Ptolemy On Sound - Harmonics 1.3 (6.14-9.15 Düring)

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009 DOI: 10.
1163/156852509X339897
Mnemosyne 62 (2009) 548-585 brill.nl/mnem

Ptolemy on Sound: Harmonics 1.3
(6.14-9.15 Dring)
Miguel Bobo de la Pea
Conservatorio Profesional de Msica, Luis Moya Blanco 261, 33203 Gijn, Spain
miguelbd@educastur.princast.es
Received: February 2008; accepted: April 2008
Abstract
Ptolemys acoustics develops throughout his Harmonics chapter 1.3. He denes
sound as , expressing itas most authors at the
timein terms of a stroke (), and thus linking the study of sound attributes
to that of the strokes. His tripartite analysis of sound stroke represents an original
description of sound production by means of an agent ( ) exciting a
medium ( ) which, in turn, stimulates the air ( ).
However clear Ptolemys explanation is, a wide consensus on its interpretation has
not been reached, since almost each scholar has read Ptolemys three factors in a
dierent way. As a result, several problems arise in dierent authors, especially the
contradiction between seen as responsible for
pitch and thought of as cause of loudness, but also the
understanding of as a
dierential cause of sounds. Tis paper tries to settle the aforesaid factors and to
clear up the di culties arising, as well as to comment on some fundamental
aspects of Ptolemys acoustics.
Keywords
Ptolemy, harmonics, acoustics, ancient Greek music
M. Bobo de la Pea / Mnemosyne 62 (2009) 548-585 549
1. Ptolemys Concept of Sound
Ptolemys theory of sound, as appears in his Harmonics,
1)
is based on an
original re-arranging of previous notions, so that they concur with practi-
cal experience. I will thus start by setting them out.
1.1. Background
Te study of the production, transmission and properties of sound is
ancient even within Greek tradition. Some aspects of such a study were
not, in my opinion, di cult to establish. For example, it is easy to check
experimentally that sound can be produced by some kind of impact: it is
enough to clap the hands, or to consider the beat of a drumstick on a drum
or that of the plectrum on the string it strikes; once this has been stated,
the same production mechanism can, after thoughtful reection, be recog-
nized in other cases. Likewise, when the transmission of sound is consid-
ered, the channel between the impact produced and our hearing it is
obviously air (sometimes water); so it was easy to realize that, somehow,
such an impact interacts with the air, and the latter, in turn, with the hear-
ing. Tese common-sense considerations could not but be familiar to
ancient philosophers and, in fact, we nd them expressed by authors such
as Anaxagoras (56A106 DK), Empedocles (31A93 DK), Alcmaeon (24A6
DK), Diogenes of Apollonia (19A21 DK) and Democritus (68A135 DK);
they all include the idea of an impact, though placing its signicance in a
dierent stage of the process.
Te concept of sound in terms of a stroke ()
2)
can be found early
in Pythagorean acousticsrstly in Archytas (47B1 DK), though he refers
to previous, possibly Pythagorean authorsand the description of sound
1)
Ptolemys Harmonics (Ptol. Harm.) is quoted by page and line number from Dring
1930 without any other indication, though occasionally Wallis 1699 is used. Also Porphy-
rys commentary (Porph. in Harm.) is quoted by page and line number from Dring
1932.
2)
Te noun (sometimes ), stroke, and its corresponding verb
( in the Ionian variant, which can be found once [3.2] in Ptolemy), to strike, are
commonly used to refer to the knock or impact; other verbs as or appear
sporadically.
550 M. Bobo de la Pea / Mnemosyne 62 (2009) 548-585
as a stroke of air
3)
became usual, afterwards, among the members of this
sect, according to the Peripatetic Adrastus (apud Porph. in Harm. 8.1).
Tis description was, doubtless, very common from the fth and fourth
centuries BC onwards and can thus be seen in Plato (Ti. 67b2-4; also cf.
Ps.-Plu. Plac. 901F9-11), Xenocrates (fr. 87), Aristotle (de An. 419b9-11)
and the Peripatetics (Ps.-Arist. Aud. 800a1-3, Pr. 901a17), the Stoics
(Chrysipp. SVF II fr. 425), Epicurus (cf. Ps.-Plu. Plac. 902C9-11) and
Pseudo-Euclid (Sect.Can. 148.6-7 Jan); even the grammarians made use
of this explanation (cf. Ps.-Plu. de Mus. 1131D2-3). It was a really wide-
spread notion in antiquity, with the outstanding exception of Aristoxenus:
a denition of sound in terms of stroke cannot be found in his works,
even though he could not be unfamiliar with it,
4)
and he only alludes
(Harm. 17.4-6, 55.4-7) to the Pythagorean doctrine of sound as air motion
5)

in order to criticize it.
Te description of sound as an eect of a stroke was then well-
established, although there was not a consensus on the terms of such a
description: the stroke was sometimes considered to occur between the
bodies producing sound (Arist. de An. 419b19-22), or between them and
the particles thought of as constituents of air (Ps.-Arist. Aud. 800a1-13);
sometimes, between these particles themselves as a transmission channel
3)
Te question whether sound is air struck or stroke of air depends on the type of deni-
tion required; cf. Porph. in Harm. 11.17-29, Alex.Aphr. in Top. 450.23-4 and Simp. in
Ph. 9.426.1-6.
4)
Perhaps Aristoxenus considered such a denition as not betting harmonic but physical
science (cf. Blis 1986, 76), whereas basically his treatise on the former is the only work of
his preserved. However, as a follower of Aristotle whom he expected to succeed, he could
not be ignorant of the Aristotelian theory of sound, which explains it (cf. Arist. de An.
419b9-11) by means of a stroke.
5)
In Pythagorean acoustics (cf. Porph. in Harm. 9.5-12, 29.27-33, 45.22-4) the stroke
determines a motion postulated as a cause of high pitch when it is fast, and of low pitch
when it is slow. Te rst testimony to it, Archytas (47B1 DK), adds the strokes strength
as a justication for high pitch; however, later Pythagorean theory (cf. Adrastus apud
Porph. in Harm. 8.1-5) shows the strokes intensity only as responsible for the loudness of
sound, thus isolating speed as a cause of pitch. Tis concept became virtually unanimous
(cf. Pl. Ti. 67b6-c1, Arist. de An. 420a31-3, Ps.-Arist. Aud. 803a5-6, Aelianus the
commentator on Plato apud Porph. in Harm. 33.28-9, Alex.Aphr. in Top. 106.29-7.2,
Ps.-Ti.Locr. 220.6-7, etc.) with some exceptions, such as Teophrastus (fr. 89 11.5-7).
(Chrysipp. SVF II fr. 425), or between them and our ear (Pl. Ti. 67b2-4).
In any case, it seems that even before Ptolemy there were some facts
accepted by most authors, namely: a) that the origin of sound lies in the
collision of two sounding bodies;
6)
b) that such a collision causes an aec-
tion
7)
in the air, susceptible of transmission through it; and, c) that its
reception occurs when the air aected impinges on our auditory organ.
Tere are, in correspondence with these facts, three phases of the auditory
process which we could call, respectively, sound production, transmis-
sion, and reception.
1.2. Ptolemys Formulation
Tree are the denitions of sound in Ptolemys treatise. Te rst two
appear, after that of harmonic science, combined in a single one, which we
could label compound denition:
8)
,
. (3.2-3)
Sound is understood as (aection of air
struck, i.e. what the air experiences when struck), a physicoacoustic de-
nition along the lines indicated above. Besides, sound is said to be
(the rst and most generic
9)
of
6)
Not every body is considered as sounding, i.e. capable of making sound (cf. Arist. de An.
419b6-9, 419b35-20a4).
7)
Aection in the meaning of action or process of aecting or being aected. Such an
aection is described as a motion among the Pythagoreans (cf. n. 5) and virtually all the
authors who reect that concept.
8)
A similar combination occurs earlier (if the source is not corrupt) in Diogenes of Baby-
lon (c. 2nd century BC): (apud
D.L. 7.55.2-3). More or less contemporary with Ptolemy is Ps.-Plu. de Mus. 1131D2-3:
.
9)
In the upward process of generalization toward the universalsinverse of the down-
ward of specication leading to the particularsa genus is identied which cannot be
conceived as a species of another superior or more generic, . Tis one could
be called extreme genus, and philosophers later than Aristotle, such as Porphyry, will iden-
tify it with the substance () itself; in such a sense sound is understood as the most
generic of the audibles (about the term audible, cf. n. 10): it is the very substance of an
the audibles),
10)
so as to show a more conceptual, typically Peripatetic
approach. Tis addition establishes without doubt that the term sound
() is taken in its widest sense,
11)
while the physicoacoustic denition
describes what this lato sensu sound is from the point of view of its material
production.
While the physicoacoustic denition considered sound mainly from
the point of view of its production, harmonic science studied, instead, the
attributes of sound
12)
once it has been produced, and especially one of
these attributes: pitch (practically identied with sound itself ). Now, in
strings the greater the tension (), the higher the pitch, whereas less
tension means lower pitch, which does not vary while the tension remains
constant; then, it is not di cult to understand that the tension of a string
ended up by being identied with the pitch of the sound it produced.
13)

