PROVENANCE

Maffei’s System of Voice Pedagogy

Sion M. Honea

prov·e·nance (prǒv´\-n\ns) n. Place of origin, source. [Lat. Provenire,

to originate.]

Sion M. Honea
Journal of Singing, January/February 2018
Volume 74, No. 3, pp. 335–343
Copyright © 2018
National Association of Teachers of Singing
G
INTRODUCTION
iovanni Camillo Maffei’s famous letter on voice peda­gogy
presents what is generally considered to be the first modern
physiological approach to the subject. The prevalent view of
Maffei’s treatise appears not to give adequate attention to
the whole, tending to see the second part on vocal diminution as its core
concern, while viewing the first part as a rather obscure preface of lesser
value. In fact, the reality is arguably more nearly the reverse; the treatise as
a whole constitutes a full system of voice pedagogy, for which the section on
vocal diminution serves as an illustration, probably chosen because of the
widespread use of the cantare con la gorga technique of throat articulation.
An understanding of his description of that technique depends on Maffei’s
preliminary physiological exposition. The whole treatise consists of two
major parts, the first part arguably further subdivided into two subsections.
The whole of the first part is organized around Galen’s understanding of
human activity. The first subsection (pp. 1–13) of the first part begins this
philosophic foundation for the whole. The second subsection (pp. 14–29)
of the first part continues this foundation. The second major part (pp.
29–78) presents the application of this system to practice, emphasizing the
voice diminution technique, to which Maffei appends a section on vocal
medicine (pp. 79–81).
No complete English translation of Maffei’s letter existed prior to my own,
which appeared online a few years ago.1 Carol MacClintock’s excellent transla-
tion omitted the first subsection of the first part—understandably, given the
purpose of her anthology and its inherent space limitations.2 Further, neither
MacClintock nor the modern Italian edition3 provides the kind of annotation
and commentary necessary to guide the reader through a difficult text that
today can seem quite arcane. This lack of an English version of the opening
first subsection of the first part along with any explanatory commentary
is unfortunate for two reasons. First, the opening subsection provides the
entire discussion of the psychology and a significant portion of the anatomy
of vocal production in Maffei’s system, on which the remainder depends for
a full understanding of Maffei’s thought. Second, the first part is easily but
erroneously considered unimportant compared with the second part on vocal
technique; yet, as argued here, it is critical to the whole and also constitutes
a significant contribution to the history of ideas.

