ARISTOXENUS AND EMPIRICISM:

A REEVALUATION

BASED ON HIS THEORIES

Malcolm Litchfield

Those who study ancient Greek music theory have traditionally viewed
Aristoxenus as an irreconcilable opponent of the Pythagoreans.' The chief
differences ostensibly lay in the contrasting approaches to music: the Py-
thagorean~used music as a model of numerical reality and as an expression
of philosophical tmth, while Aristoxenus was the empiricist whose theory
of music was nothing more than a systematization of musical sound. Be-
cause of the close relationship assumed between Aristoxenian theory and
the music of his day, Aristoxenus's Harmonics has been considered funda-
mentally an empirical compendium. The late Norman Cazden, at the begin-
ning of his attempt to reconcile the two view points, wrote:
The Pythagorean and Aristoxenian viewpoints have represented poles of
fundamental and irreconcilable conflict for some two thousand years. Py-
thagoras regards relationships among musical tones as manifestations of ab-
stract number, signifying a pervasive cosmic principle. Aristoxenos ascribes
the ordering of musical tones to the judgment of the ear, contingent therefore
on mundane musical practice and its history2
Ingemar Diiring observed that Aristoxenus's "theory of music is revolution-
ary. It rests on the fundamental principle that the human ear is the sole
arbiter of the correctness of pitches and harmonic function^."^ Reginald P.
Winnington-Ingram in his treatment of Aristoxenus puts it most succinctly
of all: 'Aristoxenus claims to trust his ear and to represent the facts of prac-
tical music. "4
Although there is some truth in these characterizations of Aristoxenus's
theory, two major discussions in his Harmonics indicate that his treatise
may not be as closely connected with musical practice as is generally
thought. In order to suggest a more complete view of Aristoxenus's actual
theoretical method, this study will investigate the nature of his theory
through an examination of (1) his discussion of the various genera and their
realization in musical terms, (2) the relationship between Aristoxenus and
equal temperament, (3) his proof that a fourth is comprised of two-and-one-
half tones, and (4) the philosophical background of his theory.

THE GENERA. A leading concept in Greek music theory is that of the

genera, and Aristoxenus describes the genera in his Harmonics 1.21-27.5
By definition, each tetrachord of the Greek theoretical system had two notes
of fixed pitch and two notes whose pitch was flexible. The fixed pitches were
a perfect fourth apart and formed the outer boundaries of the tetrachord.
The other two pitches could vary according to the genus employed. Figure
1 illustrates the three principal possibilities. The enharmonic genus is com-
posed of two quarter-tones with a ditone to complete the fourth. The chro-
matic genus is composed of two semitones with a tone and a half to com-
plete the fourth. The diatonic genus is composed of a semitone and a tone
with another tone to complete the fourth?
This terminology of tone and semitone is only approximate. The size of
these intervals, whether expressed with ratios (the Pythagoreans' method)
or with units of musical sound (Aristoxenus's method), was a major topic
of speculation and controversy. Many authors described tunings that dif-
fered slightly one from another, although all solutions maintained the basic
format. Ptolemy, writing some 500 years later than Aristoxenus, preserved
several authors' presentations of this subject in his Harmonics, as well as
presenting several of his own solution^.^
Unlike the Pythagorean theorists, Aristoxenus did not use ratios to de-
fine the loci or positions of the moveable notes within the tetrachord. In-
stead, he postulated a potentially infinite continuum of musical pitchs
within which a specific segment represented the fourth. Aristoxenus indi-
cated that this perfect fourth comprised two-and-one-half tones, and he then
used quarter-, third-, and half-tones to indicate the various loci? Unlike
most Pythagorean theorists, Aristoxenus also defined several shades of the
genera. These shades are tunings in which the positions of the moveable
notes are slightly different from the basic definitions of the genera. In
theory, Aristoxenus allowed any number of shadings for the chromatic and
 tone T

tone plus semitone

ditone

tone

semtione

quarter tone
semitone semitone
quarter tone

Enharmonic Chromatic Diatonic

Figure 1: The Genera Used in Ancient Greek Music

diatonic genera; nevertheless, he specifically defined only three for the
chromatic genus and two for the diatonic.10
Cleonides, an author of the second century A.D. who followed the Aris-
toxenian tradition, devised a simpler method for expressing Aristoxenus's
tunings.ll He divided the segment of pitch continuum that equals a perfect
fourth into thirty equal units. This is a simple extension of Aristoxenus's
concept of a twelfth of a tone.I2The location of each moveable pitch is then
expressed by a number of units between each pitch." Figure 2 graphically
shows each shade described by Aristoxenus, as elaborated by Cleonides.
It is clear that this approach in defining the various is based in
geometric logic.14 This geometric arrangement, however, cannot be empir-
ically derived, and this is the crux. The only way to reproduce Aristoxenus's
tunings in terms of actual pitches (a problem that did not concern him) is
to use more sophisticated mathematics than were available to Aristoxenus.
The process is as follows. Take a certain segment of musical pitch and mark
off the distance of a fourth-bounded by, for example, 330 cycles per second
and 440 cps.15 It is possible to obtain a number that, when multiplied bv
the lower frequency thirty times, will produce the higher frequency. The
intervening points will be equidistant acoustically and will result in thirty
equal musical divisions of the fourth, just as Aristoxenus implies (and is
made explicit in C l e ~ n i d e s ) ?That
~ constant is w 3 or 1.0096355.17The
procedure and results are illustrated in Figure 3.18 The ratio between any
two of these adjacent points will be equal to the ratio between any other two
adjacent points, proving the musical intervals to be acoustically identical.
In other words, the musical space (geometrically conceived) is identical
between increments.
It is now a relatively simple matter to chart Aristoxenian tunings with
specific pitch frequencies (see Figure 4). By using an electronic instrument
capable of selecting pitch, it is also possible to hear and compare the vari-
ous general9-an activity not possible for Aristoxenus.
Using the mathematics available to him, Aristoxenus could never have
represented the precise pitches indicated by his various tunings using nu-
merals and ratios.20 Because this was the only precise method available to
the ancients of specifying without any doubt the specific sizes of intervals
(and, by consequence, relative pitches), it is clear that Aristoxenus never
could aurally demonstrate the precise locations of the pitches or the exact
size of the intervening intervals he posited. Aristoxenus's geometric concep-
tion of pitch does not translate to geometric divisions on a string. It is im-
possible to divide a string into thirty parts so that the sonic intervals are
equal. Strings (like columns of air) function in a manner different from
Aristoxenus's theoretical and geometrically based pitch continuum. More-
over, even if Aristoxenus had heard these exact shadings in performed
music (certainly a doubtful conjecture),21 it would be impossible for him to
isolate the exact pitches and devise a method for measuring the precise dis-
Procedure: 330.00 x 1.0096355 = 333.18 cps
333.18 x 1.0096355 = 336.39 cps
336.39 x 1.0096355 = 339.63 cps
etc, to
435.80 x 1.0096355 = 440.00 cps
The 30 divisions thus derived from 330 cps to 440 cps are:
330.00 (cps) 349.54 370.25 392.17 415.40
333.18 352.91 373.81 395.97 419.40
336.39 356.31 377.41 399.77 423.44
339.63 359.75 381.05 403.62 427.52
342.90 363.21 384.72 407.51 43 1.64
346.21 366.71 388.43 41 1.43 435.80
440.00