audible and without which it is not yet so. At the opposite end of the scale are ,
the extreme species, which cannot be divided into more specic subspecies and will be the
particulars, . Cf. Porph. Intr. 4.2-5.16.
10)
Te usual Greek system of nominalizing adjectives by means of the article is also used in
English for a few current adjectives from philosophical texts, which become regular nouns.
Such is the case for universal and particular and, less often, for sensible and intelligible
(which occur especially in American English texts); thus, I have chosen to render
by the sensibles (in contrast with , the intelligibles), and
a particular case of the formerby the audibles. Tus, a sensible is an entity perceptible
through the senses; and an audible is a sensible proper to the hearing, that is, an entity
perceptible through the sense of hearing (as sensible) and only through it (as proper to hear-
ing); cf. Arist. de An. 418a7-13 and Porph. in Harm. 11.27-8.
11)
Te terminological dierence between , and is clear and constant
in Ptolemy: refers to sound lato sensu, as I have just said; (sound which
occupies a single and identical tone, 10.19) is the musical sound, here translated as note;
and (just the most beautiful of sounds, 10.26) is the voice, a species of
(obviously, the intervallic one ( ) used in singing, opposed to the
continuous one ( ) used in speaking; cf. Porph. in Harm. 9.34-10.4). Te
gradation is then > > , from more generic to more specic.
12)
I refer to pitch (by which we mean one sound is higher or lower than another), loudness
(by which we mean one sound is more intense than another), duration and timbre (by
which we dierentiate sounds of similar pitch, loudness and duration).
13)
A testimony to it might perhaps be traced as far back as Terpander (c. 7th century BC).
Indeed, he uses (tone, but also tension: cf. , atonic, without tension),
which has the same root *t(e/o)n- as (both of them derive from , to tense;
cf. Chantraine 1999 s.v. -), in the compound to refer to the , in
Tis, together with the great prestige of chordophones like the kithara
() or the lyre (),
14)
and maybe allied to the fact that early acous-
tic experimentation was often carried out on chordophones, led to the
terminology and concepts characteristic of strings being extrapolated to
other instruments and musical elds. So, metaphorically from strings (cf.
Cleonid. 181.7-8), a particular pitch was rstly identied with the corre-
sponding tension of a string and consequently named ;
15)
later, the
metaphor went further and was identied with pitch itself (cf. Aris-
tox. Harm. 18.16-8), as we can see, mutatis mutandis, in Ptolemy himself
(10.2-5). As a result, the concepts of increase in tension () and
distension or loosening () of strings adopted
16)
the more abstract
senses of pitch rise and pitch fall, respectively, while each particular pitch
started to be called
17)
.
Tus, the concept of note () had been long-established in terms
of , and Ptolemy, synthesizing previous harmonic notions, uses it:
18)
.
19
(10.19)
such a way that his (fr. 4 Gostoli) can be read as phorminx of seven
tensions (cf. the phorminx of seven knocks ( ) from Pi. P. 2.70-1)
as well as phorminx of seven notes or pitches (also cf. the phorminx of seven tongues
( ) from Pi. N. 5.25), in any case referring to the number of strings.
Also cf. Ion Chius fr. 32 West and E. HF 683.
14)
Which can be appreciated if we take into account that, for example, most of the names
of the notes in the complete system ( ) are connected with those of the
lyre strings (cf. West 1992, 219); an early example of this extension might perhaps be found
in Philolaus (44B6 DK).
15)
Which started to mean permanence (), stability (), stillness (,
) and even identity () of the voice; cf. Aristox. Harm. 17.2-4, Anon.
Bellerm. 6.20-1, Cleonid. 180.19, Aristid. Quint. 6.28 WI, Gaud. 329.8 and Nicom.
Harm. 243.1-2.
16)
Cf. Aristox. Harm. 15.14-8, Cleonid. 180.20-1.2, Anon. Bellerm. 12.2-5 and Aristid.
Quint. 6.29-7.3 WI. Also cf. Hagel 2005, 63 n. 35.
17)
Cf. Aristox. Harm. 20.16-9, Cleonid. 179.9-10, Gaud. 329.7-8, Bacch. 292.15-6 and
Nicom. Harm. 261.4-7; yet it is occasionally possible to see and as syn-
onyms (Cleonid. 181.7-9), or with the abstract value of (Anon. Bellerm.
14.15-6).
18)
Although the term is here replaced by its synonym ; cf. n. 13.
19)
Note is sound which occupies a single and identical tone.
Tis denition showed the note to be a species of sound, initially consid-
ered in the treatise from the physicoacoustic point of view mentioned
above, so a link between both and was needed, whence the
third denition of sound
20)
given in the treatise:
,
.
21)
(8.12-4)
Ptolemys eclecticism
22)
in dening sound is then patent; nevertheless, such
eclecticism is not gratuitous, since his various descriptions reveal diverse
interests. Te most conceptual denition, of Peripatetic origin, has an epis-
temological character,
23)
whereas the physicoacoustic one, connected to a
Pythagorean tradition, is aimed at studying the attributes of sound. How-
ever, as the signicant term in the development of the concepts of har-
monic science is pitch expressed as tension, the author resorts to the
concept of sound in terms of .
2. Factors Involved in Sound Production:
Once sound has been dened as , the author

analyzes sound attributes in terms of the stroke which produces it, and
identies the strokes features contributing to dierentiate the sound they
produce:

,
,
20)
Whose connection with the previous one we will later deal with (cf. 3.3.2).
21)
Indeed, sound is a certain air tension, a tension stretching with continuity from the air
comprehended between the bodies producing the strokes to the outer air.
22)
On eclecticism in Ptolemys philosophical concepts, cf. Long 1988.
23)
By using sound lato sensu in his denition of harmonic science Ptolemy widens its eld
of speculation, which now accepts the nature of the harmonizedthat is, abiding by the
harmonic science rulesmelos ( ), as habitual, as well as that of the
inharmonious ( ), with the idea that a science must comprehend what is
its proper subject and what surrounds it (cf. Porph. in Harm. 6.20-9).
.

,
.

, .
24)
(6.15-24)
Sounds are specied again as aections derived from strokes (
[sc. ]
25)
) and four dierential causes of sounds are recog-
nized, namely: 1) , the force of what strikes; 2)
, the bodily constitution of what is
struck; 3) , the bodily constitu-
tion of that whereby the stroke happens; and 4)
, the space from what is struck to the origin
of the movement. Tese four causes are enunciated according to a series of
factors , , , and
which imply a description of the striking process, the source of
sound. Consequently, it would be appropriate, for a correct understanding
of Ptolemys theory, to determine, rst of all, how many and which of
them are the factors essential to such a description, and then their respec-
tive contributions to the sound process.
For a start, we have to point out that the expression
is coreferential with ,
26)
as it stems from the comparison between
24)
In which of both the aforesaid genera [sc. that of quantity and that of quality] must be
placed the dierence concerning highness and lowness is something which cannot be dis-
played ohand, before the causes of such a characteristic have been researched, causes
which I nd to be somehow common also to the variations in the other strokes. Certainly,
the aections derived from them [sc. from the strokes] prove to be dierent depending on
the force of what strikes, on the bodily constitutions of what is struck as well as of that
whereby the stroke happens, and also on the space from what is struck to the origin of the
movement. Indeed, it is clear that, if the other underlying factors remain identical, each one
of the aforesaid ones produces a proper peculiarity concerning the aection when it itself is
made dierent in any way.
25)
I think should not be referred to , as Barker (2000, 38 .) seems to do
(the path of sounds): sounds are themselves the resulting from the strokes (remem-
ber that sound is aection () of air struck; this was just the reason why causes of
variation of strokes lato sensu were studied).
26)
Raa (2002, 271) seems to have reached the same conclusion, and for the same cause I
the syntagm
from the previous text and its paraphrase
(8.17-8), made by Ptolemy
himself when developing the study of this fourth dierential cause of
sounds. In fact, the characterization of the agenthere as
origin of the movement (or as cause of it) is a Peripatetic notion (cf. Arist.
Ph. 194b29-32):
27)
the stroke is understood as movement () or
change from potential sound (state of rest) to eective or actual sound,
where the dierences between sounds become evident (cf. Arist. de An.
420a26-7). We can then identify with ,
simplifying the description of the striking process of sound.
Secondly, we should reect on the formal expression of the three remain-
ing factors: , and , whose
formulation is made in such a way as to make it impossible to identify each
of them with any other but itself. My statement will be better understood
if the aforesaid factors are comparedwith reference to their formal
expressionwith others from a dierent analysis, one of ve components,
carried out by Ptolemy in a work on his theory of knowledge:

(. . .) (. . .).
(. . .)
(. . .) (. . .)
mention here; however, he had previously (p. 257) identied with
, the latter clearly distinguished from . Barker (2000, 50), in turn,
assimilates the origin of the movementin the case of a vibrating stringeither with its
oscillation centre or with one of its ends, which makes it hard for him to interpret the
fourth dierential cause of sounds.
27)
Porphyry expresses as responsible () for the stroke:

, (in Harm. 39.5-9). Te com-
mentator species the voice more (ibid. 40.27-1.1), distinguishing between the agent
strictly speaking (the natural blow ()) and the origin of the movement (the impulse
() to blow); nevertheless, only in that case such a distinction is pointed at, and it is
Porphyry, not Ptolemy, who does so.
, ,
.
28)
(Ptol. Judic. 5.4-14)
Te comparison I have proposed clearly shows the formal similarity between
and ( , the being which is the object
of examination, according to Ptolemy himself ); between and
( , the understanding); and between and
( , the sense, the sensation).
Now, since the three factors in this second analysis aim at totally dierent
references which we should not confuse with each other, it seems obvious
that the ones we are concerned withformally identical to the others
should also be carefully distinguished: any confusion
29)
between them could
distort the acoustic theory in the treatise and should be avoided, in order
to respect the terminological coherence usual in its author.
In short, when Ptolemy denes sound as aection of air struck, he is
focusing on its production identied as a stroke, where three dierent irre-
ducible factors cooperate: , the striking agent, which triggers
the process; , the medium transmitting the stroke,
whereby the stroke happens; and , the thing struck, as
nal receiver of the stroke.
Tis lay-out is not original: a tripartite scheme of sound production can
already be recognized in Aristotle.
30)
But this philosopher perhaps thought
28)
Tus, the ends of the criterion sought would even by themselves be manifest: on the
one hand, the being as subject and matter of the judgment (. . .); on the other, the thing in
the interest of which the judgment is, the truth (. . .). As for the intermediate terms between
the ends, in turn, (. . .) we could obtain them from our own activity, when we travel the
road toward the universals; for (. . .) it would not be illogical if one made the sense corre-
spond with the medium whereby is judged what is judged, the understanding with what
judges, and the reason with the procedure by which judges what judges.
29)
Such confusions have, nevertheless, been frequent, especially as regards
and, to a lesser extent, ; I will refer to them later, when studying each
factor individually.
30)
Cf. de An. 419b9-11 (
), and 419b19-20 (
, ); the adjective
, solid, refers to the bodies which produce sound, in contrast to air or water (ibid.
419b18) as receivers and transmitters of the disturbance.
about a most elementary stroke, when one solid body impacts on another
both of them on equal termswithin the air (the third factor involved in
the process, cf. de An. 420b14-5) and the latter undergoes, somehow, the
result of such an impact; and he expresses it (de An. 419b10, cf. n. 30) as a
: a stroke of something (a solid body) against
something (another solid body) inside something (the air). Instead, Ptol-
emy was aware that every factor involved in the process made a dierent
contribution to the attributes of sound, since it could be easily proved by
practical experience that, for example, none of the plectrums features made
any contribution to pitch, while the strings are an essential determinant of
it.
31)
It is what he advanced in his analysis of the dierential causes of
sounds, whence, by a clear distinction of every factors functions, he estab-
lished a more sophisticated hierarchy between them, that is to say: a body
(the striking agent) triggers the stroke, which is transmitted through a
second body (the transmitting medium) and ends up at its nal receiver
(the thing struck), which is none other than the air (cf. 2.1). He recog-
nized then the same factors as Aristotle in sound production, but explained
their contribution to the process in an entirely dierent way, which repre-
sents, in fact, an original explanation by him; we could express his concept
of sound, with a paraphrase of Aristotle, as an aection derived from a
: a stroke of something (the agent) against
something (the air) through something (the medium).
Now, on the basis of this account, the movement () earlier iden-
tied as change from potentiality to actuality could be assimilated to the
oscillatory motion of which sound consists; this motion is then triggered
by the striking agent, as origin or cause of the process ( ),
and transmitted through the medium up to its nal term, the air, becom-
ing actual sound. Tus, Ptolemy recognizes a peculiar nature in the stroke
which causes sound, since he admits, besides the body hitting and the
body hit, a medium transmitting the stroke from the former to the latter.
In fact, diverse bodies could be conceived in the striking process of sound
31)
It is certainly laid down by practical experience that pitch depends essentially on the
characteristics of the instrument by means of which it is produced, and very little or noth-
ing at all on the agent or the air, while loudness, for example, depends on the force the
agent uses.
colliding with each other, that is, striking and being struck.
32)
In an atom-
ist description of the process (the only one giving a fair account of sound
production, transmission and reception), the particles of the medium could
be thought of as hitting each other, in some cases, and always hitting those
of the air (in the phase of production), and also the particles of the air, in
turn, hitting each other and hitting the hearing organ (in the phases of
transmission and reception, respectively). In any case, Ptolemy focuses on
the phase of sound production exclusively, and identies a single agent (
), striking but not struck, which triggers the process, and a single
receiver of the impact ( , the air), struck but not striking,
33)

where sound production nishes and sound transmission starts; and yet
the medium ( ), for its part, both is struck (by the agent;
cf. n. 39) and strikes (the air).
34)
Herein lies the peculiarity of these factors,
shown by practical experience through their dierent contribution to the
attributes of the sound they help to produce; in fact, the authoras an
empirical scientistproposes nothing else but an analytical formulation
deduced from practice, namely: that sound happens when an agent (a
drumstick, a plectrum, the human blow) excites a medium (a membrane
or a taut string, the air column in a pipe, the vocal folds) which, in turn,
stimulates the air, the nal receiver of the disturbance.
32)
Cf. Arist. de An. 419b19-20 and Ps.-Arist. Aud. 800a1-3.
33)
Te air does not strike as the end of the striking process in the phase of sound produc-
tion. Nevertheless, it is the striking agent in aerophones or in the human voice (cf. 2.2),
then called , blow, better than . Also separately should be considered the
strokes caused by the air in the phases of transmission or reception; cf. Pl. Ti. 67b2-4
(sound as stroke by action of air ( )), commented in Porph. in Harm.
46.28-30 (the air transmitting () the stroke, after being itself struck).
34)
Cf. Porph. in Harm. 53.14-20:
[sc. ] (
)
,
( ),
. . . (punctuation is
mine); also cf. Barker 2000, 37: In many cases, of course, sound is caused when one solid
body impinges on another, as when a plectrum strikes a string or a stick strikes a metal disk.
It is not this impact between solids as such, however, that is held to cause sound, but the
resulting impact on the air, made in these cases by the string and by the vibrating surface of
the disk (italics are mine).
2.1.
As I have already pointed out, this factor is the air, which stems from the
very denition of sound: .
35)
Tus it is
understood by Barker (2000, 37): In Ptolemys treatment, as in that of
most of his predecessors from Archytas onwards, the thing struck is always
the air;
36)
and a little further on: Here [sc. referring to
] too, then, and in all cases, the relevant thing struck is the
air. Such an interpretation, otherwise, is the one which prevails when
Ptolemy elucidates the constitution of the thing struck as a dierential
cause of sounds:

37)
(6.24-7)
since dierences resulting from the constitution of the thing struck are, at
this point, linked to variations in air. Tere is little doubt that Porphyry
interprets here as the air,
38)
though he does not use the
articular participlethat is, does not single out a specic body struckfor
he admits another body struck in the striking process: the medium;
39)
how-
ever, we cannot thence deduce that he identiesas Raa (2002, 250)
asserts
40)
both of them, but can at the very most say that the air is included
35)
Also cf. Porph. in Harm. 8.11-5.
36)
I have already referred to sound specied as stroke of air (or air struck, cf. n. 3), which
occurs in Pythagoreans (cf. Adrastus apud Porph. in Harm. 8.1), Aristotle (de An. 419b21-
2) and the Stoics (Chrysipp. SVF II fr. 425), to quote but a few.
37)
Now between sounds, the dierence from the constitution of the thing struck would
either not occur at all or, at least, be imperceptible, since also the variation of airs proves to
be such [sc. imperceptible] for the sense.
38)
Cf. Porph. in Harm. 39.33, 40.3-4 and especially 40.5-7 ( [sc.
]
); also cf. 40.24, 53.8-11 and 53.14-20 (n. 34).
39)
It ( ) can be seen as in Porph. in Harm. 40.24-6; also cf.
id. ibid. 53.6-11. In id. ibid. 55.17-8 we nd even the specic musical instrumentthat is,
the transmitting medium (cf. 2.3)as struck.
40)
According to this scholar, Porphyry identies with in
in Harm. 39.3-6, since he regards
among the .
41)
Ptolemy, certainly, by using the denite
article, singles out a specic , which Porphyry always
just interprets as in his comments on 6.24-7 (cf. n. 38). Neverthe-
less, Raa (2002, 253) refuses to identify with the air
42)

precisely on the grounds of this passage: Ora, se le espressioni
e indicassero entrambe sempre la stessa cosa, cio laria,
la forza argomentativa del nesso causale . si annullerebbe in una
inconcludente tautologia. In fact, there is not such a tautology in the text:
what in the main clause is brought up is the dierence between sounds
owing to the constitution of the thing struck (
), while in the causal subordinate
clause this dierence is linked to variation of airs (
). What Ptolemy actually saysas has been pointed out by
Barker (2000, 38)is that imperceptible variations (those of the air) do
not have any eector, in any event, have an imperceptible oneon the
corresponding sounds; the statement is debatable (cf. id. ibid. and 3.1),
but can by no means be described as a tautology.
Another surprising interpretation of this factor, for dierent reasons, is
Levins. Tis scholar puts (1980, 216) on the same level as
, and thence the former is assigned some characteristics
by her, on the grounds of 7.5-8, which Ptolemy explicitly attributes to
as a single dierential cause. Raa, however, does not bear in mind that what the commen-
tator regards here as singleand so paraphrasing Ptolemy himselfis the fact that both are
cause since they are ; instead, Porphyry, e.g. in ibid. 40.5-7, recognizes that both
kinds of have very dierent contributions to sound attributes: hardly can he
consider then the factors holding them as identical.
41)
Cf. 2 on the dierent ways for a body to strike or be struck in the process. Anyway,
though admitting the instrument among the , Porphyry recognizes
the air as (
, in Harm. 41.3-4).
42)
Raa (2002, 257) is the only scholar who clearly isolates the three factors distinguished
by Ptolemy. However, though he initially proposes reading the medium ( )
as il corpo per mezzo del quale avviene la percussione, he immediately identies it with
lorigine del movimento ( ), later (2002, 271) seen as identical with
the agent ( ). As a result of this linking ( = =
), we nally nd two of the three factors equivalent to each other, a confusion
which makes it di cult to understand his interpreting the fourth dierential cause of
sounds (2002, 270-5).
the latter.
43)
By making both factors equal she contradicts herself,
44)
since
she describes (1980, 216, 218) the variations of pitch according to those of
the bodily constitution of the item struck (here referring to the constitu-
tion of from the treatise), whereas, on the contrary, she
considers (1980, 217) the same bodily constitution of the object struck
irrelevant to pitch (but such a constitution is now that of
from the Greek text).
All in all, is always the air in Ptolemys analysis, inde-
pendently of which other bodies are involved in the process; those bodies,
instead, are dierent in each specic circumstance, and we will identify
them in specically musical cases, that is, when related to musical prac-
tice
45)
(human voice here included).
2.2.
Tere is no di culty in interpreting
46)
the rst factor, , also described
as (cf. 2). Te agent triggering the process is, undoubt-
edly, the drumstick in percussion instruments, or the plectrum in chordo-
phones.
47)
As for aerophones and the human voice, Porphyry identies
48)
it
with the performers blow ().
49)
Such identication is not at all
exclusive to him, but can be found previously in Aristotle (de An. 420b27-
1a3) and many other authors (cf. Archyt. 47B1 DK, Tphr. fr. 89, Ps.-Arist.
43)
More precisely, what we read in 7.6 is the plural , later (7.7) made
singular with in the genitive.
44)
Tis contradiction has already been pointed out by Raa (2002, 254-5).
45)
Allusions to instrumental practice are frequent in this chapter (cf. e.g. 7.1-5, 7.29-8.2
and 8.25-7).
46)
Te striking agents activity is exemplied (7.3-4) through the verbs ,
and : to utter (a voice), to blow (in an aerophone) and to strike (e.g. with a plec-
trum), respectively.
47)
Tose whose strings are struck, as the kithara or the ; when the string
is plucked, as in the lyre, that role is played by the players nger, the agent which triggers
the process by pulling at the string.
48)
Cf. in Harm. 54.27-9 for the voice, and ibid. 55.16-7 for both together; also cf.
ibid. 55.23. We should recall the above mentioned peculiarity of this case, where Porphyry
dierentiates between the origin of the movement and the stricto sensu agent (cf. n. 27).
49)
As I have already said (cf. n. 33), the term , blow, is usually preferred in that
meaning to the less marked one , air.
Aud. passim), and is justied by Barker (2000, 37) this way: In wind
instruments, the breath is usually conceived as a missile, propelled down
the pipe and causing sound when it strikes the air outside it, through the
nearest available aperture (normally a ngerhole). Some scholars,
50)
how-
ever, on the grounds of this passage from Ptolemy:
, , (. . .)
, ,