January/February 2018 335

Sion M. Honea
Several factors have served to impede a full evaluation
of Maffei’s achievement, including: 1) the rarity of the
original publication and limited access to the modern
edition of the text; 2) his problematic, jargon-rich and
slightly idiosyncratic Italian; 3) a lack of familiarity
with the specialized interdisciplinary fields; 4) the lack
of the critical eight pages that constitute the intellectual
linchpin; and 5) the common assumption that the letter
is only about vocal diminution and that the entire first
part is intellectual posturing.4 All these factors have
conspired to deprive the field of voice pedagogy of a
full realization that it possesses a great achievement of
Western music theory as well as a significant minor work
in the intellectual history of the Renaissance.
The impetus for this article came when my colleague
and good friend, a professor of voice, drew my attention
to Professor Austin’s valediction to his long-standing
“Provenance” column in Journal of Singing.5 One state-
ment struck me as particularly impressive, “I hope that
the information that I have resurrected to our contem-
porary awareness will shorten the learning curve that we
all go through as teachers of this beautiful art form.” It
is in this spirit—that we may learn from Maffei to our
benefit—that I hope this article may serve as the means
of presenting more fully his thoughts on voice pedagogy.
MAFFEI IN CONTEXT
Maffei’s amazing treatise, published in 1562, emerges
without precedent in the pedagogic literature. His
achievement is not simply the intellectual tour de force
of wresting Aristotle and Galen into uneasy cooperation
and of working out a systematic vocal physiology from
them, nor even of building a method of voice produc-
tion on that foundation. The more startling and difficult
achievement was Maffei’s insight that effective vocal
instruction required such a physiological foundation for
its methodology, which neither voice nor instrumental
pedagogues had previously realized. Only Conrad von
Zabern’s treatise of nearly a century earlier (1474) had
attempted to break free from the “music fundamentals”
approach to teaching voice by addressing aesthetics in
vocal training.6 Clearly Maffei’s work is of yet another
entire order than Conrad’s, a “quantum leap” in peda-
gogy that required a unique combination of talents and
training.
336
Little is known of Maffei’s life. He was born in Solofra
near Salerno of medical fame and by the time of the
publication of his letters was in the service of Giovanni
di Capua, Count of Altaviva.7 The letter itself exhibits
a mastery of extensive philosophic and medical lit-
erature and a maturity of thought that indicate a man
of mature years, suggesting a birth date around 1520.
The presumed formative years of Maffei’s training, ca.
1530–1545, are those when pedagogic treatises begin to
appear in response to the demand of both aristocratic
and upper middle-class society, but they are overwhelm-
ingly instrumental methods, not vocal, apart from
theoretical ones and Lutheran school texts.
This dominance of instrumental methods and peda-
gogy is actually easy to understand. It is much easier to
talk about tablature, where to put the fingers, how to
hold the instrument, how to draw the bow or pluck the
string, than how to produce a vocal sound, especially one
that is pleasing to others. It is only Maffei, the doctor,
who also has clearly benefited from anatomic studies,
who undertakes the intimidating physiological task, and
he does so by attempting what few or no intellectuals
attempted, the synthesis of Aristotelian psychology and
physiology with that of Galen.
In order even to attempt such a synthesis Maffei must
have possessed a very considerable command both of
Galen’s works and also of the psychological and physi-
ological works of Aristotle. The two systems do not con-
form to each other exactly, and the associations made
here should not be considered as precise. In Aristotle’s
system, the Soul is the “final” cause that draws the
object of all other causes toward it. There are three main
faculties of the Soul: Nutritive (autonomic responses),
Aesthetic (perception), Noetic (Intellect), along with fur-
ther secondary faculties, of which Phantasia (imagina-
tion) is key in Maffei’s system, for it enables a perception
to persist and form the basis of action. Galen formulates
a tripartite system of cause: Master/Creator (approxi-
mately equivalent to Aristotle’s Soul), Instrument (for
Maffei the vocal organs), and Material (for Maffei the
air). Similar to Aristotle’s Soul, Galen’s Master also has
powers or faculties approximately corresponding to
Aristotle’s: Natural (Nutritive), Perceptible (Aesthetic),
Intellective (Noetic). For Galen there is also a secondary
power within the Perceptible, which is the Imaginative
(Phantasia). Maffei says that the cause of voice involves
Journal of Singing