Figure 3: Procedure and Results of Dividing a Perfect Fourth

into Thirty Equal Parts
 Enharmonic 330.00(cps)
339.63

349.54

440.00

Mild Chromatic

Hemiolic Chromatic 330.00

344.55

359.75

440.00

Whole-Tone Chromatic 330.00

349.54

370.25

440.00

Mild Diatonic

Intense Diatonic

Figure 4: The Shades of the Genera Defined by Aristoxenus Expressed

in Cycles per Second
tances between them. Aristoxenus's concept is thus revealed as abstract; it
could not be aurally demonstrated nor empirically derived.

ARISTOXENUS AND EQUAL TEMPERAMENT. Aristoxenus's Harmon-

ics is not the only ancient treatise that presents the Aristoxenian method of
defining the various genera. Cleonides and Aristides Quintilianus are two
other authors who present Aristoxenus's ideas intact (though perhaps re-
fined)?2 Ptolemy also accurately reports Aristoxenus's tuning~in his prose?'
though Ptolemy's treatise seems to be the source of the widely held but in-
correct association of Aristoxenus and equal temperament of the octave.
In During's edition and translation of Ptolemy's t r e a t i ~ e ?the
~ discussion
of genera is accompanied by tables illustrating the various genera in string
lengths. The tables are not limited to Aristoxenian tunings but include those
by Didymus, Archytas, Eratosthenes, and Ptolemy. It is important to note that
even though the tables appear in editions of Ptolemy as early as 1682?5the
earliest extant manuscript sources of the treatise do not have these tablesJ6
Most early manuscripts have some sort of table in them, but only one of those
prior to the fifteenth century corresponds exactly to the tables in During's edi-
t i ~ n . ~The
' tables, however, do not accurately represent Aristoxenus's view,
even though they are widely assumed to be accurate. Moreover, it is quite
possible, in view of the discrepancy between Ptolemy's prose and the tables,
that the tables are not the work of Ptolemy at all but rather one of his redac-
tors?g An excerpt from these tables that shows various tunings for the diatonic
genus, taken from During's translation of Ptolemy, appears in Figure 5.
In this table, the divisions of the genera are shown in octaves rather than
fourths. This is a significant departure from pure Aristoxenian thought;
nowhere in Aristoxenus's treatise does he attempt to provide tunings for an
octaveJ9 Nevertheless, in the "Ptolemaic" tables, two disjunct tetrachords
are presented with a whole tone (a 9:8 tone) of disjunction. It is easy to
assume that this tone of disjunction is equal to twelve parts of a perfect
fourth, just like a so-called tone within a fourth. The problem does not arise
in Aristoxenus's treatise, however, because (1) as mentioned, he does not
place the tunings within the framework of an octave and, hence, (2) he does
not consider what the relative size might be for a tone of disjunction be-
tween two tetrachords nor (3) does he make any relationship-musical or
otherwise-between a tone defined as twelve thirtieths of a fourth and a tone
defined as the difference between a perfect fourth and perfect fifth.30
If an understanding of Aristoxenus is colored by the "Ptolemaic" tables,
a curious situation arises. Assuming (erroneously) that a tone of disjunction
might equal twelve parts, Aristoxenus's intense diatonic might be inter-
preted as: twelve parts, twelve parts, and six parts in one tetrachord, twelve
parts for the tone of disjunction, twelve parts, twelve parts, and six parts
for the second tetrachord. The tone of disjunction is incorrectly assumed
to be equal in size to twelve parts within a tetrachord yet large enough so
that two tetrachords plus this tone of disjunction equal a perfect octave-a
contradiction and impossibility." If one calls twelve parts "tone" and six
parts "semitone," the scale of tone, tone, semitone, tone, tone, tone, semi-
tone is p r o d u ~ e d ?It~appears from this pattern, which is based on conflict-
ing definitions of the term "tone," that the octave is thus divided into twelve
equal semitones. Despite the many distortions of Aristoxenus's actual
theory required to make these false connections, theorists ancient and
modem have done so.
In his Dialogo della musica antica et della moderna of 1581, Vincenzo
Galilei associated Aristoxenus with the equal-tempered tuning used on the
lute. Galilei believed that Aristoxenus "divided the five tones and two minor
semitones which contain in themselves the species of the diapason which
served the Dorian mode into twelve equal parts. . . ."33 Giovanni Maria
Artusi is another theorist who clearly associated equal temperament with
Ari~toxenus.3~
In the nineteenth century, scholars still believed Aristoxenus to be the
originator of equal temperament of the octave. Rudolf Westphal wrote:
Die neure Musik muss, wenn sie reine Octaven (1:2) haben will, fast iiberall
die temperirten Quinten, Quarten und Terzen anwenden. Eine solche Musik
mit temperirter Scala ist es, welch Aristoxenus fiir die Leser seiner
Harmonik fiir die Zuhijrer seiner Vorlesungen voraus~etzt?~
In the twentieth century, Diiring has proposed that 'Aristoxenus rejected the
Pythagorean doctrine and divided the octave in what he believed to be
twelve equal semitones, a bold theory advanced more than two thousand
years before the equal temperament was introduced in European music."36
J. Murray Barbour, in his well-known survey of tunings and temperaments,
agrees: "if we are to take him at his word, Aristoxenus was here describing
equal temperament. "37
A close examination of Aristoxenus's theories offers no evidence to sup-
port the notion of an equal-tempered octave. It has been shown that Aris-
toxenus referred only to the fourth in discussing the genera. No attempt was
made to expand this to the octave. No consonant interval was shown or im-
plied to be tempered. Moreover, no ancient author has described Aristoxe-
nus's ideas in such a way that they seem to indicate equal temperament. Not
until the Renaissance was the false connection with equal temperament
made. Furthermore, because Aristoxenus's turnings could not be empirical-
ly derived or aurally demonstrated, it must remain unknown to what degree
Aristoxenus's musical geometry represented real tunings used by ancient
musicians.38Aristoxenus's concept of the genera is only that: an abstract
concept, not an empirically derived measurement.
 TWO-AND-ONE-HALF TONES EQUAL A FOURTH. Just as Aristoxe-
nus's description of the loci within the genera is speculative, his proof that
two-and-one-half tones make up a fourth also appears, on close exarnina-
tion, to be speculative in character.
An understanding of this proof is dependent on a clear understanding of
the terms used, specifically his definition of the fourth, fifth, and tone. Be-
cause Aristoxenus did not use ratios to describe these intervals, some be-
lieve he was referring to approximate or tempered intervals. A clear reading
of his treatise however shows that he understood the same perfect intervals
that the Pythagoreans had defined.
Aristoxenus defines the fourth in his treatise as the smallest possible
concord. "We assume then eight magnitudes of concords; the smallest, the
Fourth-determined as smallest by the abstract nature of melody; for while
we can produce several smaller intervals, they are all discords; . . ."3g
Aristoxenus does not define this interval with a ratio but says that the ear
should be able to recognize the interval, apparently without any extraneous
help:
we find that while the concords either have no locus of variation, and are
definitely determined to one magnitude, or have an inappreciable locus, this
definiteness is to be found in a much lesser degree in discords. For this rea-
son, the ear is much more assured of the magnitudes of the concords than
the discordsPO
He further states that the knowledge of consonant intervals is "what we have
learned from our predecessors; . . ."41 The only musical interval that
meets all three criteria is the perfect fourth defined by others with the ratio
4:3. This interval is the smallest consonance, sounds consonant to an un-
aided ear, and had been so defined by Aristoxenus's predecessors (notably
the Pythagoreans). It is clear that no kind of tempered fourth could meet
all three criteriaP2
Defining the tone is somewhat more problematic despite Aristoxenus's
precise definition: 'A tone is the excess of the Fifth over the Fourth; . . ."43
The fifth was described by Aristoxenus as the second smallest consonant
interval that the ear can recognize unaided and as the interval already
defined by his predecessorsP4 This can only be a 3:2 fifth. Consequently,
the tone is defined as a 9:8 whole tone, the excess of 3:2 over 4:3. Yet in
describing the genera, Aristoxenus seems to imply that a tone is equal to
twelve thirtieths of a fourth, which does not equal a 9:8 toneP5 Aristoxenus
never addressed this discrepancy in his treatise; perhaps this practical in-
consistency did not bother him-yet another instance that shows Aristoxe-
nus's treatise to be speculative rather than empirical. Nevertheless, it seems
that Aristoxenus meant to prove that a perfect fourth was comprised of two-
and-one-half 9:8 whole tones, for this is the only definition of the tone given
clearly (the musical space of twelve thirtieths of a fourth is only implied
to be a tone). In fact, later theorists, such as Ptolemy and Boethius, did
understand Aristoxenus to mean 9:8 whole tonesP6 With a clear sense of
the definitions for these terms now in mind, Aristoxenus's proof that two-
and-one-half tones make up a fourth may be examined.
In Harmonics 2.56-57, Aristoxenus states:
The surest method of verifying our original assumption that the Fourth
consists of two and a half tones is the following. Let us take such an interval,
and let us find the discord of two tones above its lower note, and the same
discord below its higher note. Evidently the complements will be equal,
since they are remainders obtained by subtracting equals from equals. Next
let us take the Fourth above the lower note of the higher ditone, and the
Fourth below the higher note of the lower ditone. It will be seen that adjacent
to each of the extreme notes of the scale thus obtained there will be two
complements in juxtaposition, which must be equal for the reasons already
given. This construction completed, we must refer the extreme notes thus
determined to the judgement of the ear. If they prove discordant, plainly the
Fourth will not be composed of two and a half tones; and just as plainly it
will be so composed, if they form a Fifth. For the lowest of theassumed
notes is, by construction, a Fourth of the higher boundary of the lower di-
tone; and it has now turned out that the highest of the assumed notes forms
with the lowest of them the concord of the Fifth. Now as the excess of the
latter interval over the former is a tone, and as it is here divided into two
equal parts; and as each of these equal parts which is thus proved to be a
semitone is at the same time the excess of the Fourth over a ditone, it follows
that the Fourth is composed of five semitones. It will be readily seen that
the extremes of our scale cannot form any concord except a FifthP7
The proof is attractive and easily conceptualized (see Figure 6)P8 Given
a certain segment of Aristoxenus's continuum of musical sound, the dis-
tance bounded by points A and B represent a perfect fourth. This interval
is consonant by definition and is described by other theorists as the ratio
4:3. This fourth may appear anywhere-high or low-in the continuum of
pitch. C represents a pitch two tones lower than B; D represents a pitch two
tones higher than A. Since the same interval is subtracted from the original
fourth, Aristoxenus observes that the complements must be equal. There-
fore, the musical space AC must equal DB. E represents a pitch a perfect
fourth lower than D; F represents a pitch a perfect fourth higher than C.
The interval E F is then sounded and observed aurally to be consonant.
Since it is larger than a fourth but smaller than an octave, E F must be a
fifth, since this is by definition the only consonant interval between the
fourth and octave. This step must be verified by ear. Since ED is a fourth
by definition and E F is said to be a fifth by observation, the difference D F
must by definition be a tone. It is observed that the pitch B divides the tone
Figure 6: Geometric Representation of Aristoxenus's Proof that a Fourth is
Composed of Two and One-Half Tones
DF exactly in half, resulting in two intervals which must be half tones. The
original fourth AB is comprised of a ditone, AD, and a half tone, DB.
Despite this clarity, in arithmetic terms, two-and-one-half tones do not
equal a fourth, as is well known and as was constantly observed by Aris-
toxenus's detractors in ancient times:

The fourth is actually smaller than the sum of two-and-one-half t0nes.5~The

flaws of Aristoxenus's geometric conception are twofold and related (see
Figure 6): (1) EF actually is not a perfect fifth and, hence, (2) DF is not
a full 9:8 whole tone. Nevertheless, B does divide DF in half, which dem-
onstrates the reality that musical intervals can be divided exactly in two?'
Regardless of these calculations -arithmetic or geometric -Aristoxenus
intimates in his treatise that the final arbiter in musical matters must be the
ear? Accordingly, his proof should be executed on a rnonoch0rd.5~Because
a ditone can be measured by alternately ascending a fifth and descending
a fourth, it is possible to execute the entire proof using the ear al0ne.5~Pre-
sumably, Aristoxenus would prefer not to resort to measurements, or other
such non-musical tools, in keeping with his general emphasis on the senses.
The results of this method ~ a r y . 5Each
~ time it is applied, certain small
errors naturally occur in various places (depending on the skill of one's ear),
yielding a different sounding fifth every time. In general, the fifth sounds
small, although depending on how many and how large the errors may be,
the fifth can sound perfect. This approximate perfection is the exception and
not the rule.
The crux of this proof is whether the fifth is a full perfect fifth. In con-
cept, there is no reason to admit this interval as anything but a fifth; in prac-
tice, however, it does not sound like a fifth. Had Aristoxenus performed this
proof, he would surely have heard the discrepancy, as would any other
musician used to manipulating the monochord.
Nevertheless, the discrepancy between theory and practice appears not
to have bothered Aristoxenus. He changed nothing in his treatise because
of it. The theory is not borne out by the practice, nor does the practice yield
the theory. Aristoxenus's concept as he left it neither accommodates nor
reflects musical reality. Perhaps he never performed the proof or simply felt
the results to be close enough. If either were the case, it would be clear that
accuracy in practice was not a major concern to Aristoxenus. Thus, the con-
cept alone must have been Aristoxenus's concern, and he appears not as an
empiricist but as a conceptualist or conceptual i d e a l i ~ t ? ~