51)
(8.27-9.4)
have assimilated , in the ,
52)
to the herein men-
tioned. Now, we cannot identify this safely, since few areapart
from the latterthe appearances of the term. Te only one giving some
information, uncertain otherwise, is Hesychius:
53)
this author identies
the either with the reed ()
54)
or with a part of the
near to its mouthpiece () which, according to the etymology of the
term (literally what is under the ), should be the part of the pipe
where the are inserted.
55)
Whatever the truth is, that part of the
seems to have been at the end of the pipe nearer to the mouthpiece, and so
both the proximity of a hole either to the or to the focus issuing
50)
Cf. Levin 1980, 213, and Redondo Reyes 2003, 331 n. 47.
51)
Indeed, provided that the other features remain identical (. . .), in auloi, the sounds
coming out through the holes nearer to the hypholmion (that is, to the striking agent) prove
to be assuredly higher than those coming out through those further away.
52)
Te was a reed instrument whose main body was a pipe () of cylindrical
or conical section () with several holes (). In this pipe were inserted
twoexceptionally threemobile, olive-shaped elements (); in the rst of them
(), completing with it the mouthpiece, was a xed the (double) reed (),
while the second one, removable, was an extension of the previous, like the so-called crooks
used in wind-metal instruments before the invention of the valves, and serving to modify
the instruments pitch. At the other end, the pipe could be nished in an open, slightly
widened bell (). Cf. Chailley 1979, 62, and Michaelides 1978, 42-3.
53)
, .
(Hsch. 908).
54)
So Porphyry (in Harm. 54.22) seems to interpret it, by replacing with
in his commentary.
55)
Tis is, indeed, Michaelides interpretation (1978, 43 and 148) of the , and
also Barkers (1989, 282 n. 34).
the blow become equivalent, since the length of the vibrating air column
is the same in both cases. I do not think then that the should
be taken as the striking agent, but as a reference to point at the greater
or lesser proximity to the agent itself, which is the blow emitted by the
players mouth (cf. Barker 1989, 282 n. 34).
2.3.
Tis is the factor whose interpretation seems to have raised most contro-
versy. Many scholars have identied it with ,
56)
maybe because
they have attributed a causal, agentive value to the expression with the
genitive. However, the preposition , in Ptolemy, governs the accusative
when it has a causal value,
57)
while its use with the genitivethe one we
have hereregularly indicates means or place through.
58)
If we accept thus
the common value of with the genitive to express the means,
should be a body intervening between agent and air, which trans-
mits to the latter the action triggered by the former; the only one which
can play this role is the instrument used at the moment: basically, the mem-
brane or the metallic or wooden disk (in percussion instruments), the
string (in chordophones), the pipe
59)
(in aerophones) or the windpipe
60)
(in
56)
Cf. Levin 1980, 214: the agent; Barker 2000, 36, 40 and 41-7: the agent, the striker.
Levin 1980, 216 and 218, as I have already pointed out, also confuses
with .
57)
Especially cf. causal expressions such as (passim) or + innitive (6.26,
11.22, 12.6, 16.33, 18.6, 18.8, 20.22, 21.7, 34.12, 36.24, 36.34, 39.20, (40.10), 51.22,
59.27, 63.22, 64.9, 65.17, 66.26, 67.8, 67.14, 84.18, 84.27, 90.4, 96.4, 96.6, 101.28,
102.12, 104.11, 104.16, 106.10, opposite to a single and peculiar + innitive in
101.16).
58)
Cf. 4.26-7, 5.4, 6.5, 7.10, 7.17, 8.15-6, 9.17, etc., and particularly the expressions
, or . Tere is a single case of with the accusative to
express the means ( [] , 7.15), but the prob-
lems it raises, about both textual transmission and interpretation, call for secluding the
article in the accusative; cf. Alexanderson 1969, 8.
59)
So in Ptolemy (9.6-9); Porph. in Harm. 55.17-8 shows it as struck. In fact, it would be
more exact to say that the medium is, in this case, the air column contained in the pipe, whose
length is determined by the blocked-up holes, and which is set vibrating by action of the blow
by selecting from it the oscillatory frequency which determines its corresponding pitch.
60)
Te windpipe (), considered as responsible for the sounds characteristic of the
human voice, cf. Ptolemy (9.9-12); Porph. in Harm. 55.17-8 shows it again as struck. In
the human voice); besides, the confusion between instrument and agent is
obviously out of place,
61)
since the attributes of the sound both of them
determine are radically dierent, as we will see below. Apart from that, no
other explanation for the medium ts, since the instrument is the only
oneof the three terms involved in the process (two solid bodies and the
air)whose corresponding factor has not been established yet.
I will try to show that my version of the three factors contributing to the
sound-producing process fairly accounts for the four dierential causes of
sounds set out in 6.15-24 (cf. 2).
3. Te Four Dierential Causes of Sounds
As for the air as the body struck, only one characteristic is studied: its
bodily composition; and as for the striking agent, in turn, also only one: its
striking force. However, as regards the intervening medium or instrument,
two are studied: its bodily constitution (in which its form is also included)
and its length,
62)
as I will show at the proper time (cf. 3.3.3). Te two
former are rejected as irrelevant to pitch, while the two latter do justify it.
63)

