Arithmetic and Geometric Divisions of the Tetrachord

Author(s): C. André Barbera

Source: Journal of Music Theory , Autumn, 1977, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Autumn, 1977), pp.
294-323
Published by: Duke University Press on behalf of the Yale University Department of
Music

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/843492

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Duke University Press and are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal of Music Theory

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ARITHMETIC AND GEOMETRIC

DIVISIONS OF THE TETRACHORD

C. Andre Barbera

Modem investigations into ancient Greek conceptions of

numbers have often confused the meanings of tetrad (Trerpic)
and tetractys (Terpacr6j). The following distinction provided
by Delatte will be of functional importance here.' "Tetrad"
signifies the number 4 as well as the first four positive inte-
gers, whereas "tetractys" is defined as an ensemble of four
things, a quaternary. Three well-known examples of the
tetractys are the four elements, the quadrivium, and the set
of four numbers that can be arranged proportionally to define
the consonant and structural intervals of the Pythagoreans
({12, 9, 8, 6}).2 By the fourth century B.C. the tetractys was
dually manifested in music as the intervals of (12, 9, 8, 6)
and as the tetrachord, four strings or notes spanning a fourth.3
The distinction between multitude and magnitude is as
ubiquitous as the tetractys in Pythagorean writings; multitude
is associated with the study of numbers in and of themselves
(arithmetic) while magnitude is linked to the material display
of numbers perceivable by the sense of sight (geometry). This
distinction stands at the nexus of Pythagorean cosmologic
theory.4

294

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 By number the Pythagoreans meant integer, and in music
they found a material working out, a representation perceiv-
able by the sense of hearing, of the relationship of multitude
to multitude. This relationship was expressed in terms of a
series of six kinds of proportions ordered according to a con-
ceptual departure from unity: equal, multiple, epimore,
multiple-epimore, epimere, multiple-epimere.5 The Pythago-
reans defined as consonant those intervals that could be
represented by multiple and epimore (or superparticula
proportions such that the individual terms involved in
proportions were elements of the tetrad (2:1, 3:1, 4:1, 3
4:3).
The emphasis on superparticular proportions runs through
out the history of tetrachord divisions, but this emphasi
counterbalanced by a geometric conception of music, in
tiated by Aristoxenus and reflective of the larger mathem
ical issue regarding incommensurable or irrational magnitud
Discovery of incommensurability is attributed to Hippasu
Metapontum (early fifth century B.C.),6 although the earlies
known specific reference to incommensurability occurs
Plato's Theaetetus (147b).7
Thus the general case was one of conflict between
truths of arithmetic and the truths of geometry, an irreconc
ability of magnitude to multitude. This conflict was m
rored by two divergent conceptions of music theory; t
tetrachord divisions outlined below serve as instances of the
general case.
The theorists from whom we have tetrachord divisions can
be arranged into three unequal categories, the first of which
represents a period before Aristoxenus, a period before
emerging geometry influenced and penetrated the realm of
music theory. The second category begins with Aristoxenus
(late fourth century B.C.) and includes those music theorists
who continue to expound the Aristoxenian divisions of the
tetrachord. The third category contains the music theory af-
ter Aristoxenus that does not conform with the geometric
conception and ordering of the Aristoxenians. This third
group includes theorists who may be called Pythagoreans,
neo-Pythagoreans, or proportionalists-i.e., music theorists

295

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
who represent their tetrachord divisions in terms of numerical
proportions.
The core of the first category is represented by Archytas of
Tarentum (early fourth century B.C.), a friend of Plato, pos-
sibly a student of Philolaus, and the first Greek music theorist
from whom we have tetrachord divisions. His extant writings
contain definitions of arithmetic, geometric, and harmonic
means.8 Evidence for his tetrachord divisions, however, is
contained in Ptolemy's Harmonics (1 13, 31), written in the
second century A.D.9 Archytas divides the tetrachord into
three genera using numerical proportions to characterize the
intervals.10

enharmonic chromatic diatonic

Mese
Lichanos
5:4 32:27 9:8

36:35 243:224 8:7

Parhypate 28:27 28:27 28:27

Hypate
Unique to Archytas's system is his use of the pure major
third (5:4) in the enharmonic genus and his retention of
28:27 as the interval of parhypate to hypate in all three
genera. Subsequent theorists tend to use the ditone (81:64)
as the highest interval in the enharmonic and to change the
parhypate when moving from the enharmonic to the chro-
matic.
According to Ptolemy, Archytas derived the chromatic
lichanos by referring to the diatonic lichanos because the
second highest tone in the chromatic genus is to the cor-
responding tone in the diatonic genus as 256:243. Archytas
probably used the remainder of two whole tones subtracted
from a fourth to derive the chromatic lichanos, as follows:
mese:diatonic lichanos::9:8
chromatic lichanos:hypate: :(28:27 + 243:224) = 9:8
mese:hypate: :4:3
(4:3 - (9:8 + 9:8))::256:243, thus
chromatic lichanos = diatonic lichanos + 256:243, i.e.,
32:27::(9:8 + 256:243)
The following is a seemingly less complex method of conceiv-
ing and achieving the same results:

296

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Let the chromatic pyknon11 be 9:8
mese:chromatic lichanos::(4:3 - 9:8) = 32:27
since chromatic parhypate:hypate: :28:27,
chromatic lichanos:chromatic parhypate::(9:8 - 28:27)
= 243:224
Contemporary with Archytas, Plato's Timaeus (35b-
is a fascinating source for Pythagorean cosmologic the
well as for the utilization of arithmetic and harmonic me
There Plato defines a diatonic scale from which the fo
tetrachord easily can be extracted:

Mese 9:8
Lichanos
9:8
Parhypate 256:243
Hypate
This division of the tetrachord defined the diatonic genus for
over a millennium. Furthermore, the Timaeus probably repre-
sents a Pythagorean conception of the numerical characteriza-
tion of the tetrachord prior to the divisions of Archytas.13
A second category of music theorists is represented by
Aristoxenus, perhaps the most important figure in the history
of tetrachord divisions or for that matter in the entire history
of Greek music theory. Born at Tarentum c. 375-365 B.C.
and in part educated there by his father, Spintharus, he be-
came the author of voluminous works including biographies
of Pythagoras and Archytas. He joined the Lyceum opened
by Aristotle at Athens in 336;14 the inductive logic and
empiricism of Aristotle is manifested clearly in Aristoxenus's
Elements of Harmony. 15
For Aristoxenus, as for his Pythagorean predecessors, the
fourth is the smallest consonant interval (Elements I 20). Of
particular interest here are his divisions of the tetrachord into
three genera and his subsequent divisions of the chromatic
and diatonic genera into shades (Elements I 22-27 and II 44-
52), which divisions depend both upon his assumption that
two and a half tones equal a fourth and upon his division of
the tone.16 The tone is defined as the difference between the
fourth and the fifth and can be divided equally in half, in
thirds, and in quarters (Elements I 21). Table 1 shows
Aristoxenus's divisions of the tetrachord.

297

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
O0
Table 1. Aristoxenus's divisions of the te

soft hemiolic
enharmonic chromatic chromatic

Mese
2 1/6 1%
Lichanos
2 1/2 /4 1/3 3/ ?
tones Parhypate
4 /Hypate
Hypate

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
These six genera and shades are derived from infinitely many
possible divisions of the tetrachord, for Aristoxenus defines
the boundaries or loci of the movable notes (lichanos and
parhypate) in the enharmonic and syntonic diatonic genera
and admits a continuous gradation of pitch within these
limits.
Particularly representative of Aristoxenus's geometric ap-
proach to dividing the tetrachord is the hemiolic chromatic
genus. In establishing the lichanoi for the enharmonic and
soft chromatic, he proceeds by letting the pyknon of the
enharmonic be the two smallest dieses (? + ?) while the
pyknon of the soft chromatic is the two smallest chromatic
dieses (0/3 + /3). The pyknon of the hemiolic chromatic is
% tone (Elements I 24-25), and Aristoxenus divides this inter-
val in half (Elements II 52).
The result of such a division is that the interval from the
hypate to the parhypate (%/8 tone), while being larger than
the smallest diesis and larger than the smallest chromatic
diesis, is incomposite. Specifically, %/ tone is greater than
1/4 tone by /s tone, and 1/8 tone cannot be practically mea-
sured according to Aristoxenus; similarly, %/8 tone is greater
than / tone by 1/24 tone. Thus %/8 tone is a structural unit
in and of itself, without relation to the dieses, and therefore
represents Aristoxenus's sensory, geometric perception of
music.
By associating Aristoxenus with a geometric approach to
music theory I do not mean to imply that he actually deals
with physical space. However, his conception and description
of musical space is analogous to a geometric treatment of
physical space. This analogy extends to a common use of
terms by Aristoxenus and by Euclid in his Elements.1" In
noting that there are infinitely many lichanoi (Elements I 26)
Aristoxenus uses i7retpoc to indicate this magnitude; Euclid
uses the same word for the same concept in the first book of
his Elements, 23rd definition.
As is the case with very large magnitudes, there is also a
conceptual correspondence between hearing and sight with
respect to very small magnitudes. A basic principle of geome-
try is that there is no smallest magnitude. Similarly, Aris-
toxenus notes that there is no smallest musical interval

299

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
(Elements II 46). In doing so he uses 6tauorrga to mean inter-
val. This is the same word that Euclid uses to mean distance
in the first book, third postulate, of his Elements. There is,
then, a conceptual and a terminological correspondence be-
tween Aristoxenus's description of musical space and Euclid's
treatment of physical space.
Furthermore, by breaking with the Pythagorean tradition
of representing intervals by numerical proportions, Aris-
toxenus's tetrachord divisions reflect the contemporary math-
ematical crisis over incommensurables in general, and in par-
ticular over V2. A faulty discussion regarding the representa-
tion of N/ as a proportion of two integers is contained in
Plato's(?) Epinomis (990d-991a),18 and a proof that this
representation is impossible is interpolated into the end of
Book X of Euclid's Elements. 19
The incompatibility of Aristoxenus's tetrachord divisions
with the Pythagorean method can be shown by representing
Aristoxenus's enharmonic genus in terms of numerical pro-
portions such that mese:hypate::4:3, an assumption that
Aristoxenus never would have made.20

Mese 1 10-10-
Lichanos
Lichanos 1 v65,536:q/6561
1 i.e.,
Parhypate V
Hypate 0 (approximately
11,486,984:11,161,229)
The approach of Aristoxenus, germinated by Aristotle,
became a tradition that spanned nearly the entire history of
Greek music theory. As late as the fourth century A.D. we
find music theorists continuing to set forth tetrachord divi-
sions identical to those of Aristoxenus. Peculiarly, however,
there is at least a four-hundred-year gap between Aristoxenus
and the next known music theorist of this tradition, Cleonides
(second century A.D.).
In his Harmonic Introduction Cleonides names the notes
of the three genera-e.g., "diatonic lichanos," "chromatic
lichanos," etc.-and then blends the genera in forming the
Greater and Lesser Perfect Systems.21 Within each tetrachord,
however, Cleonides defines three lichanoi but only one
parhypate, e.g.:

300

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Proslambanomenos
Hypate hypaton
Parhypate hypaton
Enharmonic Lichanos hypaton
Chromatic Lichanos hypaton
Diatonic Lichanos hypaton
Hypate meson
Following this blending Cleonides lists as fixed notes the
proslambanomenos, hypate hypaton, hypate meson, mese,
nete synemmenon, paramese, nete diezeugmenon, and nete
hyperboleon. All the notes that lie between these are movable
(JanS 185).
Of course the parhypate hypaton lies between the hypate
hypaton and the hypate meson and therefore would be
movable although it appears fixed in the blended genera.
Judging from the fact that Cleonides stems from the Aris-
toxenian tradition-he equates six tones with the diapason
(JanS 194)-there is reason to believe that more than one
parhypate hypaton exists in Cleonides's system.
In discussing the shades of the genera Cleonides uses a
combination of Aristoxenian and Ptolemaic terminology. In
terms of enharmonic dieses, whole and half tones, Cleonides
defines the soft diatonic, syntonic diatonic, etc., but he also
provides an artificial, numerical definition (JanS 192-93).
The number three is equated with the smallest diesis, the ?
tone, and thus the division of the tetrachord is defined in
terms of a triple division of 30, e.g., 3 + 3 + 24 defines the
enharmonic genus. This symbolization does not appear in
Aristoxenus's Elements, although the equation of the fourth
with 30 is similar to Ptolemy's treatment of Aristoxenus
(Harmonics II 14, 71).22
Other theorists in the Aristoxenian tradition include Aris-
tides Quintilianus (third or fourth century A.D.), who pre-
sents Aristoxenus's tetrachord divisions in his De musica,23
and Gaudentius (probably fourth century A.D.), who does
the same in his Introduction to Harmonics (JanS 331 ).24 At a
later point in his treatise, however, Gaudentius provides
numerical proportions for the intervals of the Greater Perfect
System (see below, p. 306).
Spanning a period of 800 years, the third and largest cate-

301

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
gory of music theorists who deal with tetrachord divisions is
comprised of those post-Aristoxenians who represent their
divisions in terms of numerical proportions. Although these
tetrachord divisions are not identical from theorist to theo-
rist, as is the case with the followers of Aristoxenus, there is a
commonality among the divisions, namely the Pythagorean,
arithmetic conception of music theory.
The earliest known complete formation of the Greater
Perfect System is found in Euclid's(?) Sectio canonis (c. 300
B.C.), wherein the arithmetic, Pythagorean approach to
music theory is clearly manifested.2s The author divides the
monochord into four diatonic tetrachords, each one contain-
ing the intervallic relationships expounded in Plato's Timaeus.
He makes clear reference, however, to the enharmonic genus
such that the interval from the mese to the lichanos is a
ditone (81:64), leaving the pyknon to be divided unequall
by the parhypate (JanS 162).
In the third century B.C. more evidence of the arithmet
approach is found in the divisions of the tetrachord b
Eratosthenes, for which Ptolemy is our source (Harmonics
14, 71-73):
enharmonic chromatic diatonic

Mese 19:15 6:5 9:8

Lichanos 39:38 19:18 9:8
Parhypate 40:39 20:19 256:243
Hypate
Again the diatonic genus is that of the Timaeus, and Eratos-
thenes's emphasis on superparticular proportions is obvious.
As for the division of the enharmonic genus, in which Eratos-
thenes uses neither the major third of Archytas (5:4) nor the
ditone (81:64), Winnington-Ingram postulates that the de-
termining factors are the choice of 6:5 as the highest interval
in the chromatic genus and the assumption (also made by
Didymus and Boethius) that the pyknon of the enharmonic
should equal the lowest interval of the chromatic.26
(4:3 - 6:5)::10:9, the chromatic pyknon
10:9::20:18
20:18::(20:19 + 19:18), the arithmetic mean
Thus 20:19 is the enharmonic pyknon

302

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 (4:3 - 20:19)::19:15, the highest interval of the enharmonic
20:19::40:38
40:38::(40:39 + 39:38), the arithmetic mean
Even greater emphasis on superparticular proport
be found in the tetrachord divisions of Didymus, first
B.C. (Ptolemy, Harmonics II 14, 71-73). In fact, all of
Didymus's intervals are related by superparticular propor-
tions, which means the abandoning of the diatonic genus
found in the Timaeus:

enharmonic chromatic diatonic

Mese
Lichanos 5:4 6:5 9:8
31:30 25:24 10:9
Parhypate 32:31 16:15 16:15
Hypate

Of particular interest are the intervals in the chromatic genus

from lichanos to parhypate and from parhypate to hypate. In
this instance the latter interval is greater than the former,
which violates the Aristoxenian rule regarding the ordering of
sizes of intervals making up the pyknon."2
In Nicomachus's Manual of Harmonics we find a tantaliz-
ingly sketchy presentation of many aspects of Pythagorean
doctrine regarding music.28 Chapter 12 contains the division
of the three genera, but here Nicomachus uses terminology
characteristic of Aristoxenus rather than the numerical pro-
portions of the Pythagoreans (JanS 262):
enharmonic chromatic diatonic
Mese
ditone tri-semitone tone
Lichanos
SLichanos semitone semitone tone
Parhypate 1/2 semitone semitone semitone
Hypate
Nicomachus refers to the interval from mese to lichanos in
the enharmonic genus as a true ditone but divides the remain-
ing semitone in half (JanS 262). If Nicomachus is referrin
here to the division by two of the musical interval of a semi-
tone, then the intervals resulting from his division of the en-
harmonic genus can be expressed in numerical proportions
only by using irrational numbers:

303

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 (4:3 -81:64)::256:243
lichanos:parhypate::parhypate:hypate
Thus, lichanos:parhypate:: 16:9V., i.e., /_-6:/V/3
Ptolemy's Harmonics is a source not only for his own
tetrachord divisions as well as those of Archytas, Aristoxenus,
Eratosthenes, and Didymus, but also for a thorough discus-
sion of the conceptual bases and inconsistencies of Pythago-
rean and Aristoxenian music theory. In dividing the tetra-
chord Ptolemy specifically states that the interval between
the mese and the lichanos should be defined by a superpartic-
ular proportion. He then goes one step further than Aris-
toxenus in decreeing that for all genera the deepest interva
should be smaller than those remaining (Harmonics I 15).29
With these general guidelines set down, Ptolemy then takes
the first three superparticular proportions less than 4:3-i.e.,
5:4, 6:5, 7:6-and uses them to define the interval from mese
to lichanos.30 Subtracting 5:4, 6:5, and 7:6, respectively,
from 4:3, the following composite intervals (pykna) remain
16:15, 10:9, and 8:7. In each of these three cases he divides
the pyknon by first multiplying each term of each proportion
by three-e.g., (3 - 16):(3 - 15)::48:45-and then assigning to
the lowest interval of the tetrachord the superparticular pro-
portion determined by the second term of the multiplied
proportion, e.g., 45; thus 46:45 represents the lowest inter-
val. The middle interval in each case is determined by sub-
tracting the lowest interval from the pyknon, e.g., (48:45 -
46:45)::24:23.
In this way Ptolemy divides the tetrachord into one en-
harmonic and two chromatic genera. Of the five diatonic
genera that he proposes, one is determined by this method.
The arithmetic for these four divisions follows.
Enharmonic
(4:3 - 5:4)::16:15
(16 3):(15-3)::48:45
Thus, 46:45 is the lowest interval
(48:45 -46:45)::24:23
and (5:4 +24:23 +46:45)::4:3
Soft Chromatic
(4:3 -6:5)::10:9
(10 - 3):(9 -3)::30:27

304

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Thus, 28:27 is the lowest interval
(30:27 - 28:27)::15:14
and (6:5 + 15:14 + 28:27)::4:3
Syntonic Chromatic
(4:3 -7:6)::8:7
(8- 3):(7- 3)::24:21
Thus, 22:21 is the lowest interval
(24:21 - 22:21)::12:11
and (7:6 + 12:11 + 22:21)::4:3
Syntonic Diatonic
(4:3 - 10:9)::6:5
(6- 3):(5- 3)::18:15
Thus, 16:15 is the lowest interval
(18:15 - 16:15)::9:8
and (10:9 + 9:8 + 16:15)::4:3
The formation of the tonic diatonic genus (equivalent to
Archytas's diatonic) uses almost the same arithmetic method;
in this instance, however, Ptolemy does not multiply the two
terms of the apyknon by 3:
Tonic Diatonic
(4:3 -9:8)::32:27
Thus, 28:27 is the lowest interval
(32:27 - 28:27)::8:7
and (9:8 + 8:7 + 28:27)::4:3
Of the remaining three diatonic genera, the ditonic diatonic
is the same as the Timaeus tetrachord, and the smooth
diatonic consists of the only three superparticular propor-
tions between which no other superparticular proportion
exists and such that the three proportions added together
equal a fourth, i.e., (10:9 + 11:10 + 12:11)::4:3.
Ptolemy provides very little information regarding the divi-
sion of the soft diatonic genus. This probably was his arith-
metic process:
(4:3 - 8:7)::7:6
(7 - 3):(6 - 3)::21:18
If, at this point, Ptolemy had followed the method that he
had already used four times, then 19:18 would define the
lowest interval. But (21:18 - 19:18)::21:19, which is not a
superparticular proportion, and Ptolemy has used super-
particulars for every proportion except the limma of the
ditonic diatonic (256:243).

305

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Therefore, Ptolemy takes 21:20 as the lowest interval:
(21:18- 21:20)::10:9
and (8:7 + 10:9 + 21:20)::4:3
Ptolemy's divisions of the tetrachord, arranged according to
decreasing size of the highest interval, are shown in Table 2.
An incomplete account of Thrasyllus's formation of the
Greater Perfect System is handed down by Theon of Smyrna
(second century A.D.), and from this can be deduced a sketch
of Thrasyllus's tetrachord divisions.31 The diatonic genus is
that of the Timaeus (9:8 + 9:8 + 256:243), and the en-
harmonic genus is equivalent to that of Nicomachus (mese:
lichanos::81:64; lichanos:parhypate::16:9V3-; parhypate:hy-
pate:: 16:9/3). All we learn of the chromatic genus, however,
is that mese:lichanos::32:27, leaving 9:8 as the pyknon.
In contrast with Theon, Gaudentius provides us, in effect,
with two sets of tetrachord divisions. As we have seen, one
set is equivalent to the genera of Aristoxenus. The other set,
given in numerical proportions, can be derived from Gauden-
tius's formation of the Greater Perfect System. At odds with
the Aristoxenian division of the semitone in half, Gaudentius
explicitly states that the semitone is represented by the pro-
portion 243:256 and thus cannot be halved. He derives this
proportion by noting that the ditone is 81:64 and a fourth is
85 /3:64. Therefore, the limma is 85 1/3:81-i.e., 256:2431and
the diatonic genus is defined as 9:8 + 9:8 + 256:243 (JanS
342-44).32
The other genus for which Gaudentius provides propor-
tions is the syntonic chromatic (JanS 344). He notes that:
limma + apotome = tone, thus
256:243 + apotome = 9:8
and apotome = 2187:2048
syntonic chromatic diatonic
Mese
Lichanos 32:27 9:8 2187:2048 9:8

Parhypate 256:243 256:243

Hypate
Obviously Gaudentius wanted the pyknon of the syntonic
chromatic to be 9:8 and the lowest interval to be the limma.
Thus, mese:lichanos::(4:3 - 9:8) = 32:27.

