788 2812 403
F 7191 2409 428
E 7619 1981 453
Dis 9or12 1528 480
D 8552 1048 509
Cis 9061 539 539
c 9600

Other writers who used a monochord that had been

calibrated by means of string lengths also remarked that
any system of string lengths could be made more accessible
by reducing the numbers to three digits. The earliest
observation of this was evidently made by Mersenne, who
demonstrated that the difference of many numbers was less
than one-fourth of a comma and would not offend the ear
44
of anyone.
Jean Baptiste Romieu was explicit in stating his
reasons for not usine the monochord. He admits the

43. Friedrich W. Marpurg, Anf'angs~rll.nde der theoretischen

Musik (Leipzig: J. G. I. Bre tkopf,--rrs7), l72-1'l5.
44. Mersenne, .2.E.• cit., Chapman trans., 54-55.
 320

necessity of having an audible as well as theoretical

representation of a temperament, out he says that the dif-
~iculties of using a monochord once it has been divided
are disgusting.
It is for this reason that the tempered
systems of Huyghens and Sauveur, and generally
all of those which are only expressed by the
proportions of the lengths or vibrations of
the monochord, have never been placed in usage,
although these two temperaments have, without
contradiction, a better harmony than those
which have furnished us the tunings of the
organ and clavier for more than a century.
Romieu's two main objections to the use of the instrument
are:
In all of the movements that one makes
with the bridge, it is necessary to assure that
the string is not moved from its first position,
that is, neither pulled to one side or the
other; and secondly, when one raises or lowers
the string a little in order to obtain A-mi-la,
the pitch of the chapel or the opera, it happens
that during the course of the operation it is raised
or lowered ~ little too much ·oecause of the
·tardiness with which its elastic particles are
placed in motion or because of a change in tem-
perature. When one adds to this the difficulty
of obtaining a well constructed instrument and
an exact division of the scale -- of which few
artists are capaole -- one agrees without dif-
ficulty that the use of the monochord for tuning
keyboard instruments is not as expedient as one
would have believed.45

45. Jean Baptiste Romieu, "Memoire Theori~ue et pratique

sur. les systemes temp~res de musique ~' Manoi re de
l'academie royale des sciences (l'l58J, 444. ~
 321

Ranieu's solution ~o this problem was the adoption of his

syst&ne juste (an extended just ttming) which he applied
by ear.
Robert Smith also preferrea an aural method of
tuning and recc:mmended tuning by oes. ts, but he nevertheless
ad.mi tted that: "The known method of tuning an instrunent
by the help of a monochord is easier than any other to less
skillful ears, and pretty exact too if the apparatus to
the monochord be well contrived. n46 The table presented
try Smith is based on a string length of 100,000 units
(Table 22). This table, in addition to th.l~ee sets of string
lengths, also shows the logarithms that were used in the
computation of the colttmn of equal harmony. In applying
these lengths to the monochord Smith cow.ments that as all
three systems may be marked upon the sounding board of the
same instrunent, they may easily be cc:mpared in order to
try the different effects upon the ear -- provided that the
tone of the instrument is good, the divisicns accurate, and
the relationship of the movable oridge ccnsistent to the
47
tension of the string.

46. Robert Smith, Harmonies, £,;: the Philosop~ of Musical

Sounds, 2nd ed. (London: T. and J. Merr 1, 1759),
222.
47. Ibid., 224.
 322

Henri Louis Choquel provided a manual division of

the monochord, as well as string lengths, in his ~ musique
rendue sensible ~ la m6chanique of l'/62. 11his monochord,
in just tuning, was to be used in conjunction with his dis-
course on singing. He suggested that the musician provide
his monochord with as many as six strings in order to faci-
litate the performance of the vocal exercises.49 Choquel 1 s
monochord division is unique because of the way he divides
the chromatic tones (Diagram 3). This technique caused
some alteration of the usual just tuning since the semitone
between A and B-flat has the proportion of 12:11 and the
semitone B-flat to B-natural has the proportion 33:32. In
t~e division of ~~e chromatic part of the monochord,
Choquel directed that the semi tones be found by transfer-
ring diatonic measurements of the upper octaves into the·
49
lower octave (steps 22-29 in D-lagram 77). In the diagram
the chromatics are shown for only the first octave; in
canpleting the division, they would be placed in the upper
octaves by means of sub-dupla proportions.

48. Henri Louis Choquel, La. musique rendue sensible ~

la m~cba.nique, new ed-:-(Paris: 1762), Part 2,
Chapters IV, V.
49. Ibid., Chapter III.

·~
 323

50
Table 22. Robert Smith's string lengths for the monochord.
Note Loga.ri thms Equal Meant one System of
Temperament Temperament Huyghens
c 4. 6989 7 • 00043
1
50000 50000 50000
B• 4.71106.83050 51412 51200 5113.l
cb 4. '71699. 84952 52119 52245 52278
B 4.72909.67959 53592 53499 53469
Bb 4. '74712. 52868 55863 55902 55914
A"'* 4.75922.35875 57441 5724~ 5'1179
A 4. 77'/2 5. 2or184 59876 59814 59794
Ab 4 • 7952r/ • 05693 62412 62500 62528
a* 4.80'137.88?00 641'1'/ 64000 63942
G 4.82540.73609 66897 66874 66866
GP 4.84343.58518 69733 69877 69924
F• 4.85553.41525 71702 71554 1
71506
F 4.87356.26434 '747 42 74't6'7 '14776
E*° 4.88566.09441 '/6853 76562 76467
Fb 4.89159.11343 '17910 78125 78196
E 4.90368.94350 80110 80000 r79954
Eb 4. 921'7 l. ''19259 83506 83593 83621
n• 4.9;)381.62266 85865 85599 85512
D 4.95184.47175 89504 89443 89422
nb 4. 96 98'7 • 32084 93298 93459 93512
c'-' 4.98197.15091 95934 95702 95627
c 5.00000.00000 100000 100000 100000

The monochord devised by Johann Berlin and described

by him in his Jl.nlei tung ~ 1I onometrie of 1 /67 is probably
1 1

one of the most highly developed instruments of this kind

ever made. This instrument (Plate 9) has four strings,
tensioned by weights, whose physical characteristics are
rigidly controlled. By means of a system of pedals and
jacks, Berlin undertook to regulate variations of tempera-
ture as well as pitch distortion resulting from plucking

50 • Ibid. , 224 •
 324

Diagram 77. Henri ChO<J,ue I, Ln musique rendue (17 62.).

Direction: Asc:;.endin9. Measurements: 2, 3, 5, 15. Notes: 2. 8.

Completed Monochord: Chromo.t ic Ju~rt Tuning.

A b_. C7ra bit- Fo;i En. b# Dr.lwt ~10..llft !si C11T
1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I
.Steps Proport ioni'
I !.A I CvT 2. B I
I "I'
zA I Psol .a. • 3 !

3 A I E +Go
I

... c
•
I
I "S'
T
I

!A F ••
i
I I
'
IT1I J.
. ~ I
I
A I

'
s .!.
5
:A I ~r-e. ]. f I
2
'A z. 'r I µlo. ' .2

.. ,,
I I
T
/\I
'
l. 3 . .... !o &
I
,, I si 8 q 10 n.
I ·~ 14 I
I
1$ '1

,rfi.. ' ... c.

' IS
I ;_ I
.2

I
'
..,, I ,,..j l. I
I
I I
T
,t4 I ,fo. .l I
I T
I ~ol I .~ol ~ I
I
I I 2
; , la. I ,la. l I
I ' I 2:
,si I I Si ~ I
' I z
 325

the string. Besides the chranatic division of the scale

(Table 23), Berlin also listed the string len6ths for a
thirty-six-note division of the octave. Both of these
systems were determined logarithmically.

51
Taole 23. Berlin's chrcma tic octave for the monochord.

c 1000.00
H 1059.46
B 1122.46
A 1189.21
Gis 1259.92
G 1334.84
Fis 1414.21
F 1498.31
E 1587.40
Dis 1681.79
D 1781.80
Cis 188 7.75
1

c 2000.00

The use of the monochord as a tuning medilD'.ll undoubt-

edly survived into the nineteenth century, but it is ap-
parent that it was quickly displaced by aural methods; more
and more the monochord was used only for demonstration.
Some writers, however, were severe in their condemnation
of the inaccuracies of the aural method. One of these,
Daniel Gottlob Ttirk, wrote in 1789 that without the mono-
chord, one is not able to tune a clavier in pure equal

51. Daniel Johann Berlin, Anleitung zur Tonometrie, • • •

erfunden und eingerichteten Monocnord'l.ml (Koperihagen
und Leipzig: F. c.
Pelt, 1767), 17.
 326

Plate 9. The monochord of Daniel Berlin •

II

____ J

...
 327

temperament because of the ear's inaccuracies. 52 But just

as Tftrk condemns the aural techniques of tuning, others
condemn the monochord. Thomas Young, writing in 1800,
commented on the number of abandoned tuning systems and
the monochord by saying:
• • • Sauveur has given very cc:mprehensive
tables of a great number of systems of tempera-
ment; and his own now ranlcs among the many that
are rejected. Dr. Smith has .written a large
and obscure volume, which for every purpose but
foJ• the use of an impractical instrument [the
monochord?] leaves the whole subject precisely
where it found it. Kirnberger, Marpurg and
other Gernian writers, have disputed with great
bitterness, almost every one for a particular
method of tuning.53
Young's main interest in the monochord was to present a
definite representation of his scale division. In actual
tuning he directed that one tune six perfect fourths and
six equally imperfect fifths. He intended that this
temperament be represented by the following table of string
lengths (Table 24).
Charles Earl Stanhope was apparently the last
person to write about the monochord as a tunine instrument.

52. Daniel Gottlob Tftrk, Klavierschule, oder anweisung zum

Klavierspielen (Leipzig: Schwickert-;-1:789), 381. -
53. Thomas Young, "Outlines of Experiments and Inquiries
Respecting Sound and Light," Philosorhical Transactions
of the Royal Society of London (l8d0 , 143.
 328

54
Table 24. Young's string lengths for the monochord.

c 50000
B 53224
Bb 56131
A 59676
Gt' 63148

F•
G
F
66822
'11041
'/4921
E 79752
Eb (84197)
D 89304
c• 94723
c 100000

In the Philosophical Magazine of 1806 he described an im-

proved monochord and presented a table of s trine; lengths
for the instrument. Stan.'1-iope 1 s monochord, like several of
the eighteenth century, s:iowed an a ttei.-:pt to increase the
accuracy of the instrument oy decreasing physical errors.
His instrument was controlled Dy micrometer screws on all
the attachments, constant string tension, and a technique
of soldering the string, instead of twisting it, to the
end pins. Stanhope's string lengths are given in two forms
so that they can be measured frcm either the end or the
mid-point of the octave (Table 25).
The later history of the monocnord does not show
any pra.ctice.l musical applice. tions such es the use of the

54. Q.E.• cit., 144. The length for the E-flat given by
Young was 83810. This has been replaced, by this
writer, in the table by 84197, since Young stated
that this note was to be found as a perfect fourth
below G-sha.rp.
 329

55
Table 25. Stanhope's string lengths for the monochord.
I II

Note Quarters Hundredths of ~uarters Hundredths

of an inch a quarter
c 60 To be 20
B 64 set 16
B-fla t 67 50 off 12 50
A 71 'lO, 247, 592 + back- 8 29,752,407
A-flat 75 89,466,384+ wards 4 10,533,615
G 80
G-fla t 85 38, 149 ,682+ 5 38,149,682+
F 90 To 10
E 96 be 16
E-flat 101 19,288,512+ set 21 19 ,288, 512 +
D 107 10,927,200 off 27 10,927,200
D-flat 113 84,199 ,576+ for- 33 84,199,576+
c 120 wards56 40

instrument for tuning; on the contrary, many of the later

experimenters were content to point out only the flaws of
such a system. The elementary experiments made by M.ersenne
in the early seventeenth century form the basis of all later
scientific inves tiga. tions of the principles of the vibrating
string. Mersenne 's main contribution was the determination
of the relation of string length, diameter ana tension to
the frequency. By usinG a very long string he was able to

55. Charles Earl Stanhope, "Principles of the Science of

Tuning Instruments with Fixed Tones," Philosophical
Magazine, XIV ( 1806) , 209.
56. In this column he starts at a point 80 quarters of an
inch from the end of the string and makes the rest of
the measurements from this place, i.e., toward ea.ch
end of the string.
 330

57
count the vibrations visua 1 ,..1..y, and then throng h an
experimental-mathematical process he arrived at the con-
clusion that the frequency of the string is inversely
proportional to its length. 58
Additional experiments of this nature were made by
Galileo (1638), Newton (1642-1727), Euler (1739), and
Bernouilli ( l'/71) in the seventeenth and eighteenth cen-
turies, and through their agency almost all of the proper-
ties of the vibrating string oecame known. The investiga-
tions of the nineteenth century were limited to refinements
of the earlier experiments. For example, Delzenne in 1854
showed that it was necessary to use as fine a wire as pos-
sible in order to obtain the highest degree of accuracy in

57. A duplication of Mersenne's basic experiment was re-

corded by Thomas Young (..2£• cit., 133) in 1800.
Young's connnents on the manner of conducting the
experiment follow:
It was thought worth while, as a confinna-
tion, to make an experiment suggested, but
coarsely conducted by Mersennus, on a chord
200 inches in length and so loosely as to have
its single vibrations visible; and, by holding
a quill nearly in contact with the chord, they
were made audible, and were found in one ex-
periment to !'ecur 8.3 times in a second.
58. Mersenne, 11 Traitez de la nature des sons et des
movemens de toutes sortes de corpes," Harmonie
universelle, 184ff.
 331

determining frequency. By stretching 700 millimeters of

wire on. a cello body he determined, with the help of a
tunine fork, that earlier calculations such as Euler's
59
were wrong by as much as one vibration in eighty.
Other comments on this application of the monochord
are recol"'ded by Alexander Ellis in his additions to the
translation of Helmholtz's Sensations of tone in which he
wrote:
In conjunction with Mr. Hipkins of
Broadwoods' and the foreman tuner, Mr. Hartan,
I made some experiments on 2 April 1885 with
the monochord at Broadwoods', having a string
of • 98 mm. in t:.1ickness. Nineteen tuning-
forks about 20 vib. apart, with pitches from
223.7'7 to 578.40 vib. accurately known, were
brought into unison with lengths of the mono-
chord limited by a movable bridge touching,
but sliding easily under the string, which
was pressed down on it by a knife-edge. The
intervals between the lowest and each of the
other forks, and the longest and each of the
other lengths (assuming them to be inversely
as the number of vibrations), were calculated
in cents. The former were generally sharper
by the following cents, the minus sign showing
when they were flatter: 0 7 6 13.3 9 -~ 2 23
22 9 l 11 8 9 5 5 -1/3 -4. These irregular
differences demonstrate that ~uch a monochord
gives very uncertain results, even when the
unisons are estimated by very sensitive ears. 60

59. Delezenne, Memoire de la societe des sciences a

Lille (Lille, 1854)-;-1n. -

60. Helmholtz, .Q.E• cit., Section B, Appendix XX,

441-442. See am: Alexander Ellis, 11 0n the
History of Musical Pitch, 11 Journal of the Society
of Arts, XXVIII (1880), 248. - -
 332

The only apparent surviving use of the monochord

is in the demonstration of these principles and the demon-
stration of string partials in classroom situations. A
survey of textbooks of the last hundred years reveals only
these uses. The Philosophy of Sound by Mullinger Higgins
(1838) aptly presents both techniques. Higgins's mono-
chord (Plate 10) shows a rather strange adaptation of the
movable bridge, but otherwise his description of the ob-
servable phenomena is also representative of la.tar writings.
After noting Mersenne 's law of the inverse proportion of
length and frequency, Higgins presents a demonstration of

Plate 10. The monochord of Mullinger Higgins •

. I

the harmonic partials. By placing small strips of paper

on the vibrating string, he shows that at the nodal points
the paper does not bounce off and that these points
 333

represent equal arithmetic divisions of the string, causing

61
it, in turn, to sound the hannonics.
Later writers show different kinds of monochords.
The instrument shown in Plate 11 from J. Ra.mbosson's Les
Harmonies du Son of 1878 represents the more canmon
------- 62
variety. Even in the twentieth century there is little

Plate 11. A nineteenth-century monochord.

61. W. Mullinger Higgins, The Ph1losop}1: of Sound

(Lendon: Vhn. s. Orr ancr-co., 1838 7 74-80.
62. J. Ram.bosson, Les Harmonie du Son (Paris: Firmin-
Didot et Cie. ,-r8'78), 167. - - -
 334

change in the presentation of the demonstration. It is

interesting that most of the later monochords, in order to
be equipped to demonstrate Mersenne's laws, are tensioned
with weights, just as Pythagoras was said to have tensioned
the strings of his monochord (seep. 10, above). The fol-
lowing list represents·a sampling of twentieth-~entury

· textbooks in which the monochord is used in the ways

described above: Edward Richardson, The Acoustics of
Orchestral Instruments and of the Organ, 1929; 63 Dayton C.
Miller, The Science of Musical Sounds, 1924; 64 Sir James
Jeans, Science and :Music, 1940; 65 Alexander Wood, The
66
Physics of Music, 1944; and Charles Culver, Musical
67
Acoustics, 1956r
To this point the more prominent usages of the mono-
chord ha. ve been examined. There are, however, ·several other

Edward Richardson, The Acoustics of Orchestral Instru-

ments and of the Organ (New York:-Oxford University
'.Press, --r929T, J:°t59. ·
64. re.yton C. Miller, The Science of Musical Sounds (New
York: Macmillan, E34), 65-66-.- ·
65. Sir James Jeans~ Science and Music (New York:
Macm.illan, 19401, 62-69. -
66. Alexander Wood, The Phlsics of Music (New York:
Dover Publications, !9 4), 40:
67. Charles Culver, Musical Acoustics (New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1956), 142.
 335

aspect:1 of the instrument that have not been included in

this or the preceding three chapters. These are the use
of various kinds of monochords as folk instruments, and
the use of the monochord in ethno-musicoloeical investiga-
tions of scale tunings. It has beccme clear during the
course of this study that there have been many instruments
of monochord origin used in the performance of folk music,
of which many are still in use. Most instruments of this
kind are of Asiatic descent and information concerning
them is at present verry limited, so for this reason the
investigation of monochord descendants has been limited
to those used in Western music, of which all are now con-
68
sidered hiftorical instruments. The monochord has also
been used by many in ethno-musicological investigations,
since the early twentieth century, but again most of these
investisations have occurred in non-Western music. Notable
among the ethno-musicologists using this instrument was
Jaap Kunst, whose observations were recently reviewed by
Murray Barbour in a paper read before the Midwest Chapter
69
of the .American Musicological Society in November, 1962.

68. See Chapter VII, PP• 372-405.

69. Barbour's paper, "Misconceptions Concerning the
Javanese Pel lg
Scale," was written in critic ism of
Kunst' a cone usions in Jaap Kunst, 11 Javanische Jvlusik, 11
Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Vol. VI, Cols.
'!7S4~1797.--- ~
 336

More recently a monochord has been used in some experiments

in auditory perception by an American research group which
constructed a m~ltipleekeyed organ on the basis of the
70
results of the experiments.
Although the monochord has been used frequently in
the past several centuries, it is evident that its use did
not exert any great influence on musical trends. Ai'ter the
Middle Ages and early Renaissance, the monochord was used
mainly as a mechanical means of reproducing scales, but
even while serving such a mundane function it was neverthe-
less a necessary instrument; and contrary to public opinion,
the monochord still appears to be a necessary adjunct to
musical investigation.

70. Paul C. Boomsliter and Warren Creel, Organization in

Auditoot Percettion (Albany, New York: State Univer-
sity Co lege, 962), 13.
 Chapter VI
THE DIDA.CTIC USES OF THE MONOCHOID

Apart from 1 ts uses for experiment and the tuning

of instruments, the monochord was used extensively as an
.
aid to teaching. The didactic functions of the monochord
were two-fold: first, it was used as a pitch-producing
device for the teaching of singing} second, it was used to
demonstrate the intervals of the scale, both aurally and
visually. Extension of the latter usage, in the fonn of
a simple diagram (Diagram 79, below), provided an efficient
means of describing interval structures in a written text.
Tho effectiveness of these diagrams, however, was dependent
upon a common understanding of the monochord such as pre-
vailed in the medieval era.
The greatest use of the monochord as a teaching
instrument occurred in the Middle Ages. After 1450 the
monochord was replaced not only by keyboard instruments as
a pitch-producing medium, but by development of scale
patterns based on tempered intervals. This caused musi-
cians to invent mathematical metho~s of representing inter-
vals that were difficult to produce on the monochord
although the monochord still survived as the only means of
aurally presenting these interval patterns. Since the uses
 338

of the monochord in the Renaissance and the twentieth

century are of minor importance, they were mainly explained
in the preceding two chapters in the context of their own
times, which leaves the didactic uses during the Greek and
'medieval eras to be discussed in the remainder of this
chapter, with only a short section on later periods .. These
varied uses of the instrument wi 11 mostly oe discussed in
chronolo~ical order.

Greek Usages of the Monochord as a Teaching Device

The Greek wri tei.,s of' the early centuries of the

Christian era allude frequently, but vaguely, to the mono-
chord as a didactic device. The monochord, as used by the
teachers of this era, seems to have served two purposes.
Its primary didactic use was to demonstrate the consonances,
that is, the diatessaron, diapente and diapason, of the
musical system. Secondly, as an extension of the first
use, it served as the foundation of the mathematical-
acoustical principles of the scale system as discussed in
Chapter II.
Historical sources tell little of how the monochord
was used in the schools. Most of the Greek writers point
out the necessity of a musical education, but information
 339

about how the pupils were taught in the pre-Christian era

is limited to c·omments like those of Aristophanes (~. 448-
380 B.C.) and Polybius (~. 205-125 B.C.) who describe only
the sincing schools of their respective generations. l All
references to the use of the monochord in Greek education
come from the writers of the Christian era. Such informa-
tion is limited, but sane modern historians dl'aw from it
the somewhat scanty conclusion that the monochord was
2
probably used in the schools from the time of Pythagoras.
This evidence is discussed in the following paragraphs.
Aristides ~uintilianus (fl. second century) tells
us that Pythagoras preferred the monochord because the
relative string lengths were more easily perceived on ~t
than on any other instrument. 3 He further states that
Pythagoras, on his death-bed, admonished his pupils to use

1. Aristophanes, The Clouds, tr. by Wm. Arrowsmith (Ann

Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1962), 73;
Polybius, The Histories, tr. by W. R. Paton, 6 vols.
(New York:----0:. P. Putnam's Sons, 1922-27), Bk. 4,
Chap. II. Aristophanes describes a singing school
in Sparta, and Polybius discusses the musical educa-
tion of the youth of A~cadia.
2. Cf. Kathleen Schlesinger, "Further Notes on Aristoxenus
and :Musical Intervals, 11 The Classical q,uarterly, XX:VIII
(1933), 96. -
3. Aristides Quintilianus, De musica, Bk. II, 116, La.tin
trans. in-Marcus Meiban,An'tiiSuae musicae, 2 vols.
(Amstelodami: Elzevirium, 16 2), II, 116.
 340

the instrument rather than their ears to determine the

size of intervals. Pythagoras's technique of demonstrating
the basic intervals is described ·by Gaudentius and
Nicomachus, suggesting a fairly cozmnon use of the monochord
(Gaudentius's account is given in Chapter II, pp. 49-50 ).
Nicanachus, in his Introductio harmonicas, writes:
He [Pythagoras] stretched a long string
over a canon and susnended it so that it did
not touch. Then, when he sounded the length of
the whole string to that of the half, he could
show th.at the sound of the half string was an
octave higher .than that of the whole string.4
According to Nicanachus, Pythagoras also used a pipe with
four finger holes as a means of sounding these intervals.
This procedure, that is, the demonstrating of intervals by
means of a pipe, was frowned upon by Ptolemy who commented
that
the monochord is the only means of accurately
showing the consonances, and any demonstration
made with a wind instrument or upon a string
tensioned with weights provides inducement to
slander.5
These comments are apparently all of the available
infonnation about the didactic uses of the monochord in

4. Nicanachus, Introductio harmonicas, in Meibcrn., .QE•

cit., I. This use of the word 11 canon" is definec! on
p. ;o, above. .
5. Ingemar Dll.ring, Ptolema1os und Porp~rios ftber die
Musik (GBteborg: Elanders,--rg34), • I, Cap. VIII.
 341

the Greek era. Although this evidence plus the canmon use
of the monochord as a teaching instrUI11ent in succeeding
eras offer some support for such a contention, it hardly
seems justifiable to conclude from this evidence alone that
the instrument played a very important part in the Greek
tradition of musical instruction; however, the continued
use of the monochord as a symbol of the basic tenets of
Pythagorean teachings further suggests the. t it was held in
high esteem by the early teachers.