ARISTDXENUS THE PHILOSOPHER. Later theorists commented on

this mathematical error in Aristoxenus. Euclid?' P t ~ l e m y ?and
~ BoethiuP9
all offer proof why a fourth cannot equal two-and-one-half tones. Regino of
Priim60and Hucbald61 are examples of later authors who continue to state as
a matter of course that a superparticular ratio (such as 9:8) cannot be divided
into two equal parts, thereby dismissing Aristoxenus and his theories.
It is natural to wonder why an incisive musician-theorist like Aristoxe-
nus would allow the obvious mathematical errors seen in his proof that the
fourth is made up of two-and-one-half tones into his theoretical system. It
is hardly reasonable to assume that these errors were an oversight on his
part or that they resulted from ignorance. Evidently, the errors had little to
do with Aristoxenus's purpose in writing the Harmonics. Were his purpose
to write a practical manual of music, these errors would be crucial, and in
all likelihood corrected. Since these errors were not corrected, he must have
had some other purpose.
A consideration of the nature of Aristoxenus's Harmonics must take into
account his life and intellectual position. Aristoxenus was a significant fol-
lower of Aristotle. His position among this group led him to be considered
for a time as Aristotle's successor at the Lyceum in AthensP2 That he did
not ultimately obtain the position does not alter the impression that he was
a leading proponent of Aristotelian thought.
In the tenth-century lexicon, Suda, it is reported that Aristoxenus wrote
453 works on such topics as "educational and political theory, Pythagorean
doctrine, biographies, miscellanies and memoranda of various kinds"63 in
addition to his works on music. Even if this number were exaggeratedp4 it
is clear from the extant fragments that he did in fact write on numerous sub-
jectsP5 His knowledge must have been wide and varied, and he followed
Aristotle's example in treating many different subjects as the method for
obtaining true knowledge.
Louis Laloy, in his monograph on Aristoxenus, explains this basic goal
of Aristotelianism:
Cambition de l'aristotClisme ttait, on le sait, de ressaisir dans ses mani-
festations multiples la realit6 que I'idCalisme platonicien laissait echapper de
toutes parts, et d'6lCver la philosophie au faite d'un Cchafaudage immense
d'ktudes particulitres: sciences physiques, sciences naturelles, sciences
morales et politiques, tels devaient &re les degrCs qui conduiraient l'esprit
& une notion de plus en plus haute, plus vraie, plus compltte et plus concrtte,
de l'existence, c'est-&-dire de la vie, c'est-8-dire de lPme, c'est-8-dire, en
dernitre analyse, de la pensee, realite premitre et demitre, forme suprsme
de toute matitreP6
Aristoxenus was a philosopher who undertook the study of many subjects
in order to reach a higher level of understanding and, ultimately, of living.
Because of music's elevated status in Athenian society, Aristoxenus
naturally included the subject among his studies. Music was a significant
subject in Greek educationp7 and the topic was addressed by many of the
philosophers, including Plato and AristotleP8 It seems that practical music
making also played an important role in Aristoxenus's early education. His
first teachers included his father Spinthams and Lampms of ErythraeP9 In
addition to this type of musical education, he was trained in the theory of
music as espoused and taught by his teacher in Athens, Xenophilus (a Py-
t h a g ~ r e a n )Thus
. ~ ~ it is only reasonable that later in life Aristoxenus would
return to this subject in which he was so well versed-practically and the-
oretically-and examine it using the new Aristotelian method of critical
enquiry, in which he was also well versed.
Aristoxenus was a philosopher whose basic purpose was to study all
science (including but not restricted to music). He was not, however, neces-
sarily interested in the actual phenomena of each science; rather, he was
interested in the theory. In Topics 6.6(145a15), Aristotle identifies three
kinds of knowledge: poetical (or productive) sciences, practical sciences,
and theoretical (or speculative) sciences. These are listed in order of impor-
tance. The difference between the various types of sciences lies in the pur-
pose of each?' Poetical sciences deal with phenomena-cause and effect,
in which a performance (or phenomenon) leads to the desired effect or goal.
This is the lowest level of science. Practical sciences have as the object of
study the actual performance of a given task. Theoretical sciences, how-
ever, need no physical manifestation to be studied. "The division named
Theoretical comprises intelligence alone-intelligence of principia, causes
and constituent elements."72These sciences depend on contemplation alone
and are not concerned with phenomena per se: "if there is something which
is eternal and immovable and separable, clearly the knowledge of it belongs
to a theoretical science. . . ."73 Theoretical sciences are the highest and
goal of all.
Music may be viewed on any of these levels, depending upon the circum-
s t a n c e ~ ?Music
~ used to heal the sick or change the actions of someone75
is a poetical science. Music is here used to accomplish some result other
than the performance of music. By contrast, learning how to use an instm-
ment, that is, the study of its performance, is a practical science. Contem-
plating music and constructing a theoretical system of music is a theoretical
science. Nothing more than the mind is needed. Recourse to the sonic phe-
nomena is superfluous and perhaps even undesirable. Aristides Quintilianus
wrote that physical, earthly phenomena are "defective, maimed, and trouble-
some, not through the cause of the doer, but through the disorder and
debility of matter."76 More specifically, music "by its mixture with bodily
matter falls away from its precision and excellence in numbers, since at least
in the region above us [i.e. not earth], it is strict and in~orruptible."~~
Aristoxenus, as a leading Peripatetic and heir apparent to Aristotle,
would have been most interested in pursuing theoretical sciences. His desire
would be to pursue a theoretical life, one independent of phenomena. Thus
his writings are theoretical treatises rather than practical manuals:78 the
product of a contemplation of music (systematizing and subduing it)
transcending the practical in music, which was connected with physical
manifestations.
Aristoxenus's Harmonics, viewed as a theoretical treatise, is much more
consistent and persuasive. It is not primarily concerned with practical
music, although this is the foundation of the study. Aristoxenus used an
empirical method for evolving and explaining his theories, but the conclu-
sions remain abstract, ideal, and conceptual. It is ironic that the Pythag-
orean~'theories with the constant recourse to physical sound turn out to be
more empirical than Aristoxenus's theories. His proof that a perfect fourth
is made up of two-and-one-half tones cannot be based on practice. Yet the
concept is perfectly successful and tremendously advanced in its application
of geometric logic to music. His demonstration of the loci of the genera
could not be readily performed or empirically derived. Yet the concept is
very clear and makes a fundamental advance in its observation of function
over the earlier theorists.
Although the importance of Aristoxenus's Harmonics cannot rightly be
said to lie in its practical description of Greek music, the treatise remains
highly significant. Aristoxenus's treatise is the first comprehensive theory
of music that is self-contained. All aspects of music are explored and none
is considered superfluous. Musical terms are defined in musical ways,
rather than by superimposing extra-musical associations. He used new
geometric considerations together with a new philosophical approach to
formulate the first comprehensive, tight, and highly organized science of
music. In light of this tremendous achievement, his derogatory remarks
about the harmonicists who would only study certain elements of music
(particularly the magnitude of intervals and composition of various scales)
while completely disregarding others (such as the function of the various
pitches in relationship to the other pitches) are understandable?9
Later authors emulated Aristoxenus's approach in considering music.
While the Greek authors such as Cleonides and Aristides Quintilianus con-
tinued to treat theoretical music, medieval authors began to turn their atten-
tion away from the speculative to the practical. ~egardlesswhether these
subsequei~tauthors were treating theory or practice, Aristoxenus provided
the model for treating music as a self-contained subject, analyzing the ele-
ments both in definition and function and showing relationships among the
various parts. Aristoxenus's importance in the history of music theory re-
mains highly significant.
 NOTES

1. This view is at least as old as Ptolemy's account of Greek music. The importance of
Boethius's treatise insured that this view continued in the western world.
2. Norman Cazden, "Pythagoras and Aristoxenos Reconciled," Journal of the American
Musicological Society 11 (1958): 97.
3. Ingemar During, "Greek Music: Its Fundamental Features and Its Significance," Jour-
nal of World History 3 (1956): 319.
4. Reginald P. Winnington-Ingram, 'Rristoxenus and the Intervals of Greek Music,"

Classical Quarterly 26 (1932): 200.