306

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Table 2. Ptolemy's divi

soft syntonic soft toni

enharmonic chromatic chromatic diatonic d

Mese
5:4 6:5 7:6 8:7 9:8
Lichanos
24:23 15:14 12:11 10:9
Parhypate
46:45 28:27 22:21 21:20 28:2
Hypate

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Finally we come to the sixth-century A.D. theorist and
translator Boethius. His De Institutione Musica is, as it has
been since the Middle Ages, a major source for the study of
Greek music theory. In the sixth chapter of Book IV Boethius
divides the monochord, defining all the notes of the Greater
and Lesser Perfect Systems for each of the three genera. For
any given genus, each tetrachord of the system is divided
similarly-e.g., the intervals of the diatonic hyperboleon are
the same as those of the diatonic diezeugmenon. Boethius
proceeds by assigning the number 2304 to the nete hyper-
boleon33 and divides the hyperboleon tetrachord thus:34
enharmonic chromatic diatonic
Nete hyperboleon 2304 2304 2304
Paranete hyperboleon 2916 2736 2592
Trite hyperboleon 2994 2916 2916
Nete diezeugmenon 3072 3072 3072
In the diatonic genus the paranete hyperbol
/8(2304) = 2592. The trite hyperboleon is 2592
2916. Boethius lets 2916 also represent the
chromatic genus and the paranete of the enha
The nete diezeugmenon is 2304 + 1/3(2304) = 3
To derive the chromatic paranete, Boethius ta
ber for the diatonic paranete (2592) and adds
of the difference between the diatonic paranet
hyperboleon, i.e., 2592 + Y2(2592 - 2304) = 273
the enharmonic trite, Boethius adds to the numb
harmonic paranete (2916) one half of the diffe
the nete diezeugmenon and the enharmonic p
2916 +/2(3072 -2916) = 2994.35
Thus Boethius has derived the chromatic par
enharmonic trite by taking arithmetic means. No
this process produces some unique proportions
represented in standard format:
enharmonic chromatic diatonic
Mese
Lichanos
Mese 81:64 19:16 9:8
Lichanos 499:486 81:76 9:8
Hypate
512:499 256:243 256:243

308

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 It is worth noting that Boethius uses the limma (256:243)
in all three of his tetrachord divisions, i.e., as the interval from
parhypate to hypate in the diatonic and chromatic genera
and as the enharmonic pyknon. Nicomachus does the same,
but he refers to the limma as the "semitone" and never does
provide a numerical characterization. In fact, Thrasyllus may
also employ 256:243 in all three genera; but we cannot be
certain about this since we do not know the positioning of his
chromatic parhypate. This method also is used by Didymus,
but instead of 256:243 he gives 16:15 as the interval from
parhypate to hypate in the diatonic and chromatic genera and
as the enharmonic pyknon.
With the exception of Didymus, it may be the case that
Boethius, Nicomachus, and Thrasyllus are dividing the tetra-
chord similarly.36 If this is true, then Nicomachus is referring
to an arithmetic mean when he divides the interval of a semi-
tone in half (see above, p. 303), and such may also be the
case with Thrasyllus (see above, p. 306). Such a division is
particularly interesting because it apparently has little or
nothing to do with sound. In other words, when Boethius
divides the enharmonic pyknon in half by taking an arith-
metic mean, he produces two different intervals, 499:486
and 512:499.
Equally interesting is the fact that these arithmetic mea
produce curious looking proportions, and yet these propo
tions necessarily must have been considered before determ
ing that 2304 is the smallest integer such that all of the inte
vals of the Greater and Lesser Perfect Systems could be
characterized by integers. From these numerical manipula-
tions, all in the name of music theory, we can gain an insight
into the religiously motivated intermingling of Pythagorean
numerology and music.
Perhaps the most informative, and surely the most graphic,
representation of the distinction between the arithmetic and
the geometric approaches to music theory lies in the divisions
of the tetrachord. On the one hand there is the Pythagorean
method with its dependence upon superparticular proportions
as the definers of intervals. On the other hand there is the
spatially oriented, geometric approach first expounded by
Aristoxenus and found again in the works of Cleonides,
Gaudentius, and Aristides Quintilianus.

309

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 In order to highlight this distinction I have graphed a two-
place function with genera as its domain. The function divides
the difference between the lichanoi of its first and second
argument places by the difference between the parhypatai o
its first and second argument places. This shows the rate of
change from genus to genus of the lichanoi in relation to th
rate of change of the parhypatai.37 It was necessary, first o
all, to convert the various presentations of tetrachord divi-
sions into a unified format. Table 3 shows these divisions in
terms of cents, with 0 cents assigned to the hypate and the
mese therefore equal to 498 cents.
The tetrachord divisions of Aristoxenus, Eratosthenes, and
Ptolemy are displayed graphically in Figures 1-3. I have not
graphed the tetrachord divisions of Archytas; since he keeps
the parhypate fixed in all three genera, the rate of change of
the lichanoi divided by the rate of change of the parhypatai
is undefined because the latter rate is zero (x/O is undefined).
Since only two tetrachord divisions can be determined com-
pletely for Thrasyllus and for Gaudentius, no true rate of
change from genus to genus can be determined for their
divisions, and so they have also been omitted. In general I
have chosen the genera for the function in an order such that
the value of the function is positive. I have therefore omitted
Nicomachus's tetrachord divisions from the graphs, even
though he changes the lichanoi and parhypatai in all three
genera, because his chromatic parhypate, being higher in
pitch than his diatonic parhypate, results in a negative value
for the function at this point. Finally, when an author
stabilizes a movable note, as Aristoxenus does with the par-
hypate in the tonic chromatic, soft diatonic, and syntonic
diatonic genera, I have eliminated from consideration the
genera occurring after the stabilization-e.g., Aristoxenus's
diatonic genera and Ptolemy's smooth diatonic. This has been
done because, after the point of stabilization, the function is
disrupted and this disruption could obscure a functional
constancy before the stabilization. This consideration, com-
bined with the reason for eliminating the divisions of Thrasyl-
lus and Gaudentius, effectively eliminates those of Didymus
and Boethius, and leaves the divisions of Aristoxenus, Eratos-
thenes, and Ptolemy to be graphed. The divisions of Cleonides
and Aristides are the same as those of Aristoxenus.