fact, the medium is in this case the vocal folds, whose level of tension or tightness, as well
as their length, establishes pitch, though this fact seems to be unknown even to current
authors. For Greek musical writers, anyway, the voice pitch was controlled by the windpipe,
and Teophrastus, for example, justies (fr. 89 5.7-11) its varying pitches by modication of
its length, while Ptolemy (9.6-15)followed by Porphyry (in Harm. 55.18-26)conceived
a hybrid action for it, halfway between and monochord.
61)
Moreover, we should not forget that the terms agent and medium or instrument are
the ones we use to interpret Ptolemys analytic expressions, the only ones used by him.
Otherwise, there is not a single point in chapter 1.3 where its author replaces
with , or vice versa, faithful to his own principles of terminological coher-
ence expressed in Judic. 10.1-10.
62)
Te analysis of the two latter is of the utmost importance, since it is on them that the
author places the quantitative character of pitch, which is the explicit reason for tackling
the study of sound attributes (cf. 4.2).
63)
In 26.16-27.2, again, after excluding other instruments (as inadequate) from acoustic
experimentation, and accepting only the monochord and the like for this purpose, Ptolemy
points out three dierential causes of sounds in the latter: density, cross section and length
[sc. between the movable bridges] of the string; the rst two correspond to the bodily con-
stitution of the string (i.e. the medium), and the third to the space between striker and
thing struck, as we will see.
Te establishment of them all is supposed to be empiric; however, the
experimental method of dierentiation proposedwhich involves main-
taining all the variables xed except for just one which is modied to
observe what the result is (6.22-4)seems to have been hard to put into
practice (cf. Barker 2000, 36-7), given the di culties raised by some of the
observations proposed,
64)
even in a modern laboratory. As Barker, loc. cit.,
suggests, quite casual observation and reection will have seemed su -
cient to conrm that each of his factors can be responsible, independently
of the others, for variations in the resulting path ; in fact, according to
what is shown in 16.32-17.26 (where the possibility of experimenting with
instruments other than the is rejected outright), we must
think that the essential part of Ptolemys experiments would be carried out
on chordophones, whence the results would be expandedsometimes in
a somewhat forced wayto other instruments.
Anyway, even though Ptolemys conditions are not ideal for carrying out
such experiments, and though the results he obtained had thence a lesser
scientic validity, it would be completely unfair to ignore that Ptolemy
isolates, as determinant of pitch, some characteristics (mass, density, ten-
sion and length) which are just the ones modern acoustics recognizes as
such.
65)
Te authors awareness of the signicance of these characteristics in
strings can be seen here and also in other points of the treatise (cf. 17.27 .
and 26.16-7.5), while his knowledge of it in pipes (except for the relevance
of their length) is far less. With regard to the understanding of the human
64)
Such as verifying the invariability of some characteristics of the medium (thickness,
density, smoothness, etc.), measuring the agents striking force, studying the composition
of the air as the body struck, measuring the string tension accurately, etc.
65)
Sound pitch is, in practice, identied with the frequency of the associate oscillatory
motion. In vibrant strings, Mersennes (1588-1648) laws a rm that such a frequency is
inversely proportional to the string length (rst law), directly proportional to the square
root of the tension to which it is subject (second law), and inversely proportional to the
square root of its linear density (third law). In sounding pipes, Bernoullis (1667-1748) laws
establish that it is inversely proportional to the length of the vibrating air column (second
law); in aerophones, also, the rise in temperature implies a rise in vibratory frequency. In
the voice, the fundamental sound frequency is that of the vocal folds vibrating, primarily
determined by their mass, longitude and tension, and secondarily by the speed and pressure
of the air passing through them. Cf. Fernndez de la Gndara & Lorente 1998, 49, 50 and
139, Donington 1986, 112 and 199-200, and Michels 1982, 23.
voice, it is really limited and leaves now a great deal to be desired, in Ptol-
emy as well as in Greek authors in general.
66)
3.1. Te Bodily Constitution of the Air ( )
Although the only characteristic of the air as () taken
into account concerning sound attributes is its bodily constitution,
67)
we
are told (6.24-7) that such a characteristic does not constitute a dierential
cause of pitch, or that, at the very best, the dierence owing to it is imper-
ceptible since also the variation of airs proves to be such [sc. imperceptible]
for the sense.
68)
It proves, nevertheless, to be surprising that such varia-
tions can be left aside as imperceptible for the hearing, when, shortly before
(4.15-9), we were acquainted with the need of rational instruments in
order to compensate for the incapacity of the senses to appreciate tries
individually irrelevant, but whose accumulation can produce considerable
errors. We cannot but agree with Barker (2000, 38) when he says that it is
rather rash of Ptolemy to admit without demonstration that imperceptible
causes have imperceptible eects.
Otherwise, Ptolemy, by pointing out the bodily constitution of the
air as a dierential cause of sounds, is perhaps likely to include an opinion
present in previous authors, according to which the air must full a
minimum of requirements for sound to be produced. Tis opinion can be
found among the Pythagoreans (cf. Adrastus apud Porph. in Harm. 8.1)
and in Aristotle (de An. 419b19-22), and Porphyry (in Harm. 8.14-5)
echoes it in his comments on Ptolemys denition of sound. All in all,
the bodily constitution of the air could be a characteristic of it which
66)
Which is not surprising, for this instrument has always been treated in a peculiar way.
Even nowadays, confusions of pitch with timbre, for example, can be traced in expressions
such as head voice or chest voicestill in usewhich refer the voice high range to the
head, and the low one to the chest (cf. NODE s.v. head voice); also cf. 105.13-6.
67)
Te bodily constitutions of the air become apparent, according to Porphyry, as hot or
cold, foggy or pure airs, and many other dierences which go unnoticed by the sense (in
Harm. 39.29-30).
68)
Cf. Porph. in Harm. 39.28-40.1. According to Barker (2000, 38), most Greek writers
tacitly assume that this thesis is substantially true, and at least one earlier theorist explicitly
makes a comparable claim, and quotes Ps.-Arist. Aud. 800a.
is held to be necessary for sound production, though irrelevant as regards
its attributes.
3.2. Te Force of the Striking Agent ( )
Tis is, in turn, the only characteristic of the striking agent taken into
account regarding sound attributes. According to Ptolemy (6.27-7.5), the
agents force is responsible only for loudness () of the sound pro-
duced,
69)
not for its pitch. In his comment on this cause, Barker (2000,
38-40) points out two questions the author overlooks. Te rst one, of
little relevance, is the fact that blowing more intensely has the eect, in
some aerophones, of a rise in pitch;
70)
here lies, probably, the cause why
that type of instrument is nally rejected (17.5-7) for harmonic experi-
mentation. Te second onenow more importantis that the author
is here ignoring Archytas doctrine (47B1 DK), according to which the
agents force is cause of sound highness, while its weakness is a cause of
lowness; in Barkers opinion (2000, 40), such a doctrine had already been
discarded by Plato (Ti. 67b-c) and Aristotle (GA 786b28-7a22), but
Ptolemy, if seeming here (6.27-7.5) to agree with that rejection, contra-
dicts it later (8.3-5) by accepting that greater intensity determines greater
sharpness in strokes. Barker is not alone in pointing out that contradiction
(cf. n. 89), although nobody seems to have noticed that the force ()
corresponds in 6.27-7.5 to the agent, while what is considered more intense
() in 8.3-5 is the medium, and that identical properties in
both factors do not necessarily have an identical eect in their correspond-
ing sound attributes. I will return to this below (cf. 3.3.2).
3.3. Te Characteristics of the Transmitting Medium
Te medium is, doubtless, the most outstanding factor as far as pitch is
concerned. Its bodily constitution, set out in 6.20-1, is complemented
later by its form (), also understood as a dierential cause of sounds.
Te authors explanation goes this way:
69)
Similar idea in Nicom. Harm. 243.5-8.
70)
Also cf. Aristox. Harm. 52.19. In my opinion, Ptolemy is almost certainly thinking of
chordophones, in which pitch does not change however strong the impact made by the
plectrum is, unless the force of the stroke modies the tension of the string.
Te variation according to the media whereby the strokes happen, in turn, is
here considered as variation according to the bodys primary constitutions
71)
that is, those by which each body is rare or dense, thin or thick and smooth
or roughand also as variation according to the forms. What otherwise do
the more aectable ()
72)
qualitiesand I mean smells, avours and
colourshave in common with a stroke? On one hand, it
73)
provides sounds,
through the form () in those which admit such a thing (as the tongue
and the mouth), with conformations (), by way of patterns for
them (corresponding to which names are coined such as chatterings, clicks,
accents, whistles and thousands of the sort, as we imitate each of such con-
formations, for man has a very rational, skilful governing capacity); on the
other hand, through the smoothness or roughness it provides them only, in
turn, with quality
74)
(according to which, by homonymy, some sounds are
called smooth or rough), because also these are, above all, qualities, while
71)
Tat is, those of , the particular body () which exemplies the
media ( ) here in question.
72)
Cf. Arist. Cat. 9a35-b7: Tey are called aectable qualities not because the bodies
which have received these qualities experience a certain aection themselves [. . .], but
because each of the aforementioned qualities is causative of sensory aection, and that is
why they are called aectable qualities. Tere is a consensus among the dierent scholars
that Ptolemys use of is the Aristotelian one.
73)
Tat is, what a stroke has in common with smells, avours and colours: the capacity (cf.
n. 72) to cause aections (sounds, in the case of strokes: remember again that, in Ptolemys
views, sound is an aection of air struck). Trough each of the aforesaid (7.5-8) mediums
qualities, such a capacity provides the corresponding sounds with a homonymous quality:
through the form () it provides conformations (), through the smoothness
() smooth () sounds, through the roughness () rough ()
sounds, etc. Ptolemy is here following Ps.-Arist. Aud. (803b26-9, 802b10-3, b14-8, b18-
21, etc.); cf. Barker 2000, 42.
74)
In contrast to the mediums form, Ptolemy breaks its qualities down into two well-
dened groups: on the one hand, (and its contrary, ); on the other
(and ) as well as (and ). Tose of the rst group are
legitimate qualities, since they are, rst and above all (), qualities; those of the sec-
ond group, instead, are hybrid qualities, since theythough qualitiesare based on the
quantity of the specic bodys substance (
). As a result, in the authors view those of the rst group provide sounds only with
quality ( ), while the other ones provide them with quality and, besides, with
highness and lowness ( . . . ); in this way
is laid one of the foundations on which this author bases the quantitative character of pitch
(cf. 4.2).
through the rarity or density and the thickness or thinness, it provides them
with qualities (also according to which, in turn by homonymy, certain sounds
are called dense or porous and thick or lean)
75)
and here,
76)
besides, it
provides them with lowness () and highness (),
77)
since also
each of both aforementioned constitutions,
78)
even though being quality, is
produced according to the quantity of the substance (because denser than
other of similar constitution is the one which has more substance in the same
volume, and thicker is that which has more substance in the same length, and
the denser and the thinner ones are providers of the higher, and the rarer and
the thicker, instead, of the lower).
79)
(7.5-25)
Two features of the medium are thus considered: its form and its primary
bodily constitution.
3.3.1. Te Form of the Medium ( )
Sound takes on, because of the transmitting mediums form,
80)
certain
conformations (7.10-2). In the human voice, specically mentioned in
7.11 ( ), the mediums form is that
adopted by the buccal cavity,
81)
as can be understood from the example
75)
Neither lean () nor porous () are the expected homonyms (thin
() and rare (), respectively).
76)
Tat is, in the case of the qualities of rarity or density and thickness or thinness.
77)
Te terms used here ( and ) have in fact the wider meaning of heaviness
and sharpness, which in Greek are inclusive of a specic sense for sounds, lowness and
highness, respectively. It cannot be rendered into English, and I have then chosen the
musical meaning, though it could cause some problems in understanding the generaliza-
tion 7.25-7, where the wider meaning is wanted.
78)
Rarity or density and thickness or thinness, respectively.
79)
Text punctuation is mine.
80)
If this one admits it, species the author. So it is in pipes (by adding the so-called bell)
or in the human voice, but not in chordophones.
81)
Cf. Barkers interpretation (2000, 41): the conformation of the human mouth or
tongue, as an example of the most generic shape of the striker. However, there is, as a
result, a slight discrepancy in his interpreting the strikerhere the human mouth or
tongue, but before (2000, 37) the breathdue to the agentive value of
(2000, 41 .) put on an equal footing with . Levin (1980, 214), in her turn,
renders as reeds and lips, referring to the aerophone
mouthpiece; such a translation, though possible, makes it di cult to understand which is
then the form Ptolemy is talking about.
7.12-5 ( . . . ). Now, what are
those conformations which the instruments form determines? In the
human voice (if we leave aside the eects made by the tongueclicks or
the likeas mere noises and not sounds), the modication of the buccal
cavitys formas that of any part of the vocal tracthas, as a result, that
of the formants and overtones of the sound emitted, that is, the variation
of its timbre (cf. Grove s.v. Acoustics, 83-4, 86 and also s.v. Formant,
710-1, and Fernndez de la Gndara & Lorente 1998, 142-7). Something
similar happens in aerophones with the form adopted by the pipe, which,
if not responsible for pitch (this essentially depends on the pipes length),
is determinant of timbre, for the bell acts on them as a resonator, as respon-
sible for the harmonic resonances which it selects (cf. Fernndez de la
Gndara & Lorente 1998, 108).
82)
Consequently, though we cannot deter-
mine to what extent Ptolemy bore timbre in mind as a sound attribute or
parameter, since he does not explicitly mention it, we might conjecture
those sound conformations as dierent timbres derived from the instru-
ments form.
3.3.2. Te Constitution of the Medium ( )
Te primary bodily constitution of the medium is here seen as its smooth-
ness or roughness, rarity or density and thickness or thinness (7.7-8). Tese
qualities of the medium provide sound, rst of all, with homonymous
qualities, so that sounds are called smooth or rough, rare or dense and
thick or thin.
83)
Besides, rarity or density and thickness or thinness also
determine sound highness () or lowness (), for the denser
and the thinner ones are providers of the higher [sc. sound], and the rarer
and the thicker, instead, of the lower one (7.23-5).
84)
Tis statement has
82)
Also cf. Paquette 1984, 74: la dirence de laulos, la salpinx possde un pavillon
amplicateur de forme varie (. . .). ces pavillons devaient correspondre des timbres dif-
frents, though about the he says (1984, 28): Cet vasement terminal [sc. the bell]
ne modie pas le timbre, mais sert damplicateur, meaning perhaps that the bell, little
testied for this instrument (id. ibid.), does not oer the variety of forms we would associ-
ate with a wish to change timbre.
83)
As the aforesaid , these qualities of sound are, again, among its character-
istics of timbre.
84)
So it is in chordophones, according to Mersennes third law (cf. n. 65; density and thick-
ness determine the string lineal density, i.e. its mass per metre), but not in aerophones,
general validity, since also in the other cases
85)
the sharper () is
called so because it is thinner, as the blunter () because it is
thicker (7.25-7), and the greater sharpness is justied because the thinner
strikes more concentratedly ()
86)
for it can penetrate quicker,
and the denser for it can penetrate deeper (7.27-8), hence bronze ()
produces a sharper sound than wood (),
87)
and gut () than
linen thread (),
88)
because they are denser; and of bronze pieces with
similar density and equal size it is the thinner which produces it, and of the
guts of similar density and equal length it is the leaner; and the hollow
bodies more than the solid ones; and of the windpipes, in turn, the denser
and thinner are again those of sharper tone (7.29-8.2). Tis happens since
these bodies are tauter ():
,
, ,
. (8.3-5)
where pitch depends essentially on the length of the vibrating air column (cf. Michels
1982, 47, and Donington 1986, 199). It seems necessary to think of experimentation in
chordophones here, though the statement is also valid in percussion instruments (I mean
those of dened tone, of course).
85)
In which the adjective sharp () can be used; the metaphoric origin of its use
referred to sounds is even in Arist. de An. 420a29-30. Also cf. n. 77 on the meaning of
and .
86)
Barker (2000, 44) suggests, hesitantly, that has greater compactness to render
, putting (p. 45) compactness on a level with density (). Te sense
of this adjective here is, I think, rather concentrated (cf. LSJ s.v. for D.H. Comp. 22.144,
about the state of the air in the implosion previous to
the explosion of the voiceless bilabial /p/), the same sense as it later (8.5) has, referring to
the way a string vibrates, more concentrated when it is tenser than when less tense.
87)
Bronze and wood could here refer to materials used to make both percussion instru-
ments and aerophones, although the material used for the latter is irrelevant concerning
pitch, and the statement is then false (cf. n. 84 and Paquette 1984, 26).
88)
here has its original value of gut, since gut was the commonly used material in
(literally capable of being tensed) instruments, which nowadays we just call chor-
dophones. On the other hand, means ax and, by extension, the linen thread
made out of this raw material, and it seems to refer, in turn, to another material used
tensely in an , even if the normal ones were gut and nerve () (cf. Suda
1415), and only in some scholia to Il. 18.570 is it a question of in that sense.
Terefore, pitch derived from the mediums bodily constitution essentially
depends on how taut () this is, because a tauter medium vibrates
with greater intensity () when struck, thus its vibrating is more
concentrated (), and, as a result, the sound it produces is
sharper (). Several scholars
89)
have criticized Ptolemys reasoning,
for it supposedly contradicts the previous (6.27-7.5) rejection of force
( ) as a cause of pitch. However, a fundamental error
underlies these criticisms, since the striking agent (whose force () was
postulated there) is mistaken for the medium transmitting the stroke (the
cause of greater sharpness adduced here for its being more intense
() in the stroke),
90)
and no notice is taken of Ptolemy imme-
diately insisting on this second referent:
,
,
91)