Passages descriptive of these seemingly opposing schools could easily be multi-

plied. See also Henry Macran, 7he Harmonics of Arisroxenus (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1902; reprint ed., Hildesheim: Olms, 1974), pp. 87-89; Isobel Henderson,
"Ancient Greek Music," Ancient and Oriental Music, ed. Egon Wellesz, New Oxford
History of Music, 1 (London: Oxford University Press, 1957), p. 336.
5. Translated into English in Macran, pp. 179-84.
6. An expanded discussion can be found in Henderson, pp. 344-48.
7. Ptolemy Harmonica 2.14. No complete English translation is presently available, but
a German translation can be found in Ingemar During, Ptolemaios und Porphyrios
iiber die Musik, Giiteborgs, Hiigskolas Rrsskrift, 4011 (Giiteborg: Elanders, 1934; re-
print ed., Ancient Philosophy, 11, New York: Garland, 1980), pp. 85-88.
8. Aristoxenus Harmonica 1.14-15 (Macran, pp. 175-76). Aristoxenus recognized that
instruments and voices had limits within themselves preventing the pitch continuum
from extending infinitely in either direction on those instruments. "Whether, regarding
the constitution of melody in the abstract, we are bound to admit such an infinite
progress, is a question . . . we shall accordingly reserve . . . for a later occasion"
(Aristoxenus Har. 1.15 [Macran, p. 1751). This question is never further addressed in
the Harmonics as we know it today. It is reasonable to assume that he would admit
an infinite progress since he compares pitch to a geometric line (Aristoxenus Har. 1.13
[Macran, p. 1741)and all lines in geometry are potentially infinite. Compare also Aris-
toxenus's definition of interval: "an interval is a difference between points of pirch, a
space potentially admitting notes higher than the lower of the two points of pitch which
bound the interval, and lower than the higher of them" (Aristoxenus Har. 1.15 [Macran,
p. 176, italics mine]). Notice again the geometric conception of lines and points of
pitch on that line. Furthermore, in discussing concord, Aristoxenus notes that if an
octave is added to any concord, "the sum is a concord. From this point of view, then,
there is no maximum concord" (Aristoxenus, Har. 1.20 [Macran, p. 1791). He goes
on to specify that for voices and instruments, there is a maximum concord, on account
of the inherent limit of pitch. The only way there could be (potentially) no maximum
concord is if the continuum of pitch were (potentially) infinite.
9. Aristoxenus Har. 1.25, 2.56 (Macran, pp. 182-83, 207).
10. In Har. 1.22-23, Aristoxenus postulated that the locus of the lichanos is a tone and
that the locus of the parhypate is a quarter-tone. Theoretically, these pitches can lie
anywhere within the specified region. Specific discussion of the various shades
appears in Har. 1.24-27, 2.46-52 (Macran, pp. 182-85, 199-204).
11. Cleonides lntroductio harmonica 6-7. For an English translation, see Oliver S t ~ n k ,
ed. Source Readings in Music History (New York: Norton, 1950), pp. 38-40; Jon
 Solomon, "Cleonides' Isagoge harmonike: Critical Edition, Translation and Comrnen-
tary" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1980), pp. 151-
52.
12. A twelfth of a tone is the difference between a third-tone and a quarter-tone (see Aris-
toxenus Har. 1.25 [Macran, pp. 182-831). Cleonides simply postulated twelve parts
for each of the two-and-one-half tones in a fourth and arrived at the number thirty
(12 + 12 + 6 = 30).
13. It must be stressed that there is no correlation whatsoever between this geometric con-
ception of equal units of pitch and divisions of a musical string. String divisions (used
extensively by later authors such as Boethius) are in fact never used by Aristoxenus
or Aristoxenian theorists.
14. See Richard L. Crocker, "Aristoxenus and Greek Mathematics," Aspects of Medieval
and Renaissance Music: A BirrMay wering to Gustave Reese, ed. Jan LaRue (New
York: Norton, 1966), pp. 96-110.
15. A perfect fourth with the ratio 4:3. Although Aristoxenus never specifically defined
the fourth using ratios, it is not unreasonable to assume he meant this perfect con-
sonance (rather than some sort of tempered fourth). This argument will be addressed
later in the paper in connection with the discussion of dividing the fourth into two-and-
one-half tones.
16. Aristoxenus Har. 1.25 (Macran, pp. 182-83); Cleonides Inrro. 7 ( S t ~ n kpp. , 39-40;
Solomon, pp. 151-52); Solomon, pp. 269-72.
17. The root is equal to the number of divisions desired and the base is equal to the ratio
by which the interval is described. In conceptual and mathematical terms, identifying
thirty equal divisions of the fourth is similar to the modem practice of identifying
twelve equal divisions of the octave (the constant for this latter procedure is '$TI).
In practical terms, however, there is a vast difference between the two, and Aristoxe-
nus should not be associated with equal temperament of the octave, as will be demon-
strated later in the paper.
18. For the sake of clarity, the numbers have been rounded to the nearest hundredth
(excluding the constant).
19. In fact, this paper grew out'of this very project. I have recorded the various genera
described in Ptolemy Har. 2.14 on a Synclavier 11; hence the necessity for expressing
everything in cycles per second. A similar project has been undertaken by Fritz A.
Kuttner (7he 7heory of Classical Greek Music, Theory Series, 1 [Musurgia Records,
19551) but with rather different results than my recording.
20. Therefore, the question whether Aristoxenus shunned the use of numbers in defining
musical elements because of principle-some sort of anti-Pythagoreanism as implied
by Crocker (p. 99)-or because of the inability of his mathematics to represent what
he could conceptually represent with geometric terms-which I consider more prob-
able-cannot be resolved.
2 1. It is not doubted that he heard some kinds of shadings of the various genera. It seems
impossible, however, that the a c t shadings he defined could have been heard, recog-
nized, analyzed, measured, and explained, since the likelihood of these tunings being
unaffected by some minute variations from performance to performance is so small.