only two powers of the Master, the Natural and the
Perceptible, but not the Intellective. The Imaginative
(Maffei’s imagginativa [sic; correct, immaginativa]) is
also involved because any act must first be imagined.
Thus, Maffei’s synthesis of Aristotle and Galen takes
place in the secondary faculty of Imaginative/Phantasia.
Maffei is rather dismissive of the role of Natural, saying
that it is involved in most things.
Maffei’s knowledge of physiology likely came not
from treatises on anatomy alone. It was at Salerno, near
his home town of Solofra, where animal dissection was
revived as early as the twelfth century and human dis-
section by the end of the thirteenth. The convergence
of Greek, Latin, and Islamic traditions in southern Italy
might also have stimulated Maffei in his exceptional
combination of Aristotelian and Galenic traditions.8
Certainly, there are “rough seams” observable in Maffei’s
endeavor; nevertheless, the attempt is virtually unprec-
edented in medicine and philosophy and completely
unprecedented in music pedagogy.9
Maffei deserves recognition on one other point. On
page 29, in assessing his contribution, he says that what
he has produced could only have been achieved by one
who is philosopher, medical doctor, and musician,
for which reason others should not be faulted for not
making the attempt at such a difficult task. He then sets
aside his claims as “pretty words in which one delights
to chatter” and moves on to present the technique of
throat articulation. This is remarkable modesty from
one in an age more often characterized by flamboyant
egocentrism. Perhaps Maffei had access to one of the
ethical works of his “beloved Aristotle” and so culti-
vated some of the virtues that the philosopher identifies:
Moderation as well as Truthfulness, and perhaps also
eutrapolia—Wittiness!
THE TRANSLATION
[5] 10 The sweet harmony of the most agreeable song,
which one hears in the house of your most Illustrious
Lordship, in the hours set aside for such exercise, per-
haps induced you on a previous occasion to ask me about
the voice, and about the way that one could pursue so
as to be able to learn how to passaggiare con la gorga
without a teacher. But, when I was looking at both ques-
tions—the response not less difficult to express than long
January/February 2018
Provenance
to recount—I came to the opinion of demonstrating
to Your Lordship in this letter, rather than by word of
mouth, what I think about it. I am certain that to the
degree my discourse bores the one who doesn’t under-
stand [6], to the same degree will it bring you delight,
[MacClintock’s translation discontinues here.] which I
look forward to, if by means of the good intention that
aims at being superior to others, not by any other means
than by knowledge, and if further, because I do not
think it could need anything in regard to philosophy or
medicine which could be more beautiful and necessary
to know than this.
Since every man speaks, and God willed that he know
how without scattering the words to the wind, so that
when one understands that the voice is born from the
imagination [imagginativa (sic)]11 as from its opera-
tive principle, one ought very well to consider to what
purpose one speaks before issuing forth words. But
leaving this to the moral philosopher, I say that Plato,
Democritus, Anaximander, and the Stoics defined the
voice variously. But, because the true scribe of nature,
Aristotle, in this exactly as in all other things, touched
the ultimate mark, for this I determined (having put on
one side the atoms and the thoughts of those others)
thus to grasp his learned and true definition. So then (he
says in his book De Anima [On the Soul]), the voice is a
sound given rise [7] by the Soul from the repercussion
of the air in the trachea toward the end of signifying
something. But, since I want to clarify this definition
perfectly, it is necessary to indicate many creative forces
of nature so as to know the best possible and, primarily,
how many things are required for producing the voice,
and to what power of the Soul is the voice referred as to
its principal creator.12
Because I want to speak with brevity and clear lan-
guage, I take what Galen has left written in his little book
on dissection of the organs of the voice, namely that in
all the activities in this life it is the power in which these
three things concur: the Master, the Instrument, and the
Material. So as to speak with an example: in the desire
to make a copper vase, the creator is necessary for it, the
one who is the craftsman. There is an instrument neces-
sary, which is the anvil and the hammer; and there is
necessary the material because neither the master, nor
the instrument may cause any effect if there were no
copper. Now in applying this to the voice, as the root
337
Sion M. Honea
of our reasoning, I say that the creators are the powers
[8] of our Soul, and the instrument is the trachea or, to
speak more clearly, the vocal cords, and the material is
the air, which I say among us is called spirit or breath.
But, because I believe that Your Lordship has in mind
the thought of asking me how many are the powers of
the Soul and which one of those produces the voice, for
this reason, so as to speak of it only so much as relates
to such reasoning, I say to you that for now the powers
of the Soul are two—leaving aside as many divisions as
are made by the doctors and the philosophers—and they
are the Natural and the Perceptible [sensativa] (such
as in the book on causes Galen says of the accidents).
I understand by the Natural the one that performs its
duty without our involvement and choice, such as the
power than draws nutriment, the power that retains it,
the power that digests it, and even that which sends forth
excrement. Those powers that can operate without our
action, sleep demonstrates to us, in which they operate
on their own. Now, for the Perceptible, I understand
seeing, tasting, hearing, feeling [9], imagining,13 remem-
bering; it is not necessary to speak of others such, just as
it is not necessary also to speak of the Intellective Soul,
since it isn’t relevant to this purpose of the voice.
Now of these aforementioned powers, the greater
part is voluntary, that is, whether it is in our will to
act or not. Since I want to reduce the voice to its pow-
ers, it will suffice for now to say what the effect of the
Imaginative may be, as of the voluntary power, which
may be obvious to us in our own selves, since we speak
with imagination of being understood, and at the time
that we want. But, because the repercussion of the air
is required, as we have seen in the definition, in order
for this to produce the voice, there is also necessary the
motive power of the chest, from which the air moves.
Whence, because first what has to be said is imagined
and then the chest moves to produce the voice, thus it
can be truly concluded that the Imaginative power first
and thereafter the motive power of the chest are the
principle causes of the voice. Further, that the motive
power alone is not able [10] to produce the voice,
a cough demonstrates to us, which being produced
without the imagination of a significance,14 although
the motion of the chest contributes to it, it cannot be
called voice either by doctors or philosophers. This suf-
fices for now, so as not to produce confusion, because
338
in the following discussion of this beautiful teaching a
clearer understanding will be had.
It follows now that I should say for what reason a
voice was given to some animals but not to all and in
what way it was formed. Because I want to demonstrate
this thoroughly, it is necessary to say what Aristotle in
his second book of De Anima15 and Galen in his vol-
umes on the use of the parts of the human body said,
namely, that all animals that walk and have blood also
have lungs and are quite warm. Because Nature, having
given lungs on account of the heart, it follows thence
that where the former is the latter is found. The heart
being the source and vessel of heat, it was necessary that
there would be two things provided for it: namely, some
cooling [rifriggerio]16 so that it would not be inflamed by
the excessive heat, and some [11] means of being able
to vent and send forth the superfluity and vapors that
are generated in it by the constant ardor of the blood.
Whence were made two contrary movements, which I
call inspiration and expiration, that is (to speak more
clearly), the expansion and contraction of the chest,
both very useful [movements], since by the dilation of
the chest the air that cools is drawn and moderates the
excessive heat of the heart, and by the contraction all
the vapor is expelled and all the excrescences that are
found there. I leave off speaking of the several opin-
ions of Asclepiades, Prassagora, Diocles, Ephilistion,
Erasistratos,17 and many others on the reason for which
respiration has been bestowed on us, just as I decline also
to say in what way it nourishes the spirits of the brain
(as a subject that I do not say I don’t know well), but on
this occasion perhaps is excessive.
Up to this point, then, we have seen how necessary
respiration is to animals. But, it could be said to me, “if
the heart maintains these movements for the preserva-
tion of life, for what reason [12] were the lungs put
around it?” To this I answer that the lungs are the servant
of the heart. In order to understand what constitutes [the
lungs’] service to it, one ought to know, Your Lordship,
that if the heart had to draw the air, which arrived to it
immediately without delay and without the means of the
lungs, many things and no small harms would follow
in consequence from this. Now first, since respiration
is necessary to the voice (as you have understood, Your
Lordship, and will learn better hereafter), rational dis-
course would not be able to continue for long, because
Journal of Singing