~ Medieval Pedago5.I £!. 2 Monochord

It can safely be assumed that any discussion of the

monochord in a musical treatise of the Middle Ages is in-
tended to instruct tl~e reader. However, some dtscussions
in fact, some treatises -- are nothing more than a set of
directions for a manual division of the instrument. In
these cases it is evident that much is left unsaid about
the uses of the completed monochord. In the present dis-
cussion of the medieval didactic usages of the monochord
only those sources that actually use the instrument as an
integral part of the discourse will be cited. By surveying
the sources that specifically use the monoc~ord, one may,
by extension, suppose that the monochord is similarly used
in those treatises that present similar discussions without
 342

explicitly referring to the monochord. Likewise, it well

could be supposed that a treatise which consists entirely
of a monochord division was intended for more than just an
exercise in intellectual and manual dexterity.
The most common medieval reference to the monochm:id
in teaching is its use as a pitch-producing medium for in-
struction in singing. · Such references are made by Odo,
Guido, John of Affligemensis, and Gil de Zamora. The
D:talogus de musica of Odo is the earliest work to discuss
the monochord in relation to the ~eaching of singing. In
the first chapter of the treatise, entitled i:or the Mono-
chord and Its Use, 11 Odo writes:
(Disciple) What is Music?
(Master) The science of singing truly and
the easy road to perfection in
singing.
(D) How so?
(M) As the teacher first shows you all
the letters in a table, so the musi-
cian introduces all the sounds of
melody on the monochord.
After discussing the physical features of the instrument
the Master says:
The letters, or notes,· used by musicians
are placed in order on the line beneath the
string, and when lib.a bridge is moved between
the line and the string, shortening or
lengthening it, the string marvelously re-
produces each melody by means of these
 343

letters. 'i.Jhen any antiphon is marked w~. th the

same letters, the boys learn it better and
more easily from the string th.an if they heard
some one sing it, and after a few months'
training, they are able to discard the string
and sing by sight alone.
The final connnents at the end of the discussion also indi-
rectly disclose the technique of inspiring a pupil:
(D) Indeed I say th.at you have given me a
wonderful master, who, made by me, teaches me,
and teaching me, knows nothing himself. Nay,
for his patience and obedience I fervently
embrace him, and he will never tonn.ent me
with blows or abuse when provoked by the
slowness of my sense.6
Guido recc:mmends the monochord in much the same
manner as Odo (Cf. his "demonstration" in Plate 12), al-
though his attitude toward the value of the instrument
apparently cooled over a period of years -- a change that
may have been pranpted oy increased success and acceptance
of his own innovaT.ions in musical instruction. In the
Prologus antiuhonari sui (written about 1025), during a
discussion of ~~e new notational system, he assigns equal
importance to the fonnulas of the psalm tones and the
monochord:
For we use two colors, namely yellow
and red, and by means of them I teach you a
rule th.at will enable you to .know readily

6. Translated by Oliver Strunk in his Source Readin5s in

Music History (New York: W. W. Norton, 1950), 1 5.~
 344

to what tone and to what letter of the mono-

chord every neume and any sound belong, most
useful if, as is very convenient, you make
frequent use of the monochord and of the
formulas of the tones.7
The first chapter of the Micrologus, written several years
later, maintains the same attitude:
~nerefore, he who seeks our teaching
should learn some of the songs well marked
in our notation. He should exercise the hand
in the use of the monochord, and he should
often study these rules until, when the
strength and quality of the voice have been
learned, he can deliehtfully sing unknown
songs e.s well as known ones. But because we
look at sounds, which are the first founda-
tions of this art, better on the monochord,
first of all let us see how art, having 1.mi-
tated nature, in the same place differenti-
ates them.8
Several years later, however, in the Epistola de
ignoto cantu (~. 1030), Guido derides the use cf the mono-

chord, stating that it is a childish device and that one

may learn to sing quickly and easily by means of the hexa-
chord system:
To find an unknown melody, most blessed
brother, the first and common procedure is
this. You sound on the monochord the letters
belonging to each neume, and by listening you
will be able to learn the melody as if frcm.
hearing it sung by a teacher. But this pro-
cedure is childish, good indeed for beginners,

7. Ibid., 119.
8. Guido, Micrologus, GS II, 4.
 345

but very bad for pupils who have made sane

progress. For I have seen many keen-witted
philosophers who, • • • because they relied
on this procedure alone, could never become,
I will not say skilled musicians, but even
choristers, nor could they duplicate the
perfonnance of our choir boys.9

Plate 12. Guido demonstrating the monochord

for Bishop Theobald.10

According to this last quotation from Guido, the monochord,

as a practical aid, was relegated mainly to use as a pitch-.
producing device for the teaching of intervals to beeJ.nners;
at least that was its place in the early part of the ·

9. Strunk, £E• cit., 123.

10. GS I I ; frontispiece, fran a twelfth-century manuscript.
 346

eleventh cen~ll.I'y. There is no definite infonnation avail-

able from the preceding centuries, but if Guido's comments
can be taken as an indication, the most common procedure
included a rote system in which ~~e monochord, or another
singer, reproduced the notes of the song for the pupil.
Even after the widespread adoption of sight-singing
methods based upon the hexachord system, the monochord
still served as a device to check the correct reproduction
of intervals. References are made to its use in this ca!)3.-
city as late as the thirteenth century. The decline of
its pedagosical use after this date is most likely owing
to the development and availability of the stringed key-
.board instruments, which may have been utilized to fulfill
a similar function. Testimony is given to its usefulness
in pitch correction, along with some other interesting
camnents, by Johannes Affligemensis at the beginning of
the twelfth century.
The name of the monochord is derived frcm
its single string. Monos, as it is called in
Greek, means one or single. From monos also
canes the word monachus (monk), so called be-
cause a monk should live alone. This instrument
is very useful for the purpose of checking the
accuracy or inaccuracy of a note. It ought to
be applied by ·boys or youths who wish to learn
music, since that which they seek to learn is,
by means of the sound, made very clear • :More -
over, it is useful for the repudiation of many
uncouth musicians, tha~ is, clerics and monks
 347

who have never learned, nor wanted to learn,

how to sing, and who flee from learning and
abhor it. Sometimes when a musician finds
fault with them concerning a song which they
have executed eithe·r 'incorrectly or badly,"
they will not listen to reason, but instead
seek in all ways to defend their error. Such
men are foolish and yet without injustice I
should like to cure their foolishness. For
they learn nettling at all from the blind man
who takes care that he does not plunge into
a pit by seeking frcm without what he has not
within himself, namely guidance by means of'
other men or by means of' a stick. These
good-for-nothings, whom the Greeks correctly
called indolent or senseless, see nothing
wrong with themselves and are not w:J.llingly
led by others.
Now in order to humble their obstinacy,
one needs only to take the monochord in hand
so that, since they do not want to believe
the word of another musician, they will be
convinced by the testimony of the tone
itselr.11
Gil de Zamora, at the end of the thirteenth century,
adopts the same view as J. Affligemensis:
There is • • • one service which this
instrument affords us, that through its sounds
truth or falseness is confirmed. For while
men do not agree with what is said about the
language of music, they are bound by witness
of the sound itself on the monochord.12
The use of the monochord as specifically a pitch-
producing and pitch-correcting device has been pointed out
above, but beyond this simple use it also serves as the

11. J. Affligemensis, Musica, GS II, 235-236.

12. Gil de Zamora, Ars musica, GS II, 281.
 348

basic means of setting forth primary theoretical concepts.

Mention of the monochord occurs in almost every treatise
expounding the essentials of music theory ti.e., intervals
and scales) from the fifth through the fourteenth centuries.
The dependence of the authors upon the monochord is shown
in many ways. In some writings, such as the treatises of
Wilhelm of Hlrsau or Theoger of Metz, the instrument is the
principal means of representins the ideas under discussion;
while in others (for instance, Marchettus de Padua
r~ucidarium musicae planae] and Engelbert) it is only oc-
casionally ref erred to.
Beginning in the eleventh century, it is not un-
cc:mmon to see the monochord used as the basic means of
transmitting theoretical principles. Besides the works of
Odo and Guido, the Prologus in tonarium of Berno of
Reichenau (d. 1048) utilized the monochord in ~~is manner.
Berno notes that all of the rules of the monochord follow
the pattern set forth by Boetbius. Berne's discussion,
however, is brief and simple as compared with Boethius's.
Whereas Boethius used the Aristidean numbers (representing
string lengths) for much of his discussion of the inter-
vals, Berno relates the intervals to the monochord, using
 349

it as a means of pointing out .the differences between

13
the intervals. Hermannus Contractus also bases much
of his presentation of the tetrachords on the monochord,
although he explains that the general technique of the
instrument is so well known that further discussion of
the instrument is unnecessary. 14
Perhaps the most ingenious use of the monochord
occurs in the treatise of Wilhelm of Hirsau (d. 1091), in
which diagrams of the monochord are used in an explanation
of the modes. Wilhelm calls this the "riddle of the mono-
chord 11 ( cri brum monochordi) , yet instead of being a riddle
it approaches with remarkable clarity the mo~ern system
of solf~ge based on the movable 11 do. 11 Beginning with the
15
standard explanation of the maneriae, Wilhelm presents
a linear diagram of a monochord composed of two octaves
and a fifth, to which he relates the modes (upper part of

13. Berno of Reichenau, Prologus in tonarium., GS II, 63.

14. Hermannus Contractus, Musica Hennanni Contracti, tr.
by Leonard Ellinwood (ROchester: Eastman School of
Music, 1936), 35.
15. Instead of the usual eight-fold classification.of
the modes (authentic and plagal), the system of
maneriae places the modes (or scales) with the same
final in pairs: The protus therefore is made up of
modes 1 and 2; deuterus, 3 and 4; tritus, 5 and 6;
and tetrardus, 7 and 8. Cf. Reese, Music in the
Middle Ages, 153. - -
 350

Diagram 78). Next, by using the system of tetrachords

(Graves, Finales, Superiores, Excellentes), he presents,
underneath the original diagram (lower· part of Diagram 78).,
ot~er monochords shifted successively to the right so that
the finals of each pair of modes are shown in a straight
line. From this diagram the student· can quickly ascertain

Diagram 78. The Cribrum monochordi of Wilhelm of Hirsau.

-- . , -'-.-·- --- - ---- - · --rc-- .- --r· ---

P•rro<1rrill.n -- -- - - · ·------
~-. -T-- -
f!AiB1C D E FG o ~ c d e F q &: ~ I~ ~
f A BC D EF G 9 c d e f q C4
Tetnlrcl
°' a. ~ c. d e f
,I' AB c 0 E F G
~

g 0. Q. lri~u

el. f A.B c 0
E F c;. a. 9 ,Cd e f '3 0.. o~
Q.

r A BC o· EFG ~1t:t 1
c d eF "' P!'"otus

'
~

Qro.ves E/(c.el/entes
Finales Svpenores
I
 351

that each pair of modes has the same finalis,. that the
plagal form of the mode extends from the Graves to the
Superiores, and that the authentic is bounded by the
Finales and Excellentes. Presentations of the modes by
means of maneriae are canmon in the treatises of the time,
but Wilhelm's use of the monochord-based diagram places
the interrelationship of the scales within the g:rasp of a
student almost at first glance.
Theoger of Metz (late eleventh c~ntury) uses mono-
chord diagrams similar to WilheJm 1 s, but he explains the
authentic and plagal modes separately, noting "that we
. . 16
can see these things better on the monochord." Diagram
79 shows the linear representations of the monochord used

Diagram 79. The monochord diagrams of Theoger of Metz.

Di "Ro.son
f P rotvs
I
Ton vs Oio. 'tes :;a. ro" D1'Clf' e nte To nus I
I
c D E F & A b c. JI ~
I

oi"'-P o. so11
Pl a. o.. P~o~i
Ton us Di u..pente D•G.tessa.ron ' Tonvs

A 9 C 0£F (r o-. b 9

16. Theoger of Metz, Musica, £!§II, 183.

 352

by Theoger in his presentation of the first and second

modes.
Monochord-based diagrams and sets of directions
for determining the consonances abound in both speculative
and practical treatises throughout the Middle Ages. These
diagrams usually consist of a linear representation of the
instrument much like the table of a divided monochord, al-
though, for the most part, tbe proportional distances of
the notes are not maintained in the diagrams; the specific
intervals under discussion are then indicated by brackets,
as in Diagram 80. This kind of representation allowed the

Diagram 80. Linear representation of the monochord showing

the position of the consonances.17

student to make a positive connection between the notes of

the monochord, which he was already familiar with, and the

17. Guido, Micrologµ.s, Q.§, II, 8.

 353

more abstract discussions of interval and scale patterns.

This technique may be compared to the canmon modern practice
of explaining scale patterns and intervals in relation to a
keyboard instrument. After 1450 the function of the mono-
chord was replaced by t..~e newer keyboard instruments, so
that in many of the treatises of this latter period, such
as the Libri tres de institutione harmonica of Pietro
Aaron, direct reference is made to the keyboard in order
18
to demonstrate the scale patterns.
The diagrams of Wilhelm and Theoger represent a
high point in medieval pedagogy that is not attained by
most of the theoretical writers of the era. For the most
part the monochord-based diagrams are limited expositions
of the consonances and the tetrachords, and the more can-
plex intervals are discussed in relation to proportions or
the Aristidean numbers. In the Musica speculativa of Jean
de Muris (1290-1351), however, are found detailed directions
for the demonstrations of even the smallest Pythagorean
intervals (i.e., llnnna, s.potane, and comma). Although
Mur:is's treatise is a speculative work, the treatment of
the material shows an attempt to simplify the exposition

18. Pietro Aaron, Libri tres de ins.titutione harmonica

(Bononiae, 1516), Bk--rf'; ~p. IX.
 354

of the intervals so that they misht be more easily under-

stood by the student.
~uris's directions for the demonstration of the
apotQne indicate that one is to construct, from a single
point, first, a distessaron (sub-sesquitertia), and then
three consecutive tones (each one sub-sesquioctava). In
his diagram of this construction (Diagram 81) the space
between a and f is the diatessaron; the sesquioctava tones
19
are ab, bd, and cd. If the diatessaron (af) is sub-
tracted fron1 the sum of the three tones ab, be, and cd, the
remainder will be fd or the apotom.e, and the distance cf
will be the limma. In order to change the position of the
apotcme and limma (that is, to place the limma in the higher
position), a sesquioctava tone (ed 1 ) is erected above the
diatessaron a-f and the remainder of ~~e difference of fd

19. Jean de Muris, .2.E· cit., 277. Gerbert prints

:Muris 's treatise (GS"'III, 249-255) together with a
cCl11!llentary or another version of the same treatise
(GS III, 256-283) attributed to Conrad Norico. The
second version is the more easily understood of the
two. In Diagram 81, "intensus" indicates that an
interval is fo:cmed in an ascending manner between
a lower note and a higher one, and 11 remissus 11 indi-
cates the descending manner of determination, i.e.,
fran a higher to a lower note. The semitonium maius
is the apotome and the semitonium minus is the limma.
The other terms, parte acute and parte grave, are
used to indicate which interval is the higher in
pitch. ·
Diagram 81. The manual demonstration of.the
apotomeo

Di o.tesso..tron
~====== -------
fot"lvs i"teMus
____ ..
.,,.
To1,vs intensus
------·-~-
Tonus intensvs
' em1 o- em1 onium
n1vm mo.iosij I

--- - - - ---------
. -----·- ___ l minvs
te
pQ ...
Q.c.uta
6 c ~ q
°' e 0: d'
5emiton•<.m .S~itO'
mcuus .., nivm
'"
f"'lrte qna."i tens-um
...__
Toni.>~ re rriiss us
 :355

anded' is the limma a'd'. The comma is found by a

s~ilar manipulation of these and other intervals.
Such specific directions for the demonstration of
these intervals on the monochord are uncamnon in medieval
treatises, althoueh this kind of demonstration (as was
mentioned above) occurs frequently in terms of the Aristi-
dean numbers. It is believed by this writer that most
teachers were well enough acquainted with the technique
of the monochord that they encountered no difficulty in
applying the Aristidean demonstration to the instrument,
even though the manual process of so doine was not speci-
fically indicated -- and further, that this kind of aural
demonstration was ccmmonplace in the medieval classroom~.

In spite of the refined techniques presented by

the above authors, many of the discussions are still as
vague and undefined as when first presented by Boethius,
and often Boetbius's text is incorpornted v3rbatim into
the treatise. Examples of this obscure treatment are found
in the works of Odington, Jerome of Moravia, and Jacobus
"'
de Liege. The latter two, however, also present alternate
expositions based on the ideas of Odo and Guido.
The basic concept of theelements of music theory
changed but little during the Middle Ages. The final under-
standing gained from the presentation of the consonances,
 356

intervals and scales by Boethius is approximately the same

understanding that one gets from Wilhelm's presentation in
the m:tddle or from Muris 's at the end of the period. In
many of the la"ter treatises, however, there appears to be
constant fluctuation in the manner of presentation. The
changes wroueht in the exposition of the material are fre-
quently connected to the monochord, hence the reasons for
uti!izing the monochord are perhaps best sum_~ed up in the
monitu:n appended to Odo's treatise in Gerbert's Scriptores:
• • • Now first of all we place the mono-
chord before the eyes in order that afterward
we can talk to anyone concerning the character
of the voice, for if the passage is too little
expanded, it is demonstrated for the eyes.20

The Teaching ~ of the Monochord in the

Renaissance and Later Eras
-=-=----=i- - -

The didactic uses of the monochord have apparently

continued uninterrupted since the Middle Ages. In more
recent times, however, direct references to the use of the
instrument in this capacity are rare, except in modern text-
books that use the instrument to dem011strate acoustical
21
principles. As might be expected, the use of the

20. Odo, ,2;2• cit., GS I, 265.

21. See PP• 332-34, above·
 357

instrunent in teaching was greater in the Renaissance than

in later periods. After the seventeenth centu:.cwy the mono-
chord fell into general disuse as a teaching instrument
except for acoustical demonstrations.
The appearance of new scale tunings caused a renewal
of interest in the monochord as a pitch-nroduc1ng device
f'or singers, and theorists continued to find i.t useful for
demonstrating the intervals of the just tuning. The mono-
chord as a pitch-producing instrument was soon generally
abandoned in favor of the easier-to-use keyboard instru-
ments, except for the f'ew treatises whose authors still
maintained the Pythagorean tuning. In these treatises the
teaching techniques of Odo and Guido are rigidly retained
up to the end of the sixteenth century; examples are the
Microloc;us of' Andreas Ornithoparcus (1509, translated by
J obn Dowland in 1610), and the De music a pra ti ca of Wolf' gang
Figulus, published in 1665. Other indications of Renais-
sance interest in these techiques is indicated in the re-
peated publication of Hugo von Reutlingen's Flores musicae
in the late f'ifteenth century.
The· comments of Ornithoparcus on the uses of the
monochord show an interesting and humorous combination of
the statements of Odo, Guido and Johannes Affligemensis.
In his ninth chapter Orni thoparcus describes the "definition,
 358

profit, and use of the mono chord. 11 The following excerpts

from this chapter are the sections concerned with it3
11 profi t and use":
• • • It is a rude and unskillful master,
which makes learned schollers. For it shewes
to others th.at which itselfe conceives not, it
tels truth, it cannot tell how to lye, it in-
structeth diligently and reprehendeth no mans
slow conceit • • • •
Of the profits of the monochord
The monochord was invented for this pur-
pose, to be the judge of musical voice.s and
intervals: as also to try whether the song
be true or false, furthennore, to shew h.aire-
-·braind false musitians their errors, and the ·
way of attaining the truth. Lastly th.at
children which desire to learne musicke may
have an easie means to it, th.at it may in-
trice beginners, direct those that may be
forward, and so make of unlearned learned.
Of the use of the monochord
The use of the monochord • • • is, that
we may know how each voyce is higher or lower
than other. When therefore thou wilt learn
a song, even the deepest, of thy selfe by the
help of the monochord, set thy monochord be-
fore thee on the table, and marke in what key
the first note of that song is, which thou
desirest to know. This being found, touch
the same in the monochord with a quill, and
the sound it gives is that thou desirest.
Thus runne over each note of the song, and
so mayest thou by thy self learne any song
though ever so weighty.22

22. Andreas Ornithoparcus, Microlo~s, tr. by John

Dowland (London: T. Adams, 16 ), 23.
 359

Figulus's comments closely follow the directions Biven

by Odo in his Dialogue.
Besides the continuation of the use of the mono-
chord as a pitch-producing instrument in treatises using
the Pythagorean tuning, this writer found only two later
treatises that used the instrmnent for this purpose in
other tunings -- the Scintilla de musica of Giovanni Maria
Lanfranco (1529), and La musique rendue sensible by Henri
Choquel, published in 1762. Both writers use forms of the
just tuning. The most interesting aspect of their teach-
ings, from a pedagogical standpoint, is the way they use
the monochord: while all of the earlier writers recommend
that the notes of the piece be sounded on the monochord
and copied by the singer, that is, learned by rote,
Ianfranco and Choquel suggest that the monochord be uti-
lized to sound the intervals of the scale. Having first
memorized the sound of the intervals, the singer then sings
the piece at sight. These recanmendations indicate that
here the main use of the instrument is to teach the singer
only the souna of the just tuning, not the notes of the
piece as was done earlier. Choquel uses an elaborate mono-
chord with six strings so that the singer can perfozm many
ktnds of vocal exercises without having to shift the
bridges -- but, in spite of his elaborate devices, Choquel 1 s
 360

treatise must undoubtedly be regarded as an anachronism

since the lack of specific sources from the preceding
century indicates.that the monochord was not the favored
instrument of singers.
The remaining writers of the Renaissance continued
to use the monochord in the manner of the precedinc; era,
that is, as a basis for theoretical discussions. Nearly
all of the theorists discussed in Chapter IV reconunend the
monochord as the best and e~siest way to teac~ these prin-
ciples; nevertheless even during this time one notices that
more and more the monochord was being used only as a means
of audibly representing a tuning of the scale, and that by
the mid-seventeenth century the monochord was no loncer
the foundation of theory pedagogy that it had been in the
Middle Ages.
The didactic uses of the monochord discussed in
this chapter help to show the importnnce of the monochord
in Western music. The 'Middle Ages, as the era in which
the monochord was most used, represents a high period in
the history of the instrument. In succeeding centuries the
monochord was viewed mainly as a useful way to represent
acoustical precepts, not as a tool upon which one could
base his whole presentation of the theory of music.
 361

Chapter VII
THE INSTRlMENTAL APPLICATIONS OF THE MONOCHORD

The instrumental applications of' the monochord can

be divided into three distinct areas. The first area en-
canpasses the uses of the monochord as a perfonn:tng ins tru-
ment. The second c.omprises descendants of the monochord
that serve as performing instruments. The third area in-
cludes the uses of the monochord as an aid in the construc-
tion of other instruments. The use of the monochord as a
performing instrunent is restricted to the Greek and medie-
val eras, surviving until about the end of the fourteenth
century. The first of the direct descendants of the mono-
· chord appeared around the tenth century and the last about
the end of the Middle Ages. These descendants continued
in common use until about the middle of the eighteenth
century. The third instrumental use of the monochord covers
about the same period of time as the second. In this
chapter each of these categories will be discussed sepa-
rately in chronological order.

The Monochord as ! Perform.in§ Instrument

There is ample evidence fran both the Greek and

medieval periods that the monochord was used as a performing
 362

instrunent. The most important info:nnation from the Greek

era is in Ptolemy's Harmonics, where he relates some of the
details of the manner of playing the monochord. Ptolemy
does not supply any infoma tion about the kind of ensemble
in which the monochord was used. In contrast to this, the
medieval sources indicate the circumstances of ensemble
performance, but information about the techniques of playing
the instrument is lacld.ng. Neither the Greek nor the
medieval sources give information about the kinds of music
played. The main medieval soUl'ces for information about
the performing circumstances of the monochord are the pic-
tures with which many of the later manusc1•ipts are illumi-
nated.

The Monochord as a Performing

illstrument ·rn Greek Tiines
Niccmachus, who bas been quoted before on many
aspects of Greek music, is curiously reticent about the
ways of using the monochord as a performing instrument.
His single comment about this function of the instrument
is that Pythagoras admonished his disciples to play upon
1
it. Wantzloeben mentions a Julius Pollux who is said to

1. Nicanachus, Introductio harmonicas, 116, Latin trans.

in Marcus Meibom, Ant;ruae musicae, 2 vols.
(Amstelodami: Elzevi um, 1652}, I.
 . 363

have classified the monochord among other stringed 1nstru-

ments. 2 Besides these two, Ptolem:r is the only other Greek
writer to mention monochord perfonnance, and he describes
only tl:le technique of playing on the instrument.
In his Hannonics Ptolemy devotes a whole chapter to
the inconveniences of the single string, concluding that,
although it is not a very practical device, it is the only
instrument upon which one can divide the tones ard play
them -- that is, the only instrument that can be made to
play all of the notes of the disdiapason in an accurate
manner. 3 He expressly mentions the ins trum.ent 1 s having a
4
neck, a bridge, and a divided string. Several writers
have concluded that the mention of the neck also implies
a resonating chamber, and that the divided string implies
frets. Sir John Hawkins notes that these comments would
apply to a description of the Pandura of the Arabs.
Ptolemy also reflects further upon the unpleasant-
ness of the sound, that is, the portamento produced by

2. Sigfrid Wantzloeben, Das Monochord als Instrument und

ala System (Halle: EErliardt Kirras-;-"1"911), 5.
3. Ingemar DB.ring, Ptolemaios und Porp~rios ilber die
Musik {G&teborg: Elinders,-nf34), • It, .Cap.-x!I.
4. Wantzloeben, 21?.• cit., 9; and Sir John Hawkins, A
General Histofl o?""the Science and Practice of Music,
2nd ed., 2 vo s.--C-London: NoveIIO, 1853), r-;-as.
 364

moving the bridge back and forth under the string. However,
since it is possible to produce almost any melody by this
procedure, it might find great favor in this age of the
steel guitar. Ptolemy suggests further that if it is to be
used as an instrument it would be best combined with a
syrinx or aulos, so the mistakes would be less noticeable. 5
Chapter thirteen of Ptolemy's Book II describes a
two-note system devised by Didymus in order to eliminate
the indefiniteness of pitch stemming from the movement of
the bridge. 6 This system consisted of placing the bridge
so as to produce the twelfth above the fundamental note
by dividing the string into three parts and placing the
bridge between the second and third parts, thereby giving a
tripla proportion (3:1} between the shorter segment and the
whole string. At the same time the shorter pa.rt of the
string stands in the proportion of 1:2 (sub-duple.) to the
longer portion, thereby producing an octave. By leaving
the bridge in this position, the player had only two notes,
an octave apart, at bis disposal. Ptolemy evidently did
not hold much respect for this procedure, for he criticizes
it by saying that a melody would not consistently utilize

5. D8.ring, .2.E.• cit., 82.

6. Ibid.
~
 365

either note, and that, in a fast melody, the player would

not always have time to decide upon the note to be touched.
On the basis of thi·s meager 1nfonnat1on 1 t is dif-
ficult to determine the extent to which ~he monochord may
have been used as a performing instrument by the Greeks.
E1 ther of the two systems discussed by Ptolemy has certain
drawbacks,. but bis mention of them is some indication that
they must have enjoyed at least a limited popularity. In
any case it is possible to imagine how the monochord might
have functioned as a performing instrument, even if the
obvious conclusion would seem to be that it found little
favor as such.