92)
(8.14-5)
with no room for doubt that the adjective (and, as a result,
) is attributed to . Nonetheless, since
has been interpreted as agent and assimilated to
(cf. n. 56), a agrant conict arises only due, in my opinion, to the confu-
sion of two factors clearly distinguished by Ptolemy. It is indeed obvious
that identical characteristics of both the agent and the medium do not
necessarily lead to identical properties of the resultant sound,
93)
and that,
89)
Cf. Porph. in Harm. 51.8-13 and Barker 2000, 40. Redondo Reyes (2003, 344-5 n. 56)
rejects the contradiction between both statements, although his explanation, after identify-
ing the medium with the agent, proves to be unsatisfactory.
90)
Tus, in a chordophone like the kithara, the plectrums striking force would be being
mistaken for the vibratory intensity of the string. Tough the former does not have any
eect on sound highness or lowness, it is not evident that it is so for the latter, as long as it
has not been clearly specied what it consists of; in fact, such an intensity is intimately
related to the oscillatory frequency, as we will see.
91)
Dring 1930 gives here, but I think it would be better to read
the adverbial accusatives with f (together with the from
MEV, m.a. ss. W), which is also Wallis choice (1699, 6); would
also be possible, although its testimony in the manuscripts is more doubtful.
92)
And on this account [sc. sound] is executed quicker and higher according to what extent
each of those media whereby the strokes happen is tauter.
93)
Nobody points out a contradiction in Ptolemy when he postulates the bodily constitu-
tion of the transmitting medium as fundamental regarding pitch, after deeming that of the
thence, there is no matter of contradiction: in Ptolemys opinion, the strik-
ing agents intensity leads to striking force (which only determines greater
or lesser loudness), while the mediums intensity is the cause of the concen-
tration ( ) of the disturbance, which, in turn, leads to greater or
lesser highness. In fact, intensity as explanation for greater highness is used
again later onwith nobody talking there about contradictionswhen
the author studies the relationship between the mediums length and sound
highness:

. (8.19-20)
It should moreover be underlined that the terms used in both cases are
not the same: in 6.27 it is a question of the striking agents force (),
while in 8.4 it is its condition of more intense () which is
postulated for the medium. Te adjective is very close in mean-
ing, in general, to (forcible), and Ptolemy himself uses them (7.1-5)
as synonyms in that sense,
94)
when stating that a striking
agent leads to greater loudness. But in 8.4 and 8.20, instead,
is used rather to allude to an implicit idea of speed () concomitant
with the intensity it represents: such a meaning can be seen in Aristotle,
95)

for example; can also refer to to express the intensity
of the winds inseparable from their speed (Alex.Aphr. Pr. 3.16.5; Gal. 8.
316.11-2), or simply associated with the idea of speed (Pl. Chrm. 160c3-4,
Plt. 306e4). In this sense, the adjective, generally referring to motion,
entails a link with the Pythagorean theory of pitch (cf. n. 5), and is used as
an explanation for sound highness in musical texts, such as in this Peripa-
tetic one:
air as irrelevant for the same purpose: though the characteristic is the same (the bodily
constitution), its eects on the sound are, nevertheless, radically dierent, likewise the fac-
tors which have that characteristic.
94)
Cf. (7.3), i.e. (7.5), in contrast to
(7.4), i.e. (7.5).
95)
Cf. Arist. Mete. 365b28-33 (esp. 365b32-3
) and its comment in Alex.Aphr.
in Mete. 116.25 .; also cf. Arist. Mech. 852b35-6 (
).
, .

96)

(Ps.-Arist. Pr. 920b1-4)
where we can appreciate to what extent the intensity () of a strings
motion is indissolubly linked with highness of the corresponding sound,
while the speedas the factor necessary for the formeris regarded as the
cause of the latter. Tus, can be related with the loudness as much
as with the pitch of the resulting sound, and Ptolemy retains both possibili-
ties, already present in previous authors, when he proposes a causal relation-
ship between and (7.1-5),
and between and
(8.4-5).
97)
Nevertheless, the author does not use (cf. 4.1) the speed implicit
in as an explanation for highness, but a slightly dierent substitute
for it: the mediums more concentrated way () of striking.
98)
It
is indeed easily veried that a tauter string
99)
seems to vibrate more speedily
and with a lesser distance from its position of restthat is, to do so in
a more concentrated waythan another which is less taut and seems to
move with slower, relaxed
100)
and wider motions: thus, the comparative
alludes to the more concentrated motion (in strings) which
96)
When, in turn, the motion is most intense, the voice of what shifts is also higher; for
this reason, the tensest strings also emit notes with greater highness, for their motion is
quicker; also cf. id. ibid. 886b15-6, 900a22, 900a33-4 and 920b26-7.
97)
Tis is, no doubt, one of the empiric reasons which led him to dierentiate both fac-
tors, agent and medium: the fact that the same qualities cause dierent sound attributes,
when shown by each one of them. In his dierentiating them this way lies the originality
and brilliance of his analysis: even though the material is pre-existent, Ptolemy is alone in
making use of it coherently.
98)
A similar explanation to Ptolemys, and with identical purpose, occurs in Ps.-Euc. Sect.
Can. 148.9-11 Jan, although the adjectives there used are (not ) and ;
also other adjectives ( and , respectively) can be seen in Porph. in Harm.
33.10-5.
99)
Again it is obvious that Ptolemys experimentation is not carried out on pipes, where
no examination can be made by just looking at them.
100)
Te contrast between relaxation () and intensity ( ) as causes of
lowness and highness, respectively associated to a longer or shorter string length, can be also
seen in 8.19-21 (cf. 3.3.3).
occurs quicker
101)
(, 8.15) and together with greater highness
(, 8.5, 8.15). Also Nicomachus (Harm. 243.20-4.1), more or less
contemporary with Ptolemy, appeals to intensity to justify greater highness
in tauter strings, whichhe saysvibrate () quickest,
with much agitation () and hitting the air around them in many
parts, as if being hurried by action of the intense tension itself (
).
One of the causes of pitch lies then in the mediums tautness, since
sound is nothing else but pitch-tension ().
102)
Porphyry explains the
relationship between tautness of the medium and tension of the air because
the latter, by being unied, guaranteesas if a stringan uninterrupted
transmission of the tension which the air between the sounding bodies
receives from them (i.e. from the medium), when struck by them, toward
the outer air, where such a tension is already understood as eective pitch
(cf. Porph. in Harm. 52.5-14 and the example Arist. de An. 419a25-7
therein mentioned). Air tension and the mediums tautness are thus identi-
cal, and the use of the terms and which obviously reects
the synonymy (cf. n. 13) between and is not coincidental.
Nevertheless, Ptolemy is wrong to propose as cause what, instead, is con-
sequence. Indeed, pitch (inde sound, once it has been identied with it)
was metaphorically called tension from strings (cf. 1.2), since empirically
the greater tension in the string (inde, by extrapolation, in the medium),
the greater its sound highness; instead, the authorwithout justifying it
from the initial denition of sound (3.2-3)here (8.12-4) identies pitch
with tension, just to explain why the greater mediums tautness results in
greater sound highness.
Otherwise, once tautness has been assumed as cause of highness, the
author deduces that, if one body is tauter for reasons dierent from the
previous ones (thinness and density) than another which is so for these
two, the rst one emits a higher sound than the second:
Tence, also if a body is tauter in a dierent way (for example, by being
harder () or, as a whole, larger ()), it produces a sharper
101)
Te quickness or speed must here be read as oscillatory frequency (i.e. rate of oscil-
lations per second), that is, sound pitch (cf. 4.1).
102)
Cf. denition 8.12-4 in n. 21.
sound, sinceover those two which have something productive of a similar
eect
103)
the pre-eminence corresponding to the other ratio
104)
wins out (as
when bronze produces a higher sound than lead, since the former is harder
than the latter to a greater extent than the latter is denser than the former; and
again the larger, in its case, and thicker bronze produces a higher sound than
the smaller and thinner one, when the ratio according to size is greater than
that according to thickness).
105)
(8.5-12)
Tautness can be due, according to Ptolemy, not only to thinness and den-
sity (8.3-4), but also to hardness and size (8.6 and examples from 8.8-12).
Te introduction of these two new reasonswhich certainly are not an
evident cause of greater tensionreceives from the commentator (Porph.
in Harm. 51.18-2.3) a harsh criticism. Puzzling, certainly, is the lack of
explanation, rstly, why a thinner or denser medium proved to be tauter,
and, later, how hardness or size can produce that same eect; in fact, a
greater sizeif such is the mediums lengthis cause of lowness, not
of highness, as we are told immediately (cf. 3.3.3). As for its hardness,
another passage should be taken into account, wherereviewing the
strings characteristics on which the highness of their corresponding sound
dependsthe author says:

, ,

,
(
)
106

)
. . .
107)
(26.16-7.4)
103)
Tose two are greater thinness or density. Since both of them produce a similar eect
(i.e. a greater sharpness, as we have already seen), they must haveaccording to Ptol-
emysomething in commonwhich is, no doubt, a greater tautnessto account for it.
104)
Tat is, the ratiodierent from the previous two, i.e. those of thinness and den-
sityaccording to which one of the bodies is tauter in a dierent way than the other one,
which will become clear in the following examples.
105)
Text punctuation is mine.
106)
I accept, with certain reservations, Alexandersons conjecture (1969, 13), which I nd,
in any event, preferable to Drings (1930) and to the dierentand for me incomprehen-
siblevariants in the manuscripts; text punctuation is mine.
107)
Indeed, since in these [sc. in strings] the causes of the dierence concerning high and
So tension tones up and hardens strings, and hardness is a necessary condi-
tion for tension; but is not evidently also su cient for it, as we were told
in 8.9, and we are again oered as cause what, in fact, is consequence: taut-
ness is what determines the mediums thinness, hardness, etc. where it
occurs, not the inverse.
3.3.3. Te Length Imposed by the Medium (
)
We have already seen (cf. 2) that the fourth dierential cause (
) was the space between the
thing struck and the striking agent (
) (8.17-8). Now, by proposing the instrument as an intervening
medium between striker and thing struck, Ptolemy implicitly recognizes
its length as the space between them: the stroke whose source was the
agent ( ) must cover the space which separates it from its nal
term, the air ( ), a space which cannot be other than the
length the medium between them imposes. Tis length, being variable
(i.e. depending, for example, on the number of covered holes in a pipe, on
the point where the monochords movable bridge is placed, etc.), is not
expressly framed in terms of ; but it is the instrument
which unquestionably imposes it, in dierent ways, though, depending on
the diverse pitches within its range.
Well then, pitch also depends on length:
since highness follows from the shorter distances, owing to the intensity derived
from proximity, while lowness follows from the longer, owing to the relaxation
which occurs with being further away, so sounds are aected inversely
108)
with
distances, for as the wider space from the origin is to the smaller, so is the sound
coming from the smaller to that from the wider (8.19-23)
low are threeone of which lies in their density, another in their cross section, and another
in their lengthand since sound proves to be higher when made by the denser as well as
by the thinner and the one with the shorter length, although tension is used in them
instead of density (since it tones up and hardens them, and for that reason makes them
more similar to those with shorter lengths) . . .
108)
Inversely, since it is understood that highness is more than lowness, and lowness is less
than highness.
though this explanationas others in the treatiseis not original Ptol-
emy.
109)
Te statement does not require any proof, but is patent (,
8.25), so that checking it is at hand or readily available (, 8.25),
and it is shown that, in fact, this length is none other than that imposed by
the instrument in the sound production process:
And this [sc. that sound highness corresponds to shorter length, and lowness
to longer], in turn, since it is patent, is readily available from sounds arising
from a certain length, as that of the strings, auloi and windpipes. Indeed,
provided that the other features remain identical, in strings, the sounds cap-
tured in connection with smaller distances between the movable bridges prove
to be assuredly higher than those in connection with greater; and, in auloi,
the sounds coming out through the holes nearer to the hypholmion (that is, to
the striking agent)
110)
are higher than those coming out through those further
away; and in windpipes, the sounds having the origin of the stroke in the
upper part and near to the thing struck are higher than those coming from
their deep part
111)
(8.25-9.6)
since it is clear that the space (, 8.17) in question is nothing else but
the length (, 8.26) from which sounds arise (also expressed as dis-
tance (, 9.1) or by means of adverbs (, 9.3; ,
9.4)): the length of the string, the blocked-up length of the pipe or that of
the windpipe.
112)
109)
According to Barker (2000, 36), the idea comes from Aristotle, although the source is
not mentioned. Certainly, the Peripatetic school justies it in dierent ways. Tus, accord-
ing to Ps.-Arist. Aud. 800b6-7, the stroke can only be strong if the striking agent is separate
enough from what it strikes; Adrastus apud Teo Sm. 65.24-6.3, on the other hand,
explains the greater lowness by the weakness () caused by a greater resistance
to the motion on the part of the longer or thicker string, which results in a decrease of
oscillations (i.e. of the oscillatory frequency); yet another reasoning can be seen in Alex.
Aphr. de An. 50.18-25; also cf. Porph. in Harm. 54.15-5.2. Teophrastus (fr. 89 6.4-8), on
the other hand, states that the longer the length of the pipe, the more force () needed to
blow through it.
110)
Te hypholmion () should not be understood as striking agent, but as the
pipes point nearest to it, which is the players blow (cf. 2.2).
111)
Tat is, the voice would prove to be higher when produced near the head, and lower
when produced near the chest (cf. n. 66).
112)
A dierent question is whether the lengths Ptolemy mentions are truly responsible for
4. Two Final Questions
4.1. Sound and Speed
As I have already pointed out (n. 5), the Pythagorean explanation for pitch
according to a certain speed (that of the motion determined by the stroke)
was widely accepted in antiquity; thus, it is really surprising that Ptolemy,
who subscribes to almost every Pythagorean theory, does not follow this
one. Now, what in fact is that speed of the motion the dierent authors
refer to? Truth to tell, there are two dierent kinds of motion involved in
the sound process: the oscillatory motion of the mediums and the airs
particles (which is not linear, but waving around their position of rest,
without eectively moving forwards), and the advancing motion of the
sound wave. Tus, two kinds of speed can be associated with such a pro-
cess: the oscillatory frequency of those particles (i.e. the number of oscilla-
tions per second) and the speed of propagation of the wave (i.e. the space
it covers per unit of time); but frequency varies with pitch and, in fact,
constitutes sound pitch measure (in Hertz), while the speed of sound
propagation in the air, on the contrary, can be regarded as constant.
113)
However, if their texts are carefully analyzed, Greek authors seem not to
have been aware of the dierence between both concepts. Indeed, Plato
thinks (Ti. 67a7-c3) of propagation speed, while Xenocrates
114)
refers (apud
Porph. in Harm. 31.7-17) to frequencies, but only after saying (id. ibid.
30.15-6) that the motion concerning the notes is a displacement from
place to place, in a straight line towards the organ of the hearing, clearly
alluding to propagation speed. Aelianus, the commentator on Plato, talks
(apud Porph. in Harm. 34.2-5) about propagation speed along the pipe,
and (id. ibid. 35.3-7) of oscillatory frequency of strings, but refers (id. ibid.
the pitch of the resulting sound. Te same applies to strings (Mersennes rst law) and pipes
(Bernoullis second law); however, concerning the voice, to which the term refers,
the statement is false (cf. n. 60), and its mention here can only be understood as an extrap-
olation from the other cases.
113)
Its estimated value (in standard conditions of pressure and temperature and with an air
density of 1.20 kg/m
3
) is, approximately, 343 m/s.
114)
If it is truly him, since the authorship of the fragment is doubtful, and it could as well
be Xenocrates as Pythagoras (read, a Pythagorean) or Heraclides; a similar reference to
frequencies is attributed to Pythagorean authors in Porph. in Harm. 33.7-10.
36.9-12) to both of them as if it were something single. Te Peripatetic
school discusses frequencies ( , Aud. 803b32), while
Teophrastus (fr. 89 11.5-7), thinking of propagation speed, denies that
the high note can be quicker than the low one, reasoning that conso-
nancesin fact, any type of intervalcould not occur, if this was the case,
since notes of dierent pitch would not reach the hearing at the same time:
both (the high note and the low one) are as quick as each other since they
arrive together. Porphyry himself clearly refers to frequency in strings (
, in Harm. 48.14;
, ibid. 54.18-9), but thinks of speed of propagation in
pipes (ibid. 54.23-6, 120.27-30).
Tere is no lack of logic in supposing that, at rst, the vibratory fre-
quency
115)
of strings
116)
was seen to increase as their length decreasedi.e.
as their sound became higherand that this result could later be extrapo-
lated to pipeswhere it was not possible to observe the oscillation of the
air column and nobody was even aware of its existencewith recourse to
the only speed which seemed conceivable in them: that of the wave along
the pipe. Tis confusion would certainly not contribute to separate the
concepts of frequency and propagation speed, and makes Teophrastus
remark extremely shrewd, when he says that it is impossible for notes
plucked simultaneously to be heard together, if they propagate at a dier-
ent speed due to their dierent pitch. I would suggest that Ptolemy did not
adduce speed as a cause of pitch just on account of the aporia resulting
when frequency and propagation speed are regarded as the same thing (i.e.
the variation of frequencies between high and low notes, as opposed to
the constancy of their propagation speed), which he could not but have
realized.
117)
Here possibly lies the reason why he expressed highness as a
115)
Not always described as speed, as is the case in Ptol. Harm. 8.3-5, Ps.-Euc. Sect.Can.
148.9-11 Jan and in Nicom. Harm. 243.20-4.1.
116)
As I have already said, much of the acoustic experimentation must have been carried
out on chordophones. In practice, sound production in strings is the only one which is
observable by the naked eye.
117)
Tere is no proof that the constant value of the speed of sound propagation had been
settled at the time (its rst measurements in the open air date from 1738, organized by the
French Academy of Sciences), but that does not mean that sounds emitted together had not
been noticed to reach the hearing at the same time (cf. Teophrastus supra). In fact, that
light and sound propagate at dierent speeds was perfectly known even to Democritus
consequence of vibratory concentration (i.e. oscillatory frequency)
118)

