The Modes of Ancient Greek Music — Reading Notes

on in the later writers on music is the word [Greek: tropos][1]. In the course of the passage of Plutarch already referred to (_De Mus._ c. 17) it is applied to the Dorian mode, which Plutarch has just called [Greek: harmonia]. As [Greek: tropos] is always used in the later writers of the keys ([Greek: tonoi]) of Aristoxenus, this may be added to the places in which [Greek: harmonia] has the same meaning.

§ 13. _Modes employed on different Instruments._

In the anonymous treatise on music published by Bellermann[2] (c. 28), we find the following statement regarding the use of the modes or keys in the scales of different instruments:

'The Phrygian mode ([Greek: harmonia]) has the first place on wind-instruments: witness the first discoverers--Marsyas, Hyagnis, Olympus--who were Phrygians. Players on the water-organ ([Greek: hydraulai]) use only six modes ([Greek: tropoi]), viz. Hyper-lydian, Hyper-ionian, Lydian, Phrygian, Hypo-lydian, Hypo-phrygian. Players on the cithara tune their instrument to these four, viz. Hyper-ionian, Lydian, Hypo-lydian, Ionian. Flute-players employ seven, viz. Hyper-aeolian, Hyper-ionian, Hypo-lydian, Lydian, Phrygian, Ionian, Hypo-phrygian. Musicians who concern themselves with orchestic (choral music) use seven, viz. Hyper-dorian, Lydian, Phrygian, Dorian, Hypo-lydian, Hypo-phrygian, Hypo-dorian.

[Footnote 1: Aristides Quintilianus uses [Greek: tropos] as the regular word for 'key:' e.g. in p. 136 [Greek: en tê tôn tropôn, hous kai tonous ekalesamen, ekthesei]. So Alypius (p. 2 Meib.) [Greek: dielein eis tous legomenous tropous te kai tonous, ontas pentekaideka ton arithmon]. Also Bacchius in his catechism (p. 12 Meib.) [Greek: hoi tous treis tropous adontes tinas adousi; Lydion, Phrygion, Dôrion; hoi de tous hepta tinas; Mixolydion, Lydion, Phrygion, Dôrion, Hypolydion, Hypophrygion, Hypodôrion, toutôn poios estin oxyteros? ho Mixolydios, k.t.l.] And Gaudentius (p. 21, l. 2) [Greek: kath' hekaston tropon hê tonon]. Cp. Dionys. Hal. _De Comp. Verb._ c. 19.]

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

In this passage it is evident that we have to do with keys of the scheme attributed to Aristoxenus, including the two (Hyper-aeolian and Hyper-lydian) which were said to have been added after his time. The number of scales mentioned is sufficient to prove that the reference is not to the seven species of the octave. Yet the word [Greek: harmonia] is used of these keys, and with it, seemingly as an equivalent, the word [Greek: tropos].

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

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

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

1. From various passages, especially in Plato and Aristotle, it has been shown that the modes anciently called [Greek: harmoniai] differed in pitch, and that this difference in pitch was regarded as the chief source of the peculiar ethical character of the modes.

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

3. The usage of the words [Greek: harmonia] and [Greek: tonos] is never such as to suggest that they refer to different things. In the earlier writers, down to and including Aristotle, [Greek: harmonia] is used, never [Greek: tonos]. In Aristoxenus and his school we find [Greek: tonos], and in later writers [Greek: tropos], but not [Greek: harmonia]. The few writers (such as Plutarch) who use both [Greek: tonos] and [Greek: harmonia] do not observe any consistent distinction between them. Those who (like Westphal) believe that there was a distinction, are obliged to admit that [Greek: harmonia] is occasionally used for [Greek: tonos] and conversely.

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

§ 15. _The Systems of Greek Music._

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

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

§ 16. _The Standard Octachord System._

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

Nêtê ([Greek: neatê] or [Greek: nêtê], lit. 'lowest,' our 'highest'). Paranêtê ([Greek: paranêtê], 'next to Nêtê'). Tritê ([Greek: tritê], _i.e._ 'third' string). Paramesê ([Greek: paramesê] or [Greek: paramesos], 'next to Mesê'). Mesê ([Greek: mesê], 'middle string'). Lichanos ([Greek: lichanos], _i.e._ 'forefinger' string). Parhypatê ([Greek: parypatê]). Hypatê ([Greek: hypatê], lit. 'uppermost,' our 'lowest').

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

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

[Footnote 1: This is especially evident in the case of the Lichanos; as was observed by Aristides Quintilianus, who says (p. 10 Meib.): [Greek: hai kai tô genei lichanoi prosêgoreuthêsan, homônymôs tô plêttonti daktylô tên êchousan autas chordên onomastheisai]. But Tritê also is doubtless originally the 'third string' rather than the 'third note.']