Medieval Uses of the Monochord

!!!_ ! Perf'Oimfng Instrument

Medieval literary references to employment of the

monochord as a performing instrument are rare, and most
of these are in the fonn of manuscript miniatures. Oc-
casional written sources give lists of instruments, in-
cluding the monochord, without reference to their uses.
The following quotation from the works of Machaut (£!.· 1300-
1377), however, includes the monochord as a member of the
perfonning group.
 366

Afterwards all came into the hall which

was not ugly or dull, where each was • • •
honored and served both with wine and meat as
. his body and appetite demanded. And there I
took my sustenance by looking at the coun-
tenance, the carriage, and the bearing of her
in whom1s all my joy. After eating, •••
came the musicians, all can.bed· and dressed
up! There they made many different harmonies.
For I saw there, all in one circle, the viol,
rebec, gittern, lute, micanon, citole, and
the psaltery, barp, tabor, trumpets, nakers,
horns, more than ten pairs, • • • krumhorns,
c:ymbals, bells, timbrel, the Bohemian flute,
and the big Geiman cornet, flutes, • • •
little trumpet, buzines, panpipes, monochord
where there is only one string, and bagpipe
altogether. And certainly, it seems to me
that such a melody was never before seen or
heard, for each of them according to the tune
of his instrument, played without discord.7
It may be supposed that the music rendered by this group
was in keeping with what are thought to be the usual medi-
eval performance practices. This fourteenth-century
"orchestra" resembles many of the groups to be seen in
the manuscript miniatures, although the pictorial repre-
sentations do not usually contain as many instruments as
Machaut 's group.
The earliest pictorial representations, which
date from about 1100, show the monochord being used with

7. Guillaume de Machaut, Remade de Fortune, tr. by James

B. Ross in The Portable MedieWl Beader (New York:
Viking Press;-1949), 560. In this somewhat garbled
translation the instruments listed are named after
modern equivalents without much concern for variety
within single classes of instruments.
 367

other instruments, as 1n the following illustration fran

a German psalter, where the monochord is being played to-
gether with a bowed lyre and a zither. 8 The presence of
the acrobats at the right side of the instrumentalists indi-
cates that this may have been an actual perfonnance {Plate
13).

Plate 13. A monochord performance of the

early twelfth century.9

8. Curt Sachs, in The Historz of Musical Instruments

(New York: w. W:-Norton an'Cf""Co., 1940), 270, states
that "bowed lyre" and "zither" are· the proper terms
for the other instruments shown.
9. Preussische Staatsbibliothek, Berlin, MS. theol. lat.
fol. 358, shown in George Kinsky, Geschichte der Musik
in Bildern (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hirte!, l~), 39.
 368

Th.a monoohordist apparently has, in his lef''t hand, a movable

bridge that he is sliding back and forth, while the f'ore-
finger of' his right hand plucks the string.
Plate 14, f'ran a twelfth-century English manuscript,
shows a·musioian simultaneously playing on a monoohord and
a set of' be.lls. It appears that this player is either- per-
forming a piece of music, checking the intonation of the
bells, or measuring bis monochord. Of these three conjec-
tures, the first two are the most likely, vhile the third
seems doubtful (see the connnentary to Plate 15 below).
Since a monochord division usually served as the basis of
the measurements used in bell founding, it seems likely
that the player could be comparing the pitch of the
finished product with the original proportions determined
by means of the monochord. 1Ibe same may be said of the
organ that appears to be in readiness, for the monochord
served the same function for the organ builder as it did
for the bell founder (see pp. 407-13, below).
The third illustration showing the monoohord in
what might be performing circumstances is found in a thir-
teenth-century German manuscript {Plate 15). Th.is minia-
ture shows a harp player and a monochord player. Some
authorities state that this picture shows the monochord
being measured from the already tuned harp. For example,
 369

Plate 14. Religious and secular music. 10

Curt Sachs, in his History of Musical Instruments~ makes

the following statement about the circumstances:
It would seem probable that the harpist,
having no fixed accorda.tura, would tune the
harp to the monochord. But he does not. As
the left hand holds the crossbar, he is

10. St. Johns College, Cambridge, B. 18, shown in

Francis Galpin, Old En~lish Instruments of Music
(Chicago: McClurg, 19 1), 218.
 370

neither playing nor tuning; the key is hang-

ing down. Instead, he is plucking a string
in order that the monochordist may calibrate
his instrument accordingly. The monochordist
shortens his str~ng till the testing finger
finds the desired apot; there the lmife, held
in readiness, scratches a mark. in the wood.
This place is one-sixteenth of the entire
length; the demanded interval, therefore, must
be the minor second of the ground tone the
most uncertain of medieval intervals .11
It is doubtful that this is really true. Because
divisions· of the monochord were available everywhere in the
Middle Ages it does not appear likely that the monochordist
would choose this way to measure the steps of the string.
The final sentence of Sachs's canment also implies a non-
Pythagorean division of the string -- a kind of division
not recorded before the late fifteenth century.
It is more likely that the monochordist is either
marking the pitches of the harp on his monochord so that
he may determine the proportions of the aurally tuned harp
notes, or plucking the notes with his left hand and holding
some sort of bridge in his right (it is imposstble to pro-
duce a true tone on a monochord by stopping the string with
a finger) in order that he and the harpist may quickly
check the tuning of the harp. In any case this writer
strongly disagrees with ~ny attempt, through this sort of

11. Sachs, .2.E.• cit., 270.

 371

evidence, to show that the monochord was calibrated by

means of other instruments.

~
Plate 15. A monochord of the thirteenth century.

Except for these plates and a few other similar

representations, n~ infonnation is available about the
monochord as a perfo:cm.ing instrument in the Middle Ages.
Tb.ere is no recorded evidence that the monochord was used
as a performing instrument in post-medieval times. The
main reason for its disuse in these later periods is

12. Staatsbibliothek, Munich, Cod. Lat. 2599, shown in

Jose Subira, Historia de la Musica, 2nd ed., 2
vols. (Barcelona: Salvat~ditores, 1951), I, 232.
 372

probably that the technological advances of tho Renaissance

replaced it with more suitable instruments. In any case
the monochord appears to ba.ve been frequently used by medi-
eval musicians as a perfonning instrument in addition to
its more canmon u~e in theoretical discussions.

The Descendants ===

~
of i::a=:
the Monochord
.-=:.-i:::s=i==m

In addition to the monochord itself being used as

a performing instrument there are at least three other
kinds of performing instruments that were derived from the
monochord and which are significantly different from the
monochord: the organistrum, the clavichord, and the tranba
marina. All of these instruments originated in the Middle
Ages and survived until the eighteenth century. Vestiges
of the monochord principle are observable in the organis-
trum and clavichord in respect to the way the notes are
produced, and in the tranba marina by the use of a single
string. The following discussions of e~ch instrument and
its variants explain the relation of these instruments to
the monochord and recount the early history of each
instrument.
 373

Organistrum
The organistrum, the oldest o( the monoohord-
deri ved instruments, must have originated before the
eleventh century, since it is discussed in a short tract
by Odo early in this century. Subsequent tracts showing
the placement of the notes appear through the thirteenth
century. The organistrum was apparently used in the early
churches to provide instrumental accompaniment for singers
until it was replaced by ·the organ in the late Middle Ages.
Many early organistra had three strings, all of which were
acted upon by the stops. The tuning of these strings is
unknown, but the hypothesis has been advanced th.at they
were tuned as ftmdamental, fifth, and octave, in order to
duplicate the organum of the singers. 13 Since this hypo-
thesis cannot be substantiated from existing tracts or
other sources, it has not found great favor. It is more
likely that the strings were tuned in unison. so as to pro-
vide a greater volume of sound, especially since the early
treatises speak only of the division of one string.
The mechanism of the orc;anistrum (like that of its
descendant, the hurdy-gurdy) is simple. The string is set

13. Cf. Francis Galpin, Old English Instruments of Music

(Chicago: Mcclurg, ~l), 104.
 374

into motion by a rosined, parcbnent-covered wheel that is

turned by a crank protruding f'ran tha end of the ins tru-
ment. The string, d1 vided after the technique of' the mono-
.chord, is stopped by small wooden bridges which are rotated
on their longitudinal axes so as to bring them into contact
with the string (Diagram 82, Figure 1). Early representa-
tions of· the instrument show it being played with the
strings on top and the bridges lying horizontal. Later
alterations of the instrument replaced the rotati~g bridge
with a rod equipped with tangents that could be pushed
against the string (Diagram 82, Figure 2). This instrument
was also played with the rods pointing downward so that
they would f'all away from the string when the pressure
was released. This l~tter method of' holding the instrument
must have been devised in the thirteenth century, although
the fonner method was still used in sane places. Plates
17 and 18 show these instruments being played with the
stops pointing up and down indicating an evolutionary
process in the developnent of the stops. In Diagram 82,
Figure 1 shows the rotating bridges of' the organistrun and
Figure 2 the rod and tangent mechanism of the later in-
stl'uments.
Ths early organistra wel'e large fiddle-shaped in-
stl'uments (Pl'.8.te 16) requiring two performers, one turning
 375

Diagram 82. The actions of the organistrum and the

hurdy-gurdy.

the crank and the other manipulating the stops. The in-
struments of the thirteenth and later centuries were
greatly reduced in size so that they could be played by one
person. 'Ihese instruments appeared in three shapes: in
the original fiddle shape of the organistrum. (Diagram 82,

14. Marin Mersenne, Harmonie universelle (Paris: Cramoisy,

1636-37), 4th Bk. of Stringed Instruments, Prop. x.
 376

Figure 2; and Plate 22); in a box-like fonn (Plates 17 and

18); and as a lute-shaped instrument. These later instru-
ments appeared under a variety of names •. The small fiddle-
sbaped instrument is most frequently called a hurdy-gurdy
and the square instrument, a syniphonie. 15

16
Plate 16. The organistrun.

The size of the medieval organistrum indicates a

rather low-pitched sound that would have served well as
an accompaniment for singers. The smaller instruments of

15. Following is a list of names frequently applied to

these instruments: symphonia, rota, organistrum,
chifonie, viele ~ roue, cinfonia, Leier, Drehleier,
.Hadleier, lyra rusticana, lyra mendicorum, and
hurdy-gurdy.
16. Archbishop's Palace, Santiago de Canpostela, late
twelfth century, shown in Kinsky, El!• cit., 41.
 377

the later eras, frequently equipped with several drone

strings, are rather high-pitched and appear to hs.ve been
used mainly as solo instruments (the great variation in
size indicates possibilities for ensemble performance, but
this evidently never came to pass).

Plate 17. An organistrum. 17

17. British Museum add. 35166, thirteenth century,

shown in Galpin, .2E,• ~., 272.
 378

18
Plate 18. Two players of the cinfonia.

The stops of the early organistra, according to

the surviving treatises, were all placed so as to produce
a major scale in the Pythagorean tuning. The early tracts
describing the organistrtmi only provide a division of the
string for one octave. The short tract of Odo, translated
below in its entirety, follows the regular kind of mono-
chord division. This division, using eight steps to produce
nine notes (including the open string) is executed in an

18. Ca. 1270, shown in Julian R1b•9ra, Le. Musica de las

?rentigas (Madrid: Tipografia de li"'"".Revista Cii ~
Arch!vos, 1922), following p. 152.
 3'79

alternating-desceliding manner (Diagram 83). One wonders

why Odo applied this kind of division to.the organistrum,
but used the ascending division for his regular division
of the monochord. The following paragraph contains the
text of Odo's tract. \

In What Manner the Organistrum

is Constructed
In the first place, measure the distance
from the top, next to the first plectrum, all
the way down to the plectrum which is placed
behind the little wheel into two steps, and in
the first place c. The second is the end.
Fran C to the end measure into three steps and
in the fourth backward place G. From G to the
end divide into three and in the fourth back-
ward place D. From D up to the end divide into
three and in the first place a. Fran a to the
end divide into three steps and in the first
[f ourthj backward place E and from E up to the
end divide into three and at the first step
place J:t • Likewise divide from c to the end
into two and in the third backv1ard place F.
Divide from F to the end into four steps and
in the first place b.19
Anot..~er method of dividing the organistrum is found
in the third chapter of the De mensura fistularum in
20
organ1s. This chapter, entitled "Mansura organistri,"
again relates only the means of detvrmining the proper
measurement for the placement of the stops. The result

19. Odo of St. Maur, guomodo organistrum construatur,

~ I, 303.
20. Anon~mous, De mensura fistularum in organis, GS II,
283-286.
 380

Diagram 83. Odo of 5t. Ncwr (Cluny), Quomodo or9<ln1strum cooshuci.tur (co.. l<X10.

Notes: 8

Completed Monochord: Pythaljot'"eanTuni"1 ·

f1 P ~: F <f ~ tr r
I
I
er I
I
i I
I
3 I
I
2 I
I
I
.,
.!.
D
I ; S7' 3 I z. I I 1
I I I I T
D
I I
a..
I :I.. I J l
I I I 1
s
f
I
., Q.
I :;t I z. I I .i.
I I I I 3
{,
E
I
I
F
I

~
~
I
c
;a.. I
I
.)
,.
2.

'I I I 2. I 3
- y
I
I
' I --
F b
8 I
•
"
I I I 3 I

I I I I
 381

(Diagram 84) is the same as in Odo's division, although

this treatise uses an ascending division.

Clavichord
According to all available evidence the clavichord
was invented some time in the fourteenth century. Precise
infonnation about how this instrument was devisod is not
available, so the above conclusion is based mainly on evi-
dence that as early as 1400 the clavichord was constructed
with several octaves of keys and eight strings (See Plates
20 and 21). Even in 1511 the origins of the clavichord
were not detenninable, for Sebastian Virdung canmented that:
I was never able to find out who first
conceived the idea of placing keys at certain
points (in accordance with the disdiapason),
which struck the string exactly on the same
places [that one establishes in dividing the
monochord], thus producing at each point the
same note which the disdiapason naturally
gives. Neither do I know who, by virtue of
these keysi named the instrument the clavi-
chordium.2
In Chapter I (pp. 4-6, above) it was pointed out
that the monochord of the early Renaissance often had more
than one string, but that the designation "monochord" was
retained as long as these strings were tuned in unison.

21. Sebastian Virdung, Musica Getutscht (Basel, 1511),

facsimile ed., ed. by Leo Scbl'ade (Kassel:
Bllrenreiter, 1931), E., ii, v.
 382

Diagram B+. Anon.1 , ~.[ > 283-28' 1 De. t11ensura. f i5tulo.rurn in or9a.ri1s (~ //tt.Cl

Direct ion: Af!>Cendif1'J· Measurements: '3 '1->q· 1 Notes: 'I.

Completed Monochord: Pytha.~oreo.n Tvning1

c D
I
E IF
I
G- A
I I
,,~
I I I
c
I
I I
S~eps
IC ,, •
Propcr-t iorts
q 'e
I i. ) !$
" if
2. '2. , ~
• q 9
l"
F
3 l. ;J ~ .l
1
G-
4 c I. 3 ..&.

5
0 A 2 >
'
l..
3
r= b .a. 4

'
3
l
7 E' l::f .& ~
2.
3
B G- c z 4
i
 383

Not counting the monochord of the Greeks, this increase

in the number of strings can be definitely traced back as
far as the first half of the fourteenth century, when the
author of the Qu.atuor principalia (~. 1350) recommends two
strings, 22 and Jean de Muris (1290-1351) says that the
23
monochord could have four strings. An even earlier medi-
eval use of the multi-stringed instr~nent was mentioned by
the theorist Michael Bl"Yennios (£!• 1320), who discussed
Ptolemy's variant of the monochord (see p. 66, fh 33, above)
24
in a commentary on Ftolemy's Harmonics, but Bryennios's
canments apparently exerted little influence on the addi-
tion of strings to the monochord.
The common idea that the mono.chord existed as early
as the eleventh century with eight strings and in the
·fourteenth century with as many as nineteen strings is an
error of interpretation perpetuated by many writers. 25

22. Anonymous (Tunstede), Quatuor principalia, CS IV,

208.
23. Jean de Muris, Musica speculativa, Q.§. III, 252.
24. John Wallis, Opera mathematica: Porphyr11 in
harmonica Pto!emaei camnentar!us; Manue!is Bryennii
bal'lllonica, 3 vols. (London, 1693-96), III.
25. Cf. Gustave Reese, Music in the Middle A~es (New
York: W. w. Norton and C0':",~40); and urt Sachs,
.£1?• cit., 270.
 384

Although Theoger of Metz (late eleventh century) is cited

as the source of the eight-stringed instrument and Jean
de Mur:ts as the source of the nineteen-stringed instrument,
further study of their writings shows that they are using
the word "strings" (chordas) to indicate segments or divi-
si ens of one main string (see The oger 's c Onmients on pp.
146-47, above). This is made clear by Muris, who, at the
end of the monochord division given in the Musica specula-
tiva, says that "the instrument • • • contains nineteen
strings [ chorda.s], namely tWice the octave with the dia-
pente, al though this could be augmented furthe1•. " 26 Since
Mu_.ris has just completed his division of the single string,
this statement means that one could ad~more notes by making
still smaller divisions of the string if he wished, which
is much the same as Guido's remark, upon the canpletion
of his division, some 400 years earli~r: "In the same
manner you would thus be able to progress up or down in-
definitely, except that a maxim of art by its authority
would restrain you. u 27
Further proof that these statements should be
interpreted to mean shorter segments of the same string

26. Jean de Mur1s, Musica sieculativa, GS III, 283. The

monochord division is d:scussed on pp. 151-52, above.
27. Guido, M1crologus, Q.§_ II, 5.
 385

rather than multiple strings is found in the following

evidence. To this writer's lmowledge, no author of the
medieval o.r Renaissance period ever uses the word "mono-
chordii in reference to an instrument that has more than
one string unless the strings are all tuned in unison.
The contexts of Theoger's and Muris's statements clearly
indicate a different string length for each note; further-
more, these writers were so conversant with the technique
of the instrument that they used the terms "note" (pitch)
and "string length" synonymously in reference to the mono-
chord, as in the following literal translation of remarks
by Wilhelm of Hirsau (d. 1091):
All construction of the regular monochord
consists of' fifteen strings in two distinct
octaves, of which the lower is the Froslamb-
ananenos up to the Mase and the higher fran the
Mese up to the Neta Hy~erbolaion. On both
sides it contains, as was noted, seven distinct
voices. In the same fifteen strings are found
the names of the tetrachords.28
If one substitutes the word "notes" for. "strings 11 the true
intent of Wilhelm's statement is easily underBtood. Because
of the context of Wilhelm's remarks, no one has referred to
his fifteen strings as anything other than divisions of a
single-stringed monochord, yet his usage of the word is the
same as that of the others, which helps to show that some

28. Wilhelm of Hi.rsau, Musica, ~ II, 155.

 386

modern interpretations of 'nleoger's and Muri.sis use of the

word chordas are based ·on a faulty understanding of t..lle
monochord, and that while a multi-stri~ged monochord did
exist in the late medieval period it contained only strings
of the same length and tuning.
All of the strings of the early clavichord were ot
the same length and tuned in unison, like the strings of
sane monochords; because of this the clavichord was fre~

quently called a monochord, ~ verbal usage that continued

in Europe and England until the mid-fifteenth century.
The earliest appearance in written literature of the word
"clavichord" is in Eberhard Cersnes 's poem ~Minne 113gel
of 1404, 29 while the earliest complete account of the con-
struction and design of the clavichord is found in ·the manu-
30
script (1477) of Henri Arnault of Zwolle. A pictorial
representation (Plate 19) in the mid-fifteenth century
Weimarer Wunderbuch (£!• 1440) shows a small keyboard in-
strument with nine strings.
A Dutch woodcarving from about 1450 shows another
clavichord with its cover opened. This instrument appar-
ently has eight strings, but it is impossible to tell fran

29. Sachs, .2R,• cit., 331.

30. Given in full in G. Le Cerf, ed., Les Trait6s d'Henri-
Arnault de Zwolle et de divers Ano.es (PiiMs"i"
Picard, !9'32). - -
 387

either this illustration or the preceding one how the

tangents are placed. An earlier representation, dated .

Plate 19. Iste medieval drawing of a clavichord. 31

r ·". '··". _
~
. . . -~,""7~~,.·. ··:·,-.~.~~ ··:·J:rw~r!;;'.:·.·
u·· •

. ,•
,, •'
,. : I::• ~~ ~·'.·~:~
.
.: ::'.~~
·:~
:;.<~.

"' . - :1 . . ;
•· -·· . . .'
r. ~
,,
'•
!- .~: ..:· ·: . .....' :' -
.. ·:
... · ~·~~
,
·. ·i.t
.:. ~.~·,

about 1400, is on the ceiling of a Barcelona chapel. This

picture (Plate 21), which shows contemporary instruments
in the hands of angels, depicts a small clavichord of about
the same size as the one in Plate 20, and is apparently
the earliest known representation of the instrument in
European sources.

31. Shown in Philip James, Earlb Ke~board Instruments

(London: Peter Dlvies, 193 ), 2.
 388

Plate 20. A Dutch woodcarving or a clavichord. 32

These clavichords, like the monochords, are all

constructed in the fozm of a square box with several
strings. '!he key mechanism of these instru:nents is so
contrived as to make several notes playable on one string.

32. Rijks Museum, Amsterdam, shown in Kinsky, ~· oit.,

64.
 389

33
Plate 21. Angel playing a clavichord.

These tangents serve the same purpose as the movable bridge

of the monochord, or the tangents of the organistrun., and
their placement is determined in the same manner as the
placement of the monochord's bridge. A keyed monochord
with a single string was developed by Conrad von Zabern in
the first half of the fifteenth century. 34 This

33. Ceiling of the chapel of the Casa I8lmases 1 Barcelona,

shown in Walter Starkie, Espagne, 2 vols. \Paris:
Kistler, 1959), I, 130.
34. This instrument is described, with illustrations, in
great detail in K. W. Gum.pal, 11 Das Tasten Monochord
Conrads von Zabern," Archiv ftir 'Musikwissenschaft,
XII (1955), 143-166.
 390

instrument's tangents replaced the movable bridge,. divid-

ing the one string into the proper lengths as with the
fretted.clavichord.

Trc:mba Marina
The tromba marina, a descendant of the monocho!'d,
is apparently derived fran an intennediate group of instru-
ments with two or three strings called dicordes or tri-
cordes. These latter instruments, said to have originated
about 1200, are nothing more than bowed monochords that
use a finger in place of the movable br:tdge. The real
trc:mba marina' -- that is, an instrument equipped with the
characteristic vibrating bridge -- was invented in the
mid-fifteenth century. The later history of the trom.ba
marina has been adequately recorded by both F. W. Galpin 35
and Paul Ge.rnault, 36 but information on the earlier history
and development of the instrument is not available in
modern sources. For these reasons the ensuing discussion
is mainly concentrated on the tromba marina before 1650,
with only brief comments on its later use.

35. F. W. Galpin, "Monsieur Prin and his Trumpet Marine,"

Music and Letters, XIV (1933), 18-30.
36. Paul Ge.rnault, Ia Trompette Marine (Nice: Chez
liauteur, 1926):-
 391

The dicordes and tricordes, which preceded the

tranba marina, were prevalent in the fourteenth and fif-
teenth centuries. Curt Sachs mentions two representations
of triangular-shaped instruments in French art works of
the twelfth and fourteenth centuries, 37 but the original
sources are at present unavailable. The earliest repre-
sentation to come to the attention of this author is a
carving of an angel playing a rectangular dicorde (Plate
21). This kind of inst1T\lil'l.ent, of which another example is
shown on the left side of Plate 22, apparently gained some
popularity as a bass instrument, with variants surviving
throughout the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries.
It is hard to tell in the latter illustration whether the
Centaur is fingering both strings or only one, but the
,
angel in Plate 21 is fingering only one string. Judging
by the position of the bow, the other string is a drone.
The use of the unfingered ·strings of these instruments as
drones, or even the employment of the whole instrument as
a drone, must have been a popular practice in this era,
for the tricord in Plate 23 is being played without any
fingering. Such instruments as these are frequently, but
arroneously, called tromba marina because they are played

37. Sachs, ~· cit., 290.

 392

Plate 22. .Centaurs playing a dioorde

and a hurdy-gurdy.38 ·

with the unsupported !ower end raised. Plate 24 suggests

that this group or instruments probably was still in use
in the early sixteenth century.
All or the dicordes and tricordes discussed so rar
lacke·d the vibrating bridge or the tranba marina. A.vail-
able evidence indicates that this reature was added

38. Basel Cathedral, woodcarving in choirlort, 1432,

shown in Max F. Schneider, Alte Musik in der bildenden
Kunst Basels (Basel: Holbein, 1941), 'P!ate""924.
 393

Plate 2:s. Detail fran 11 La Fuente de la Vida"

by a: ,disciple ot· van Eyck. 39

sometime around the middle of the fifteenth century,

apparently to increase tha volume of the drone. Refer-
ences to the use of the harmonic series and the trumpet-
like tone pr0duced by the vibrating bridge are not found
before 1547 (see pp. 397-99, below) -- a century after
the oupposed invention of the latter; even this reference
is ambiguous.
In the intervening time ( 1450-1547) the dicorde
with the vi bra ting bridge -- a true tranba marina -- was
still played as a dicorde, with the string carried by the

39. Early fifteenth century, shown in Subira, ~· cit.,

I, 303.
 394

Plate 24. Hans Burgkmair: Kaiser Max1millian

Ulld die Musik, 1516.40

vibrating bridge acting as a drone. Plates 25 and 26

both show these instruments with the lower end raised. In
Plate 25 the angel appears to be fingering only the shorter
string, in which case the lon.ger string is sounded as a
drone. In Holbein's portrayal of "Der Kr!bner" (Plate 26),
the instrument seems to be used particularly for the
percussive rattle of 'the bf;ldge.