without referring to speed, which he only mentions secondarily,
119)
and so
rather as something concomitant with highness, but not as its cause.
4.2. Quantitative or Qualitative Nature of Pitch
I cannot nish this paper without referring to the question which, in fact,
was Ptolemys prime objective in chapter 1.3 and ultimate reason for devel-
oping a theory of sound and studying its attributes:
Well then, though the dierence between sounds is constitutedjust as also
between all the other [sc. sensibles]in quality as well as in quantity, in which
of both the aforesaid genera [sc. that of quantity and that of quality] must be
placed the dierence concerning highness and lowness is something which
cannot be displayed ohand, before the causes of such a characteristic have
been researched, causes which I nd to be somehow common also to the
variations in the other strokes. (6.14-9)
Quality and quantity are two of a variable number of categories distin-
guished by Aristotle
120)
(ten in Top. 103b21-3, eight in APo. 83b15-7, and
seven in Metaph. 1068a8-9 and Ph. 225b5-7) and which constitute the
most generic way (whence their denomination of summa genera) in which
a being can be described. Te Pythagoreans, as they explained sound high-
ness and lowness in terms of rapidity or slowness of motion (cf. n. 5 and
4.1), understood that the dierence between both of them lay, as a result,
in quantity (cf. Porph. in Harm. 29.27-33). Other thinkersamong them
Teophrastus and Porphyryconceived, on the contrary, both highness
and lowness as qualities of sounds, on the same plane as colour for the vis-
ible, and considered therefore the dierence between them as being one of
(apud Porph. in Harm. 32.10-6; this fragment has not been collected by Diels-Kranz); also
cf. Arist. Mu. 395a14-21; Chrysipp. SVF II fr. 703 and Epicur. Ep. [3] 102.5-9. It is thus
hard to admit that a scientist as important as Ptolemy could have been ignorant of such an
aporia.
118)
As Ps.-Euc. and Nicomachus do (cf. n. 115), with slight dierences.
119)
In 8.15, if the variant is accepted, and perhapsas Barker
(2000, 46) suggestsin 94.25.
120)
Although quality and quantity always gure among them in this philosophers lists.
quality, although they admitted a certain degree of quantication for them.
To what extent the question was important is shown, for example, by the
fact of Porphyry devoting about fty pagesout of the 171 his work is
composed of, in Dring 1932commenting on it, while the text com-
mented consists of only three. We must consider that the possibility of
pitch being quantiedthat is, measureddepends on which category
such a dierence is placed in. Ptolemy, as will be seen, lines up with the
Pythagoreans regarding this question, but his explanation follows a dier-
ent course to theirs, for he does not explicitly subscribe to the doctrine
they used as a base, as we have already seen in the previous section.
Nearly all Greek authorswith the exception of Aristoxenus and his
schoolaccepted what was supposed to be a Pythagorean discovery: the
possibility of assigning numerical ratios to musical intervals whichin the
case of the consonants and the more important melodic oneshad a very
simple expression.
121)
Now, in Ptolemys opinion it was surely inconceivable
that the musical intervals, seen as intermediate between two given notes,
122)

could be expressed by means of a numerical proportion, while the notes
determining them, on the contrary, lacked numerical expression, and this
represents just one of the stronger criticisms he makes (21.9-11) of the
Aristoxenians. Tence, together with the obvious gradability of pitch,
123)

Ptolemy could not but think that pitch should, so as to say, necessarily
have a quantitative nature. Te simplest procedure to prove such a thing
would have certainly entailed providing a measurement system which
explained how to proceed to its quantication.
124)
However, as sound pitch is
121)
And duple ratio (2/1) was assigned to the octave, sesquialtera (3/2) to the fth, sesquiter-
tia (4/3) to the fourth and so on.
122)
Cf. 20.7, where he refers to them as [sc. ].
123)
Tat is, the possibility of a sound having more or less pitch, i.e. of being higher or
lower. Te question whether highness was considered to be more or less than lowness is not
that clear, as examples in both senses can easily be found.
124)
Tus does Aristotle explain what quantity entails by way of example (
, , Cat. 1b28-9). Barker (2000, 34) assumes that they [sc. dierences
between sounds] are in principle measurable (though not necessarily in practice), on some
appropriate scale, but he adds (p. 35): If the perceptive attributes dier quantitatively,
even though this is not how their dierences are actually perceived (as it is not), there must
be some true description of them which will represent them in a quantitative manner.
intimately linked to sound oscillatory frequency, and as it is evident that
he, at the time, did not have an appropriate procedure at his disposal to
determine the latter, his scientic certainty of the possibility of measuring
the former could not materialize in a quantitative expression of it. Instead,
we are surprised to see how Ptolemy, to express notes by means of
numbers, has recourse, in a completely articial and arbitrary way, to those
that make the subsequent operations as simple as possible (cf. 23.3-13,
31.6-18, etc.).
In fact, what is more, his demonstration of the quantitative nature of
pitch is itself somehow fallacious, as Porphyry clearly established. Indeed,
the possibility of quantifying pitch is evident, according to Ptolemy, for
two dierent reasons. Now, the rst one (8.15-7) rests on the basis that
sound highness and lowness are determined by the quantity of substance,
because it is the mediums greater or lesser thinness or density which actu-
ally determines them, and thinness and density depend on the quantity of
matter (7.20-3, cf. 3.3.2), i.e. they are quantiable; however, it seems to
be incongruousas Porphyry rightly points out (in Harm. 44.11-5)that
thinness and density (as well as their contraries, thickness and rarity)
are accepted as qualities, although based on quantity, while highness and
lowness are expected not to be qualities, but quantities, because they are
based on quantity. Likewise, the second reason given (8.17-8) to justify
the quantitative nature of pitch rests on the measurability of the length
imposed by the medium, on which pitch directly depends; nevertheless, as
there are several characteristics of the medium (length, thickness, density)
having a concomitant inuence on pitch, and as it is impossible to quan-
tify the latter by restricting it to the consideration of only one of them, it
again proves to be impossible to carry out such a quantication using the
means proposed.
Consequently, even though Ptolemys analysis of sound production is
both original and faithful to the experimental data, and despite his reason-
able certainty about the quantitative status of pitch, we must recognize
that neither the former nor the latter provided him with the requisite
means to measure the highness and lowness of sound, on account of
the technical impossibility of observing, at the time, the dierent aspects
involved in such a measurement.
Bibliography
Alexanderson, B. 1969. Textual Remarks on Ptolemys Harmonica and Porphyrys Commentary
(Gothenburg)
Barker, A. 1989. Ptolemy, in: id. Greek Musical Writings, II (Cambridge), 270-391
2000. Scientic Method in Ptolemys Harmonics (Cambridge)
Blis, A. 1986. Aristoxne de Tarente et Aristote: le Trait dharmonique (Paris)
Chailley, J. 1979. La musique grecque antique (Paris)
Chantraine, P. 1999 (=
2
1968). Dictionnaire tymologique de la langue grecque (Paris)
Donington, R. 1986. La msica y sus instrumentos (Madrid) (Spanish tr. of: id. 1982. Music
and Its Instruments [London])
Dring, I. (ed.) 1930. Die Harmonielehre des Klaudios Ptolemaios (Gothenburg)
1932. Porphyrios Kommentar zur Harmonielehre des Ptolemaios (Gothenburg)
Fernndez de la Gndara, G., Lorente, M. 1998. Acstica musical (Madrid)
Grove = Sadie, S. (ed.) 1988 (=
7
1980) Te New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians,
I-XX (London)
Hagel, S. 2005. Twenty-four in auloi. Aristotle, Met. 1093b, the Harmony of the Spheres, and
the Formation of the Perfect System, in: Hagel, S., Harrauer, Ch. (eds.) Ancient Greek
Music in Performance (Vienna), 51-91
Levin, F.R. 1980. and in the Harmonika of Klaudios Ptolemaios, Hermes 108,
205-29
Long, A.A. 1988. Ptolemy on the Criterion: An Epistemology for the Practising Scientist, in:
Dillon, J.M., Long, A.A. (eds.) Te Question of Eclecticism. Studies in Later Greek
Philosophy (Berkeley), 176-207
Michaelides, S. 1978. Te Music of Ancient Greece: An Encyclopaedia (London)
Michels, U. 1982. Atlas de msica, I (Madrid) (Spanish tr. of: id. 1977. Atlas zur Musik, I
[Munich])
NODE = 2003. New Oxford Dictionary of English (Oxford)
Paquette, D. 1984. Linstrument de musique dans la cramique de la Grce antique (Paris)
Raa, M. 2002. La Scienza Armonica di Claudio Tolemeo (Messina)
Redondo Reyes, P. 2003. La Harmnica de Claudio Ptolomeo: edicin crtica con introduc-
cin, traduccin y comentario (Murcia) (doctoral thesis, available on CD)
Wallis, J. (ed.) 1699. Claudii Ptolemaei Harmonicorum libri tres, in: id. Operum Mathema-
ticorum, III (Oxford; = 1972. Hildesheim/New York)
West, M.L. 1992. Ancient Greek Music (Oxford)

Ptolemy On Sound - Harmonics 1.3 (6.14-9.15 Düring)

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Ptolemy On Sound - Harmonics 1.3 (6.14-9.15 Düring)

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009 DOI: 10.

Once sound has been dened as , the author

Anda mungkin juga menyukai