310

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Table 3. Tetrachord divisions in terms of cents

Author Notes Genera

Archytas enharmonic chromatic diatonic

M 498 498 498
L 112 204 294
P 63 63 63
H 0 0 0

Aristoxenus soft hemiolic

(Aristides, enharmonic chromatic chromatic
Cleonides, M 498 498 498
Gaudentius) L 100 132 149
P 50 66 75
H 0 0 0
tonic soft syntonic
chromatic diatonic diatonic
M 498 498 498
L 199 249 299
P 100 100 100
H 0 0 0

Boethius enharmonic chromatic diatonic

M 498 498 498
L 90 200 294
P 44 90 90
H 0 0 0

Didymus enharmonic chromatic diatonic

M 498 498 498
L 112 182 294
P 55 112 112
H 0 0 0

Eratosthenes enharmonic chromatic diatonic

M 498 498 498
L 89 182 294
P 44 89 90
H 0 0 0

31

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Table 3 (continued)

Author Notes Genera

syntonic
Gaudentius chromatic diatonic
M 498 498
L 204 294
P 90 90
H 0 0

Nicomachus38 enharmonic chromatic diatonic

M 498 498 498
L 100 199 299
P 50 100 100
H 0 0 0

Plato diatonic
M 498
L 294
P 90
H 0

soft syntonic
Ptolemy enharmonic chromatic chromatic
M 498 498 498
L 112 182 231
P 38 63 81
H 0 0 0
soft tonic ditonic
diatonic diatonic diatonic
M 498 498 498
L 267 294 294
P 85 63 90
H 0 0 0
syntonic smooth
diatonic diatonic
M 498 498
L 316 316
P 112 150
H 0 0

312

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Table 3 (continued)

Author Notes Genera

Thrasyllus enharmonic chromatic diatonic

M 498 498 498
L 90 204 294
P 45 ? 90
H 0 0 0

313

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 I have used solid lines to plot the curves of the movable
notes and to indicate the relationships between these notes
when they are both changing. I have used dotted lines to
indicate the arbitrary relationships of starting and ending
points. The mese and the hypate have been omitted from the
graphs because they are stationary and therefore do not par-
take in the function.
Table 4 shows the defined values of the function for the
tetrachord divisions of Figures 1-3. The relationships be-
tween lichanoi and parhypatai are represented by solid vert
cal lines in the graph of the Aristoxenian tetrachord divisions
(Figure 1). This indicates that in these cases the value of th
function is a constant or nearly a constant.
The function for Eratosthenes's tetrachord divisions and
for some of those of Ptolemy (Figures 2 and 3), however,
does not produce solid vertical lines as it did for the Aris-
toxenian divisions. This is so because the graph and the fun
tion are designed to highlight tetrachord divisions that ar
conceived in a spatial, geometric fashion. Neither Eratos-
thenes nor any of the authors omitted from the graphs divide
the tetrachord from this point of view. In fact, with the pos-
sible exception of Gaudentius, they all are Pythagoreans or
neo-Pythagoreans firmly entrenched in the ideal and obsessed
with the power of numerical representation of the physical
world-or, more severely, they see the physical world as a
material representation of number.
With Ptolemy the case is different. As mentioned before, in
his Harmonics (I 6, 13-15 and I 9-10, 19-24) Ptolemy points
out inconsistencies in the theories of both the Pythagoreans
and the Aristoxenians. In Book I he presents his tetrachord
divisions, which are characterized completely by superpartic-
ular proportions with only one exception, 256:243. In Book
II, 2, however, Ptolemy constructs the helicon, a geometric
figure that can represent through proportions of line seg-
ments all of the consonant intervals of Greek music theory as
well as the tone. This figure can be put together without
reference to numbers and yet, after its construction, Ptolemy
assigns 12, 9, 8, 6, 4, and 3 to the various line segments. He
then represents through arithmetic as well as geometric pro-
portions the musical intervals obtainable from the helicon.

314

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Figure 1. Aristoxenus

320
310
300
290
280
270

260
250
240

230
220
210

200
190
180

170
160

150S
140
130o

120 o
110 cc
100

50

40
30

enharmonic soft chromatic hemiolic chromatic tonic chromatic

lichanos 100 1 132 149 199

parhypate 50 66 75 100

315

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Figure 2. Eratosthenes

320
310
300
290
280
270
260
250
240
.230
220
210
200 0 0
190 4-
180
170
160
150
140 o
130
120
110
100
90

80 " O
*
70 I
60

40
30
50 o a

enharmonic chromatic I diatonic

lichanos 89 182 1 294

parhypate 44 89 90

316

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Figure 3. Ptolemy

320
310
300

290 I

280 I
270 I
260
250
240

230

220 .
210 o o
200

190 t
180
170

160 * I
150 cv

140 .
130 "0 I
120 o
110

100
90-
,
80 0
70

60 I
50i
40
30

enhar- soft syntonic soft tonic ditonic syntonic

monic chromatic chromatic diatonic diatonic diatonic diatonic

lichanos 1112 182 231 1 267 294 294 316

parhypate 38 1 63 81 851 631 90 112

317

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Table 4

f = function

g[l], g[2] = variables with genera as domain

L = lichanos
P = parhypate

(Lg[2] - Lg[1])-(Pg[2] -Pg[1])= f(g[2]

Aristoxenus39
1. g[l] =enharmonic
g[2] =soft chromatic (132 - 100) + ( 66 - 50) = 2.00

2. g[l1]= soft chromatic

g[2]=hemiolic chromatic (149 - 132) + ( 75 - 66) = 1.89

3. g[1I]= hemiolic chromatic

g[2]=tonic chromatic (199 - 149) + (100 - 75) = 2.00
Eratosthenes

1. g[1] =enharmonic
g[2]=chromatic (182 - 89) + ( 89 - 44) = 2.07
2. g[1]= chromatic
g[2]= diatonic (294 - 182) + ( 90 - 89) = 112.00
Ptolemy
1. g[1] =enharmonic
g[2] =soft chromatic (182 - 112) + ( 63 - 38) = 2.80
2. g[l] = soft chromatic
g[2]=syntonic chromatic (231 - 182) + ( 81 - 63) = 2.72
3. g[1] =syntonic chromatic
g[2]= soft diatonic (267 - 231) + ( 85 - 81) = 9.00
4. g[1] =soft diatonic
g[2]= tonic diatonic (294 - 267) + ( 63 - 85) = -1.23
5. g[1] = tonic diatonic
g[2]= ditonic diatonic (294 - 294) + ( 90 - 63) = 0.00
6. g[l1] = ditonic diatonic
g[2] = syntonic diatonic (316 - 294) + (112 - 90) = 1.00
7. g[1 ] = syntonic chromatic
g[2]= syntonic diatonic (316 - 231) + (112 - 81) = 2.74