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

_Diatonic._ _Enharmonic._

e =Nêtê= \ e =Nêtê= \ d Paranêtê } ( c Paranêtê } c Tritê } +---( b* Tritê } b =Paramesê= / | ( b =Paramesê= / a =Mesê= \ | a =Mesê= \ g Lichanos } | ( f Lichanos } f Parhypatê } | +-( e* Parhypatê } e =Hypatê= / | | ( e =Hypatê= / | | [Greek: pyknon] [Greek: pyknon]

In the Chromatic genus and its varieties the division is of an intermediate kind. The interval between Lichanos and Mesê is more than one tone, but less than two: and the two other intervals, as in the enharmonic, are equal.

The most characteristic feature of this scale, in contrast to those of the modern Major and Minor, is the place of the small intervals (semitone or [Greek: pyknon]), which are always the lowest intervals of a tetrachord. It is hardly necessary to quote passages from Aristotle and Aristoxenus to show that this is the succession of intervals assumed by them. The question is asked in the Aristotelian _Problems_ (xix. 4), why Parhypatê is difficult to sing, while Hypatê is easy, although there is only a diesis between them ([Greek: kaitoi diesis hekateras]). Again (_Probl._ xix. 47), speaking of the old heptachord scale, the writer says that the Paramesê was left out, and consequently the Mesê became the lowest note of the upper [Greek: pyknon], _i.e._ the group of 'close' notes consisting of Mesê, Tritê, and Paranêtê. Similarly Aristoxenus (_Harm._ p. 23) observes that the 'space' of the Lichanos, _i.e._ the limit within which it varies in the different genera, is a tone while the space of the Parhypatê is only a diesis, for it is never nearer Hypatê than a diesis or further off than a semitone.

§ 17. _Earlier Heptachord Scales._

Regarding the earlier seven-stringed scales which preceded this octave our information is scanty and somewhat obscure. The chief notice on the subject is the following passage of the Aristotelian _Problems_:

_Probl._ xix. 47 [Greek: dia ti hoi archaioi heptachordous poiountes tas harmonias tên hypatên all' ou tên nêtên katelipon: hê ou tên] [Greek: hypatên] (leg. [Greek: nêtên]), [Greek: alla tên nyn paramesên kaloumenên aphêroun kai to toniaion diastêma; echrônto de tê eschatê mesê tou epi to oxy pyknou; did kai mesên autên prosêloreusan [hê] oti ên tou men anô tetrachordon teleutê, tou de katô archê, kai meson eiche logon tonô tôn akrôn?]

'Why did the ancient seven-stringed scales include Hypatê but not Nêtê? Or should we say that the note omitted was not Nêtê, but the present Paramesê and the interval of a tone (_i.e._ the disjunctive tone)? The Mesê, then, was the lowest note of the upper [Greek: pyknon]: whence the name [Greek: mesê], because it was the end of the upper tetrachord and beginning of the lower one, and was in pitch the middle between the extremes.'

This clearly implies two conjunct tetrachords--

[Music: _e f g a a# c d_ \---- /\----- /]

In another place (_Probl._ xix. 32) the question is asked, why the interval of the octave is called [Greek: dia pasôn], not [Greek: di' oktô],--as the Fourth is [Greek: dia tessarôn], the Fifth [Greek: dia pente]. The answer suggested is that there were anciently seven strings, and that Terpander left out the Tritê and added the Nêtê. That is to say, Terpander increased the compass of the scale from the ancient two tetrachords to a full Octave; but he did not increase the number of strings to eight. Thus he produced a scale like the standard octave, but with one note wanting; so that the term [Greek: di oktô] was inappropriate.

Among later writers who confirm this account we may notice Nicomachus, p. 7 Meib. [Greek: mesê dia tessarôn pros amphotera en tê heptachordô kata to palaion diestôsa]: and p. 20 [Greek: tê toinyn archaiotropô lyra toutesti tê heptachordô, kata synaphên ek duo tetrachordôn synestôsê k.t.l.]

It appears then that two kinds of seven-stringed scales were known, at least by tradition: viz. (1) a scale composed of two conjunct tetrachords, and therefore of a compass less than an octave by one tone; and (2) a scale of the compass of an octave, but wanting a note, viz. the note above Mesê. The existence of this incomplete scale is interesting as a testimony to the force of the tradition which limited the number of strings to seven.

§ 18. _The Perfect System._

The term 'Perfect System' ([Greek: systêma teleion]) is applied by the technical writers to a scale which is evidently formed by successive additions to the heptachord and octachord scales explained in the preceding chapter. It may be described as a combination of two scales, called the Greater and Lesser Perfect System.

The Greater Perfect System ([Greek: systêma teleion meizon]) consists of two octaves formed from the primitive octachord System by adding a tetrachord at each end of the scale. The new notes are named like those of the adjoining tetrachord of the original octave, but with the name of the tetrachord added by way of distinction. Thus below the original Hypatê we have a new tetrachord Hypatôn ([Greek: tetrachordon hypatôn]), the notes of which are accordingly called Hypatê Hypatôn, Parhypatê Hypatôn, and Lichanos Hypatôn: and similarly above Nêtê we have a tetrachord Hyperbolaiôn. Finally the octave downwards from Mesê is completed by the addition of a note appropriately called Proslambanomenos.