40. Shown in Kinsky, E.E,• cit., 75.

 395

41
Plate 25. Hans Memling: Concert of Angels, ca. 1490.

Written information on how this instrument was

used does not appear before the publication of Glareanus's
Dodecachordon in 154'7. Sebastian Virdung, in his Musica
Getutscht ( 1511), calls it a useless instrument, but he
42
says nothing about the mode o"'f ptaying it. The instrument
pictured by Virdung resembles the one shown in Plate 25.
It would seem that the manner of holdine it that was
described above (that is, with the lower end raised with-
out support) would preclude any manual facility, because

41. Shown in Sachs, .2.E.• cit., Plate XVIII.

42. Vi rdung, .2E,. cit. , B. , 11, v.
 396

Plate 26. Holbein: Der Krlmer, ca. 1525. 43

..

the left hand would be occupied with supporting the in-

strument, but this was the way described by Glareanus.
His comments are confusing, because at one manent he speaks
of the trumpet-like sound only later to describe the snarl-
ing sound produced by the vibrating bridge. This apparent
contradiction, together with other comments, leaves the
issue in doubt. In any case, according to him, the

43. Shown in Schneider, E.12• cit., Plate 56.

 397

"trumpet-like sound" of the tr0nba marina was not used

beyond the seventh harmonic; that is, the upper partials,
which produce the diatonic notes, were evidently not
played. Here are bis own words.
Germans and French dwelling near the
Rhine have instruments in use today • • •
made from three slender boards joined to-
gether in the maIU'.ler of a triangular pyramid
and gradually drawn together toward a point,
which they call a trumscheit; it has a string
held above the surface between bridges which
is struck or rather scraped by a bow made of
horsehair besmeared with rosin with which they
scrape rather than strike the strings of a
lyra at present. Some add another string
half as long to this one so that this other
strine may sound the octave. • • • Pla7ers
go about through the streets keeping fixed
at the breast the ·point where the pegs are
located, and through which the strings are
drawn; they hold the instrument on the left
side at the other wide pa.rt where the base
and the hollow part lie open, lightly touch-
ing the string with the thumb in points of
division (for they also have these, but in
fourths and fifths, and sanet1mes in thirds),
and the bow is ··drawn by the right hand. The
depth of the string begins at the base and
extends to the point which is placed at the
breast. The left hand is extended with a
finger, mostly the thumb, touching the string
repeatedly. The right hand keeps the bow
within the limits of touching, so that a
constantly smaller part of the string which
is within the contact will sound. It pro-
duces a more nearly agreeable tone at a
distance than close at hand. They, like the
trumpeters, play suitably on this instrument
in only two modes, the Ionian and the
Hypoionian, but not in the others • • • •
 398

'lhose who play it produce the octave through

the fourth and fifth as already has been said.
They find semitones and whole tones with dif-
ficulty, since they are ignorant of the art
of music. Indeed, at first they tried to
convince me that these tones could not be
found on this instrument, and because I was
greatly astonished by this and wished to learn
it thoroughly in an experiment, having ac-
cepted an instrument of this sort from some-
one, I attempted the thing by myself; at
length I find that this happens to them partly
because of inexperience in musical matters,
since they do not know how to divide the
spaces other than with a thick finger, partly
because the longer string on this instrument
produces a certain whirring sound, assuredly
not in every division of the string but mostly
with fifths and thirds, not with seconds, that
is, with a whole tone or a semitone; in this
I found that they have spoken the truth. They
have created the drumning noise itself by
means of a certain curved bridge, the one wider
and thicker foot of which supports the string
to the triangular base, the other foot of which,
extended in a shortened manner, to which they
have affixed a solid substance either of ebony
or another hard shining materiel, causes this
vibrating sound. I bad to laugh at tbis de-
vice of men. Nevertheless I am still investi-
gating the real reason why not all divisions
[of the string) result in the drumming sound.
Sometimes they drive a very thin nail into the
heel end of this extended foot so that the
vibrating may ring more strongly on the solid
surface. • • •
The length of the triangular monochords
at the present time is almost five feet, the
Width of each of the three laths is three and
one-hal~ inches at the base, one and one-half
inches, however, at the apex. We have said
so much about this beyond our custom because
we consider it more nearly resembling the
ancient monochord, since indeed any use of it
has been by the people, and not just among the
 399

learned; also, because the chranatic and en-

harm,onic scales equally can be found on it,
and 'too, the diatonic scale itself is made
visible, according to the expression, in
demonstration; this cannot occur in all
respects in other instruments; in fact, it
occurs in almost none which we use at this
time.44

Plate 27. Glareanus's tromba marina. 45

Glareanus's camnents on the tranba marina were

quoted in full by Michael Praetorius in the Syntagina
Musicum (1619). Praetorius, however, adds some comments

44. Henricus Glareanus, Dodecachordon (Basel, 1547),

tr. by Clement Miller (unpublished dissertation,
University of Michigan, 1950), 138-139.
45. Ibid., 136.
 400

of his own which imply a shift of technique toward the

Baroque style of playing, as well as toward the instru-
ment of the mid-Baroque era.
The trumpet marine, as I have seen it
(and I am ·in possession of one) is seven feet,
three inches long. At its triangular base,
each edge is seven inches wide, but hardly
two inches wide at the top •. It is spanned
with four strings, such that the principal
and longest string is tuned to C, the second
to c, the third to g and fourth to cc. The
upper three strings are used as drones, al-
ways sounding c g cc; but the actual melody
is produced on the lowest string by contact
of the thumb. And when this instrument is
heard fran a distance it sounds no other than
as if four trumpets were blowing together in
lovely concord. Otherwise in all respects
it is the same as was indicated above by
Gla reanus • 46
Praetorius's description of the instrument suggests that
by his time the shorter strings were not the main feature
of the tranba marina, as they seemed to have been earlier.
This interesting feature was restored as an integral part
of the instrument in the late seventeenth century, in the
form of internal sympathetic strings.
Marin Mersenne provides a cc:mplete and scientific
description of the capabilities of the tromba marina. In
contrasting this "mod.ern 11 instrument with the kind

46. Michael Praetorius, Stntafla Musicum, Vol. II, De

Organo~raphia (Wolfen «tt~, 1619), first anasecond
parts r. by Harold Blumenfeld (New Haven:. The
Chinese Printing Office, Yale University, 1949), 59.
 401

/
Plate 28. Praetoriusrs tranba I

marina.4'7

presented by Glareanus a century

earlier, he presents a full picture
·,

of the capabilities of the tromba

marina as it was used until about
1'750. The following passage fran
the Harmonie universelle is selected
fran Proposition XII of the Fourth
Book of Stringed Instruments. ; ''.I
I

Although one could give

the name monochord to this in- .•
strument, nevertheless it is
called tranba marina, whether
because the sailors invented ... ;

1 t or because 1 t im1 tates the

tones and the songs of the
ordinary trumpet so well that
there is almost no means of
distinguishing the one .t'ran
the othor. It also has many . ··~· ...
very remarkable things that I
shall explain, after having
given its construction ( Plate
29]. Now I give here two di.t'-
ferent fi~res, of which on the
right hand [Fig. l] ACED repre-
sents its older shape, and that
on the left [ Fig. 2 J shows the '
new .t'orm that has been found
more canfortable and better
for resounding. • ••

·4'7. Micha.el Praetorius, Synta~a

Mus1cum (Wolfenbftttel, 16 ),
3 vols., facsimile ed. {Kassel:
BArenreiter, 1958), II, Plate
XXI.
 402

As to the bridge GH it is Plate 29.

easily removed fran. under the
string when one wishes, and has Mersenne 1 s trombas
only its leg G which leans marinas.48
firmly on the table, for the
other leg H lightly touches the
little square piece of glass,
ivory or metal which is glued
onto the table, so that this leg
makes little qua.verings upon
it. • • • One puts further a
small end of ivory or horn at
the end of the leg H, so that
it strikes the glass very
strongly.
The second string Q does
not need any glass, and suc-
ceeds better than the other, as
I shall say in explaining tha J
second figure .. L signifies the
bridge, across which it passes
to go to the hole which follows
after. Still it would be more
suitable to say that the small
cll.rved piece of wood L is the
true bridge, since the tones of
the string begin at L.
Now I have given this
second string at the fifth of
the first GN, because it fur-
nishes great variety to the
tones of this trumpet. The
numbers which go from one to
eleven show its more notable
pitches, of which the first is
made by playing the open string,
and the second, third, fourth,
fifth, etc., are heard when one
stops with the thumb or the
index finger at the places
·marked by these numbers.
But before explaining all
of its tones and the method of
playing and stopping it, I

48. Mersenne, _2E• cit., 276.

 403

come to the second figure ( 2] PS, of which

the neck shows its three sides so as to re-
veal that one can make this tr~pet with three
sides or three tables; each of them will have
a string similar to the string Z, which would
be shorter in whatever ratio one would wish,
so that it makes the sound of the Claron [ sic1,
and all sorts of trumpets; and in that case--J
the neck ought to be made a point, so that one
finds place for the three pegs. The bridg~Y
is seen in 1 ts· true size in the figure a. /:Jo- ,
the notch or indentation ~ of which shows the
place where the string presses, and the endd'
is that which leans lightly on the table, so
that it is raised and beats very quickly on
the table when one presses the string with
the bow.
At this point we must first of all remark
that it is very difficult to fit this bridge
so tbP.t 1 t trembles as it must, for if one
just goes wrong, the quivering becanes too
strong and disagreeable or too weak. Thus one
is often many hours in finding the point of
perfection that he desires. Secondly, one
uses a small piece of wood that is grafted
into a slot made on the other bridge X, which
is glued onto the table, so that the said
piece serves as a mobile bridge to be moved
to the right or left until the bridge Y is
exactly at the spot where it trembles moder-
ately to contribute to the vibration of the
string to make the sound cf the trumpet.
Thirdly, I have marked all the letters
of the gamut, or the haI'm.onic scale of Guido
d'Arezzo on one of the sides of this instru-
ment, so that one can use it as a mono-
chord. • • • Now the side Pt is a very
exact monochord, which begins with G ut,
A re and B mi, etc., up to the twentieth
diction of·· the hannonic hand E la. • • •
The first point where this instrument
begins to make the pitch of the trumpet
after that of the open string is marked by
the first dotted line opposite to de, that is
to say it makes the twelfth with the string
played open, inasmuch as Pd is three-halves
 404

that of PP • The second tone is made at tbs

second dotted line g; the third at the third
BB, and the fourth at the fourth dd, and the
[f'if'th] • • • at the (fifth] • • • marked
with tlie number 2. Thus these five tones
correspond to these tour numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 8.
As to the other tones wQ.ich follow by degrees,
they are marked by the lti veJ numbers follow-
ing 2, that is, by 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, which
make all the degrees of' the major hexa.chord
by including the tone fran the point 2.
As to the method of playing this instru-
ment, it is so difficult that one meets few
men who play it well, because the thumb or
another finger must run with a certain measure
and speed, from the number 7 to the d which
makes the first tone, which is not easy to
imitate, nevertheless I do not doubt but.that
it would be played perfectly if' one should
employ as much time as is done in playing
the viol or the lute. If one should begin by
playing at the trembling bridge Y, he would
find the same points and d.1v1&1ons which are
encOlmtered above, as experience teaches. But
it is ·more convenient to play the bow above
fran P to 7, because one has the peg close to
the hand for tying or untying the strings and
the thumb plays more easily. Here it must be
noted that the string imitates the tone of
the military tI'Umpet more perfectly as it is
more extended, and it ought to be neither too
thick nor too thin. 'lhe thickest raquet
strings, that is to say those which are made 49
of a dozen sheep guts, are of' good thickness.
In examining the origins and developnent of this
instrument through the early seventeenth century, this
writer has purposely avoided the controversy about the
exact origin of its name, preferring to refer to it only

49. Marin Mersenne, Harmonie universelle (1635), t~. by

Roger Chapman (The Hague: Nijhott, 1957), 276-279.
 405

as the tl'anba marina. The latel' history of the tranba

~arina and its nanenclature is l'eadily accessible to the
interested reader, and further comments could add little
to what is already written elsewhere.
As a final note to these colllIIlents on the tromba
marina, Plate 30 is a satirical engraving by Nicolas de
Iarmessin (~. 1700) which shows, on the right aI'Dl of the
player, an example of the tablature used for the instru-
ment in the latter part of the seventeenth century. A
transcription of this piece (from the picture), along
with a sympathetic account of the eighteenth-century
virtuoso~. B. Prin, is in Galpin's extensive article in
50
Volume XIV of t'Iusic and Letters.
---
The Monochord as an Aid in Instrument Construction

Between the years 1000 and· 1700 the monochord was

frequently used to determine the scale patterns of certain
other instruments. This was done in one of two ways:
measurements derived frcm the monochord division were ap-
plied to the construction of organs and bells, and the
techniques of dividing the monochord were applied to the
placing of frets on stringed instruments and tangents on

50. See fn. 35:ori p. 390 above.

 406

Plate 30. Ni~olasde Le.rmessin: A Musician's

Dress, ca. 1700.51

clavichords. The assertion that monochord techniques

were used in the fret ting of stringed instruments may be
debatable, but it seems reasonable that, because of the
widespread knowledge of the monochord, many of the tunings
and techniques used on other instruments were first de-
veloped through experimentation with the monochord. The
following paragraphs survey the use ·of the monochord in

51. Shown in Garnault, ~· c1 t., Addendum.

 407

the first capacity mentioned above, and conclude with

the application of monochord techniques to other 1nstru-
ments.

The Role of the Monochord in the

constrilc"tIOn
of Bells and Organs

The medieval treatises that deal with the construe-

tion or bells and organs are usually nothing more than sets
of monochord divisions. In general they do not give spe-
cific info:mi.ation on the actual construction of the instru-
ments, being only theoretical discussions from a musical
point of view. Although sane la tar treatises present all
of the main elements of construction, including measure-
ments, this discussion covers only the role of the mono-
chord in determining these measurements, since the actual
details of casting a set of bells or building an organ
include many considerations not directly related to our
study.
J. Smits vap Waesberghe's study of the bells of
the Middle Ages contains most of the available treatises
of this period.. 52 Virtually all of the manuscripts compiled
in this book are nothing more than one-octave monochord
divisions of the major scale in the Pythagorean tuning,

52. J. Sm.its van Waesberghe, ~bala (Rane: American

Institute of Musicology, 1 1).
 408

differing only in the manner of division and occasionally

in notation. These writings do not generally contain any
specific infonnation about· casting the bells or of the
materials used. In his prefatory ca:nments Waesberghe
writes that the proportions used in these divisions were
first worked out on the monochord., after which the dimen-
sions were used to detennine the diameter of' the bell. 53
This, of course, is only the first of many measurements
determined from the basic di visions, for in addition to
the diameter, one must also calculate "the weight of the
bell, its height, and the thickness of its various parts.
All of these are considered critical and a~e required for
a good-sounding bell.
Even in the Renaissance, bell treatises are re-
stricted to discussions of some of the simpler measure-
ments. Martin Agricola gives the weights of the wax to be
54
used in making the molds, but neither he nor Mersenne
go beyond the fundamental measurements. Mersenne's dis-
cussion, one of the more ~omprehensive works on the
subject, still begins the measurements with ~eferences

53. Ibid.' 20-21.

54. Martin Agricola, Musica 1nstrum.entalis deutsch,
4th ed. (Wittenberg: Georgen Hhaw, 1545), 274.
 409

to the monochord, indicating that this process still

55
existed in the seventeenth century.
The organ-building treatises of the Middle Ages
follow the same pattern as those dealing .with bells. The
organ works, all short, are mainly concerned with deter-
mining the dimensions of the pipes, and in most cases
they do not even bother to give directions for determining
the diameter of the pipes. Diagram 85 shows a typical
monochord division designed for the purpose of measuring
pipes; like most of the divisions for organ, it is a
division of the major scale in the Pythagorean tuning.
Many of these tracts use the letters A-a to represent C-c.
In the later periods many writers use the expres-
sion "framing the monochord" in reference to the measure-
ment of the pipes. An exact definition of this phrase has
not been found by this writer, but it is believed to refer
to the method of determining the diameter of the pipes in
relation to the lengths calculated on the monochord. In
this respect, Mersenne states that the diameter of a pipe
decreases in the same amount that its length decreases;
that is, in order to make a pipe sound an octave higher,
56
one should halve both its length and diameter.

55. Mersanne, .2.£• cit., 502-545.

56. Ibid., 421.
 410

Diagram 85. Aribonis) De· music.o. (1070).

Direct ion: Ascend1'nc:J. Measurements: 3 ,4. Notes: 8.

Completed Monochord : Pytho.qorea..n Tunin9.

A 9 cI D E F
I
s11G

I A
r
I
S~ep~
' I I

D
I I

.
I
Proport ior,s
I3
I I
I
~
I
:. I

'
• 4
2 A I F ~
'
:J 2
I I
3
E
3 :=i . 'f I
)
I
~ I I ~
' )

4 ~ I F
I :a. I :> 2.
' I
3
c F
5 I 4 I J I ~ l i.
3
c G-
"7 I
I

D
I
I

I ~yn
I
'
a.
~

I
I
'
Jo I
.3

. 1
1-
3

I I
+
 411

Diagram 86 shows one method of indicating the decreasing

di~eters of a set of pipes. The lengths of the pipes are

Diagram 86. Mersenne 1 s determination of the

diameters of organ pipes.

. .. ... -...
c c.
....

determined by a manual monochord division in the just

tuning. The diameter of ·the largest pipe (C9) 1s the
distance Ca. A diagonal extended from a to 9 will show
the correct diameter for each of the intervening notes:
for example, the length cQ is one-halt ce, and the dia-
meter cl is one-half Ca.
!bdias Trew, in his Disputatio musica, presents
a similar explanation of the manner of determining the
57
lengths and widths of organ pipes. Diagram 87 shows,

57. Abdias Trew, Disputatio musica de divisione

monoc hordi {A.ltdort:ti : Georgi Irigen, 1662 f, 3.
 412

Dlagl'am 87. Diagl'am fl'an Abd.1as Tl'ew 1 s

,ptsputatio musica.
 413

among other things, the application of a monochord divi-

sion to the pipes. Trew's diagram, however, is not as
clearly explained as that of Mersenne.

The Application of Monochord Techniques

"tc>9tne Construct!On of Other Instrtn.nents
The period of adaptation of monochord techniques
to the construction of fretted instruments, clavichords and
tuning pipes is restricted mainly to the Renaissance and
Baroque eras (.£!• 1450-1750). The role of the monochord
in the invention of the clavichord was discussed earlier
in this chapter, but it remains to be said that the placing
of the tangents by means of a monochord division survived
throughout the life of the fretted clavichord. With the
adoption of the unfretted instrument, the monochord was
then reduced to the role of a tuning instrtn.nent in the
manner discussed in Chapter v.
The makers and players of fretted stringed instru-
ments of ten used the technique of the manual monochord
division to place the frets on their instruments. This
practice, which reached its height in the Renaissance
period, apparently fell into disuse about the same time
as the manual monochord division (around 1700). It would

58. Ibid.
 _4U

be possible, by extension, to place all of the discussions

of fretting in the same category as the manual monochord
division, but since the purpose of this study is to deter-
mine the practice of the monochord, only three examples
of this application of monochord-derived techniques will
be cited.
The Regola Rubertina of Sylvestre Ganassi, pub-
lished in 1543, contains directions for the placing of
frets on the viol, which would result in a just tuning
with mean semitones, some of which are tempered. Ganassi
directed that the note B be placed by means of a sub-
sesqu1octava proportion (second fret); the note D by means
of a sub-sesqu1tertia proportion (fifth fret); and the
note E by means of a sub-sesquialtera proportion (seventh
fret). D-sharp (sixth fret) is placed by means of an
arithmetical division of the interval between D and E.
The distance fran E (seventh fret) to F (eighth fret) is
the same as the distance between D and D-sharp or D-sharp
and E. The note B-flat (first fret) is placed like the
D-sharp (sixth fret), that is, by means of an arithmetical
division of the interval ABe C (third fret) is placed in
the same manner as F (eighth fret), which is to say, the
interval BC equals the interval between A and B-flat or
B-flat and B-natural. The note C-sharp (fourth fret) is
 415

found by means of an arithmetical division of the interval

CD. The completion of these directions results in a just
tuning with mean semitones. However, Ganassi directed
that three of these intervals were to be tempered in the
following manner. The first fret (B-flat) was to be raised
(that is, moved toward the bridge) the distance of one-half
the width of the fret. The second fret (B-natural) was to
be similarly altered by its own total width. The sixth
fret was to be lowered (that is, moved toward the nut)
the distance of the width of the fret. 59 Ganassi's drawing
of tb~s division is shown in Plate 31. Ganassi also

60
Plate 31. Ganassi 's method of fretting the viol.

59. Silvestro Ganassi, Regola Ru.bertina, 2nd ed.

(1543), facsimile ed. (Leipzig: Kistner und
Siegel, 1924), Chap. IV.
60. Ibid.
 416

indicated that a similar procedure was to be followed

in fretting the lute.
Juan Bennudo, in his Declaracion de Instrumentos
musicales (1555), presents a manual met.hod of placing the
61
frets on the seven-stringed vihuela. This division in-
cludes several intervals that are tempered by two-thirds
of a syntonic camna (Diagram 88, steps 9, J2). There is
no provision made for the note F-sharp in Bennudo's direc-
tions. It is interesting to see hew closely this division
corresponds to many of the monochord divisions discussed
in Chapters IV and V, a similarity that is made more
obvious when Bennudo's division is contrasted with
Ganassi's, which appears to have been designed in connec-
tion with the viol because of the tempering of some notes
according to the width of the viol's frets.
John Dowland 1 s fretting of the lute, printed in
his son Robert's Varietie 2! ~Lessons (1610), is much
like a Pythagorean division of the monochord except that
Dowland places same of the semitones arithmetically (e.g.,

61. Juan Bennudo, Declaracion de Instrumentos musicales

{Ossuna, 1555), facsimile ea.
(Kassel: BHrenreiter,
1955), fol. CIX r, v.
 417

Diagram 88. Juan BQrmudo > Dec. fa.ra.tion de. Instrumentos mvs1cala (l~.55)
Mea.surements: Z., 3, t,5,Cf. Note': /f.

Completed Monochord: Just Tuning with Meo.n Semitones.

. I
I
~b ~ r ~~ r ~h ~ F ~ I
Steps PropoP'tiot1•
I 1£' ~ .z. I I
i=-----------------------------1,'----------------------------~1"
(. 3 (;.. .Z 1 I l
2
--------------+:------~------f--:------...:;;;....-----+-,----__;;-------i2
C F 4 1
31------·~-------1--:----='-----+:-----2-----+:----~l::;...___-+:-----'-----~,
Bb F a. .l.
41---------·~,·---------')::;..._______.___;--------------~:i--------~·-------1 z
pt> f:b
51----------l,l-------'-----+:-----=~:__ ____;1----__::;,______+,'-----....l....4____~ ~

1 :a. I > I 4
I 5
I " I " I 8 I ct t
?1-----~~---·--~·1--~1--+·--~':__+'---4:__+•--~'--+-'__::;'--+-'--?--+-'~·--~,~~~--~..Lq
I ~ I I I I I •
I

ar -+: ...
I

2. :
I
I
I
I
~
I
I' •
: i synton1c.c.ommo. 2.
'~--------~·-~·'------------------------------~~~~-i
·~ 3
h
m+------------~·1--~·--~·--=~::;..._+'--~~~--t=--~·~~~--r--·-~--+--~--~.__;;s~-r--·,.;._~t
I I I I I I
I I I
I

A :
11,______~·------·----~·i~·
I I I
---~----~'-----3'-----+'----~4----~·i-------~----1.!.
I I 5
I .
--1-i'
I

121--------------~llNf.-
:...I 5yntonic commo.
_____________________________________

A ·~ D
01------4:-------------:1--------~------+--
1
1
-----~------~:------~------~+
p .1. 1 3 1 " 3
/11------------~,1------------1,-----------1-,------"-----+-,----------~1
I t=
c;.tt. 4 c!" 3 Z I
5...._~:i--------------4:~----------~:i-----------.-.--!t--------------t
 418

D1agrmn 89. Toh n Dowlahd, from the V~netie of Lute Lessons (lbtO).

Direct ion: l\sc.e.hdin~- Measurements: Z,3 1 11. Notes: f 2.

Completed Monochord: IY"re~ulo.r' Ternpera.ment.

A,.... B C D F G/-f I E L N
-----+-+--t-···+-·~-4-+-+--f----------------.
I
S~ep' P ... oPortioris
I A
N
I
I I
I 2.

2. A I l. H ~
J\J 2.
I I
I -·- II
3
3 ~.lf-~5 I 6 I" I Sf If 1"111~ 2
Tt
J.
c 'l., ~ I I
I I
' 3
5 I
I
F
I
2..
~
I
I
T

b f1G2~
I I --, 2
I

7 ~ illl~ I llll41~ [f]

D F
8 I I
2 I
I I
' r
q B I
r ~
I I I I
J"
10 -·· . - - f - -
c I E ;,,.
I I
I )'
D L
II I
I ' •
I
2
'
I
J
I
 419

D.tagrBlll 89, step 6) instead of in the usual Pythagorean

manner. 62
Plate 32 shows the diagram provided by Otto Gibel,
in his Propositiones mathematico-musicae of 1666, for the
construction of a tuning pipe that was to be used for the
tuning of organs. Gibel 1 s directions state that a manual
division of a line is to be made in the just tuning (upper
right corner of Plate 32). In the second part of the
division (center of the plate) the comma is divided into
four equal parts. The just intervals of the first division
are then tempered by parts of this comma. The other parts
of the illustration are concerned with the remaining
63
measurements of the pipe.
The uses of the monochord that have been presented
in this chapter show that the monochord assumed an im-
portant place in the practice as well as in the theory
of music. The later part of the Middle Ages seemed to
have provided great impetus for musicians and instrument
makers to break away fran earlier restrictions placed on

62. Robert Dowland, Varietie of Lute Lessons (London:

Themas Adams, 1610), facs!iiiire-8d. (London: Schott
and Co., 1958), 15-17.
63. Otto Gibel, Propositiones mathematico-musicae
(Mlinchen: Heydorn, 1666), 4tr.
 420

,..
··l
.l

: .
' -
Dl

•. ~
I
~ ~

•.,

·.,
 421

instrumental music. The surge toward ever better means

of musical expression utilized several aspects of the mono-
chord, ·an indication th.at this instrument assumed an im-
portant role in the lives of many medieval and Renaissance
musicians. Not only does the monochord itself appear to
have been used in instrumental groups -- perhaps because
of its availability -- but several of its descendants,
that is, the dicordes and tricordes, appear to have been
frequently used to provide the lower parts for various
ensembles. The frequency of these instruments' appearance
as well as their use of drones may indica~e that secular
music was not the only place where this kind of bass was
employed. This would seem to be borne out by the pictures
of angels and religious groups with these instrum.ents in
hand.-. The other descendants of the monochord also attained
an important place in the musical practice of their re spec -
tive eras, and even in the present century the clavichord
bas figured in a significant revival of historical instru-
ments. Although the monochord itself no longer has a place
in the musical practice of our own times, it would seem to
be difficult to overestimate the influence that it once
exerted on the development of other instruments.