22. Cleonides Intro. 7; Aristides Quintilianus De musica 1.9. For an English translation
of the latter, see Aristides Quintilianus, On Music in 7hree Books, trans. Thomas J.
Mathiesen, Music Theory Translation Series (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University
Press, 1983). pp. 83-86.
23. Ptolemy Har. 2.14.
24. Ingemar During, Die Harmonielehre des Klaudios Prolemaios, Goteborgs Hogskolas
Arsskrift, 3611 (Goteborg: Elanders, 1930; reprint ed., Ancient Philosophy, 10, New
York: Garland, 1980). pp. 70-74; idem, Prolemaios, pp. 85-88.
25. Claudios Ptolemaios, Armonikon Biblia Gamma, ed. Johannes Wallis (Oxford: e
Theatro Sheldoniano, 1682), pp. 170-72.
26. Venetus Marcianus gr. app. cl. VIIIO (12th century; in During's schema, M); Vaticanus
graecus 186 (13th c., During's E).
27. Vat. gr. 187 (14th c., During's VIs7). Other manuscripts that are similar but vary in
relatively minor details include Vat. gr. 176 (14th c., During's A), Vat. gr. 191 (13th
c., During's W), Vat. gr. 192 (13th c., During's V), and Neapolitanus graecus 261
(III.C.3) (14th-15th c., During's L). Vat. gr. 198 (14th c., Diiring's G) is an example
of a table that significantly differs from Vat. gr. 187. For the information in this note
and the one preceding, I am indebted to Thomas J. Mathiesen, who was able to furnish
me with the data from his forthcoming volume for RISM dealing with the Greek music
theory manuscript sources.
28. During, Harmonielehre, pp. LXXVIII-LXXXIX.
29. There is no evidence to suggest that the octave had any special significance in Aris-
toxenian thought other than that of a consonant interval. The concept of octave replica-
tion, for example, does not appear in Aristoxenus's Harmonics. By contrast, Ptolemy
held the octave to be the primary consonant interval because of its ratio (2:l). Whoever
constructed the charts may have felt compelled to fill the full octave with tuning pat-
terns in keeping with the general emphasis placed on the octave in Ptolemy.
30. In addition, it should be noted that the string lengths in the "Ptolemaic" tables do not,
indeed cannot, correctly represent the tunings.
31. To the modern musician used to tempered intervals, it may seem perfectly logical that
12 + 12 + 6 + 12 + 12 + 12 + 6 equals an octave. Moreover, enlarging Aristoxe-
nus's tunings from a fourth to an octave necessitates dual and incompatible definitions
of tone: (1) twelve thirtieths of a 4:3 fourth and (2) the musical difference between
an octave and the sum of two fourths (2:l - [4:3 + 4:3]). This is mathematically and
logically impossible-and musically unlikely. This logical absurdity, however, does
not originate with Aristoxenus; it arises when trying to associate Aristoxenus with an
equally tempered octave. Yet the idea of tempered intervals is not to be found in any
of Aristoxenus's extant writing. Central to the present discussion is the assumption that
Aristoxenus's theories were based on perfect consonances. This assumption is sup-
ported by the definitions Aristoxenus formulates for consonances, despite the fact that
he refrained from using ratios to define them (cf. p. 61 and n. 20).
32. The relationship (if any) of this pattern in ascent to our major mode and this pattern
in descent to the Dorian tonos is explored in Robert Tanner, "La musique antique
grecque," Revue musicale, 248 (1961): 19-30.
33. Robert H. Herman, "Dialogo della musica antica et della m o d e m of Vincenzo Gali-
lei: Translation and Commentary" (Ph.D, dissertation, North Texas State University.
1973), p. 309.
34. Giovanni Maria Artusi, L'Anusi overo delle imperfettioni della m o d e m music
(Venice: Vincenti, 1600; reprinted., Bibliotheca musica bononiensis, 11/36. Bologna:
Forni, [1968]). Inferences are made throughout, but see specifically f. 34r. A com-
plete English translation with commentary is available in my "Giovanni Maria Artusi's
L'Artusi, oven, Delle impe$ettioni della m o d e m musica (1600): A Translation and
 Commentary" (M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, 1987).
35. August Rossbach and Rudolf Westphal, heorie der musichen Kiimt der Hellenen, 4
vols. (Leipzig: Teubner, 1885-89; reprint ed., Hildesheim: Olms, 1966), II:50.
36. Diiring, "Greek Music," p. 319.
37. 1. Murray Barbour, Tuning and Temperament: A Historical Survey (East Lansing,
Mich.: Michigan State College Press, 1951; reprint ed., New York: Da Capo, 1972),
p. 22.
38. Many authors have attempted to make this connection. For instance, R. P. Winning-
ton-Ingram (p. 195) attempts "to state what precisely Aristoxenus says . . . about the
intervals of Greek Music, [and] secondly, to compare his evaluations with the ratios
of the mathematicians and so consider what his rough-and-ready mathematics may
conceal in the way of real musical intervals." Kathleen Schlesinger similarly tries to
connect Aristoxenian theory with contemporary musical practice (see her "Further
Notes on Aristoxenus and Musical Intervals," Classical Quarterly 27 [1933]: 88-96).
39. Aristoxenus Har. 2.45 (Macran, p. 198). Cf. Har. 1.20.
40. Aristoxenus Har. 2.55 (Macran, p. 206). Cf. Henderson, p. 343.
41. Aristoxenus Har. 2.45 (Macran, p. 198).
42. Schlesinger, for instance, proposes that Aristoxenus meant each fourth to be twelve
cents sharper than a 4:3 fourth (see Schlesinger, p. 89), but this hardly seems likely.
43. Aristoxenus Har. 2.46 (Macran, p. 199).
44. Aristoxenus Har. 2.45, 2.55. Compare the definition of the fourth.
45. Aristoxenus Har. 1.25-26. The incompatibility between these two definitions of the
tone has been addressed in n. 31.
46. Ptolemy Har. 1.10; Boethius De institutione musica 3.3. For an English translation of
this latter, see Calvin Bower, "Boethius' h e Principles of Music: An Introduction,
Translation, andCommentary"(Ph.D. dissertation, GeorgePeabody, 1966), pp. 178-80.
47. Macran, pp. 207-8.
48. The reader is again reminded that the line represents a continuum of pitch, not a tangi-
ble string.
49. (a)3:@ is the ratio of one half of 9:8. This is obtained by multiplying ?by L i n
8 2
which the square root is taken of both top and bottom elements: ?or 1. (b) The
Js tig