The Lesser Perfect System ([Greek: systêma teleion elasson]) is apparently based upon the ancient heptachord which consisted of two 'conjunct' tetrachords meeting in the Mesê. This scale was extended downwards in the same way as the Greater System, and thus became a scale of three tetrachords and a tone.

These two Systems together constitute the Perfect and 'unmodulating' System ([Greek: systêma teleion ametabolon]), which may be represented in modern notation[1] as follows:

a Nêtê Hyperbolaiôn \ Tetrachord g Paranêtê Hyperbolaiôn } Hyperbolaiôn f Tritê Hyperbolaiôn / e Nêtê Diezeugmenôn d Paranêtê Diezeugmenôn \ Tetrachord c Tritê Diezeugmenôn } Diezeugmenôn b Paramesê / d Nêtê Synêmmenôn \ Tetrachord c Paranêtê Synêmmenôn } Synêmmenôn b flat Tritê Synêmmenôn/ a Mesê \ g Lichanos Mesôn } Tetrachord f Parhypatê Mesôn } Mesôn e Hypatê Mesôn / d Lichanos Hypatôn \ Tetrachord c Parhypatê Hypatôn } Hypatôn b Hypatê Hypatôn / a Proslambanomenos

[Footnote 1: The correspondence between ancient and modern musical notation was first determined in a satisfactory way by Bellermann (_Die Tonleitern und Musiknoten der Griechen_), and Fortlage (_Das musicalische System der Griechen_).]

No account of the Perfect System is given by Aristoxenus, and there is no trace in his writings of an extension of the standard scale beyond the limits of the original octave. In one place indeed (_Harm._ p. 8, 12 Meib.) Aristoxenus promises to treat of Systems, 'and among them of the perfect System' ([Greek: peri te tôn allôn kai tou teleiou]). But we cannot assume that the phrase here had the technical sense which it bore in later writers. More probably it meant simply the octave scale, in contrast to the tetrachord and pentachord--a sense in which it is used by Aristides Quintilianus, p. 11 Meib. [Greek: synêmmenôn de eklêthê to holon systêma hoti tô prokeimenô teleiô tô mechri mesês synêptai], 'the whole scale was called conjunct because it is conjoined to the complete scale that reaches up to Mesê' (_i.e._ the octave extending from Proslambanomenos to Mesê). So p. 16 [Greek: kai ha men autôn esti teleia, ha d' ou, atelê men tetrachordon, pentachordon, teleion de oktachordon.] This is a use of [Greek: teleios] which is likely enough to have come from Aristoxenus. The word was doubtless applied in each period to the most complete scale which musical theory had then recognised.

Little is known of the steps by which this enlargement of the Greek scale was brought about. We shall not be wrong in conjecturing that it was connected with the advance made from time to time in the form and compass of musical instruments[1]. Along with the lyre, which kept its primitive simplicity as the instrument of education and everyday use, the Greeks had the cithara ([Greek: kithara]), an enlarged and improved lyre, which, to judge from the representations on ancient monuments, was generally seen in the hands of professional players ([Greek: kitharôdoi]). The development of the cithara showed itself in the increase, of which we have good evidence even before the time of Plato, in the number of the strings.

[Footnote 1: This observation was made by ancient writers, _e.g._ by Adrastus (Peripatetic philosopher of the second cent. A.D.): [Greek: epêuxêmenês de tês mousikês kai polychordôn kai polyphthongôn gegonotôn organôn tô proslêphthênai kai epi to bary kai epi to oxy tois pro[:y]parchousin oktô phthongois allous pleionas, homôs k.t.l. (Theon Smyrn. c. 6).]

The poet Ion, the contemporary of Sophocles, was the author of an epigram on a certain ten-stringed lyre, which seems to have had a scale closely approaching that of the Lesser Perfect System[1]. A little later we hear of the comic poet Pherecrates attacking the musician Timotheus for various innovations tending to the loss of primitive simplicity, in particular the use of twelve strings[2]. According to a tradition mentioned by Pausanias, the Spartans condemned Timotheus because in his cithara he had added four strings to the ancient seven. The offending instrument was hung up in the Scias (the place of meeting of the Spartan assembly), and apparently was seen there by Pausanias himself (Paus. iii. 12, 8).

[Footnote 1: The epigram is quoted in the pseudo-Euclidean _Introductio_, p. 19 (Meib.): [Greek: ho de] (sc. [Greek: Iôn]) [Greek: en dekachordô lyra] (_i.e._ in a poem on the subject of the ten-stringed lyre):--

[Greek: tên dekabamona taxin echousa tas symphônousas harmonias triodous; prin men s' heptatonon psallon dia tessara pantes Hellênes, spanian mousan aeiramenoi.]

'The triple ways of music that are in concord' must be the three conjunct tetrachords that can be formed with ten notes (_b c d e f g a b-flat c d_). This is the scale of the Lesser Perfect System before the addition of the Proslambanomenos.]

[Footnote 2: Pherecrates [Greek: cheirôn] fr. 1 (quoted by Plut. _de Mus._ c. 30). It is needless to refer to the other traditions on the subject, such as we find in Nicomachus (_Harm._ p. 35) and Boethius.]