The Modes of Ancient Greek Music — Reading Notes
Edition facts
For The Modes of Ancient Greek Music — Reading Notes, the stored edition analysis reports 45,684 words, 3 hr 19 min estimated reading time, and 6 detected text sections.
The text analysis averages about 21.4 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.
Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Music, Greek and Roman,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.
Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.
How this score is calculated
- Description quality20 pts
- Title & short description10 pts
- Source metadata20 pts
- Text length15 pts
- Chapters / structure15 pts
- EPUB file integrity20 pts
Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.
Read the Text
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.
Monro opens his 1894 monograph by positioning it as a sequel to his earlier article on Greek music in Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, where he first dissented from Westphal's widely accepted views on the ancient Modes. The preface reveals a work shaped by rapid archaeological discoveries: the Seikelos inscription from Tralles and a fragment of Euripides' Orestes appeared during writing, and just before publication, French excavators at Delphi uncovered a third-century BC hymn to Apollo. Monro delayed the book to incorporate this new material, acknowledging that such finds could transform the entire argument. The reader is thus encountering a study that consciously engages with the fluidity of evidence, where the author's thesis is presented as provisional, subject to the next papyrus or stone.
The Central Dispute: Pitch vs. Position
Monro's core argument hinges on a terminological fault line. Westphal and his followers held that Greek mode names (Dorian, Phrygian, etc.) indicated the position of a scale pattern on a fixed pitch grid—what Monro calls 'nomenclature by position.' Monro counters that Ptolemy's harmonic system, which reduced the keys from fifteen to seven, was an innovation that introduced this positional naming, and that earlier theorists like Aristoxenus used thesis differently. In a key passage, Monro dissects Aristoxenus's statement that melodic elements are 'limited and settled' in respect of dynameis, eidē, and theseis. He argues that thesis here refers to the relative placement of tetrachords (conjunct or disjunct), not to absolute pitch. Westphal, Monro claims, misread this technical vocabulary to support a modern theory. The debate is not merely philological: it determines whether ancient Greek music was perceived in terms of fixed pitch levels or movable patterns—a distinction with consequences for understanding the experience of melody.
Evidence from the Aristotelian Problems
A second battleground is Problem xix. 20, which discusses the special role of the Mesē (the middle note) in relation to the rest of the scale. Westphal interpreted this as requiring a mesē kata thesin (by position) to accommodate octaves of different species. Monro insists that the passage makes sense only if the Mesē is the key-note of the Perfect System—a fixed pitch reference. He points out that if Westphal were correct, the scale would have to be an octave of the a-species, and any other species would force a different understanding of Mesē. The argument is dense, turning on a single Greek phrase, but Monro's method is consistent: he treats each ancient text as a precise technical document, not a vague description. He does not claim to have settled the matter, but he shows that Westphal's reading requires an anachronistic concept of 'position' that the text does not support.
The Role of Newly Discovered Fragments
Monro's preface highlights a methodological tension: the book was nearly complete when the Delphi hymn emerged. He does not pretend that these fragments prove his thesis, but he uses them to test the competing theories. The Seikelos inscription and the Euripides fragment offer rare examples of actual notation, allowing comparison with the theoretical systems described by Aristoxenus and Ptolemy. Monro's treatment is cautious—he notes that the fragments are brief and late—but he suggests that they align better with a pitch-based understanding of modes than with Westphal's positional scheme. The reader is left to judge, as Monro explicitly invites, whether the new evidence strengthens or weakens his argument. This openness to revision, announced in the preface, gives the book a provisional character rare in scholarly monographs of the period.
Monro's study rewards readers who attend to his close reading of Greek technical terms and his willingness to engage with competing interpretations. The book is not a general introduction but a focused intervention in a specific scholarly debate. Those unfamiliar with Aristoxenus or Ptolemy may wish to consult a primer on ancient Greek harmonic theory before diving in. Monro's prose is clear but assumes a reader comfortable with transliterated Greek and the vocabulary of tetrachords, genera, and systems. The payoff is a sharper understanding of how modern scholars reconstruct ancient musical concepts from fragmentary evidence.
I remember when Monro’s Modes taught me that those old Greek names were about pitch, not position—a quiet undoing of a scholarly habit. It felt like hearing a familiar melody played in a new register. That same gentle shift lives in Spirit and Music — Themes and Context, where feeling re-tunes the notes we thought we knew.
There are no reviews for this eBook.
How did this book work for you?
Your answers remain private and are stored only in this browser.