of the great necessity for cooling that our heart would
have. [The heart] would need to respire very frequently
and this movement being used so frequently, the voice
would fail, because now, as seems clear, when one speaks
one does not respire.18 This would be very harmful for
good life since the human being would not be able to
express his needs.
Further, submerging ourselves under the water would
be prohibited to us because of the risk of suffocating.
Finally, if we found ourselves in a place where there
was smoke or dust, not being able to hold our breath,
we would be constrained to die. If sometimes, as hap-
pens frequently, [13] one should need to pass through
a place where the air was corrupted by some poisonous
animal or infected by some other evil quality, it would
be necessary perforce to draw [the breath], since death
could easily result from [holding] it. So, for this Mother
Nature, governed by the highest God, in order that we
might participate in every convenience, placed the lungs
around the heart, in which the air is gathered and pre-
pared before it enters and in which still are preserved
those airy spirits that deliver the said cooling. Whence
the lungs are just like a servant from which the heart
draws its need, and it follows from this that it is not
necessary to respire so very frequently, and it is possible
to restrain [respiration] for some length, and all the
aforesaid inconveniences are eliminated.
So, in order that one might be able conveniently to
draw breath and produce a voice, the vocal cords were
joined to the lungs, whereby the operations of the lungs
are two. Of these the one is breathing and is necessary
for the preservation of life, and the other is the voice and
is useful only for living more comfortably, for animals
with voice signify their will, but for this reason [14] they
would not be unable to live without a voice.
[MacClintock’s translation resumes here.] Now, if
Your Lordship should say to me, then, that “you have
told me so much about the heart, the lungs, the vocal
cords, and the breath, tell me a little as to how the voice
is produced,” I would respond to you that for producing
the voice the repercussion of the air is required, just as
in the definition it was stated. In order that this might
be done, it was necessary at the top of the vocal cords
to make many cartilages, many nerves, 19 and many
muscles, so that the cartilages now closed and now
opened by the nerves and muscles make the two effects
January/February 2018
Provenance
already mentioned, namely, they draw the air into the
heart and form the voice. So that Your Lordship and I
may be satisfied, remain content to hear how.
The top of the vocal cords is composed of three carti-
lages, of which the largest appears to us in the manner of
a shield; it is that knot that is seen in the throat of every
man.20 This has been made so hard for the defense of
that place and is like a shield, so one calls it shield-like.
In the interior of this there is contained another one,21
made for a greater defense, if perhaps the first is not
enough, and this is without a name. Within this, [15]
namely in the middle of that place, there is another of
them called cimbalare,22 made in the likeness of the
mouthpipe23 [lingua] of a bagpipe,24 and in this is made
the repercussion of the air and the voice. It is not in the
head, as Homer once said in that verse “He sent forth as
great a cry as his head contained,” because movement
was necessary in order to be able to tighten or relax the
said cartilages according as necessity might be.
Nature disposed so that a branch is produced from
those nerves that descend similarly25 from the head to
the stomach, which branch, accompanied by its muscles,
provides them [the vocal cords] with the said movement.
Such nerves come to be called “recurrent” because they
return from the stomach to the cartilages. It is their move-
ment so voluntary that the brain makes use of in that same
manner that the horseman makes use of the horse’s bridle.
But, because this subject is so difficult and obscure, I don’t
want to regret, for this purpose, to discuss it with [only]
one when there are many suitable examples.
Just as in the bagpipe three things are seen, namely
the bag full of air, and the arm [16] that presses the bag,
and the reed [canna] of the bagpipe, adding to it for a
fourth, the mouthpipe [lingua] of the bagpipe, which
is held in the mouth, with the fingers of the hand for
the purpose of now closing now opening the holes,
according as the sound requires. Thus also in the voice
these similar things are recognized for the reason that
the concavity of the chest and the lungs, where the air
is enclosed, is similar to the bag. The muscles that move
the chest are similar to the arm, and the vocal cords
[canna] of the lungs can without doubt justly [taken all
together] be compared to the bagpipe.26 The cartilages
called [cimbalare]—truly one can say that they are the
mouthpipe—and tendons and muscles, whose duty is
now to close and now to open, serve the office of fingers.
339
Sion M. Honea
