Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
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).
M. Bobo de la Pea / Mnemosyne 62 (2009) 548-585 551
(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
552 M. Bobo de la Pea / Mnemosyne 62 (2009) 548-585
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
M. Bobo de la Pea / Mnemosyne 62 (2009) 548-585 553
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.
554 M. Bobo de la Pea / Mnemosyne 62 (2009) 548-585
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:
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).
570 M. Bobo de la Pea / Mnemosyne 62 (2009) 548-585
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.
M. Bobo de la Pea / Mnemosyne 62 (2009) 548-585 571
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,
572 M. Bobo de la Pea / Mnemosyne 62 (2009) 548-585
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.
M. Bobo de la Pea / Mnemosyne 62 (2009) 548-585 573
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
574 M. Bobo de la Pea / Mnemosyne 62 (2009) 548-585
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 (
).
M. Bobo de la Pea / Mnemosyne 62 (2009) 548-585 575
, .
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).
576 M. Bobo de la Pea / Mnemosyne 62 (2009) 548-585
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.
M. Bobo de la Pea / Mnemosyne 62 (2009) 548-585 577
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
578 M. Bobo de la Pea / Mnemosyne 62 (2009) 548-585
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.
M. Bobo de la Pea / Mnemosyne 62 (2009) 548-585 579
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
580 M. Bobo de la Pea / Mnemosyne 62 (2009) 548-585
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.
M. Bobo de la Pea / Mnemosyne 62 (2009) 548-585 581
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
582 M. Bobo de la Pea / Mnemosyne 62 (2009) 548-585
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.
M. Bobo de la Pea / Mnemosyne 62 (2009) 548-585 583
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.
584 M. Bobo de la Pea / Mnemosyne 62 (2009) 548-585
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.
M. Bobo de la Pea / Mnemosyne 62 (2009) 548-585 585
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)