64. Ibid.
 422

Chapter VIII
THE! SYMBOLIC AND RELIGIOUS
. USES OF THE MONOCHORD
--.

The employment of the monochord for symbolic and

religious purposes is encountered not infrequently through-
out its period of greatest use (up to about 1700). In
1 ts role as a S'YlllbOllc device the monochord is only a
part of a widespread utilization of music to represent or
explain the intangible aspects of Man's enviromnent.
Two of the intangible aspects of the enviromnent
that were explained by means of music are the psychology
of behavior, and disease. The Greeks, in attempting to
understand and explain hum.an behavior, developed theories
of the emotional and moral influence of the modes. In
later eras a similar influence of music was also thou~t

to be particularly efficacious in the treatment and cure

of disease. Both of these applications survived the Greek
and medieval eras, so that one sees the supposed emotional
connotations of the modes culminating in the doctrine of
affec~ions in the eighteenth century. The employment of
music to t~eat disease still survives in music therapy.
A third intangible that was frequently explained
through music was the universe. Music was used in this
instance not necessarily to explain the workings of the
 423

universe so much as to relate the lllliverse to sanething

•
that was already understood; such a relation could be
established because music was in reality only simple
numbers -- and numbers were the foundation of all being •
•
The adoption of music as a way to explain the
unknown originated in the number symbolisms of the Pytha-
goreans. In the early Christian Church, number symbolism,
and consequently musical symbolism, was used to represent ·
the perfection or unity that existed in God. The symbolic
monochord, as an aspect of this number symbolism, was
developed in the later Middle Ages as a simple means of
showing the unity, through music, of man's environment
and God.·
Man's environment was always represented upon the
monochord by planetary symbols and the unity of God by
the single string. In some representations (Plate 33)
the hand of God, reaching fran the clouds, was shown
tuning the string. This feature was added to insure that
everyone would recognize the unifying power of God ex-
pressed in the single string. The planetary symbols in
this drawing, which are of Greek origin, are a manifesta-
tion ·of Pythagorean number s-ymbolism by the harmony of
the spheres; the expression of the unity of God is like-
wise a result of Pythagorean number symbolism, modified
 424

~late 33. A s-ymbolic illustration

ot the monochord.l
 425

in this instance by Christian interpretation. In some

representations, the Christian and Pythagorean symbolisms
are either combined with, or replaced by, elements of
Eastern mysticism in the form of the zodiac.
In ~rder to understand clearly how the harmony of
the spheres and Christian unity came to be represented· in
a single figure, the remainder of this chapter will dis-
cuss, in separate sections: the elements of Pythagorean
s-ymbolism, including concepts of the universe; the pene-
tration of Pythagoreanism into the Christian Church and
the early Middle Ages; the harmony of the spheres in
musical writings of the Middle Ages and Renaissance; and
the s-ymbolic uses of the monochord. Although the present
discussion of the bannony of the spheres .is limited
mainly to its appearances in musical treatises, references
to celestial music are found in all kinds of literature
up to the end of the eighteenth century. In discussing
the use of the monochord as a symbol, citations will be
made of non-believers as well as believers in order to
explain 1 ts significance to the musician.

1. Robert Fludd, Utriusgue cosmi (Oppenhemii: Galler:t,

1617)' 163.
 426

Elements :2£ Pythagorean Spibolism

The originality of the Pythagoreans came frcan the

. development of two fundamental principles: the deca4,
which contained all numbers and therefore all ti:lings; and
the gec:metric conception of mathematics. The Pythagoreans
observed that all their surroundines were based on numeri-
cal relationships. They found number pa.tterns in such
di verse elements as the growth of· plants and animals, the
daily movement of the sun and the changes of the seasons,
musical intervals, and the relationships of the planets.
Fran these they derived their interpretation of the cosmos
and a connection between number and being. The use of
music to represent many of these observations came about,
partly because of the general knowledge of music, and
partly because it appealed to the senses of sight and hear-
ing as well as providing·stimulus to the mind. The rela-
tionship of music to the numbers of the decad bas been
mentioned earlier in this study in the discussions of the
Pythagorean tuning. Its connection with the universe came
about through its numerical similarity to the Pythagorean
conception of geometrical mathematical relationships. By

means of the philosophical application of the decad and

the geanetrical conception of mathematics, the !7thagoreans
 427

and their successors develcped two interpretations of the

universe. The earliest of these, said to have originated
with Pythagoras hinrnelf, is represented by the harmony of
the spheres and may be said to be the more popular, con-
crete expression of the universe. The other interpretation,
best represented by the universe of Plato's Timaeus, is a
more abstract expression of the Pythagorean philosophies.

The Harmony £f. the Spheres

The harmony of the spheres, the more popular repre-
sentation of the Pythagorean universe, is mentioned by
many writers after Plato, appearing most prominently in
the works of the nee-Pythagorean and nee-Platonic writers.
One of its earliest detracto.rs was Aristotle, who, in the
treatise De caelo, ,laughingly derided the harmony of the
2
spheres as "Harmony, Heavenly Hazmony." Aristotle was,
of course, not overly sympathetic with the Pythagoreans;
besides ridiculing their concept of celestial music, he
also criticized their fundamental teachings. In his
conclusion on the relationships of numbers and things in
the Metaphysics he wrote:

2. Henry G. Farmer, Historical Facts for the Arabian

Musical Influence (London: W. Beevei,""J:'g'30), 107.
 428

Many troubles which these men have with the

generation of numbers and their inability
to bring them together in any coherent way
seems to indicate that mathematical entities
are not separate from sensible things, as
some would have them to be, and that they
are not the first principles.3
Aristotle's comments were often cited by writers of the
Middle Ages as good reasons for not believing in the
harmony of the spheres.
On the other hand, favorable references to the
theory were made by Aristotle's contemporary, Plato, who
used the harmony of the spheres as part of a representation
of the universe in his "Myth of Er." Cicero, in the second
century, B.O., also relied heavily on the idea of heavenly
music in the Dream of Scipio, describing it more in detail
than Plato had. In one passage, when Scipio asked: "What
is this great and pleasing sound that fills my ea~s?,"
he was answered: "That is a concord of tones sep:i.rated
by unequal but nevertheless carefully proportioned inter-

vals, caused by the rapid motion of the spheres themselves. rr 4

Cicero's comment a.bout the "unequal but nevertheless
carefully proportioned intervals," is indicative of the

Aristotle, Aristotle's Metaph{s1cs, tr. by Richard Hope

{New York: Columbia trniversi y Press, 1952), 318.
Macrobius, Camnentary on the Dream of Scipio, tr. by
William H. Stahl (New YOri:c:-- Columb!i' University Press,
1952), 72.
 429

direction taken by the writers of the early Christian era,

in whose works the discussion of the harmony of the
spheres usually centered around the intervals produced by
the planets rather than the symbolic aspects of the theory.
Fran the works of the nee-Pythagoreans Nicomachus,
Macrobius, Pliny, and Porphyry, Sir Thomas Stanley col-
lected the following quaint account of the harmony of the
spheres.
The names of sounds in all probability
were derived from the seven stars which move
circularly in the heavens and canpass the
earth. The circum-ag1tation of these bodies
must of necessity cause a sound; for air
being struck, from .the intervention of the
blow, sends forth a noise. Nature herself
c ens training that the violent collision of
two bodies should end in sound.
Now, say the Pythagoreans, all bodies
which are carried round with noise, one
yielding and gently receding :from the other,
must necessarily cause sounds different from
each other, in the magnitude and swiftness
of voice and in place, which are either more
fluctuating, or, on the contrary, more re-
luctant. But these three differences of
magnitude, celerity and local distance, are
manifestly existent in the planets, which are
constantly with sound, circum-agitated
through the aetherial diffusion. • • •
lloreover the sound which is made by
striking the air, induceth into the ear some-
thing svJee.t and musical, or harsh and dis-
cordant; for if a certain observation of
numbers moderated the blow, it effects a
harmony consonant .to itself; but if it be
temerarious, not governed by measures, there
proceeds a troubled unpleasant noise, ~hioh
offends the ear. Now in heaven nothing is
 430

produced casually, nothing temeraricus; but

all things there proceed according to divine
rules and settled proportion: whence irre-
fragably is inferred, that sounds which pro-
ceed from the conversion of the celestial
spheres are musical. For sound necessarily
proceeds from motion, and the proportion which
is in all divine things causeth the harmony
of this sound. This Pythagoms, first of all
the Greeks, conceived in his mind; and under-
stood that the spheres sounded something con-
e or'd.ant, because of the necessity of propor-
tion, which never forsakes celestial beines. 5
The Pythagore~ns thought that the musical interval
fonned by the Earth and the Moon was that of a tone; Moon
and Mercury, a semitone; Mercury and Venus, a semitone;
Venus and Sun, a minor third; Sun and Mars, a tone; Mars
and Jupiter, a semitone; Jupiter and Saturn, a semitone;
Saturn and the sphere of fixed stars (or the Supreme
Heaven), a minor third. The resulting Pythagorean scale
is C D E-flat E G A B-flat B D, although accounts
given by different writers vary somewhat. (For example,
the scale passed on by Censorinus has a semitone at the
6
top instead of a minor third.) These pseudo-scientific
accounts of the neo-Pythagoreans provided the basis of the
early medieval conception of the harmony of the spheres.

5. Sir Thomas Stanley, HistorJ of Philosoplit (1701),

385-386, reprinted in Sir oEii Hawkins, General
History of the Science and Practice of Music, 2nd
ed., 2 vOis:-TLondon: Novello, 1853T; I, 63-64.
6. Hawkins, .2.E• cit. , I, 63.
 431

When this was canbined with the number symbolism of the

early Christian church it appears that, for at least
several centuries, it was generally believed that the
planets actually did make music -- music th.a·t was, however,
inaudible.
According to tradition, Pythagoras alone had the
gift of actually hearing the music of the spheres. Ordi-
nary mortals lacked this gift, either because they were,
.from the manen t of birth, unknowingly but c onatantly bathed
in the celestial humming; or because· -- as Lorenzo explains
in the Merchant of Venice they were too grossly const1-
tuted:
• • • soft stillness and the night
Becane the touches of sweet harmony • • •
Look how the floor of heaven
is thick inlaid with patinas of bright gold;
There's not the smallest orb which thou behold'st
But in his motion like an angel sings •••
Such harmony is in immortal souls;
But, whilst this muddy vesture of decay
Doth grossly close it in, we cannot hear 1t. 7
The literature of the 'Renaissance is rich in refer-
ences both to the harmony of the spheres and to the reasons
for its inaudibility. These reasons, based on centuries
of Pythagorean tradition, appear even in the musical trea-
tises of this era. For instance, Wolfgang Figulus (1565)

7. William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice (London,

1600), new edition (~ench, 1860), Act v,
Scene I.
 432

attributed both the invention of music and the discovery

of the harmony of the spheres to Pythagoras, camnenting
that the cosmic music "is inaudible by men on account of
the custan of neglect." 8
In addition to references to the harmony of the
spheres in literary sources, the basic concepts of the
Pythagorean number theories are evident in all areas of
medieval and Renaissance endeavor, resulting in applications
that seem to center around the following idea.
Among many tenets of the Pythagoreans,
one was that there is a general and universal
concent or harmony in the parts· of the universe,
and that the principles of music pervade the
whole material world; for which reason they
say that the whole world is enharmonic. And
in comparison they assert that those propor-
tions into which the consonances in music are
resolvable, are also to be found in those
material forms, which from the s-ymmetry of
their parts excite pleasure in the beholder.
The effect of this principle is in nothing so
discoverable as the works of the architects
of ancient tima, in which the proportions of
2:1, answering to the diapason, of 3:2, or
sesquialtera; 4:3, or sesquitertia, are per-
petually resulting from a comparison between
the longitude and latitude of whole or con-
stituent parts, such as porticos, pediments,
halls, vestibules, and apertures of all kinds,
of every regular edifice.9

8. Wolf'gang Figulus, De musica practica (Noribergae:

Montani, 1565), a2-:-
9. Hawkins, .2.E.• cit., I, 65.
 433

Hawk""ins's comments are but a synopsis of the great influ-

ence that the Pythagorean symbol~sms exerted on Renaissance
thought~ an influence that came fran the teachings of the
Greeks, made available th.'rough La tin tram;; la tions of the
early Renaissance. Throughout this era, as in the Greek
period, these s-ymbolisms were most frequently applied to
music. Before Plato's Qonception of the universe is dealt
with, a cross-section of writers reflecting the Renaissance
concept of musical and ni.:anerical relationships will be· ..
cited.
Robert of York, in his Ccrrectorium alch:imae
(1348), suggested that both the elements with which the
alchemist worked and the projecting rays of the planets,
which the astrologer believed dominated the lives of men,
10
might be arranged according to musical proportion. These
same ideas were still being re-discovered a hundred years
later, undoubtedly owing to the renewed interest in clas-
sical studies. In 1450 the architect Alberti wrote: "We
shall therefore borrow all our rules from the musicians,
who are the greatest masters of this sort of numbers, 1111

10. Discussed in Lynn Thorndikef Historf of Magic, 8 vols.

(New York: Macmillan, 1923J, llI, 14.
11. Leone Alberti, Ten Books on Architecture~ Leone
Battista Albert!"'""Translatea lnto Italian ~ Cosimo
Bartoli and into En~11sh fu:. Jaiiiis teoiil, venetlin
Architecn1WGTf e • by roseph Rykiert (LOndOn:
A. T!ranti: 1955J, 197.
 434

A reference to the use or musical proportions to construct

visually attractive strudt'llres throughout the Renaissance
is made by the architect Palladio, who, in his L 1architet-
tura di Andrea Palladio diviaa ~ guattro libr1 (1562)
stated that music provided the foundations of an artist's
training. 12 Marsilio Ficino, a mid-fif·teenth-centu.ry
philosopher, sanetimes referred to the idea of the harmony
of the spheres in order to s-ymbolize the supra-physical
origins of' music, in relation to which he wrote, ·"Through
the ears the soul perceives certain sweet ha.zmonies and
rhythms, and through these images it is exhorted and ex-
cited to considar divine music with a more ardent and
intimate sense of mind.u 13

The Platonic Concept of ~ Universe

The concept of the harmony of the spheres, stemming
from the simp~e relationships of numbers, results in a
canparat=.vely simple representation of the universe. In

12. Andrea Palladio, L'arcbitettura di Andrea Falla.die

divisa in guattro 11br1 (Veneta:---M: A. Brogio11o,
1562), !JK. I. In reference to the extensive-use of
mus,1cal proportions in Renaissance architecture, s·ee
Rudolph Wi ttkower, Architectural Princirles in the
Age of Humanism, 2nd ed • ( London: A. T .rantr, "!902) •
13. Paulo. Kristeller, The Philoso~ of Marsilio Ficino
(New York: Columbia-irrliversitj ress, 1943), 308.
 435

contrast to this simplicity, the universe presented by

Plato in his Timaeus relies on an abstract formulation,
and, therefore, is quite canplex. Plato's universe, based
on the geanetric concept of mathematics mentioned earlier,
culminates, as does the harmony of the spheres, in a series
of musical intervals; but it has as its main objective the
creation ot unity from chaos, rather than merely a repre-
sentation of the principles of num.ber symbolism.
The Pythagoreans based their gecmetr1cal interpre-
tation of mathematics on the numbers 1-4. The evolution
of a solid geometrical figure from the numeral one was
done in the following manner. The num.eral one was repre-
sented as .a point. A line joining two points and thereby
providing extension of the point represented the numeral
two. Neither of these two, the point nor the line, was
considered to be a tangible object. The triangle, the
first plane figure, was perceivable to the senses and
therefore represented the first real number, which was
three. Three as the first representative of plane surfaces
was capable of being extended into a solid by placing a
point over the center of the triangle and extending lines
from this point to the three points of the triangle. The
resulting figure, the tetrahedron, was the first solid
 436

14
figure and represen~ed the number four. Continuing in
the same manner, the Pythagoreans even tu.ally deri v e..l five
solids,, all composed of triangles: the t6trahedron,, the
cube,, the octahedron, the dodecahedron,, and the icosahedron.
These solid figures were g1 ven tang1.b1lity by many
of the Greek writers. Plato,, for example,, related the
.first four to the four elements -- fire, air,, water, and
eartti--while the fifth was regarded as the master of the
other four. 15 After constructing the body of the world
fran the .four solids,, Plato sets forth the structure of the
world-soul (which is again unity) can.pounded from exis-
16
tence, semeness ,,· and difference. From these simple state-
ments of Pythagorean symbolism Plato developed bis concept
of the universe. It is interesting that of all of the
ideas evolved by Plato and. bis contemporaries only the
s-ymbolisms of the four elements appear in representations
of the monochord,, although the fundamental unity of Plato's
universe is represented,, in its Christian interpretation,,
in the form of God and the single string. In his concluding

14. Vincent Hopper, Medieval Number Symbolism (New York:

Columbia University Press,, 1938),, 35.
15. Francis M. Corn.ford,, Plato's Cosmology (New York:
Liberal Arts Press,, 1957), 55-56.
16. ~·, 35.
 437

canments about the structure of the universe, Plato points

out that the four f .!..em.ants are really qualities of being
and are not to be considered as having a constant nature. 17
In the Timaeus Plato sets forth a universe in which
all spiritual and mundane things are the product of a single
entity, the damiurge. Thia demiurge, or maker, the creator
of order from chaos, satisfies the philosophic necessity
of unity. After determining the shape of the world-soul,
he ·then divides it into harmonic intervals, the end result
of which is a Pythagorean scale. The Timaeus does not
relate this harmonic structure of the world soul to the
harmony of the spheres as its writer does in the ''Myth of
Er" from The Republic. That is, the harmony of the world-
soul is neither audible nor dependent upon the imagined
gyrations of the planets, but is instead an innate harmony
that cba.racterizes the structure of the soul.

17. Cornford (Ibid., 35, 163), like most philosophers,

is adamantiilhis opinion that the demiurge is not
to be confused with God as an object of worship,
especially in reference to Christianity. In this
respect he states: "It is not fair either to Plato
or to the New Testament to ascribe the most charac-
teristic revelations of the founder of Christianity
to a pagan polytheist. 11 Yet this is the very thing
that seems to have been done by the users of the
monochord, for the monochord as· a symbolic unity
invariably can.bines the speculations of a poly-
theistic philosophy with ideas about a monotheistic
God.
 438

This philosophy, while having little to do with

the S'Ylllbolic use of the monochord, proved to be the more
enduring of the two Greek interpretations of tr~ universe.
Both Plato's universe and the hazmony or the spheres are
seen to exist in the writings of the nee-Pythagoreans and
neo-Platonists, but these schools added little of value to
either of the basic schemes. In general they were content
to interpret Platonic and Pythagorean philosophy in the
light of their own particular needs, and perhaps their most
important function was the perpe·tuat1on of these theories
for later eras.

The Infusion Et. Pythagoreanism into the Christian

- Era and the Early Mid~Ages

At the beg1nn.i.ng of the Christian e:ra, most of the

nee-Platonic philosophies were fil'Illly entrenched in the
minds of Western scientists and philosophers -- without,
however, being connected to religious dogma. In the en-
suing 500 yea:rs the influx of Eastern "mysteries" into the
Rom.an Empire provided a link between religion and science.
The Eastern mysteries were the result of the astrological
application of numbers "not as subjects for philosophical
inquiry, but as Divine Revelation, and were accordingly
invested with all the mystery and power of Holy Secrets. 1118
18. Hopper, E,E• cit., 50.
 439

Mainly as a result of these religious connections between

Eastern mysticism and Western philosophy, several new sects
came into being. These were the nee-Pythagoreans, the
neo-Platonists, and the Gnostics. Each of these groups at-
tempted to combine, in varying degrees, Greek philosophy
and Eastern science and religion. The Gnostics, for
example, were a group of Alexandrian philosophers, at-
tracted by bo;..r· .Jastern astrology and by the subtlety and
abstraction of the Platonic theology, whose scheme of the
world was constructed upon a few simple numbers. As a
result the Gnostics based most of their interpretations
on the science of gematria. 19
Christianity, in its infancy, was relatively free
from the number symbolism of the other sects. The accep-
tance of Rem.an men of letters, who, as educated men were
steeped in Greek culture, into the Christian faith, however,
subjected the interpretation of the New Testament to the
doctrines of Pythagoreani-sm, so tba t by the time of

19. Ibid., 62. Gem.atria is the assignment of numerical

values to the letters of the alphabet. This usage
was also prevalent in the teachings of the Jews,
mainly because the letters of the Hebrew alphabet
were used as numbers; thus a selected set of letters
was simultaneously a word and a number. The use of
gematria by the Jews resulted in the science of
cabala, which is defined as scriptural exegesis
bi means of numbers.
 440

Augustine, number symbolism had becane an accepted practice.

Thus Augustine himself was able to say: "We must not
despise the science of numbers, which, in many passages
of Holy Scripture, is found to be of eminent service to
20
the careful interpreter. 11
Because of the m1s1nterpretatiom of the above-
mentioned Roman men of letters who were busily chronicling
the centuries of Greek culture for posterity, the doctrine
of the harmony of the spheres was transmitted to the medi-
eval period less as a part of the Christian tradition than
as a literal description of fact. As a result the doctrine
was, for a time, shorn of its symbolic meaning and it was
not until after the ninth century that it began to reassume
its fonner signific~nce as a representative idea of Pytha-
goreanism. Because of this change of S'Ylllbolic status, many
disbelievers in the harmony of the spheres in the early
medieval period actually seem to be saying that the planets
do not make music -- but this in no way implies that they
are simultaneously refuting number S'Ylllbolism. The reten-
tion of the numbers of the Pythagorean tuning is sufficient
evidence of the influences of Pythagorean symbolism on
early Christian scholars. The reconciliation of the

20. Ibid., 78.

 441

doctrine of the harmony of the spheres with its original

symbolic meanings, taking place over a period of several
centuries, eventually culminated in the combination of the
symbolisms of celestial music end the monochord.