Now, applying this example more strictly, I say that
just as the sound reverberates in the large cavity of the
bagpipe by means of the air, which is sent from the bag to
the mouthpipe [lingua], reverberates and is moderated
by the fingers, which stand above the holes according
to which sound pleases [i.e., which sound it pleases one
to produce]. Thus, the voice resounds in the palate by
means of the air that pushes from the chest as far as the
throat, and it reverberates and is refracted by the fistular
cimbalare [17] and by the tendons and muscles dilating
and constricting according as he wants who produces
the voice.
Next Your Lordship will say to me, “are not the
tongue, teeth and lips necessary for the voice?” I answer
that the voice is quite different from the rational articu-
lations [of speech]27 because the voice expresses only
the vowels, that is o, i, u, e, a, and to do this no more
is required than the things mentioned above.28 But,
rational discourse, to which pertains—by joining the
vowels with the consonants—the formation into syl-
lables, let us suppose, tu, ba, se, non, and as with syllables
similarly with words, [rational discourse] requires other
circumstances. Whence one sees clearly the reason why
this effect [i.e., the elements of rational speech] cannot
be produced without the aid of the tongue, teeth, and
palate. It follows from this that such members are not
necessary except for rational articulations.
Should someone say to me, “since the material of
the voice is the air, what does it mean that the voice is
not always produced when the air issues forth with the
[ordinary] breath?” To him I would say that the mate-
rial of the voice, generally speaking, so to speak as Galen
does, is the expiration, but more properly speaking it is
the very plentiful expiration, if [18] sent forth with great
power. Since the thing that is required for the production
of the voice is the repercussion of the air, it is necessary
that it issue forth with vehemence, which is not pro-
duced when one exhales naturally. But on this occasion
there would never be time to return to the definition of
Aristotle after having treated as much as was necessary
for that [i.e., Galen’s] discussion.
[Aristotle’s definition] was like this: the voice is a
sound caused by the Soul by means of the repercus-
sion of the air, made in the throat with the intention
of signifying something, where one ranks sound in the
position of genus, since every voice is a sound but not
340
every sound is a voice, just as the sound of bells shows
us, and all the rest follows. [The voice] is assigned to a
different classification [than the rest of sound] because it
is spoken; [because being] caused by the Soul, the voice
is made different from those sounds not caused by the
Soul, and it exists by the intention of the Soul, as I said
principally the Imaginative, and next the motion of the
chest.29 It being said that it is caused by the repercussion
of the air in the throat, the voice is made different from
other sounds, which, [19] to whatever degree they are
caused by the repercussion of the air, nonetheless they
are not made in the throat. Speaking in regard to the
ultimate purpose, with the intention of signifying some-
thing, it is produced differently by those repercussions
that are made in the throat without signifying design,
as clearly is seen in coughs.
“That reminds me,” Your Lordship will say, “to ask
you on what animals has voice been bestowed?” I will
answer you briefly that voice is bestowed only on ani-
mals that have a throat and lungs. Whence flies, crickets,
cicadas, butterflies, and all other insects, by not having
throats are deprived of voice. That noise or murmur
that they make when they fly is not voice but a sound
made by wings that beat the air. By the same reason the
fish, which do not have lungs, are deprived of voice.
Not only do they not have voice, but they do not even
respire, and in this may Pliny excuse me. I do not speak
now of dolphins, whales, or cane,30 and of many other
fish that have lungs and breathe, even out of the water.
In order that Your Lordship may remain [20] com-
pletely satisfied with this answer, you ought to know
that the voice and sound and rational speech are three
very different things, as Aristotle says in his books on the
generation of animals.31 Now here is the difference: voice
is differentiated from sound because in producing the
voice the throat is required, which for producing sound
is not necessary. It is also different from rational speech
because in producing the voice the throat suffices, but
in rational speech not only is the throat necessary, but
also the lips, the tongue, the teeth, and the palate without
any defect, because otherwise they would not be able to
express words. Whence if any animals have voice and
not rational speech, it is not for any other reason except
because they do not have those organs, or if by chance
they do have them, they are not suited for this, so that
rational speech was only bestowed on humans. Since all
Journal of Singing
 Provenance