318

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 A similar combination of arithmetic and geometric con-
ceptions can be seen in Ptolemy's tetrachord divisions by con-
sidering only the enharmonic, soft chromatic, syntonic
chromatic, and syntonic diatonic genera. Graphically these
four genera are represented by vertical lines (Figure 3) indicat-
ing that the values of the function of rates between these
genera are constant, or nearly so (see above, p. 318). It turns
out that these are exactly the four genera that can be de-
termined by the arithmetic formula detailed above (see p.
304). Generalizing this method, let (x + 1):x be the superpar-
ticular proportion that defines the interval from mese to
lichanos.
(4:3 - (x + 1):x)::4x:(3x + 3)
Reduce 4x:(3x + 3) to its lowest terms, (y + 1):y
((y + 1)- 3):(y - 3)::(3y + 3):3y
Thus, (3y + 1):3y is the lowest interval
((3y + 3):3y - (3y + 1):3y)::(3y + 3):(3y + 1)
and ((x + 1):x + (3y + 3):(3y + 1) + (3y + 1):3y)::4:3
In his tetrachord divisions Ptolemy has relied exclusively
upon superparticular proportions in all but the ditonic
diatonic genus. This veneration of superparticulars, combined
with the above method for determining the lower intervals
of four of his genera, is pure Pythagoreanism. Obscured by
Ptolemy's arithmetic and formulaic procedure, however, is a
geometric conception of music theory analogous to that of
Aristoxenus. The values of the function for the enharmonic,
soft chromatic, syntonic chromatic, and syntonic diatonic
genera (2.80, 2.72, 2.74) show that Ptolemy combines the
Pythagorean, arithmetic and the Aristoxenian, geometric ap-
proaches to music theory and transcends their seeming
incompatibility.

319

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 NOTES

1. Armand Delatte, Etudes sur la litterature pythagoricienne (1915;

repr. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1974), pp. 253-55.
2. For example, both 12:9 and 8:6 represent a fourth. (I use ":" to
represent a proportion, or in more modern terminology, a ratio.
Thus, where x and y are numbers, x:y may be represented as a
fraction, x/y. I use "::" to represent the identity relation between
two proportions. Thus, where x, y, z, w are numbers, x:y::z:w
may be represented as x/y = z/w. As is traditionally done, I use "+"
to represent the addition of proportions and "-" to represent the
subtraction of proportions. Thus, in numerical terms, x:y + z:w
may be represented as x/y - z/w--multiplication of fractions-and
x:y - z:w may be represented as x/y + z/w-division of fractions.)
B. L. van der Waerden, in "Die Harmonielehre der Pythagoreer,"
Hermes, LXXVIII (1943), p. 175, observes that Pythagorean
numerical proportions are not based solely on string length since
the higher pitch often is associated with the larger number. On the
other hand, it seems unlikely that the proportions are based solely
on frequencies because, on occasion, the lower number is associated
with the higher pitch and because of erroneous understandings of
the physics of sound. For an introduction to Pythagorean mathe-
matics and music see Richard L. Crocker, "Pythagorean Mathe-
matics and Music," Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, XXII
(1963-64), 189-98 and 325-35. A more general and more extensive
orientation to scientific thought in antiquity can be found in Walter
Burkert's Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism, trans. Ed-
win L. Minar, Jr. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1972).
3. A genesis of the tetrachord is given by Boethius in De Institutione
Arithmetica libri duo, De Institutione Musica libri quinque. Accedit
Geometrica quae fertur Boetii, ed. Godofred Friedlein (Leipzig:
Teubner, 1867), pp. 205-6.
4. For instance see Aristotle, Metaphysics (986a, 2-7), Loeb Classical
Library, vol. XVII, trans. Hugh Treddennick (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1933), I, p. 33.
5. These proportions are detailed by Nicomachus in bk. I, chaps. 17-
23 of his Introduction to Arithmetic, trans. Martin Luther D'Ooge
(New York: Macmillan, 1926), pp. 212-29. In chap. 19 Nico-
machus defines a superparticular proportion such that the greater
term "is a number that contains within itself the whole of the
number compared with it, and some one factor of it besides." Such
a definition does not exclude 2:1 from the class of superparticulars
However, Theon of Smyrna effectively excludes 2:1 in his defini-
tion. "The proportion is called superparticular when the greater
term contains the lesser once and one part of the lesser, that is to
say when the greater term surpasses the lesser by a certain quantity