~ Hannony of the Spheres in the Musical Writings

- -- --
of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance
-- --- === ==== ~==========

References to the existence of the ha:rmony of the

spheres in musical works of the Middle Ages is due largely
to the influence of Boethius. Although the other late Latin
encyclopedists, among them the musical writ'.. L'S Cassi odorus
and Isidore, referred to the theory, none of them impressed
successive generations in the same way as Boethius. In his
De musica, Boethius divided music into three parts: musica
mundana, musica hum.ana, and musica instrumentalis. Musica
mundana was expressed in the motions of the spheres, the
alternation of the seasons and the numerical order of the
elements. Boethius defined musica hum.ana as the harmony
between the spiritual and the physical parts of man, and
he s-ymbolized it numerically in much the same way that he
determined intervals on a string. Musica instrumentalis
was music as sound, including sane references to instru-
ments, among them the monochord.
 442

~ .
.The most imoortant of these three divisions to
Boethi us was musica mund.ana, for Boethi us, a true Pytha-
gorean, was not so much interested in the enjoyment of
music or the nature of its sound as he was in the precept
that musical proportion was the basis of all understanding.
This is borne out by Boethius's complete neglect of vocal
music, and his mention, in the classification of musica
instrumentalis, of instr'lml.ents that appear to be more
21
useful for scientific investigation than for performance.
Although Boethius 1 s explanation of music dominated
the thought of many medieval musical writers, Pythagorean-
1sm. in a more mystical form was evident in the works of
others. This mystical version, easily identifiable be-
cause of its astrological implications, appeared early in
the medieval period in the ,!2! divisione naturae of Johannes
Scotus (~. 815-877), who presented many analogies between
music and cosm:tc harmonies. The influence of Eastern
thought in the teachings of Scotus, who is considered by
many to ue the source of European mysticism, culminated in
the early seventeenth century in the writings of Robert

21. Boethius, De institutione musica, ed. by G.

Friedlein Ttipsiae: Teubneri, 1867), Bk. I,
Cap. II, 187-189.
 443

Fludd. 22 In the sym.bol1..c uses of' the monochord in the

Renaissance, the influence of' the ocoultists appears in
the form of the zodiac.
Many of the early medieval thaor:tsts were content
to parrot Boetbius•s triple division of' music with little
amplification, and it was evidently not until the late
ninth century tbs. t the doctrine of' the harmony of the
spheres began to resume sane of the symbolic significance
that had been shorn fran it by the late Latin wri tars.
Begino of Primi (d. 915) appears to have been one of the
first medieval writers after Bo~th1us to explain earthly
harmony as an imitation of celestial music. He states
that the planets produce real sounds. In one passage he
says that the Hypate Meson is derived from the sound made
23
by the planet Saturn. Regine's contemporary, Aurelian
,,.,. a 1 so h elped to reconci 1 e the idea of the music
of Reane,
of the spheres with Christian doctrines by interpreting
the sounds of the ecclesiastical modes to be duplication
of' the sounds created by 1 planetary motion. He further

22. Cf. J. B. Craven, Doctor Robert Fludd (Kirkwall,

1902); and Jacques"'1ranasch!n "Die Musikanscbauung
des Johannes Scotus (Erigena~, II Deutsche viertel-
jahrescbrift ftir Literaturwissenschaft und Geistes-
gesch!chte, _y--o:-92!), 316-340. -
23. Regino of Prihn, De harmonica institutione, GS I,
235.
 444

stated that in singing the praises o:f' God, man imitated

24
the chorus o:f' the angels. Ref'erence·a to the doctrine of'
the harmony of' the spheres were also frequent in the
Arabic documents of this period, especially in the fonn
of' answers to those who refused to admit the existence of
such music. In the early tenth century the theory w~s

denounced by Al-Farab1, who abandoned the Boetbian triple

division and postulated an alternate division into only
theoretical and practical music. 25 In spite of Al-Fara bi.,
however, many Arabians still clung to their belief's in
celestial music. The physician Al-Kindi is said to have
worked out elaborate cbs.rts in order to clarify the inter-
vallic relationship between cosmic-human and musical
26
elements.
The influence of Al-Farabi 's dual d1 v.t si on of
music, made available to the later Middle Ages by the
early thirteenth-century writer known as pseudo-Aristotle,
is evident in many later treatises which, instead of de-
nouncing the music of the spheres, ignore it; notable
among these works is the Introductio musice of Johannes

24. Aurelian of "R&ome, Musica discipl1na, GS I, 32.

25. Al-Farabi, Grand Traite de la musique, tr. by
Rudolph d'Brlanger (Parii; ~30), 28.
26. George H. Fanner, .!?.E• cit., 99.
 445

de Garlandia, written about 1240, in which Garlandia does

not renounce his faith in the principles of Pytha.goreanism,
but merely reflects scepticism about the hannony of' the
27
spheres.
In refusing to admit the existence of celestial
music, the early fourteenth-century musician Johannes de
Grocheo says, in his Theoria, that his work will not dea.l
28
with angelic songs. Walter Odington likewise rejects
the physical existence of the hannony of the spheres in
29
his De !!E.eculatione musice. For every writer who decried
the existence of cosmic harmony, however, there were one
or two others who professed some belief in either the
music of the spheres or number symbolism. In the early
fourteenth century the author of the anonymous Summa
30
musicae discussed the Boethian triple division of music,
as did Marchettus de Padua in his Lucida.rium musicae plans.a
of 1274. Marchettus 's explanation of the superparticular
proportions leads eventually into a comparison of these

27. Johannes de Garlandia,· Introductio musice, CS I,

157-175. ~

28. Johannes Wolf, "Die Nusiklehre des Johannes de

Grocheo," SannnelbHnde der Internationalen Musik-
gesellscbaft, I (1899)~2.
29. Walter Odington, De speculatione musice, CS I, 182.
30. Anonymous, Summa mus1cae, Q2. III, 194.
 446

31
numbers to the world and to the four hum.ors. At about
tha same time Gil de Zamora presented an extensive account
32
of the emotional connotations of the modes.
In the fourteenth and :fifteenth centuries the re-
vival of interest in many of the Greek writers, whose works
were now available in Latin translations, provided some
impetus to the notion of the harmony of the spheres. This
renewed interest is reflected in the naming of sections
of treatises, or even of whole treatises, in a manner that
implies subscription to the theory of celestial music. As
examples, the first book of Georgie Anselm.i's~ musica
33
is entitled "De celesti harmonia," and the whole of the
early seventeenth-century encyclopedias of Mersenne 34 and
K1rcher 35 are respectively entitled Harmonie universelle
and Musurgia universalis.

31. Marchettus de Padua, Lucidarium musicae planae,

GS III, 83 :f.
32. Gil de Zamora, Ars musica, GS II, 386-88.
33. Georgie Anselmi, De musica, ed. by Giuseppe Massera
(Firenze: Olschld:"; 1961), 65-106.
34. Marin Mersenne, Ha:tmonie universelle (Paris:
Cramoisy, 1636-37).
35. Athanasius Kircher, Musurgia u.'11.iversalis, 2 vols.
(Rome, 1650).
 447

In these later works, in comparison to earlier

treatises, even the space allotted to the discussions of

the harmony of the spheres is greatly expanded, as is the
breadth of the discussions themselves. Ramos de Pareia,
in his Musica practica of 1482, discusses in detail the
emotional aspects of the modes, making the assertion that
the stars actually determine the character of each of the
modes. According to Ramos, the sun influences the char-
acter of the Dorian mode. The moon influences the Hypo-
dorian. Mars gives the Phrygian an emotional connotation
of anger. Mercury influences the Hypophrygian, Jupiter
gives the Lydian mode the character of joy. Venus affects
the Hypolydian, and Saturn influences the melancholy
aspects of the Mixolyd1an. 36 Ramos later unified all of
these elements by including them in his linear represen-
tation of the monochord. 37

36. Ramos de Pareia, Musica Fractica, ed. by Johannes

Wolf (Leipzig: Breitkop und IDlrtel, 1901), 57-60.
Robert Stevenson; in his Stanish Music in the Age
of Columbus (The Hagues ~jhoff, 196o)-;-6~points
out thiit Ramos reflects the numeroloeical tendencies
of this era in the division of the Musica lractica
into three parts, of Which the first part s sub-
divided into three tractates. Each of the first two
tractates contains eight parts, and the third
tractate contains three.
37. Ibid., 61.
 448

The Spaniards were evidently steeped in the

Boethian tradition, because the division of music into
parts called mundana, humana, and instrumentalis is en-
countered frequently in Spanish treatises throughout the
next two hundred and fifty years. In 1495, Guillenno
Despuig used this division in his Ars musicorum, 38 as did
39
Bennudo in 1555, and Pablo Nassarra 40 in 1724. Nassarre,
like Ramos, discusses the emotional eff'ects of music, in-
cluding its beneficial effect on disease and its ability
to excite the passions.
The influence of Arabic and Aristotelian thought

on the writings of Johannes Tinctoris is particularly

evident in the following remarks ta.ken from his Liber de
~ contrapuncti of 1477.
I cannot 'pass over in silence th.a opinion
of numerous philosophers, among them Plato and
Pythagoras and their successors Cicero, Macrobius,
Boethius and our Isidore, that the spheres of
the stars revolve under the guidance of har-
monic modulation, that is, by the consonance of
various concords. But when as Boethius relates,

38. Guillermo Despuig, Ars musicorum (Valencia, 1495),

Bk. I, Cap. vii.
39. Juan Bermudo, Declaracion de Instr.umentos musicales
(Ossuna, 1555), facsimile ea. (Kassel: B!lrenreiter,
1955), fol. i .v. - i1.v.
40. Pablo Nassarre, Escuela musica, 2 vols. (Zaragoza:
Iarumbe, 1724), 8?, 65-6~.
 449

sane declare that Saturn moves with the deepest

sound and that, as we pass by stages through
the remaining planets, the moon m~ves with the
highest, while others, converselt, ascribe the
deepest sound to the moon and the highest to
the sphere of the fixed stars, I put faith in
neither opinion. Rather I unshakeably credit
Aristotle and his canmentator, along with our
more recent philosophers, who most man~festly
prove that in the heavens there is neither
actual nor potential sound. For this reason
it will never be possible to persuade me that
musical concords, which cannot be produced
without sound, can result from the motion of
the heavenly bodies.
Concords of sounds and melodies, from
whose sweetness the pleasure of the ear is de-
rived, are produced, then, not by heavenly
bodies, but by earthly instruments with the
co-operation of natUl'e.41
Tinctoris, like many others, in attempting to deny the
objective reality of musical sound produced by the spheres,
overlooked the continued existence of this belief as
mainly a symbolic figure of the relationships of music
and the spiritual and physical world.
In the sixteenth century many of the references
to the music of the spheres were still based on the
42
Boethian concept. In Italy, Pietro Aaron (1523) ani

41. Trans. in Oliver Strunk, Source Readin's in Music

History (New York: w. w. Norton, 1950 , 148.
42. Pietro Aaron, Toscanello in musica (Venice:
Vamente, 1523), Cap. III.--
 450

4:S
Giovanni Maria Artusi (1586) used this cls.ss1fioat1on,
as did the Englishman Thanas Morley in his Plain and Easy
Introduction !2 Practical :Music of 1597. 44 In the 1580 's
the French Academy of BHif and the Camerata of Bard1 ac-
cepted the ideas of cosmic harmony. It is recorded that
masques staged by Ba.rdi's group as well as Biif's had sub-
jects based on speculative music, even to the extent of a
masque entitled The Harmony ~ the Spheres, which expressed
the concepts of world harmony in the geometrical and mathe-
45
matical relationships of its dances.
These superficial references to the ideas of cosmic
harmonies overlapped a late fifteenth-century trend toward
a deeper involvement of the Pythagorean symbolisms and
religion. The reconciliation of Pytbagoreanism. and
Christianity had started early in the tenth century in
the remarks of Aurelian that earthly choirs emulated the
music of the spheres. 46 In the sixteenth century these

4:S. Giovanni Maria Artusi, L'Arte del contra_ppunto .

(Venice: Vincenzi Amadino, 15~,-r:---
44. Thomas Morley, A Plain and Ebay Introduction to
Practical Music-( 1597) ,-ea. y R. Alec Harmon-
( London: J.M. Dent axn Sons, 1952), 106.
45. John Hollander, The Untuning of the Sky (Princeton:
Princeton Universr&y Press, 1"961T;-ss::81.
46. Aurelian, E.E.• . cit., 32.
 451

ideas spread rapidly, so that, as may be seen in the fol-

lowing citations, by the early seventeenth century many
musicians spoke freely about the relationships of God,
Man, and ·!;he musical proportions.
Richard Mulcaster, writing in the prefatory verses
to Byrd's and Tallia's Cantiones quae ab argum.ento sacrae
vocantur of 1575, stated:
How valuable a thing music is, is
shown by those who teach that nunbers con-
stitute the foundation of everything which
bas fonn and that music is made up of
these.47
The canposer Robert Jones, in 1608, illustrated the common
opinion that "there is musicke in all th1nges," when he
..
emphasized in the dedication of' his Ultimum Vale the need
for harmony in both music and the state.
Politie, or the subject thereof', a
cc:mmonwealth, is but a well-tunde song
where all partes doe agree, and meete to-
gether, with full consent and harmony,
one serving the other, and everyone them-
selves in the same labor.48
More direct references to celestial music are ap-
parent in such statements as Byrd's in the dedication of'
his Gradualia of' 1610, where he writes that for the pra.i se

47. William Byrd and Thomas Tallis, Cantiones 1'18e ab

armento sacrae vocantur (London: vautro erius,
!5 5 • .
48. Robert Jones, Ultimum Vale (London: John Windet,
1605). -
 452

. 49
ot God "none but some celestial harmony will be proper. 11
Th.at earthly music must resemble the celestial music in
its perfection was also stated by Charles Butler, who
wrote in his Principles ot Music (1636) that "Music gave
promise of celestial joyz • • • which it doeth resemble. 1150
In his Templum musicum of 1611, Johann Alstad
writes at great length about the relation of music and the
universe. Besides his innumerable comments on the unity
that exists in God and music, he also extensively discusses
the emotional aspects of the modes and the affections.
Alsted's observations conclude with his discussion of the
monochord, about which he says:
The canon, mother, and radix of all in-
struments is the monochord; which is an in-
strument most simple and intire • • • and we
may observe fully in this instrument all the
proportions of all ~usioal numbers.5 1
To Alstad, the perfection ot music is deter.mined by the
pur.pose for which it is used. Of the modes he writes:

49. William Byrd, Gradualia (London: Humphrey Lownes,

1·610).

50. Charles Butler( Principles of Music (London: John

Haviland, 1636J, 1.
51. Johann Alstad, Templum musicum (1611), tr. by John
B1rchensha (London: P. Dring, 1664), 90.
 453

There is a certain imitation of Celes-

tial Ha:nnony, by which as by a sweet and
wholsome Medicine, the Diseases of the mind
are cured, Vices are dissipated, Cares are
lessened; and the Dew of Divine Grace is
leisurely; and by little and little dis-
tilled.52
In 1617 Robert Fludd, whose symbolic use of the
monochord will be discussed tn the final section of this
chapter, represented his ideas about the relationships of
man, music, and the universe in the title page of his
Utriusgue cosmi (Plate 34), where the planetary symbols
on staff lines represent the cosm~c ha:nnonies. Tb.a impli-
cations of Fludd's mystical beliefs, derived from his
associations with the Rosicrucians, may be seen in the
use of the astrologic symbols which are connected to the
various parts of the Vitruvian figure. The whole is con-
nected to God by the cord which is drawn by the winged
figure with hooves. This figure, scaling the clouds
toward a union with the infinite, represents time. On his
head stands an hourglass, which is surmounted by an abbre-
viated emblem of the solar wheel in the fonn of a
53
swastika.

52. ~., 78.

53. Robert Fludd, Utriusque cosmi (Oppenhemii: Galleri,
1617), title page.
•

454

~late 34. 'l!tle page fran Robert Fludd's

..Utl'iusgue cosmi.
 455

Athanasius Kircher published several works that

depict, though not so boldly as Fludd, the mystical as-
sociations of man and the universe. The frontispiece
of K1rcher 1 s 1/iusurgia universnlis of 1650 illustrates,
among other things of allegorical significance, the sing-
ing of the spheres, by means of a heavenly choir (Plate
35).54

Thomas Mace, the last writer to be mentioned in

this section, exemplifies the prevalent ideas about the
itsl:iti ons of music to God and man in the "Contemplative

Part" of his Musick 1 s l1ionument, where he uses music to

relate himself to God and eternity.

GREAT C-OD
Mysterious Center of All Mysterie;
All Things Originate Themselves in Thee;
And in Their Revolution, wholly tend
To Thee, Their Octave, Their Most Happy End.
All Things (what e're) in Nature, are Thus Rounded,
Thus Mystically Limited, and Bounded;
Some Harmonize in Diapasons Deep,
Others again, more Lofty Circles Keep.
But Thou, the Moving Cause in every Thing;
The Mystick Life, fran whence All Life doth Spring.
That Little Spark of Life, which I call Mine~
It came from. Thee; (a Precious Gift of ThineJ

54. Atbanasius Kircher, ~· cit., frontispiece. See

also the frontispiece of-xfrcher 1 s Phonur~ia nova
( Campidonae : Rud olphum Drehur, 1673) , an Kircher 's
allegory of music and the seven days of the creation
in the Musurgia, II, 366.
 456

Plate 35. Frontispiece fran Athanasiu:

Kircher•s Kusui-gia universalis.
 457

I Bless Thy Name, I Daily feel It move,

And Circulate towards Thee, Its Highest Love.
I've almost Run my Round; 'tis wellnigh past,
I Joy to think of Thee, (My First; My Le.st)
A Unison (at First) I was in Thee;
An Cc'tave (now at La.st) I hope shall be,
To Round Thy Praises in Eternity, 55
In th' Unconceiv'd Hannonious Mystery.

The S;ymbolic Use ;;£ the Monochord

The uses of the monochord to show the unity of

man.and the universe are mainly restricted to the six-
teenth and seventeenth centuries. There are several earli-
er illustrations of what appears to be a linear represen-
tation of the instr1m1.ent for this purpose, but whether
they are intended to be monochords is not known.
The earliest diagram in which the notes of the
disdiapason are related to s-ymbols of the universe in
this case the signs of the zodiac -- appears in the
56
Harmonics of Ptolemy. Ptolemy's reasons for using the
zodiacal symbols are not made clear in his discourse about
the universe. He wrote briefly on the harmony of the
spheres and related each of the planets to a different

55. Themas Mace, Musick's Monument (London, 1676), fac-

simile ed. (Paris: lditions du centre national de
la recherche scientifique, 1958), 269.
56. Ingemar Dftring, Ptolamaios und Porphyries ftber die
Musik (GBteborg: Elanders,-rg34), 124-125:--- ~
 458

pitch, but these planetary symbols do not appear in his

diagram. Diagram 90 shows both of the illustrations pre-
sented by Ptolemy. In Figure l the zod1.ac is related to
a linear representation of the monochord. In Figure 2,
all the notes of the Greater Perfect System are assigned
·,
·~
places within the celestial sphere. The latter kind of
representation often appears in Renaissance illustrations
of t..11.e monochord.
Jacques Ha.ndschin, in an article in the Zeitschrift
57
fftr Musikwissenschaft (1926), describes a medieval manu-
script that contains a canposition about the harmony of
the spheres. A facsimile of the manuscript (Plate 36)
shows, on the right side, a linear representation of a
monochord containing the notes of the Greater Perfect
System and the names of the planets. Ha.ndschin says that
this manuscript dates from the eleventh or twelfth century,
but that the poem, because of its style, is probably fran
the tenth century. There is a striking similarity between
this representat1.on and the monochord shown in Plate 33,
even to the non-proportional placement of the notes on

57. Jacques Handschin, 11 E1n Mi ttelalterlicher Be1 trag

zur Lehre von der Sphilrenharmonie," Zei tschrift f'llr
Musikwissenscbaft, IX. (1926), 193-208. --::--
 459

Diagram 90. Ftolemy's representations of the universe.

PrOJ/o"f°'>omenos M;1e. N.te Hyp1•tboloian

y 8:rrIf!)Jl~=1Jt ~ d, =- -}f y
r;~ur'e 1.

fi~11re 2.

the string; this aspect of the drawing is a common feature

of many of the monochord drawings of later centuries.
Af'ter Ptolemy, all of the early monochord diagrams
are used mainly to relate the planets to definite pitches,
with little accompanying symbolism of the kind found in
the late Renaissance. This way of using the monochord
·Plate 36.
 46i

A &JlDbolic monochord of the eleventh cent1117.

 462

coDtinued until the early sixteenth century. The Greek

inf'luence is often apparent in the use of the Greek note
names, the nine mUf3es, and other pagan symbols. Such an
illustration appears in the Hannonia musicorum. instru-
mentor~ {1514) of Franchinus Gaf.t'urius, where a three-
58
headed serpent represents the single string. Each of
the accompanying muses in this illustration is related
to one of the pi tcb.es of the one-octave scale, e.s are the
various planets. In this instance, the serpent may also
represent time -- past, present, and future.
Glareanus's discussion of the harmony of the
spheres and the diagram that he prints in the Dodecachordon
are about the same as those of Gaffurius. Glareanus, in
addition to providing the diagram, explains sane of the
number symbolisms current in his time, including an expla-
nation of 11
Why the number seven occurs so frequently
59
among writers on music." The number seven appears in
his monochord diagram, as it does in Gaffui~ius 1 s, in that
there are only seven intervals in the scale.

58. Francbinus Gaffuri us, Ham.onia music arum Instru-

mentorum (Mediolani: Gotardum, 1518), 95.
59. Henricus Glareanus, Dodecachordon, tr. by Clement
Miller (Unpublished dissertation, University of
Michigan, 1952), 222ff.
 463

Plate 37. Ga1'1'urius 1s symbolic representation

of the monochol'd. ·

This same illustration (Plate 38) was used in

Zarl1no 's explanation of Pytbagoreanism in his . ·lat! tu-
t1 on1 barmonice of 1558 - but with one interesting change
in meaning. Zar lino granted the authority of na. tural law
 464

Plate 38. The monochol'd d1agl'8.D1 ot Glal'eanus.

to the musical ratios or tb.;:· diagrSm, stating that they

foi-.n the basis of everything -- of the heavens, the foUl'
elements, the soul and body of man. 60 Although none of

60. Gioseffo Zarlino, Ist1tut1on1 harmonica (Venice:

Senese, 1562), 102.
 465

ZaJ.•lino 's predecessors had gone so far as to relate

p~1ysical and spiritual being to this kind of representa-
tion, all of the later users of the symbolic monochord,
perhaps influenced by Zarlino's boldness, give a religious
interpretation to their illustrations. It may be recalled
that a similar change of attitude in the explanations of'
the harmony of the spheres was noted in the preceding
section (PP• 446-47,. above).
Abraham Be.rtolus was evidently the first or the
seventeenth-century musicians to expand the symbolic uses
61
of the monochord beyond the limits set by Zarlino.
Bartolus's monochord (Plate 39), drawn as part of a circle,
actually contains two separate monochords, placed so that
the lowest notes are in the center; the whole is designed
so as to present a symmetrical diagram of the universe.
Although Ba.rtolus describes many practical uses for the
monochord, most of the treatise is taken up with explaining
the s-ymbolic interpretations of the instrument. Ba.rtolus
covers the gamut of' Renaissance symbolism, including the
interpretations of the zodiac. In his comments about the
doctrine of' affections, Ba.rtolus states that the note E,

61. Abraham Bartolus, ''Musica Mathematica," printed as

the second part of _Heinrich Zeising, Theatri
machinarum (Altenburg, 1614), 94-172.
 466

Plate 39. Abraham Bartolus 1 s s:ymbolic monochord.

influenced by Saturn, is sad. He further says that the

sound of this note, when it is under the sign of the
zodiac in the month of November, is inimical to fishes
and fowls. 62 Although the fervor of Ba.rtolus's attempts
to relate the sundry aspects of the universe may seem

62. ~., 102.

 467

extreme to twentieth-century sensibility, such zeal

appears to typify the first half of the seventeenth cen-
tury, when such discussions were commonplace,, and in
.
many of which the monochord played a symbolic part.
The most famous use of monochord symbolism appears
63
in the Monochordi mundi symphoniaoum of Robert Fludd.
This treatisa, written "In apologiam" to Johannes Kepler,
was a general disparagement of Kepler for the philosophical
mistakes that Kepler had made in his interpretation of
the universe. Fludd 1 s argument with Kepler arose over
the latter's assertion that the universe was composed of
five regular solids (the same ones discussed by Plato).
Fludd, in showing Kepler how these solids were part of
the earth, invoked the authority of God, and his whole
argunent culminated in a magnificent diagram of the
monochord (Plate 40) that contains much religious symbol-
ism. Regardless of their controversy, the minds of both
Kepler and Fludd were cast from the same'mold, the main
difference appearing in Kepler's cons'l.D.lling passion for
finding harmonies in nature after the manner of' the Pytha-
goreans, and Flud.d's passion for connecting these harmonies

63. Robert Fludd, Monochordi mundi smhoniac'llm 1 issued

as part of Fludd's Ariatcmiae Amp heatrum lFrankfort,
1623), 238-331. -
 . --------· \_t'-t. - .- ~- · F.T • ·- -· - _- .<:>.~---".;'~

.._#''bl /''0- DeVS tlt 01u11e quod est ;,~·-.. -.r~

• ·;:.. ~· •e" ab rt~ procedunt omnia"ittnmr ~~ ~
t. ,~"--
,...- . ·· ,-.,,,.,,,,, in rum r~ertuntur: t- "fO
~
•

~- ·
~I' ~ ~ntta
~- · ~don.111t-
. _:r f. "',: ll~-1.GllAf MATI .~ns;o in •,mo:- omni•; ~ , .."iii; MllC
.., ii ·]Sanc'lum.·· · ·· 11e1:t
,f,.ct1oniJr11n·
·"4 . .
I P.tr.s mr
onara 1<
· . •_..L__ .··· \\)1-J ___ "..1-.-.~ -·-. :~.1 eurn.7. :;;of..,._.- C!ICl!'""IC>"rcJer:.
ll•t~o .4..;md I...:1.I• r~ ·Jo

=
;-- .. · ':>f,Y Mens 1»t& '-• - ...,.
II ·.J. · .. ~<. •

~ ~~-=--~1.h.~~1,;,;;ic.1~: ~..:·1i1 ~
.J. /.. .. ¥"~.: l"_.,r~Z;-~~:_:z:.::.;.. ~+.-A
- ?=
!:·-
~
... "'-
~].... ~ t-
i ...\'I"
'I.. : \ ;
:Z:1: l: ~e!. . .. : ·- ..J .

'1011M.1 •
.I ~,I·i '--· i-.lj I ·•-· · "-· I! ~· ' '!111 !l
J
... .:i N f, - - - - - ~-
·
":
__
• __
+
, IT"'
C'\ • ;
.. M
rl'!
:
1 '9M I <&C,
, •••,
.:. -lo,: ,. •.+ :J.---.L£..
a. "'---
=1
• ..... - - - - - ... ~-- N 'o \a
~
-
-- H .. !
...=
'~
+

-~i
f. , . c .... ·-~ J
'~ ~
~- ~-
',i
g ~- # . -~ ~~
" ·o;,... .°"'!o 9'i
'"l'"' 1
··f',.,,., Conj"'
l>.
:p,,..ti ,, ·~Ji"'
,ft~

• ~lt ,. l
(~
Q~

.t
~.,'(,
\
. ~.
\

...~-
~·
·l d·
,.
-;t

.l>,.
~~ ~
~u.....
. {$
.,.,,
f"nso1\""'i>"
.... IJ~,./,,

l
lrll /'
•- "'· ...,.,
:~-
·\)\•f
•"' !I.•
-· . .t:(~~
'
~-__.,___
..,~
>o,
''?!'~~
·'"'u •'rr11:·tt.&'1l'~
----- -·-·- ----- - - -- --- ~
O>
Plate 40. The monochord of Robert Fluddo
 469

to God. 'ro Fludd, Pythagoreanism was only a ladder that

enabled him to approach more closely the marvels of the
64
Divine Architect.
Mersenne uses one of Fludd's monochord diagrams
(Plate 33) in the Harmonie universelle. But ins'tead of at-
tempting to explain the implications of the illustration,
he simply states that one should interpret it in the light
55
of his own needs. Merse~ne, in spite of his reticence

in explaining the symbolic monochord, was nevertheless well

aware of the common practices of his day. One instance of
his knowledge of the subject appears in his discussion of
the monochord, in which he shows how the astrological con-
junctions of the stars are supposed to be consonant to
. t erva 1 s. 66
mus i ca l in
One of the last attempts in the seventeenth century
to apply the symbolism of the monochord to a scientific end

64. Kepler's Harmonicas mundi, written in 1619, is avail-

able in a modern English translation in Johannes
Kepler, The Harmonies of the World, Bk. V, tr. by
Charles cr.-wa!Iace (ChicaSO: Encyclopaedia Britannica,
1955), Vol. XVI of Great Books of the Western World,
1009-1085. ~ ~

65. Marin Mersenne, Harmonie uni versella: Trai tez des

instruments a cordes (Par.ts: Cramoisy, 1636-37r;-
Bk. VIII, Prop. x,48.
66. ~., Bk. I, Prop. XI, 27.
 470

appears in the Monochordon swnbolico-biomanticum of Samuel

Ha.ffenreffer. 67 Haffenreffer's main use of the monochord
is to represent the functions of the body. He relates the
diastolic and systolic pressures of the heart to the pitch
of the notes {the diastolic is represented by the lower
notes and.the systolic by the higher notes). Further corre-
lation, he asserts, is evidenced by the relation of the
pulse to musical rhytbm. 68 Haffenreffer is also greatly
influenced by the astrological forces of the planets and
writes at length on the good and bad effects of the planets
on the health of the individual.
Toward the end of the seventeenth century the sym-
bolism of the monochord began to be less used. Many of the
writers of the first half of the century had explained in
detail exac.tly what effects the numbers .portrayed in these
symbolisms would have on the lives of men. Very seldan
among these authors does one find the reticence first seen
in Mersenne's presentation of the symbolic monochord. How-
ever, by the third quarter of the century the reticent atti-
tude had become the rule. An example is clearly seen in

67. Samuel Haffenreffer, Monochordon s'YIIlbolico-biom.anticum

(Ulmae: Balthasari Kttnrien, 1640).
68. Ibid., 60.
 471

Christopher Simpson's discussion of' the relations of' the

69
astrological symbols and the musical consonances. __ Simpson
explai~~ how they are related but says nothing about their
effects. His own beliefs are seen in the use of' the numbers
three and seven, but, unlike Fludd and Haffenreffer, he seems
willing to let the reader make up his own mind. The follow-
ing quotation gives Simpson's summarization of' his explana-
tion. of' the monochord (Plate 41).