the said members with all suitabilities were bestowed on CONCLUSION

him [the human].32
The proper estimation of the magnitude of Maffei’s
Now, if your Lordship were to demand of me whether
achievement does not depend on and is not affected
any of the animals may be found (I do not mean the
by the ultimate inaccuracy by modern standards of the
human for whom rational speech is characteristic)
psychology and physiology of Aristotle and Galen. Like
that may be a participant in this, I would respond that
Plato, Aristotle, and Galen in their fields, Maffei recog-
which Aristotle says of it. This is that [21] all those who
nized in his that voice pedagogy required a systematic
have four feet have been denied rational speech, and
approach that included all components—causation,
only to some of the birds was it bestowed by nature, to
instrumentation, and material—brought into rela-
those, I say, who have a moderately large and slender
tionship with each other as a unified concept of voice
tongue, as is seen in the one called parrot and as even
production; and he was the first to do so. Only with
the magpies show.
an understanding of the process as a whole could real
But the musicians would say to me, then, that one sees
progress be made. That much concerning the compo-
in the voice so much diversity, since there are large and
nents has since been disproven, as have Plato’s doctrine
small, harsh and sweet, high and low that are produced
of ideas, Aristotle’s deductive scientific method, and
by nature, and are even formed by cultivation, what
much of Rameau’s theory of harmony, does not in the
could be the cause of this diversity? For which reason,
least detract from Maffei’s key insight and achievement.
wishing no less to render the cause to them than to Your
That insight in itself is the mark of Maffei’s genius and
Lordship, I will tell briefly as much as one sees written
true contribution.
about it by Aristotle and Galen.
There are, then, thanks to Galen in his three books
NOTES
on medical art, three differences of the voice. These are
large and small, harsh and gentle, low and high. Aristotle 1. The translation is available at Historical Translation Series,
wrote of it similarly in his books on the generation of Maffei, Delle Lettere (1562), last updated April 10, 2017;
the animals,33 although another is added; this is the rigid http://www.uco.edu/cfad/historical-performance/transla-
tion-series.asp.
and the flexible, meaning by the former the ungentle (I
am constrained to call it that for lack of a proper word) 2. Carol MacClintock, ed. and trans., Readings in the History
of Music in Performance (Bloomington: Indiana University
[22] and the gentle by the latter. Even though one could
Press, 1982).
reduce this fourth difference to the second nature [i.e.,
3. Nanie Bridgman, “Giovanni Camillo Maffei et sa lettre sur le
Galen’s “harsh and gentle”], nonetheless I will speak of
chant,” Revue de Musicologie 38, no. 113 (July 1956): 3–34.
it at some length. These are, then, the natural species of
4. Despite what we owe to Bridgman, I cannot agree with her
the voice, and if any other of them were found—such
assessment that the opening section is a mere nod to the
as hoarse, delicate, gross and others—they can read- humanist tradition. Bridgman, “Lettre,” 3. Maffei’s inclusion
ily be reduced to some of these four. Nor do I want to of it is integral and vital.
discuss the voice called negra because it is called that as 5. Stephen F. Austin, “L’ultimo Canzone,” Journal of Singing
a metaphor. 73, no. 1 (September/October 2016): 91–92.
Now beginning with the small and large,34 it is nec- 6. Sion M Honea, “Conrad von Zabern’s ‘De modo bene
essary for me to return to what has been said in the cantandi’ and Early Choral Pedagogy,” Choral Journal 57,
beginning of this discourse, that is, that three things no. 10 (May 2017): 8.
contribute to producing the voice, just as in every other 7. Nanie Bridgman, “Maffei, Giovanni Camillo,” Oxford Music
human activity, these are the Material, the Master, and Online; http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/ (accessed April
the Instrument, meaning by the Master the power of 10, 2017).
the Soul, this is the Imaginative and the movement of 8. Nancy G. Siraisi, Medieval and Early Renaissance Medicine
the chest, by the Material the air, and by the Instrument (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1990), 57–58, 86.
the vocal cords of the lungs. [Present translation dis- 9. Philosophers tended to adhere to Aristotle and doctors
continues here.]35 to Galen, each ignoring the other, thus making Maffei’s