addition of ratios is accomplished by placing the product of all upper elements over
the product of all lower elements: 9 9 30,243. (c) The final step of
8 x 8 ~ 4 764,B
dividing top element by bottom element is for the purpose of illustrating by decimal
fractions the inequality of the two sides of the equation.
50. Most ancient authors who prove that Aristoxenus's proof does not work emphasize that
a tone, because it is a superparticular ratio, cannot be mathematically divided in half.
Early mathematics could not perform this operation without dividing the integer-a
concept foreign to the discipline at that time. More sophisticated mathematics can in
fact divide a superparticular ratio in two (cf. n. 49a), but two-and-one-half tones still
exceed a perfect fourth.
51. Cf. Crocker, p. 103. He says, however, that Aristoxenus divided a 9:8 tone in half.
But DF is not a 9:8 tone, so this is incorrect.
52. See, for example, Aristoxenus's definition of consonances discussed earlier. Cf, also
Crocker, p. 101; Macran, p. 89.
53. Cecil Adkins, in his article "Monochord in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and
 Musicians (12 [1980]: 495-96) states that "In its earliest form the monochord's single
string was stretched across two fixed bridges" with a moveable bridge used to divide
the string. Adkins adds that "The name monochord was usually retained for multi-
string instruments when the strings were tuned in unison . . . ." This latter type of
monochord is referred to by Ptolemy and Aristoxenus and called an octachordon. The
advantage of this multi-stringed instrument is that several pitches can be compared at
once. This is the kind of monochord that was in use in ancient times (see Aristoxenus
Har. 1.2; Thomas J. Mathiesen, "Problems of Terminology in Ancient Greek Theory:
'APMONIA," Festival Essays for Pauline Alderman, ed. Burton Karson [Provo, Utah:
Brigham Young University Press, 19761, pp. 12-13).
54. Aristoxenus makes this point immediately preceding the proof that two-and-one-half
tones equal a fourth (Har. 2.55-56). Likely, this discussion is included in that particu-
lar location to give the reader all he would need to know to be able to execute the proof
by ear, as opposed to using measurements of some kind. Thus, he implies that the
proof ought to be executed without any help but the ear.
55. This is based on my experience executing the proof on an octachordon by ear alone.
56. In other words, Aristoxenus apparently espoused the notion that concepts must exist
in an ideal state, regardless of their imperfect phenomenological manifestations.
Hence, whether a concept is supported by natural phenomena is irrelevant since the
imperfections both of our senses to perceive and of the physical world in which the
phenomenon takes place deny the Ideal from being manifest (cf. Aristides Quin-
tilianus De mus. 3.7 [Mathiesen, trans., pp. 169-721). The opposite of idealism is real-
ism. See H. B. Acton, "Idealism," Encyclopedia of Philosophy 4 (1967): 110-18.
57. Euclid, Sectio canonis, propositions 15-16; in English, Thomas J. Mathiesen, "An
Annotated Translation of Euclid's Division of a Monochord," Journal of Music
Theory 19 (1975): 249.
58. Ptolemy Har. 1.10.
59. Boethius De inst. mus. 3.1 (Bower, pp. 171-76).
60. Mary Protase LeRoux, "The De harmonica institutione and Tonarius of Regino of
Priim" (Ph.D. dissertation, Catholic University of America, 1965), p. 28.
61. Warren Babb, trans., Hucbald, Guido, and John On Music: Three Medieval Treatises,
ed. Claude V . Palisca, Music Theory Translation Series (New Haven, Conn.: Yale
University Press, 1978), p. 22.
62. James Frederick Mountford, "Aristoxenus," The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 2d ed.,
p. 118-19.
63. Reginald P. Winnington-Ingram, "Aristoxenus," The New Grove Dictionary of Music
and Musicians, 1 (1980): 591-92.
64. b i d .
65. Fritz Wehrli, ed., Aristoxenos, Die Schule des Aristoteles, 2 (Basel: Schwabe, 1967).
66. Louis Laloy, Aristoxine de Tarenre er la musique de lantiquitc! (Paris: SociCt6 franqaise
d'imprimerie et de librarie, 1904; reprint ed., Geneva: Minkoff, 1973). p. 15.
67. James Frederick Mountford and Reginald P. Winnington-Ingram, "Music," The Oxford
Classical Dictionary, 2d ed., pp. 705-13. For a more detailed discussion of music's role
in Greek education, see Warren DeWitt Anderson, Ethos and Education in Greek Music
(Cambridge: Haward University Press, 1966); Carnes Lord, Education and Culture in
the Political Thought of Aristotle (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982).
68. The individual passages are too numerous to cite individually. For a good general over-
view, see Warren DeWitt Anderson, "Plato," The New Grove Dictionary of Music and
 Musicians, 14 (1980): 853-57; idem, 'Aristotle," i%e New Grove Dicrionury of Music
and Musicians, 1 (1980): 587-91.
69. Mountford, 'Aristoxenus."
70. Ibid. For information on the Pythagoreans' use of music, see C. Andr6 Barbera, "The
Persistence of Pythagorean Mathematics in Ancient Musical Thought" (Ph.D. disser-
tation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1980); Richard L. Crocker,
"Pythagorean Mathematics and Music," Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 22
(1963-64): 189-98, 325-35.
71. G. B. Kerferd, "Aristotle," Ihe Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1 (1967): 151-62.
72. George Grote, Arisrorle, 2d ed. (London: John Murray, 1880; reprint ed., Philosophy
of Plato and Aristotle, New York: Amo, 1973), p. 423.
73. Aristotle Metaphysics 6.1 (1026a11-12) (Ihe Works of Aristotle, 2d ed., trans. W. D.
Ross [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 19281).
74. Aristides Quintilianus devised just such a systematization of musical science (De mus.
1.5 [Mathiesen trans., pp. 76-77]; Mathiesen trans., p. 17).
75. For instance, when Pythagoras calmed a group of wild youths by ordering that the
musician use a different scale (see Boethius De inst. mus. 1.1 [Bower, pp. 31-44]).
76. Aristides Quintilianus De mus. 3.7 (Mathiesen trans., p. 170).
77. Aristides Quintilianus De mus. 3.7 (Mathiesen trans., p. 171).
78. Cf. Mathiesen, "Problems," pp. 3-17.
79. Aristoxenus Har. 1.2-3; 2.40-41 (Macran, pp. 165-66; 194-96); Andrew Barker,
"Hoi kaloumenoi harmonikoi: The Predecessors of Aristoexnus," Proceedings of rhe
Cambridge Philological Society, 24 (1978): 1-21.
http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 1 of 1 -