The Analogy of Musical Concords to the

Aspec ts of the Planets, illustrated in
- the following scheme. ·
Where you have the seven Gradual sounds in
their orderly progression represented on the
Diameter-line. Upon which, is also described a
diapason with its included Consonants, according
to the Arithmetical division thereof, as experi-
mentally found upon a Monochord, or the String
or any fretted Instrument, fran the Nut to the
middle thereof. The outmost Circle represents
the Zodiack, and the Aspects of' the Planets, to
which you see the Diapason with its Intersec-
tions exactly agreeing; as viz. The two Terms
thereof', to a Conjunction and Opposition: The
middle Section (which generates a Fifth on one
side, and a Fourth on the other) to a 0 • A
and a *
Third and a Sixth compleating also the Can.pas
of' an Octave, as a .d de a Semicir~le
or the two opposite points of an Orbe. To which
may be added, that a Diapason is divided into
Twelve Semitones, as the Zodiack into Twelve
Signes of Sections.

69. Christopher Simpson, The Division Viol, 2nd ed.

(London: W. Godbid, 1665) • -
 472

Plate 41. Christopher Simpson's analogy between

music and astrolOS'J'•
 473

The other Figure shews, that all the

Sounds that can possibly be joyned together
.in Musical Concorde.nee, are a.till but the
reiterated liaI'Dl.ony of Three.70
Musical symbolism survived the seventeenth century
to remain a moving force in the eighteenth century. Many
of the users of the monochord in this latter era also
dealt with musical s-ymbolism, but not in relation to· the
monochord; by this time the monochord was used only as a
practical instrument. Andreas Werckmeister, who compared
71
incorrect temperament with false Christianity, was one
of the last to mention the symbolic value of the monochord.
His remark that "the nearer a thing is to its origin, the
nearer it is to perfection," 72 perhaps sums up most of the
reasons why the monochord was used as a s-ymbolic entity --
and why this instrument remained a favored tool among so
many musicians of his time and earlier eras.

70~ Ibid., 24.

71. Andreas Werckmeister, Mus1cal1sche Paradoxa.1-Discourse
(Quedlinburg: Calvis11, 1697), 109 •
. 72. Ibi0. .. , 13.
 474

APPENDIX

The three figures presented in this appendix are

all based on the helicon of Ptolemy (pp. 53-56, abu~~) and
are intended by their authors to be improvements on
Ptolemy's figure. Each of these figures is successively
more complicated in that each one demonstrates more inter-
vals than its predecessor. Ptolemy designed his helicon
mainly to show the consonant intervals of the Pythagorean
tuning, that is, the fourth ( 4: 3), fifth .< 3:2), octave {2 :1),
and (only incidentally) the major tone (9:8). Salinas, on
the other hand, makes a major point of the complex! ty of
his figure and describes at length the kinds of intervals
that may be found by combining the different lines of the
diagram. The figures of Zarlino and Salinas, based on the
intervals of the just tuning, are as easily adaptable to
instrumental use as is Ptolemy's first helicon, but neither
bas the versatility of Ptolemy's second instrument. The
third figure, that of Harington, seems to have been designed·
more for intellectual exercise than for musical purposes.
1
In his Dlmostrationi harmonica of 1571, Zarlino
describes the just intervals that may be found by dividing

1. Gioseffo Zarlino, D1mostration1 harmonice (Venetia:

Senese, 1571), 116. ·
.
475

a square into a series of proportional lines. In this

f'i~e {Diagram 91) the square abdc is divided ·in half' by'

the line gk, and 1n thirds by the lines et and 1h. The
diagonal al intersects the side cd at 1he mid-point. By'
assigning the number twelve to the longest side (ab) and
successively smaller intervals to the other lines, Zarlino
is able to show how each of these lines is' proportional
to one another and how the lines demonstrate the ratios of
the intervals. In his description of the intervals formed
between the lines he lists only the numbers of the various
intervals and leaves it to the reader to mat~h them with
the lines. He lists the numbers and the corresponding
intervals in the following manner.

Diagram 91. Zarlino's.geometrical demonstration of

the intervals of the just tuning.
0... e c.
2. 2.
2. 3

12. 10 q a

b f K h d
 476

10 minor third major tone

12
9
8
6
·fourth
fif'th
octave
9
{I fifth
octave and fifth
4 octave and f'if'th fourth
3 double octave 8 243 fifth sixth
2 double octave and fifth [ minor
double octave
9 minor tone
8 DJ.ajor third rr fifth
10
6 major sixth 61 3 octave
4 octave and third iZ octave and fifth
3 octave and sixth
4 f3
2 double octave and 1h1rd fourth
l!_ octave
3:2 fif tb.

Salinas's diagram is based on the number twenty-

:f'our rather than twelve and adds one more perpendicular to
2
the three used by Zarlino. The figure is constructed so
that the square MRFA is divided in half' by the line OC, in
thirds by the lines NB and PD. The line QE is placed one-
fourth of the distance between Rand K. Salinas .t'u.lly ex-
plains the relationships of the 1.ines by means of' geo-
metrical theorems and then, like Zarlino, lists the inter-
vals by number. Within this list he points out the number
of times that each interval appears. Salinas also lists
the combinations of these intervals with the octave.

2. Francisco Salinas, De musica libri septem {Salamanca,

1577), facsimile ed:-(kassel: Blrenreiter, 1958),
75-78.
 477

Diagram 92. Salinas's helicon.

A B c DE F
6 Ii.

L
16 15 I Z.

M N 0 P a R

Unison 12:12
DiQtonic semitone 16:15
Minor tone 20:18
Major tone (twice) 9:8, 18:16
JU nor third (twice) 18~15, 24:20
Major third (twice) 15:12, 20:16
Fourth (five t :Imes) 8:6, 12:9, 16:12, 20:15, 24:18
Fifth•(five times) 6:4, 9:6, 12:8, 18:12, 24:16
Minor sixth 24:15
Major sixth (twice) 15:9,, 20:12
Octave (five times) 8:4, 12:6, 16:8, 18:9, 24:12

Sir John Hawkins reprints a figure devised by John

Harington in 169~ that is said to ·show the consonances
 478

equally as well as does Salinas 1 s helicon. 3 This diagram

relies on the relationships of different-sized squares
which are constructed from the sides and hypotenuse of a
right triangle. The triangle's sides and hypotenuse are
in the proportion or 3:4:5. By adding the sides of the
squares, one is able to fonn the proportions of the inter-
vals. '!his demonstration, however, cannot be feasibly con-
verted to an instrument, nor does it clearly show the
proportional lengt..~s or the lines.

Diagram 93. Har1ngton 1 s gecmetrical demonstration

of intervals.

c.

M ....

3. Sir John Hawkins, A General History of the Science

and Practice or Music, 2nd ed., 2 voii.-rtondon:
Novello, 1852T; I, 410.
 479

The following list of intervals. selected from those

printed by Hawkins, shows only a few of the more common
intervals.

Kll4CC:KI.l4CB • 25:24 minor semi tone

OML:IInH = 15:16 diatonic semitone
CB:CJI = 9:10 minor tone
BG:BC = 8:9 major tone
C:AD
B:C c
-5:6
4:5
minor third
maj er third
A:B
B:AD
-- 3:4
4:6
fourt.h
fifth
C:BG
.A:C
-- 5:8
:3:5
minor
major
sixth
s1Xth
C:CB
BG:CML -- 5:9
8:15
minor
major
seventll
sixth

"\

.\
\
I

"\
\
\...

\
\
i
\
\
\
 480

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Aaron, Pietro. L1br1 tres de isti tut1on1 bamonica.

Bononiae, 1516. - -
2. • Toscanello ,!!! musica. Venice: Vam.ente, 1523.
3. Adelboldi. Konochord1 netarum. GS I, 303-312.
4. Adlung, M. Jacob. Anle1tung zu der mus1kal1schen
Gelahrthei t. Er:turt: Jungn1co1, 1758.
5. • Musica mechan1ca organoedi. Berlin: Birnstial,
1768.

6. ~ De musica cum. tonario, ed. by J. Smits van

--waaibarghe. 16iia: Amerio an Ins ti tuta of
Musicology, 1950.
7 •. • "Der Traktat des Johannes Cottonius 'fiber
---Musik, 11 tr. by Utto Komm-8.ller. K1rchen-
mus1kal1sches Jahrbuch, XIII {1888), 1-22.
8. .A.t'fligemensis, Johannes. Musica •. .Q§_ II, 232-265.
9. Agricola, Martin. Musica instrum.entalis deutsch, 4th
ed. Wittanberg: Georgen !haw, 1545.
10. • llu.dimenta musices. Vitebergae: Georgium Bhaw,
1539.
11. Alberti, Leone. Ten Books on Architecture~ Leone
· Battista Albir£'1 Trinali'ted into Italian £l Cosimo
Srto!i And into Eri~11ih gz
Taiiies Leoni, Venetian
Arch1tec'£"'"TlmT, e • by oseph RykWert. LOndon:
!. Tiranti, 1955.
12. Al-Farabi. Grand tra1 tede la musique, tr. by Rudolph
d 'Erlanger. l'ar1s, !§30. .
13. Alstad, Johann Heinrich. Tem~lum musicum (1611), tr.
by John Birchensha. ton on: 1. bring, 1664.
14. Anonymous. ~ et .!!!!. div1sio monochordi. ,ill! I, 122.
15'. Anonymous 1, CS II. Tractatus ~ musica plana. CS II,
434-483#
 481

16, Anonymous. Dimensio monochordi. GS r, 122-125.

17. Anonymous 1, GS I. 14us1ca. GS I, 331-338.
18. Anon,mous 2, GS I. Trac ta tus de mus1ca. GS I, 338-342.
-
19. Anonymous 4, Q.§, I. Mansura monochordi Boet11. GS I,
344-348.
20. Anonymous 10, GS I. Oita et vera divisio n1onochordi.
GS I, 313::'330. - --
21. Anonymous 1, GS II. ~ mensura fistularum in organis.
GS II, 283-286.
22. Anonymous. Monochordum ench1r1ad1s. MP CLI, cols.
693-694. -

"3
.:... . Anonymous. !1,_usica encbiriadis. GS_ I, 152-212.
24. Anonymous (Tuustede). Quatuor principalia. CS IV,
208-220.
Anonymous Steglich. Quaestiones in musica, ed. by
Rudolph Steglich. Beihefte aer !nternationalen
. Musikgesellschaft, Serles 2",To. to, 1911.
26. Anonymous. Summa musicae. GS llI, 191-248.
27. Ansehni, Georgio. De musica, ed. by Giuseppe Massera.
Florence: Leo~. Olschi, 1961.
28. Apel, Willi. "Monochord," Harvard Dictionary of Music.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni versitj' Pre ii, 1958.
29. • The Notation of Polyphonic Music, 4th ed.
---cam.Orrdge, ?lass.: 'l!ie lled!aeval Academy of
America, 1953.
30. Archibald, Ro C. "Mathematicians and Musicians,"
American Mathematical Monthly, XXXI ( 1924),. l-25.
31. Aribonis. Musica. Q§. II, 197-224 •
32. • De musics., ed. by J. Smits van Waesberghe.
~---Rom.i: 11iier1can Institute of Musicology, 1951.
 482

33. Aristophanes. The Clouds, tr. by Wm. Arrowsmith. Ann

Arbor: University of' Michigan Press, 1982.
34• .Aristotle. Aristotle's Keta~hysics, tr. by Richard
Hope. New York: Coium. ia University Press, 1952.
35. Arnaut, Henri. Les traites d'Henri-Arnaut de Zwolle
et de di versanonpies, ed. G. ts Cerf'. -parfs:
Jrcard, 1932.
36. Artusi, Giovanni ~aria. L'Arte del cont:iwrpunto.
Venice: Vincenz! Amad1no, I5'B'6.
37. • Seconda parte dell' overo della imperf'ettioni
-----della moderna musroi: Venice: G. Vinoenti, 1603.
38. Aurelian of' R8ome. Musica disc1plinae. GS I, 27-63.

39· Balmer, Lucie. Tonsystem und Kirchent6ne bei Johannes

Tinctoris •. Bern und 'ti!pzig: PiiU! Haupt, 1935.
40. Barbour, J. Murray. ~gtl..J'!mperament: Its Histog
!'ran Ramis ( 1492 o eau ( 1737). lJn'pubilsned
arsiertat!on-;-Corniil trulvers!tj', 1932.
41 • ~ "Kore on the Leipzig Organ Tuning," Journal
--of' the American :ti'lusicological Society, III
TI95m°, 41-44.
• "The Persistence of' the Pythagorean Tuning
--system," Scripta Mathematica, I (1933), 286-304.
43. • Tuning and Temperament. East Lansing: Michigan
State college Press, 1951.
44., Bartoluc, Abraham. Kusica mathematica, printed as the
second part of' !theatr1 machinarum. Altenburg,
1614·

4.5'. Bellerman, Fridericus, ed. Anonym1: Scr1pt1o de

musica. Bacch11 senioris: Introductio artl's
musicae. Berolini: Foeratner, 1891.
46. Bendeler, J.P. Organopoeia. Franckf'urt und Leipzig:
Calv1sii, 1690.
 483

47. Berlin, Johann Daniel. Anlei tung zur Tonanetrie • • •

erfunden und ei¥!erichteten monoohordum.
Kopenbigen-iind ipzig:. F. c. Pelt, 1667.
48. Bermudo, Juan. Declaracion de InstrlJJlentos musicales
(Ossuna, 1555). FacsfinI!e ed. Kassel:
Blrenreiter, 1955.
49. Berno of Reichenau. Musi ca. GS II, 62-117.
;o. Bessar-aboff, Nicholas. Ancient European Musical Instru-
m~nts. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1941.
~l. Besseler, Heinrich. Die Musik des Mittelalters und
der Renaissance."'-l'otsdam::---Xkadem!sche ---
ver:Lagsgese11scbaft, 1931.
5'2 • • "Studien zur Jdu.sik der Mittelalters," Archiv
---fftr.Musikwissena.cbaft, VII (1927j, 167.
Boethius. De 1nstitut1one musica, ed. by Godo.fredus
Friedliin. L1ps1ae: Teubneri, 1867.
Bohn, Peter. "Philipp von Vi try," Mona tshefte fi1r
Musikgeschichte, XXII (1890J, 141. ~

Bonanni, Filippo. Description des 1nstrumens har-

!lloniques, 2nd ed. BOiiie: Mona1d1n1, 1776:--
5'6 • Boansl1ter, Paul and Warren Creel. Otfanization in
Auditory Perception. Albany: S te Onivers!ty
College, 1962.
57. Bottrigar1, Ercole. Il desiderio ovvero de' concerti
di var11· stranentr musical! (Ven!ce,~594), ed.
by Kathi Meyer. Berlin: Breslauer, 1924.
;a. Brsmbach, Wilhelm. Die Musikli tteratur des Mi ttel-
alters bis zur "5!1Ithe der Reichenauer-slngerschule.
Itar1sFuhe, 'Dm3. . -
~
Brancour, Rene. H1sto1re des instruments de musique.
Paris: Is.urens, 1921:--
60. Bukofzer, •antl"ed F. 11 Allegory in Baroque Music,"
Journal of tb.e Warburg and Cour tauld Institutes,
III (193v=l'94cr), 1-21. ----
 --
484

61. Bukof'zer, J4anf'red F. "Speculative Thinking in Medieval

Musio,tt Speculum, XVII {1942), 165-180.
62. Butler, Charles. Principles of Music. London: John
Haviland, 1636. -

Byrd, William and Tallis Thomas. Cantiones gte ab

ar~umento sacrae vocantur. London: Vau roll'ir1us,
15 5.
64.
--- • Gradualia. l'.Dndon: Humphrey Lownes, 1610.
6;. Carpenter, Nan Cooke. Music in the Medieval. and
'Renaissance Univers1tres:- Nonnan, Okiih:ana:
University or
oklihana Press, 1946.
66. Cass1odorus. An Introduction to Divine and Human
Readings,tr. by Leslie W:-Jones. New York:
Colum"6Ia University Press, 1946.
67. Chaignet, A. E. Pythagore et ~ philosophie pytha!or-
1c1enne, con~nan~ les~ragments •• 4 d'Jirc~tas,
2 vols. Paris: Diarer, 1874.
68. Choquel, ~enri Louis. La musique rendue sensible par
1_!mechanique, new ea.. Paris, 1762.
69. Cicero. Basic Works, ed. by Moses Hadas. New York:
Modern Library, 1951.
70. Coleman-Norton, P. R. "Cicero and the Music of the
Spheres," Classical Journal, XLV (1950), 237-241.
·71. Colonna, Fabio. La sambuca lincea. Naples: c. Vitale,
1618.
72. Conrad von Zabern. Die Musiktrakta te Conrads von
Zabem, ed. by r.kir!-Werner Gt!linpel. Mainz:
8-teiner, 1956.
73.. Cornford, Francis M. Plato's Cosmologz. New York:
Liberal Al-ts Press, 1957.
74. Craven, J. Bw Doctor Robert Fludd. Kirkwall, 1902.
,,
Coussem~ker, Edmond de. Memoire sur Hucbald. Pe.ris:
J. Techener, 1841.
 485

76. Coussemaker, Edmond de. Sor1,to:J:'UD1 de musica med11

aevi, 4 vols. (Paris~ 181S}. Facsimile ed.
IlI'!ano: Bollettino Bibliographico Musicale, 1931.
77. Culver, Charles. Musical .Acoustics, 4th ed. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1956.
78. Dech.ales, R. P. Cursue seu mundus mathematicus, 3 vols.
Lugduni, 1674. -

79. Decartes, Rene. Compendium musicae, tr. by Walter

Robert. Rome: Aiiier!can'I"fistftute of Musicology,
1961.
80. Dowland, Robert. Varietie of Lute Lessons (London,
1610). Facsimile ed. --r:ondon: Schott, 1958.
81. Drlger, Hans Heinz. ''Monochord," Die Musik in
Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed."l)y FriedrICh Bltmle.
Basel: BMr~e!ter, 1957, IX, cols. 474-475.
82. Dupont, WiiheJm.. Geschichte der musicalischen
Tempera. tur. Kassel: Bilrenreiter, 1935.
83. D6.ring, Ingemar. Die Harm.on! elehre des Klaudios
Ptolemaios. GB'teborg: Elanders;-19ro.
84. • Ptolemaios und Porpliyrios ftber die Musik.
---GBteborg: Elanders, I~4. -:----- -
_R;. Eitner,. Robert~ "Hugo von Reutlingen, 11 Monatshef'te
fur Musikgeschichte, II (1870}, 57.
86~ Ellis, Alexander. "On the Hi stoey of Musical Pitch,"
Journal of the Society of the A.rts, XX\TIII (1880),
295. -- ---
87. Engelbert of Admont. ~ musica. GS II, 287-369.
88. Euler, Leonhard. Tentamen novae theoriae musicae
ex certissimus d!!ucide e~ositae. Petropoli:
lCadeiiliae sc!ential"Um, 17 •
89. Farey, Hohn. ~On a New Mode of Equally Tempering the
:Musical Scale, 11 Philosothical Ma~azine, XXVI
(1806), 171-176; XXV'!!18o7), 1 1-206, 313.
 486

90. Parmer, Henry G. Historical Facte for the Arabian

Musical Influence. London: W.-ireeru, 1930.
91. Figulus, Wolfgang. De musica practica. Noribergae:
Montani, 1565.
92. Flood, W. H. Grattan. "The Eschequier Virginal, n
Music and Letters, VI (1925), 151-153.
93. Fludd, Robert. Monochordi mundi s:ymphoniacun,
printed as part ot the Ana tom!:ae ampb!thea trum.
Frankfurt, 1623, 238-321.
94. • Utrius ue cosm1, maioris sc111cet et minoris,
~~m-eta s ca1 phiS!ca, afgi7 technica h!itorla.
Oppe emii: Galleri, 6 •
95. Fogliano, Ludovico. Musica theor1ca. Venetiis:
Antonium. et Sabio, 1529.
9.6. Fox-Strangways, A. "A Tenth Century Manual," :Musi.c
and Letters, XIII (1932), 183-193. .
97. Frere, w. H. 8 Monochord," Grove's Dictiona~ of
Music and Musicians, 3ra ed., ed. by H. .--0-olles.
London:---Macm111an, 1928, III, 495-499.
98. Gaffurius, Franchinus. Angelicum ac divinum opus
m~.isice. Mediolani: Go:tardum, J:'SOS.
99. • Ha rmon:la music ormn ins trumen torum. Mediolani:
Gotardum, 1518.
100. • Theorica mus1cae (1492). Facsimile ed.
~a: Reale Accademia d 1Italia, 1934.
101. Galpin, F. W. A Textbook of European Musical Instru-
ments. Lonaon: w111iams and~orgate, 1931.
102. • "Monsieur Prin and His Trumpet Marine, 11
Music~ Letters, XIV (1933), 18-29.

103. • Old English Instruments of Music. Chicago:

--....M"oClurg, 1911. -
 487

104• Galilei, Vinoenzu. Dialogo della musica antica

et moderna (Florence, 1581), facs1m'11e ed.
'irana: RSale Accademia d'Italia, 1934.
105• Gallicus, Johannes. Ritus canendi velustissimus
.!! novus •. .2.§. IV, 298-393.
106. Ganassi, Sylvestro. Refola Rubertina (1543). Facsim-
ile ed. I.ej.pzig:tlstner und Siegel, 1924. -
107. Garnault, Paul. La trompette marine. Nice: Chez
1 iauteur, 1926.
108. Gastoue, Amedee. "Moyen Age II," Encyclotedie de la
musflue et d1ct1onnaire du conservato re, ea: '6Y
A. Vlgiii'c and t. de 1~-ra"'.ll'enc!e. Paris:
Delagrave, 1913. Partie I, I, 556.
109. Gerbert, Martin. Scrlltores ecclesiastici de musica
(1784), 3 vols. cs1iiiile ed. Milano:~
Bollettino B1bl1ograf1co musicale, 1931.
110. Gerold, Theodore. Histoire de la musiie'e des ori~ines
!, la fin du XIVe si~cle.--Paris: nouard, 1 36.
111. Gevaert, Frangois. Histoire et Thaorie de la Musigue
de l'Antiguite. Gand: AD'iioot-Braecliiiian, 1875.
112. Gibel, Otto. Propositiones mathE1D.atico-musicae.
Mindenarden Weser: J. E. Heydorn, 1666.
113. Gil de Zamora. Ars musica. Q:! II, 369-393.
114. Glareanus, Henricus. Dodecachordon. Basel: Petri,
1547.
• Dodecachordon, tr. by Clement killer. Unpub-
~~-lished dissertation, University of Michigan, 1950.
116. Gow. James. A Short History of Greek Mathematics.
Cambridge7 univers ltj'-Press , 1884.
117. Grammateus, Henricus. 11 Arithmetica appl1c1rt oder
gezogen au.ff die edel Kunst Musica, 11 appendix
to ~ E!.! kunstlich Buech. Nf\rnberg, 1518.
118. Grutchfield, E. "Hucbald, A Millenary Commemoration,"
Musical Times, Lxx:r (1930), 507-510, 704-710. .
 488

119. Guido d'Arezzo. ~ ignoto cantu. GS II, 43-50.

120. • Micrologus. GS II, 1-24 •
121. • Micrologus, ed. by J. Smits van Waesberghe.
-~-Rame: J\iiierican Institute of Musicology, 1955.
122. • Micrologus, tr. by Jerome Collier.
---scriptorium~XVII (1958); 35-52, XVIII (1959),
25-46. (PUblished privately by st. John's
Abbey, Collegeville, Minn.)
123. Regulae Rhytl:Jnicae. Q§ II, 25-34.
124. Gi!m.pel, K. w. "Das Te.sten Monochord Conrads von
Zabern," Arcbi v f'ftr 1lus1kwiss~nschaf't, XII
(1955), 143-146.--:--
12;. Haf'enref'f'er, Samuel. Monochordon s;rmbolico-
biane.nticum. Ulmae: Balthasa'rrKfihrien, 1640.
126. Handschin, Jacques. "Aus der al ten Musiktheorie,"
Acta Musicologia, .XVI ( 1944), 1-10. _

127. • "Die llusikanschaui.mg des Johannes Scotus

---(Brigena), 11 Deutsche vierteljahresschrif't f'ilr
Li teraturwissenschii't und Ge!s tesgescbich te;-
V ( 1927), 316-340. - ~-

128. ~ Toncbarakter. Zurich: Alantis, 1948.