January/February 2018 341

Sion M. Honea
achievement all the greater. Owsei Temkin, Galenism: Rise
and Decline of a Medical Philosophy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 1973), 73.
10. The bracketed numbers that appear in the text are references
to the original page numbers in Maffei’s book.
11. No English term seems entirely satisfactory for translating
immagginativa and its derivatives. The concept comes from
Aristotle De Anima, 427b15–429a5.
12. For the reader of Maffei who wishes to pursue the matter
further, only two passages from Aristotle are of substantial
importance. The first is De Anima. 427b15–429a5; the second
is the formulation of voice as produced by a creature with a
Soul (psyche) involving Imagination (Phantasia), De Anima,
420b6–34.
13. This is the critical point of synthesis between Aristotle and
Galen in the Imaginative/Phantasia.
14. As will be seen, his definition of voice involves a concept of
intentional significance, but not the significance of rational
discourse; hence, as he says above, the Intellective/Noetical
faculty is not involved. The Imagination can cause the pro-
duction of the vowel “a,” but the vowel does not yet possess
any intellectual significance.
15. The passage is in Aristotle De Anima, 420b6–421a6.
16. This passage also relates to Aristotle De Respiratione, 478a11–
25. In Historia Animalium, 495a19–496b10, he provides a
somewhat more extensive discussion of the lungs and their
cooling function.
17. These names are Greek but given in Italian forms.
Asclepiades (120–90 BCE), Diocles (fourth century BCE),
and Erasistratus (260–240 BCE) are known physicians of
antiquity. Prassagoras is probably an alternate spelling for
Praxagoras (325–275 BCE); likewise Ephilistion is prob-
ably Philistion (370–340 BCE); Galen, Method of Medicine,
3 vols., ed. and trans. Ian Johnston and G. H. R. Horsley
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011), xxx-xxxviii.
18. Maffei’s term is respirare and apparently includes the full
cycle of ispiratione and espiratione. Thus, if the heart had to
cool itself without lungs and the cycle ceases during speech,
then the cessation would result in the adverse overheating
of the heart. Harvey’s publication on blood circulation did
not come until 1628, about 60 years later.
19. In Maffei’s time the term nervo could mean nerve, tendon,
sinew, and muscle. The larynx possesses ligaments, which
Maffei might plausibly have considered under the same term;
since Maffei subsequently discusses the recurrent laryngeal
nerves, he very probably intends the term to refer to those.
Henry Gray, Anatomy, ed. T. Pickering Pick and Robert
Howden (Philadelphia: Running Press, 1974), 958.
342
20. This is the thyroid cartilage, known commonly as the Adam’s
Apple.
21. The epiglottis cartilage seems most likely to fit the description
of being “inside” the thyroid cartilage.
22. The term cimbalare is obscure and seems suspiciously like
a corruption of something derived from Greek, symballô,
“throw, strike, come together,” but this is pure speculation.
MacClintock suggests “glottis” for cimbalare (MacClintock,
Readings, 37), but this does not fit Maffei’s description.
23. The most likely explanation seems to be that Maffei refers to
the structure formed by both the arytenoid cartilage (Greek
for funnel shaped) and the cricoid cartilage, which together
could be conceived as like the tubular shape of a bagpipe’s
mouthpipe. Alice Roberts, The Complete Human Body, 2nd
ed. (New York: Penguin Random House, 2016), 125. Maffei’s
location of the vocal cords supports this identification.
24. A brief description helps to clarify the problem. The bagpipe
consists of a mouthpipe into which the player blows, thus
filling the bag with air. The air under pressure issues through
one or more static drone pipes and through a chanter with a
reed and finger holes to produce pitches. The central problem
is that Maffei’s understanding of the lingua, “tongue,” of the
bagpipe is confused, for on [16] he says the player holds it
in the mouth but then says that it is fingered as the air issues
from it. His description must necessarily be in error because
no change in pitch could be achieved on the mouthpipe as
the air enters the bag but only by the chanter when it issues
and passes across the reed.
25. The Italian is che da quei nervi i quali dal sesto pare discen-
dono allo stomaco. MacClintock deserves applause for the
convincing silent conjecture of testa (head) for the misprint
sesto. I have taken pare as an adverb from pari, with the sense
of “equally,” “similarly.” Maffei’s use of “recurrent” makes
virtually certain a clear connection with the pair of right and
left recurrent laryngeal nerves.
26. The sense seems to be, “The chest, which is moved by its
muscles, along with the vocal cords of the lungs are together
similar to the bagpipe, whose bag is moved by the arm, and
the bagpipe’s reed.”
27. This introduces an only apparent contradiction with his state-
ment above on page [10] that a cough cannot be considered
voice (voce) because it is produced without the imagination of
a significance [9], whereas now he says that voice is something
different from the rational articulations of speech. Actually,
he is being consistent with his authorities, Aristotle and
Galen. Vowels are the product of an imagined significance,
i.e., the specific vowel sound; thus, they are neither the acci-
dental sound of a cough nor the same as rational speech.
Journal of Singing
 Provenance