You have printed the following article:

Aristoxenus and Empiricism: A Reevaluation Based on His Theories
Malcolm Litchfield
Journal of Music Theory, Vol. 32, No. 1. (Spring, 1988), pp. 51-73.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2909%28198821%2932%3A1%3C51%3AAAEARB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23

This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from an
off-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Please
visit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.

Notes

2
Pythagoras and Aristoxenos Reconciled
Norman Cazden
Journal of the American Musicological Society, Vol. 11, No. 2/3. (Summer - Autumn, 1958), pp.
97-105.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0139%28195822%2F23%2911%3A2%2F3%3C97%3APAAR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O

4
Aristoxenus and the Intervals of Greek Music
R. P. Winnington-Ingram
The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 3/4. (Jul. - Oct., 1932), pp. 195-208.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-8388%28193207%2F10%291%3A26%3A3%2F4%3C195%3AAATIOG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U

57
An Annotated Translation of Euclid's "Division of a Monochord"
Thomas J. Mathiesen; Euclid
Journal of Music Theory, Vol. 19, No. 2. (Autumn, 1975), pp. 236-258.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2909%28197523%2919%3A2%3C236%3AAATOE%22%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C

70
Pythagorean Mathematics and Music
Richard L. Crocker
The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 22, No. 2. (Winter, 1963), pp. 189-198.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8529%28196324%2922%3A2%3C189%3APMAM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8
NOTE: The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list.