129. • "Ein mi ttele.lterlicher Beitrag zur. Lehre von
-~a-er Spblrenharmonie~" Zeitschrift fiirKusikwissen-
schaft,. IX (1926-27 J, 193-208. -
130. • "Etwas grei:t'bares tlber Hue bald," Ac ta
---u~usicologice, VII (19~5), 158. ~
u
131. Hilser, A. F. Uber wissenschaftliche Begrtlnclung der
»usik durch Akustik, 11 A.llgeme1ne musikalische
Ze1tung, DCCII (1829), cols. 143-147.
132. Hayes, Gerald R. Musical Instruments and Their
. Music, 1500-1700, g-vols. London:~.xtora
Univers~Press, 1930.
 489

l33· Hawkins, Sir John.· A General H1sto1t of the Science.

and Practice of i'ui!c, 2iid ed.. volS:- London:
Novello, 1852-:- '
134. Heath, Thomas. A iianual oi'- Greek Mathematics.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1931.
135. Helmholtz, Hel"Dlann. On the Sensations of Tone as a
Pb:rsiological Bas!i !'or the Theo!f Of" Jruil"c-;-2nd
. Eng. ed., tr. 'bY' Aleiiiider Ellis London, 1885).
Unabridged reprint. New York: Dover Publica-
tions, 1954.
136. Hennannus Contractus. Musica. GS II, 125-127.
137. • Musica, ed. by Wm. Brambach. Lipsiae:
Teubneri, 1884.
138. • . Musica Hermann! Contract!, tr. by Leonard
Ellinwoo'd:" Rocheste·r: Eas'biian School of Music,
1936.
139. Higgins, w. :Mullinger. The Philosophy ot Sound.
London: Wm. s. Orr,~38.
140. Hollander, John. The Untuning of the §!Z· Pl'inceton:
Pl'inceton University' Press,-r96I:"
141 • Hopper, Vincent F. Medieval Number S"illol1sm.. New
York: Columbia University Press, 938.
142. Hucbald. De harmonica Institutione. GS I, 104-122.
Hugo von Reutlingen. Flores musicae omnis cantus
Gregorian!. Strassburg: Johann Frtlss, 1488.
144. • Flores musicae annis cantua Gregorian!, tr.
-~by Carl Beck. StUttgart, 1868. Vol. LXXXIX
---
of Bibliothek des ---~~~~~-
Litterarischen -~~~
Vereins.
Isidore, Bishop of Seville. E~mologiarum sive
originum, ed. by w. :M. Lin say. ~xonfi: ·
Clarendoniano, 1911.
146. Jacques de Li~ge. Speculum Musicae, Books 6 and 7.
CS II, 193-383.
 490

147. Jacques de Li~ge. Speculum Musicae, ed. by Roger

Bragard (Books 1-3 published to date). Rane:
American Insti~~te of Musicology, 1955-.
148. • Die einleitenden Kapitel des §peculum Musicae,
--e-d. cywa!ter Grossman -{-Caps. T-IXX ot :Efook 11.
Leipzig: Brei tkop!' und H!Jtttel, 1924.
149. James, Philip. Eat~! Keyboard Instruments. London:
Peter Davies, o.
15'.0. Jan, Karl. Musici Scriptores Graeci. Lipsiae:
Teubne·ri , 1895.
15'1. Jeans, Sir James. Science and Music. New York:
Macmillan, 1940.
15'2. Jerane de Moravia. Trac ta tus ~ mus1ca. CS I, 1-94.

15'3. • Tractatus de mus1ca. Ed. by Simon Cserba.

-~Re= gensburg: PU:stet, 1935.
15'4. Johannes de Garland.la. Introductio musice, CS I,
157-175.
155'. • Der Musiktraktat des Johannes de Grocheo.
____,E-d. "5y-Ernst Rohloff .---:t";e!pz!g: R&rnecke, 1943.
116. • "Die Musiklebre des J obannes de Grocheo,"
---sammelblnde der Internationalen Musikgesellscbaft,
I (1899), 69-130.
15'7. Johannes de Muris. Musica speculativa. ~ III,
252-291.
15'8. Jones, :Robert. Ultimum Vale. London: John Windet,
1605.
~
15'9. Kastner, Georges. Ia Harpe d'Eole et la Mus1~ue
Cosmique. Paris: Brandus et DU?our, 185 •
160. Kepler, Johannes. The Harmonies of the World, Bk. v.
tr. by Charles ~Jllcago: Encyclo-
paedia Britannica. 1955. Vol. XVI of Great Books
of the Western World, 1009-1085. '
 491

161• Kinsky, Georg. Gesohichte der Kusik in Bildern.

Leipzig: Bre!tkopt und-irl'rtel, 1§2°9.
162. Kircher, Atbanasius. Musurgia universalis, 2 vols.
Rome, 1650.
Kirnberger, Jobann P. Die Kunst des reinen Satzes
,!!! ~ Kusik. B4~rl!ii"'; 1779. -
164. KommiU.ler, Utto. 11 1Bs musikalische Alphabet,"
Mona tahef'te f'!r .Jlusik.gesch1chte, X ( 1878),. 94-99.
-
16;. • "Jlusiklehre des Ugolino von Orvieto," Kirchen-
.,_....musikalisches J'ahrbuch, X {1895), 1943. _
166. Krebs, c.
"Die besa1 ten KlavierinstI'Ulllent, 11 V1ertel""'.
~ahresscbrift f'~r Mus1kw1ssenschaf't, VIII (1892),
1. .
Kristeller, Paul o. The .Philosop~ of Marsilio
F1c1no. New York:Columbia nfvers!ty Press,
1943.
168. Killin, Walter. 11 Die Bedeutung des Monochords fih' die
Gesangunterricht in den Lateinachulen des 16. Jab.r-
.hunderts, 'f ~ Stimme, XIII (1918-19), 169-176.
169. Kunst, Jaap. 11 Je.vanische Musik," Die Musik in
Geschichte.und Gegenwart, ed. ~iedricn Blume.
Basel: Bkrenreiter, 1957, VI, cols. 1784-1797.
170. La Fage, Adrien de. Essais de dipth&rographie
·musicale. Paris: Au magasin de musique du Bazar
d.e 1'-Industrie. o. Legouix, editeur, 1864.
171. Lanfranco, Giovanni Maria. Scintilla di musica.
Brescia: Lodovico Brittanico, 1533.
172. Lesure, Fran901s. "Pierre Trichet's Traite las
Instruments ~ :M.ueigue: Supplement," Ga'IP!"n
Soc!eft Journal, XV ( 1962), 70-81. .
Levens. Abrese des r~gles de l'harmonie. Bordeaux:
J. Cha pius, 'I'143. -

174. Lloyd.; L •. s. "The History of Our Scale, n Music

Review, XIV (1953), 173-185.
 492

Lloyd,, L. S. Mus:l.c and Sound. London: Oxford

University Press-;-!'931.
1?6. • "The Musical Scale,," The Musical Qu.arterly,
--:xxvrn 'C 1942 >,, 205~215. . -
1?7. Mace,, Than.ab. Kus1ck 1 s Monument (London,, 1676).
Facsimile ed. Paris: Editions du centre nat,.onal
de la recherche sc1ent1f1qu.e,, 1958.
178. Kacran,, H. s.
1902. -----
The Ha:nnonics of Aristoxenus. Oxf'ord,,

179. Macrobius,, Ambrosius. Comment.ar:v of the Dream of

Scipio, tl'. by Wm. Harris Stahl." New York:-
Columbia University Press,, 1952.
180. Malcolm, Alexander.
1721. -A Treatise -of Musick. Edinburgh,,

181. Marchettus de Padua. Luc1dar1 um musicae planae.

Q! III,, 64-121.
182. Marpurg,, Friedrich W. Anf'angsgrftnde der theoretischen
Musik. Leipzig: J. G. I. Breitk'OPf',, 1757.
183. • Versuch !ber die mus1kal1sche Temperatur.
--B..reslau: korn;-1'l"f6.
184. Marquard, Paul. Die ha:nnonisohen Fragmente des
Aristoxenus. Berlin: WeidDiann, 1868. -
185. Mattheson, Johann. Critica Musica. Hamburg: Herold,
1722.
186. • Der vollkommene Capellmeister. Hamburg:
Hero'I'Ci'; 1739.
18?. Meckenheuser, Jacob George. Die sogenannte aller-
nueste musicalische Temperatur. QUedlinburg:
Wiperti, 1727. ·
1°88. Meiban, Marcus. AntJ:me musicae auctores septem,
2 vols. A.mstelo 1: Ludov!cum Eizev1r1um,
1652.
 493

189. Jltersenne, Marin. Ha.monie unive·:.c•selle. Paris:

Cramoisy, 1635.
190. • Harmonie universelle: The Books on Instl"u~
--ments, tr. by Roger Chapnan:--The Ha:gU;: Nijhof'f,
1957.
,,
191· --~-· Le preludes de 1 1barmon1e universelle. Paris:
H. Gvenon, 1634.~

192· Me ttenlei ter, Dan.1nicus. Aua der mus 1kal ischen

verga.ngenhei t bayriso!iiF !ll'dte M'.us1§eatcbichte
11

der-Stadt Regensourg. hgenaourg: J.<1.

B8sseneeker, 1886.
193. Migne, Jacques. Patrologiae cursus canpletus, series
Latina, 221 vols. Paris: Gardiner, 1844-55.
194. Miller, Dayton. The Science of Musical Sounds.
New York: Macmillan, 1934.

19?. Morley, Thanas. A

Plain and
Practical Music, ed. oyR.
EaitecIntroduction to
Hannon. LOnaon:
J.M. Dent, 1952.
196. Mount.ford, J. F. "Greek Music and its relation to
Modern Times, t1. The Journal of Hellenic Studies,
XL (1920), 13-:-~ . -

197. • "T'ne :Musical Scales of Plato's Republic,"

The Classical Qu.arterly, XVII (1923), 125-126.
198. Miiller, Hans. 11 Bruchstilcke
aus der mi ttelal terlichen
Mus1ktheorie, t1 Vierteljahreaschrift fftr Musik-
!'issenschaft, I ( 1885), 170-174. -:-
199. Nassarre, Pablo. Escuela musica, 2 vols. Zaragoza:
Larumbe, 1724.
200. Neidhardt, Johann George. Beste und leichteate
Temperatur £!! M:onochor'df. Jena: Bielcken, 1706.
·201. • Glntzlich ersch6pfte, mathematische
--A....btheilungen des dia tonisch-cbroma tischen
temperirten Canonfs Monochordi. KlSnigsberg
und Leipzig: Eckirt, 1732.
 494.

202. Neidhardt, Johann George. Sectio canonis harmonici.

KSnigsberg: Eckart, 1724.
203. Nicanachus. Introduction to Arithmetic, tr. by .
Martin D'Ooge. New Yorlt: Macmillan, 1926.
204. Norden, N. Lindsay. "A New Theory of Untempered
Music," The Musical Quarterly, XXII ( 1936),
217-233. . .

205. Notker, Labeo. De mensura fistularum organicum..

~ I, 101-102:" .
206. Odington, Walter. De speculatione musice. CS I
182-251.
207. Odo of St. Maur (Cluny). Dialogus de musica. GS I,
252-303.

208. • "Oddo 's von Clugny Dialog," tr. by Peter Bohn,

Monatshefte fftr Musikgeschichte, XII (1880), 24, 39.
209. Quanodo organistrum construatur. -GS I , 303.

210. Odoranne. De divisione monochordi. MP CXLII.,

col. 808.
Oesch, Hans. Guido von Arezzo. Bern: Paul Haupt,
211.
1954. ----
212. Ornithoparcua, Andreas. Micrclo816, tr. by John
Dowland. London: T. Adams, 09.

213. Palladio, Andrea. L'architett·llra di Andrea Palladio

divisa ~.n quattro 1ihr1. Venera~ M. A.
Brogiolio, 1$62.
214. Parrish, Carl. The Notation of Medieval Music.
New York: W-:-W. Norton, 1959.
215. Philippe de Vitry. Ara nova. CS III, 15-22.
216. • Ars Nova, tr. by Leon Plantigna, Journal
of MUSI'c""'T'fieory, V ( 1961), 204-223.
217. Piper, Paul. Die alt.este deutsche L1 tteratU!' bis um
das Jahr l~. Berlin: W. Spemann, 1884.- -
VO!. -y-()f~tsche National-Li ttera tur.
 495

.218. Piper, Paul. Die Schriften Notkers. Freiburg:

Mohr, 1882-:--
219 •.. Plato. The 1le11J:bl1c ot Plato, tr. by Francis 14.
Corn?Ord.Xford.S- Clarendon Press, 1941.
220. Polybius. The Histories, tr. by w. ~. Paton, 6 vols.
New YorX: G. l'. i'U£Dam 1 s Sons, l92J?-2'7.
221. Porphyrios. Por;phyrios Kanmentar zur Harmonie Lehre
des Ptolmiios, tr. bf"'"Iitgemar '?Ering. CRSteborg:
El&:nders, 1932.
Praetorius, Michael. Syntagm.a Musicum (Woltenbiittel,
1618), 3 vols. Facsimile ed. Kassel: Blren-
rei ter, 1957-59.
223. • Syntagma Musicum, Vol. II, De Organographia,
--f""'irst and second partsTr. Fii HarolaBtumeilfeld.
New Havens The Chinese Printing Off'ice, Yale
University, 1949.
j

224. Printz, Wolfgang Kaspar. Exercitationes musicae

theoretico-practioae. Dresden: J. C. M!etheus,
1689.
• Phrynis !ytilenaeus oder der sat:yrische
--c-ompo.n~. Dresden und Ie!PzIS-; 169"G.
226. Prosdocimus de Beldemandis. Libellus monochordi. ·
CS llI, 248-257.

227. Ptolemaeus, Claudius. Claud:i.1 Ptolemaei harmonicorum

libri tres, tr. by Johri Wallis. Oxon11: e
Theatre Sheldoniano, 1682.
228. Ilambosson, J. Des Harmonies du Son. Paris: Firmin-
Didot, 1778-;-- - - ,

229. Rameau, Jean Philippa. Demonstration du Principe

de l 'Harmonie. Paris: DUrand, l'7'5'CL
,, ,
230. ____ • Generation Harmonique. Paris: Prault, 1737.
231. Ramos de Pareia. Musica practica, ed. Johannes Wolf.
Leipzig: Breitkop? i.md Hlrtel, 1901.
 496

232. Redfield, John. Music: A Science and an Art.

New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1928. - -
233. Reese, Gustave. Four Score Classics of Mu.sic
Literature. New ·~York:Liberal Arts Press, 1957.
234. • :Music in the Kiddle Ages. New York: w. w.
--N"orton, l9'm.- -
235'. • Music in the Renaissance. New York: w. w.
---N-orton, 19~.~
236. "Regino of PrUm. De ha!'monica institutione. GS I,
230-247.
237. Reinhard, Andrea's. Monochordum.. Leipzig: Valentin,
1604.
238. Remy of Auxerre. Musica. GS I, 63-94.
239. Rlbera, Julian. Ia Musica de las Cantigas. Madrid:
. Tipografia de-ra Rev!sts. di'"'Arch!nos, 1922.
240. Richardson, Edward •. The Acoustics of Orchestral
Instruments and o~e Organ. New York: OX.ford
Universit'Y' Press-;-1~.
241~ Riemann, Hugo. Geachichte der Notenschr1ft. Leipzig:
Bre1tkopf und Hirte!, l'S'1S°.
242. Roberts, Francis. "On the Defee ts and the Musical
Notes of the Trumpet, and Trumpet Marine,"
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Soc1etz
of LondOn, XVII (1S92), 467-=4'70:-
243· Rohloff, Ernst. Studium. zum. Musiktraktat des
Johannes de Grocbeo: -ni°ipzig: FrOiilliihOid und
Wendler, R30.
244. Ranieu, Jean Baptiste. 11Memo1re tb.eol'ique et prat1que
sur lee Sl:stemes temperas de musique, 11 M.6moires
de l'academie royale des soiences. Paris, 1758,
itr3-519. . -
Ross, James B., ed. The Portable Medieval Baader.
New York:- V1k1ng--pr'ess, 1949.
 497

246.· Rossi, Lemme. Sistema musico. Perugia: IB.urenzi,

1666.
24.?. Ruba.rdt, Paul. Ffthrer durch das Musikinstrumenten
Museum der Karl:fttarx Universi tit. Leipzig:
Breitkopr-una B'llrtei, 1~55 •
.,.
··248. Rudle, . Ch.-Bnile. Alytius et Gau.dance. Paris:
Imprimerie nationa e, 1'9'§57
249. Russell, Ra:ymond. The Harps1cho2•d and Clavichord.
London~ Faber and Faber, 195~.~
25"0. Sachs, Curt. The Histoa of Musical Instruments.
New York: -W:- W. Nor oil;" 1940.
• "A Strange Medieval Scale," Journal of the
--~Am~ erioan Musicological Society, II (1949T; 169-70.
25'2. Salinas, Francisco. De musica 11br1 septem
(Salamanca, 1577):- Facs!mi!e ed. Kassel:
Blrenreiter, 1958.
253. Sauveur, Joseph. "Sur un nouveau.s7steme de musique,"
Histoire de l'Acadamie Royale des Sciences. .
Paris, 17'0'!, 121-13'7. --

----son application
•
11
Systeme general des intervalles des sons,
.a tous les systemes
.. et a' tous
et
lea instrumens de musique," H1sto1re de l 'Acs.demie
Royale £!.!.Sciences. Paris, 1'701, 29°7=364.
Sobl:f'ke, Rudolph. Aristides Qu.1ntilianus von der
!_usik. Berlin: Max Hesse, 1937. - -
Soherchen, Herman. The Nature of Music, tr. by.
William. Mann. LOndon: DennTs DObson, no date.
.2$7. Schlecht, 'Raimund. "1licrologu.s," :Monatshefte ff!r
.. . :Musikgeschichte,. V (1873), 135. ~

2;8. • "Musica ench1r1ad1s von Huobald," Monatshefte

--:r:n.r Mus1kgeacbichte, VI (1874), 163-193, VII (1875),
l"=!'O, 33-4'7, 49-61, 65-93, VIII (1876), 89-101 •
.2)9. • "Ueber den Gebrauch der Diesis 1m 13. und 150. ·
--...J..ahrhundert," Monatshei'te ·:f'ti.r Musikgescllichte,
IX {1877) , 79-97. --
 498

.260. Schlesinger,. Kathleen. "Further Notes. on Aristoxenus

and Musical Intervals," Classical Quarterly,
XXVII (1933), 88-96. .
·2.61, • ~ Greek Auloa. I.ondon: Methuen, 1939.
262. Schlosser, Julius. Die Sammlun! alter Musikinstru-
mente. Wien: Anton Schl'o! , 1920.
Schneider, Max F. Alter Musik in der bildenden
Kunst Easels. Basel: Ho!bifn-;-'"!941.
264. Schubiger, Anselm. nflber Hucbalds Werk De music a,"
Monatshefte filr Kus1kgeschichte, X (IS'78), 24-28.
26;. Shir law, Matthew. "The Music and Tone Systems of
Ancient Greece," Music and Letters, XXXII ( 1951),
131-139. -

266. • The Theory of Harmony, 2nd ed. Dekalb, Ill.:

Bircli.Eird Coar, 1'§'55.
Shakespeare, William. Th.e Merchant of Venice (1600).
New ed1 ti on. New York: French, """"!860.
268.• Simpson, Cb~istopher. The Division Viol, 2nd ed.
London: w. Godbid,~65. ----
Smith, Robert. Harmonies, or the Philosoph! of
Musical Sounds, 2nd ed.~ondon: T. an J.
ierr111, 1759.
270. Sn-0eck, c. c. Catalogue d'Instruments. Gand:
Vuylsteke, 1894.
271. Sorge, Georg Andreas. Ges~lch zwischen einem Musico
Theoretico und einem s~ioso musices.
LO'Senstein,""1:748. ·
27~. Spitta, Philipp. Johann Sebastian Bach, tr. by Clara
Bell and J. A. FUlle1•-Mait1and,~ols. London:
Novello, 1899.
273·. Stanhope, Charles Earl. "Principles of the Science
of Tuning Instruments . with Fixed Tones,"
Philosophical Magazine, XXV (1806), 291~312.
 \
\
.
1

499

27~. Stanley, Albert A. Catalofiie of the Stearns

Collection of 11.usical nstriiniiii"s. Arin Arl>or:
university or Michigan, 19~8.
g1;. Stark:te, Wal~er. Espagne, 2 vols.. Paris: Kistler,
1959.
a7§.··. Stevenson, Robert. Juan Bermudo. The Hague:
N:t .,1hoff.. 1960 •

277. • Spanish Music in the Age of Columbus. The

---Hague: Nijho:tf', l'§!'o:-- -

278. Strlhle, Daniel P. "Nytt pafund, til at firms.

temperatu:ren, 1 stlmmigen f8r Thonerne ~
claveretock dylika. instrum.enter," Svenska
Vetenskapsakademien, Stockholm, IV (1743),
281-291. .
279. Strunk, Oliver. Source Readin~s !!! Music History.
New York: w. W.. Norton, 1 so.
280. subira, Jose. Historia de la ?4usica, 2nd ed.
Barcelona: saiva t EC!ftores; s .A.,, 1951.
Tartini, Giuseppe. De' ;r1nciti dell'armonia
musicale contenuta ne d!a on1co genere. Padua:
Stamperia de1 Seminario, 176'7.
Tempelhof, Georg Friedrich. Gedanken 'fiber die
Temperatur des Herr:n Kirnberger. Berlin una
Leipzig: G:--15. Decker, 1775.
283. Theoger of Metz. Musioa, GS II, 182-196.
284'. Thorndike, Lynn. History of Magic, 8 vols • New
York: Macmillan, 1923.
Trew, Abdias. Dis~;tatio musica de div1s1one
monochord1:_. ffid.oi'f'fi: Georg! Hagen, 1662.
286. . rzctf music! theor1co-pract1c1 •••
-----exPl ca o tredeoim divisionum monochordi.
ROtenbu:rgii Jacobi lo11yn1, 1635 •.
287. Tflrk, l)iniel Gottlobe Klavier Schule, oder Anweisung
~ Klavierspielen.- Isipzig: Schw!ClCirt, 1'789.

\
 500

288. Ugolino d'Orvieto. Declaratio musicae disciplinae,

ed. by Albert Seay. Rome: American Institute
of Musicology, 1962.
Vicentino, Nicola. L'antica musica ridotta alla
moderna prattica (Rome, 1555). Faosimileea.
Kassel: Blrenreiter, 1959.
290. Virdung, Sebastian. Kusica Getutscht (Basel, 1511).
Facs:lmile ed. Kassel: Bllrenreiter, 1931.
291. Waesberghe, J. Smits van. Cym.bala (Bells in the
Middle ~_). llome: .Ailie:i-ican Institu"fe 'Or
Musicology, 1951.
Wallis, John. "On the Division of the ltonochord, or
Sec ti on of the Musical Canon," Philosophical
Transac.tions of the Royal Sooiety Ol' LOndon,
xx (1698) , ao=e-4:-- - -
293. • "on the Trembling of Consonant Strings,"
~__,P-hilosophical Transactions of t~~ Royal Soc1etI
_ ------
of.... London, XII (1677), 839-842:--
294. W~ntzloeben, Sigfrid. Das Monochord ala Instrument
~ als System. Haffi': EfirhRrdt!Girras, 1911.
29~L Warren, Ambrose.· The Tonaneter. London: Cluer and
Campbell, 1725.
296. Wasielewski, w. J. Geschichte der Instrumentenmusik
1m ~· Jah(b.undeI't. He!lbronn: SchDlidt, 18'78.
297. Weakland, RembeI t. "Hue bald as Musician and Theorist,"
. !E!. Musical prterly, XLII ( 1956), 66-84.
298.• We rclanei s ter, Ar. dreas • Hypomenma ta music a.
Quedlinburg: Ca_lvisiI, 1697.
299. • :Musicae .nathematicae hodagus curiosus.
--F-mnckfurt ti.nd Leipzig: Cal v!sii, 1687.
300.• • Musicali. ach paradoxal-discourse.
-·Qued11nburg faaIV1s11, 1707.
Westphal~ R., ea. Aristoxenus .!£!:! Tarent, 2 vols.
Leipzig: Atel, 1883-93.
 501

302. Wilhelm of Hirsau. Musica. GS II, 155-180.

Winnington-Ingram,, R.P. "Aristoxenus and the
Intervals of Greek Music,," The Classical
Qu.arterly,, XXVI (1932),, 195':208.
Wit,, Paul de. Pea."rls from the Collection-- of :Musical
Inst:ruments. Leipzig: Taul de Wit, 1~2.
305. Wittkower,, ·Rudolph. Architectural Principles in
the Age of Humanism, 2nd ed. LOndon: A. Trranti,
m-2. -
306. Wolf', Johannes. "Die Musiktheorie des Mittelalters, 11
~ Musicologia,, III (1931), 53-63. ..
307. • Handbuch des Notationskunde, 2 vols.
-teipzig: Bre!tKopf' und Hirte!, 1919.
308. Wood, Alexander. The Ph:ysics £!.Music. New York:
Dover, 1944.
Young, Thomas. "Outlines of Experiments and
Inqu1~es Respecting Sound and Light,"
Philosophical Transactions of the 'Royal Society
E£.. London,, xc (1800), 106-150".~
310. Zarlino, Gioseffo. Ist1tut1on1 harmonica.
Venetia.: Senese, 1558.
311. • Dimostrationi harmoniche •. venetia: Senese,
----1571.

312 •. • Soppl1ment1 musical!. Venetia: Senese,

---is· as.