28. This explains why Maffei has declined to introduce Galen’s
Intellective, Aristotle’s Noetical faculty, as involved in voice.
Voice is the product of Imagination, but this does not imply
the rational nature of speech.
29. Maffei, as he says on [9], considers the motive power of the
chest as cause rather than Instrument.
30. This passage also finds its source in Aristotle De Respiratione,
476b13, where the philosopher specifically refers to the
breathing of whales and dolphins, though no third creature
is mentioned. Cane is obscure.
31. In the De Generatione Animalium, 786b4, Aristotle only says
that he discusses the issue of voice and sound in two other
places: De Anima, 419b4 ff., specifically 420b6–34, and De
Sensu, 440b27.
32. By making a purely physiological category of rational speech
and excluding the Intellective/Noetical faculty, Maffei must
either deny or permit speech to animals solely on anatomic
grounds. In the next paragraph, however, he permits speech
to some birds on the authority of Aristotle.
33. The passage is Aristotle, De Generatione Animalium, 786b7–
787b19.
34. This commences a passage that is based on a notorious error
of Aristotle. It also includes the worst and most confusing
misprint in the entire discourse, which concerns the mis-
printing of grande for grave.
35. The remainder of the section is essentially a summary of
Aristotle’s discussion in De Generatione Animalium, as
already cited, which is not one of his happier passages.
Sion M. (Ted) Honea received the Bachelor of Music from the University
of Central Oklahoma, the Master of Arts in musicology from Eastman
School of Music, and the Doctor of Philosophy in classics from the State
University of New York at Buffalo. He is currently professor of music history
at the University of Central Oklahoma and formerly head of rare books at
Sibley Music Library. He has published articles in the fields of musicology
and music education, classics, religious studies, and library science.

Live Learning Center Special Offer – Pick 10 videos for $79

Only for NATS members! For the
discounted price of $79, pick any 10
session videos from the 54th NATS
National Conference in Chicago.

For even more savings, pick

20 sessions from the Chicago
Conference and the 53rd National
Conference in Boston for $139.

You’ll have access to these sessions at the NATS Live Learning Center
for a full year from date of purchase. Log on to nats.sclivelearningcenter.com

January/February 2018 343

Copyright of Journal of Singing is the property of National Association of Teachers of
Singing, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.