320

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 which is part of the lesser." (Theon de Smyrne philosophe platon-
icien exposition des connaissances mathematiques utiles pour la
lecture de Platon, trans. Jean Depuis [1892; repr. Brussels: Culture
et Civilisation, 1966], p. 125.)
6. See chaps. 18, p. 88 and 34, p. 247 of Iamblichus, De Vita
Pythagorica, ed. Augustus Nauck (1884; repr. Amsterdam: A. M.
Hakkert, 1965), pp. 65-66 and 172. For a thorough discussion of
the discovery of incommensurability see Kurt von Fritz, "The Dis-
covery of Incommensurability by Hippasus of Metapontum,"
Annals of Mathematics, 2nd Ser., XLVI, 2 (1945), 242-64.
7. Plato, Theaetetus, trans. John McDowell (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1973), p. 9.
8. Hermann Diels, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (Berlin: Weid-
mannsche Buchhandlung, 1922), I, pp. 334-35.
9. Ingemar Diiring, Ptolemaios und Porphyrios iiber die Musik (G6te-
borg: Elanders, 1934), p. 47.
10. I shall represent the tetrachord divisions in the same way as these
divisions appear in the sources. Since a degree of standardization
may be useful here, however, whenever possible 1 shall also provide
these divisions in terms of numerical proportions based on frequen-
cies if the author has not done so.
11. A pyknon is a composite interval from the hypate to the chromati
or enharmonic lichanos, such that this interval is smaller than the
incomposite interval from the lichanos to the mese. An apyknon is
a composite interval from the hypate to the lichanos such that thi
interval is not smaller than the incomposite interval from the
lichanos to the mese.
12. Plato, Timaeus, trans. H. P. D. Lee (Baltimore: Penguin, 1965), pp.
47-48.
13. This genus also can be derived from Philolaus's remarks on ha
mony (5th century B.C.) (see Diels, Die Fragmente, I, pp. 311-1
14. Frangois Lasserre, The Birth of Mathematics in the Age of Pla
(Larchmont, N.Y.: American Research Council, 1964), p. 185.
15. Aristoxenus, Aristoxeni elementa harmonica, ed. and trans. Ros
Da Rios (Rome: Typis Publicae Officinae Polygraphicae, 1954
For a translation into English of the Elements see Aristoxenus,
Harmonics ofAristoxenus, ed. and trans. Henry S. Macran (Oxfo
Clarendon Press, 1902).
16. Aristoxenus's proof that two and a half tones equal a fourth (El
II 55) is, of course, bogus. Ptolemy (Harm. I 10, 21-24) has a go
time with this at Aristoxenus's expense.
17. Euclid, The Thirteen Books of Euclid's Elements, trans. with int
duction and commentary by Sir Thomas L. Heath (Cambridge:
University Press, 1908; rev. 2nd ed., New York: Dover Publica-
tions, 1956).
18. Plato, Philebus and Epinomis, trans. A. E. Taylor, ed. Raymond
Klibansky (1956; repr. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1972), pp.
249-50.

321

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
19. Heath does not include this proof in his translation of Euclid's
Elements; for such a translation see K. von Fritz, "The Discovery
of Incommensurability," pp. 254-55, n. 60.
20. The numerical representation of Aristoxenus's division of the en-
harmonic genus is obtained by letting the smallest interval (? tone)
be the unit of measurement. Since there are 10 units in Aris-
toxenus's fourth (10 1/4 tone = 2? tones), and since by hypo

21. 4:3
Karlrepresents
von Jan, Musici scriptores graeci.
a fourth,A%43, orAristotelis.
,represents Euclides.
? ton N
machus. Bacchius. Gaudentius. Alypius et melodiarum veterum
quidquid exstat (1895; repr. Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1962), pp. 181-
82. Further references to this work will be abbreviated as JanS. For
a translation into English of Cleonides's Harmonic Introduction se
Source Readings in Music History, ed. Oliver Strunk (New York:
W. W. Norton, 1950), pp. 34-46. A few lines of text as edited by
Jan are not included in the Strunk translation.
22. During, Ptolemaios, p. 87.
23. Aristides Quintilianus, De musica libri tres, ed. R. P. Winnington-
Ingram (Leipzig: Teubner, 1963), pp. 17-18. For a translation into
German of Aristides's De musica, see Von der Musik, trans. Rudolph
Schifke (Berlin: M. Hesse, 1937).
24. Also, in French, Gaudentius, Alypius et Gaudence, trans. Charles-
Emile Ruelle (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1895), pp. 60-61.
25. Thomas J. Mathiesen, "An Annotated Translation of Euclid's Divi-
sion of the Monochord," Journal of Music Theory, XIX (1975),
236-58.
26. R. P. Winnington-Ingram, "Aristoxenus and the Intervals of Gre
Music," Classical Quarterly, XXVI (1932), p. 198, n. 2.
27. Aristoxenus, Elem. II 52. In the enharmonic and chromatic gene
the interval from hypate to parhypate is equal to the interval fro
parhypate to lichanos. In the diatonic genera the lowest interval
the smallest. Never is the interval from hypate to parhypate lar
than the other intervals making up the tetrachord.
28. Nicomachus, Nicomachus. Manual of Harmonics, trans. Flora R.
Levin, Ph.D. diss., Columbia Univ., 1967.
29. Aristoxenus requires only that the interval from parhypate to
hypate be less than or equal to the interval from lichanos to par-
hypate.
30. Eventually Ptolemy uses the first six superparticular proportions
less than 4:3 to define the highest interval of the tetrachord (5:4,
6:5, 7:6, 8:7, 9:8, 10:9).
31. Theon of Smyrna, pp. 149-52.
32. Gaudentius, pp. 74-78.
33. 2304 is the smallest integer such that all of the proportions charac-
terizing the intervals of the Greater and Lesser Perfect Systems can
be represented by integers. If the intervals of the GPS and LPS are
represented by fractions, then 2304 is the least common multiple
of the denominators.

322

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
34. Boethius, p. 322.
35. Boethius, pp. 319-22.
36. This proposition, as well as the general correlation of Boethius and
Nicomachus, is due to Calvin M. Bower, "Boethius and Nico-
machus: An Essay concerning the Sources of De Institutione
Musica," to appear in Vivarium, XXV (1977).
37. The idea of picturing the change of lichanoi and parhypatai from
genus to genus is due to Richard L. Crocker, "Aristoxenus and
Greek Mathematics," Aspects of Medieval and Renaissance Music:
A Birthday Offering to Gustave Reese, ed. Jan LaRue (New York:
W. W. Norton, 1966), p. 102.
38. The cents for Nicomachus's divisions of the tetrachord are based
on the assumption that, in his discussion of the genera, he is refe
ring to actual musical intervals and not to purely numerical (arit
metic) divisions of the intervals of the tetrachord.
39. Theoretically the values of the function should be identical in all
three instances listed under Aristoxenus. The variance in values indi-
cates the approximations required by representing intervals by
cents.

'1

/7 Ii
~ *~Y1'

323

This content downloaded from

132.204.9.239 on Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:14:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms