# ix Recercare” Kil (2e04) Patrizio Barbieri “Galileo's” coincidence theory of consonances, from Nicomachus to Sauveur In the Ltitutioni harmoniche (1558), Zarlino redefined the Pythagorean problem of consonance, establishing thar only the harmonic ratios contained in the senario, ive. those consisting of the integers 1 to 6, were consonant.' Zarlino’s senario, based on Platonic-mystic criteria, was gradually replaced during the first half of the seventeenth century by a physical theory known today as that “of coincidences”. Until well into the following century, this theory, traditionally attributed to Galileo (1638), was regarded as the most authoritative scientific justification of musical consonances. Let us first see what it broadly consisted in. A musical note is characterized by its frequency, i.e. the number of vibrations per second produced by the body emitting it. According to the above theory, the greater the number of “coincident” (ie. in-phase) vibrations of the notes making up an interval, the greater its consonance. In the unison, for example, all the vibrations of the two sounds are coincident; in the octave, expressed by the frequency ratio 2:1, coincidence occurs every other vibration of the upper note; etc. In con- clusion, the degree of consonance was thus defined (1) by the greater or lesser blend of the sounds, and (2) by the number of in-phase vibrations that went to strike the eardrum (assuming that the out-of-phase vibrations, instead, brought disturbance). Following the examination of both Mersenne’s correspondence and Isaac Beckman’ unpublished Journal, in 1932 the first formulation of this theory was ascribed to the latter author (1614-5).’ Claude Palisca, in an important article of 1961, backdated it even further after encountering it in a publication by the mathematician Giovanni Battista Benederti (1585).’ The present study * a Loris conn: Quantifing music: the science of music at the first stage of the scientific revolution, 41580-1650, Reidel, Dordrecht 1984, pp. 5-6. 2 MARIN MERSENNE: Correspondance [...], ed. Cornelis de Waard, vol. 1, Beauchesne, Paris 1932, p. 606 (feomoce by the cditen). * Laue V, patisca: “Scientific empiricism in musical thought”, Seventeenth century science and the 7s, ed. Hedley Howell Rhys, Princeton University Press, Princeton 1961, pp. 91-137: 199. RECERCARE XIII 2001202 PATRIZIO BARBIERI will show that far from being a product of the scientific revolution, the theory came from Greek and Roman antiquity (Nicomachus of Gerasa, second cen- tury AD) and was received as such by the renaissance theorists, beginning from Francesco Maurolico (1575). In the seventeenth century it then underwent important developments. This is a brief summary of the facts. Now, to help the reader get his bearings, Twill briefly outline the content of the five sections making up the present article: 1. The birth of physical theories of consonance: Euclid, Nicomachus and Boethius. 2. The scientific revolution: from Maurolico (1575) to Galileo (1638), through Mersenne (1623). 3. Later criticisms of the theory in the Florentine environment (Ricasoli Ru- cellai, Nigetti, Fabri) and its developments in France (Mersenne, Sauveur, de Mairan). 4. Pitch as frequency; the empirical law of the vibrating string and the persis- tence of the Ptolemaic heritage, up to Descartes (1643). 5. Conclusions. 1. The birth of physical theories of consonance: Euclid, Nicomachus and Boethius The Pythagoreans’ theory of consonances, as illustrated to us by Porphyry (ca. 234~ca. 305), was purely numerical." As for the physical theories, all based on the concept of the Blend of sounds, we begin to encounter them only from the fourth century Bc. Plato — according to the theory then accepted, to which we shall return in § 4.3 — held that high-pitched sounds travelled faster than the low-pitched. He concluded that (2) in a dyad the higher note reaches the listener earlier than the lower, and that (2) in the circumvolutions of the ear, however, it poet speed, dropping in pitch and hence blending with the closely-following note.” The concept of the blending of sounds on consonances is also clearly as- serted in the well-known Sectio caronis harmonici attributed to Euclid (A. ca. 295 BC): “Now some sounds we know are consonant and others dissonant, the consonant uniting to produce a single blend, the dissonant failing to do « poruvarus twas: Jn Harmonica Piolemei commentarius, in JOUN WaLLis: Opera mathematica, vol. mr, E Theatro Sheldoniano, Oxford 1699, pp. 185-355: 280-1. > ANICIUS M. T. SEVERINUS BOETIUS: De institutione musica libri quingue, ed. Godofredus Friedlein, ‘Teubner, Leipzig 1867, p. 221 (Lib. 1, 30).“GALILEO 's” COINCIDENCE THEORY OF CONSONANCES 203 so”.‘ According to the peripathetic Adrastus (second century ap), the aptitude of two sounds to blend arid hence form a consonance is indirectly indicated by the phenomenon of sympathetic resonance (then already known, yet still not explained)?” Consonant ad se mutuo soni, quo- rum altero pulsato (in inscramento fi- dibus inscructo) reliquus, per quandam proprietatem ec sympatiam, simul so- nat. Atque, ob eandem causam, utris- que simul pulsatis, Levis grataque ex mistione vox exauditur. [Two] sounds are mutually conso- nant when —on a string instrament —in the playing of one, the other simultaneously proceeds to sound, by a certain property and sympathy. Hence, for the same reason, if both are pla at the'sime tne, fon thet blend a sweet and pleasant sound will reach the ear. Ac the beginning of the sixth century Boethius also dealt with consonance and presented a compendium of the theories of his predecessors. He begins by discussing the impressions produced in the human ear by the sound vibrations emitted by a string: Neque enim quotiens chorda pel- litur, unus edi tantum putandus est sonus aut unam in his esse percussio- nem, sed totiens aer feritur, quotiens eum chorda tremebunda percusserit. Nor, however, must we believe that every time a string is plucked only one sound is generated or that there is only one percussion: in facr, the air is cut as many times as it is struck by the * MORRIS R. COHEN and I. E. DRABKIN: A source book in Greek science, Harvard University Press, ‘Cambridge (Mass.) 1958, p. 293. See also the first printed edition: [...] Euclid Rudimenta musices. Eius- dem sectio regule harmonica. E Regia Bibliotheca desumpea, ac nunc primiem Grace e: Latint excusse, loanne Pena regio mashemasico interpret, apud A. Wechelum, Patis 1557, fol. 8r: “Et consonos quidem. cogno- scimus eos, qui ita miscentur, ut una ex ambobus cemperatio fiat. Dissonos autem, qui non ita miscencur, ut ex ambobus una fiat temperatio”. 7 porpsrvaius: /n Harmonica Piolemai commentarius, p. 270. Porphyry does not specify what in fact the intervals Adrastus refers to were. However, we cannot help noticing that his theory automatically implied the exclusion of Pythagorean major thirds (81:64) and the acceptance in their place of those of just intonation (5:4), which had entered into current musical practice only in the fifteenth century. From the theoretical point of view the thirds of just intonation were in any case already mentioned in the enharmonic tetrachord of Archytas (first half of the fourth century nc): see ANDRE BARBERA: “Archytas of Tarentum”, The new Grove dictionary of music and musicians, vol. 1, Macmaillan, London 2001, p. 865. * Boxrrsi Dv ities p19 OL, 3). Boetiis goes on wa ay than che same happens with sight: if one spins a top on which 2 coloured band is drawn, the eye does not perceive the inter- ruptions and the top will appear entirely of that colour. This analogy is already found in the De audi- bilibus. On things beard, in anistoTie: Minor works (...], with an English translation by W. S. Hett, Heinemann, London 1955, pp. 47-79: 73. The most likely author of this text seems to be Strato of Lampsacus (ca. 340-269 2¢), one of Aristotle's successors a the Peripatos; see: H. 8. GOTTSCHALK: “The De audibilibus and peripatetic acoustics, Part 1”, Hermes, XCV1 1968, pp. 435-60: 447, 453; FREDERICK V. arn Origin in acu the eee of nd fom ars 0 he age of Newton, coal Socery of America, Woodbury (NY) 1992 (ast ed., Yale University Press, New Flaven 1978), p. 26.204 Sed quoniam iuncte sunt velocives sonorum, nulla intercapedo sentitur auribus et unus sonus sensum pellit vel gravis vel acutus, quamvis uterque ex pluribus constet, gravis quidem ex tar- dioribus et rarioribus acutus vero ex cdleribus ac spissis. PATRIZIO BARBIERI vibrating string. But since the speeds of the sounds are very close together, no interruption is perceived by the ears and a single sound strikes the sense, either low or high, although both re- sult from the combination of several movements: the low from the slower and less frequent, the high from the faster and more frequent. From this we see that Boethius, like Nicomachus, adhered to the theory that grew up—alongside the still surviving Plato’s theory — in the petiod immediately following Aristotle: that the pitch of a sound depends not on the velocity of the air activated by the string, but by the number of air strokes produced by the string itself (it is worth noting, as we shall see below in § 4, that the theory of air velocity was still supported by certain writers in the late renaissance). Further on, after reporting Plato's theory, Boethius goes on as follows, indirectly resuming the line of thought quoted above: Sed hine potius Nicomachus fieri consonantiam putat: Non, inquit, unus tantum pulsus est, qui simplicem modum emittat vocis, sed semel per- cussus nervus sepius aerem pellens multas efficit voces, Sed quia hare velo- citas est percussionis, ut sonus sonum quodammodo comprehendat, distantia ron sentitur et quasi una vox auribus vyenit. Si igitur percussiones gravium sonorum commensurabiles sint percus- sionibus acutorum sonorum, ut in his proportionibus, quas supra retulimus, non est dubium, quin ipsa commensu- ratio sibimet misceatur unamque vo- cum efficiat consonantiam. Nicomachus, on the other hand, holds that consonance is generated as follows. It is not, he says, a matter of a single impulse generating a single sound: once it is set in vibration, the string strikes the air repeatedly and produces many sounds. And since the speed of vibration is such that sound somehow compenetrates sound, the difference is not perceived, and reaches the ear almost as if it were a single sound. If therefore the percussions of low sounds are commensurable with those of high sounds, as in those pro- portions we reported above [i.e. the Pythagorean ratios of consonanees), there is no doubt that a blend takes place and consonance is produced. In other words: (1) in the human ear, the individual sound pulses emitted by a string come together in such a way as to create a continuous note; (2) if a second note is added, it will form a consonance with the first note if its pulses are introduced in such a way as to blend as much as possible with > sosremus: De institutione musica, p.222 (Lib. 1,31).“GALILEO $” COINCIDENCE THEORY OF CONSONANCES 205 those of the first note, and this occurs if there is a greater number of coinci- dences, ise. a greater degree of commensurability. The above is confirmed by the following classification (again from Nicomachus) of the harmonic intervals in ing order of consonance: octave (2:1), twelfth (3:1), fifteenth (4:1), fifth (:2), fourth (4:3)." In the light of recent studies, the source from which Boethius derives this information can be identified as an opus maius on music (now lost) written by Nicomachus of Gerasa some time between 150 and 17s." As I anticipated above, in § 2 we shall see that it is precisely to this from Boethius that both Maurolico and Mersenne refer during the scientific revolution. 2. The scientific revolution: from Maurolico to Galileo Until well into the sixteenth century the above passage from Boethius was sometimes cited, but never scientifically taken into account. Things changed radically, however, with the advent of the scientific revolution, during which reference to the coincidence theory was made by many more writers than has hitherto been supposed. Let us here examine the developments chronologically. 1575. The first printed source (for knowledge of which I am indebted to Guido Mambella) is the Opuscula mathematica of Francesco Maurolico, a mathematician from Messina. In the introductory Boetiane musice epitome, Maurolico summarizes the passage in question as follows: “The commensur- ability of the pulses gives rise to consonance”. On the following page he adds his personal comments, some of which show that he supported this theory and adopted the same classification as Nicomachus: © soermmus: De insitutione musica, p. 250 (Lib. 1 18). Boethius says that itis not possible to go beyond the ratio 43, pethaps because the Greater Perfect System had a range of just ewo octaves (4-a’). ™ CALVIN BOWER: “Boethius and Nicomachus: an essay concerning sources of De institutione musica”, Vivarium, x01 1978, pp. 1745: 42. Sce also: UBALDO Ptzzant: “Studi sulle fonti del De Znsti- nutione musica di Boedio”, Seer eradiri, x”1 1965, pp. 5-164; 1DEM: “Una ignorata testimonianza di ‘Ammonio di Ermia sul perduso ‘Opus maius’ di Nicomaco sulla musica”, in Studi in onore di Aristide Colonna, Universita degli Studi di Perugia, Perugia 1982, pp. 235~45: 238. See for example: FRANCHINO GAFFURIO: Theorica mucice, Mantegaz2a, Milano 1492, Lib. n, Cap. 1¥j HENRICUS LORITUS GLAREANUS: Dodecachordon, Petri, Basel 1547, p. 24. Glareanus had also, in the previous year and for the same publisher, edited the De musica, in BOETHIUS: Opera, que extant, omnia {...} Pees, Basel 546, pp. 1083-273. "3 Rancesco MAUROLICO: Opuscule mathematica, Franceschi, Venezia 1575, p. 149: “Commensura- bilitarem percussionum efficere consonantiam”. To music theory are dedicated pp. 145-60 (“Musice ‘taditiones carptim collectz”), on which Maurolico was already working in 1566-9, as is attested by a ‘manuscript preserved in the Bibliothaque Nationale of Paris: see satvarore PusuATT: “Le Musicz taditiones di Francesco Maurolico”, Arti della Accademia Peloritana dei Pericolanti, ccxcam-CO0cx 1951-67, pp. 313799: 387-95. In this work Maurolico takes into consideration only the ratios of the Pythagorean system.206 9. Unisonum esse initium conso- nantiarum: sicut unitas numerorum. [...] Ex perinde perfectissimam esse symphoniarum, propter corresponden- tium ictaum eiusdem numeri. 10. Consonantias consistere in pro- portionibus commensurabilibus. Nam incommensurabiles sonos impossibiles est concordare: sicut impossibile est correspondere tremores incommensu- rabilium velocitarum, quandoquidem concordantia, sive consonantia fit ex icruum correspondentia. ut, Precipui numeri generant con- cinniotes symphonias. Unde post uni- sonum, qui sedem haber in basi mo- nadica, proportio dupla, que signifi- carur ab unitate et binario, precipuis numerorum, facit precipuam conso- nantiam, et que propagantur ab e2, faciunt consonantias perfectas, propter correspondentiam icuuum. 13. Post hanc sesquitertia consistens in ternario, et quatemario facit diates- saron, adhuc minus suavem [...]. Quo- iam ubi manifestior est ictuum corre- spondentia, ibi symphonia consurgit suavior. PATRIZIO BARBIERI 9. The unison is the founcainhead of the consonances, just as unity is that of the numbers. [...] And at the same time it is the most perfect of the chords, because of the correspondence of the strokes with the same number. 10, The consonances consist in commensurable proportions. In fact it is impossible for incommensurable sounds to be consonant: just as ic is impossible for vibrations of incom- mensurable speeds to correspond, since concordance, or rather consonance, derives from the correspondence of the strokes. 11. The first numbers generate the most consonant chords, Hence, after the unison, which has its seat in unity, the duple proportion formed by 1 and 2, the two first numbers, the best consonance, and the ratios deriv- ing from it give tise to perfect conso- ances, because of the correspondence of the strokes. [el 13, After this, the sesguitertia, con- sisting of 3 and 4, give rise to the dia- vesaaron, which is still less consonant [...]. Since the chord is sweeter where the correspondence of the strokes is more manifest. Maurolico also adds other observations on the physics of the vibrating string, which we shall examine below in § 4. 158. Giovanni Battista Benedetti, though without making any reference to Boethius and Maurolico, expounds the coincidence theory in an Epistola addressed to Cipriano de Rore, the composer who had died in Parma in 1565 (in the dedication, to Carlo Emanuele OF SavOy, Benedetti states that he him- self came from Parma and had setrled in Turin some nineteen years earlier)."* Giovannt axTTista neNEDETT: Diversarum speculationum mathematicarum, et physicarum liber L., Bevilacqua, Torino 1585, p. 283. On the subject see: atisca: “Scientific empiricism in musical thought”, p. 109; H. FLORIS COHEN: “Benedemt’s views on musical science and their background in contemporary Venetian culture”, Giovan Battista Benedetti e il suo tempo: atti del convegno internazio- rake di seudi, ed. Ansonio Manno, Isvisuro Veneto di Scienze, Lertere ed Arti, Venezia 1987, pp. 301-10.“GALILEO S” COINCIDENCE THEORY OF CONSONANCES 207 On the basis of this theory, he also orders the consonances according to their presumed degree of simplicity: which turns out to be the least common mul- tiple of the corresponding harmonic ratio, a factor equal to the periodicity of the coincidences (though he does not explicitly say so). This same factor was later to be of assistance to Robert Smith in the calculation of his systems of temperament (1749). 1614-9. On one page of his unpublished diary (1614-5) Isaac Beckman expounds the coincidence theory, though admittedly in a somewhat intricare manner.” Towards the end of 1618 he must surely have communicated these results to Descartes, with whom he was then very friendly. In fact, towards the end of 1618 Descartes himself made use of it in his Compendium musica, a fact that did not fail to create friction between the two gh this small treatise was actually published, posthumously, only in 1650)." Tn any case, it is precisely from these authors that interesting new aspects of the subject are developed. Let us examine some. 1. According to the coincidence theory, the fourth (4:3) is unquestionably more consonant than the just major third (s:4). In post-medieval contrapuntal practice, on the other hand, the reverse is true. Beckman (1619) hazards an explanation by observing that “in a composition for various voices one frequently encounters octaves’: if the upper note of a fourth is doubled above, that would form the dissonant interval 8:3, whereas instead a major third would form a major tenth s:2, an interval even more consonant than seq itself” In the Compendium, Descates adopts the same solution, though conjecturing — on Aristotle’ precedent — that the broadly spaced interval is naturally formed through the octave harmonic.” This justification is true "5 Tn face, given two tones with vibration periods in the ratio m:n (with m, m as whole numbers), the coincidences occur at times éxmxn (with &=1, 2, 3, ...). This conclusion was first illustrated (chough only in connection with the interval of a fifth) by Descartes and Galileo: MeRsENNE: Corres- pondance, vol. 11, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris 1946, pp. 211-2 (leer from Descartes, 1631); ‘GALILEO GALILEK: Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche, intomo & due nuove scienze attinenti alla mecanica ‘ed i movimentilocali, appresso gli Elsevirii, Leiden 1638, pp. 104-5. Even though Benedetti does not say as much, evidently he must have already discovered this simple rule. 6 And also in a suitably developed form, to Leonhard Euler (1739): parRizio naRstert: Acustica, ac- cordasura e temperamento nelllluminismo veneto{...}, Torre d'Oxfeo, Roma 1987, pp. 83-5, 24. 1 ysaac weecKman: Journal, ed. Cornelis de Waard, vol. 1, Nijhoff, La Haye 1939, pp. 53-5: April 1614~January 1615. See also meRsENNE: Correspondance, ed. Cornelis de Waard, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris 1945, vol. sp. 606; vol. 1, pp. 126-8. 1 MeRsENNE: Correspondance, vol. Up. 221. On pp. 350-51 a letter to Mersenne of 1629 is pub- ‘ished in which Descartes makes use of the coincidence theory to justify che greater consonance of the swelfth (3) over the fifth (5:2). MERSENNE: Correspondance, vol. 1, pp. 287: “In plurium vocum compositione frequentes octavz securrunt”. ® pend pescares: Compendium musice, in Ocuures de Descartes, eds. Charles Adam and. Paul Tannery, vol. x, Vrin, Paris 1966, pp. 89-141: 101. See also his letter of 1631 to MeRsENNE: Corres vondance, ed. Cornelis de Waard, and ed, vol. 1, cwns, Paris 1969, pp. 233-4.208 PATRIZIO BARBIEK( also considering that both the notes forming the fourth (and not only the upper note) emit an octave harmonic." 2. An explanation for the above should also be sought in a distinction (intro- duced again by Descartes, and later adopted also by Mersenne) concerning the two different angles from which a musical interval can be examined: douceur (‘sweetness’, physiologically experienced by the greater or lesser coincidence of pulses) and agrément (“pleasingness’, ascribed to the specific harmonic role played by the interval in question during a musical compo- sition). 3. As already shown in note 45 above, in 1631 Descartes illustrates the reason- ing used to calculate the frequency of the coincidences for the interval of a fifth: this illustration turns out to be very similar to that published by Galileo in 1638 162, The Jesuit Nicola Cabeo — in a treatise published in 1646 — cor- rectly expounds the coincidence theory, and adds: “I publicly stated as much in Parma in 1621, in a comment on the books of the De anima (by Aristotle], when I was a public reader of philosophy”.” Cabeo makes this specification almost as if to stress that he had arrived at such conclusions before Galileo, an author he never mentions, but with whom he had indirectly come into con- flict, having himself also conducted experiments on falling masses." A. search for this mansucript, in places thac include the archive of the Jesuit College in Parma, has not borne fruit.” Yet Cabeo also refers to the same commentaries on the De anima at a time that cannot invite suspicion, for in a work pub- lished in 1629 he mentions that in them he had also discussed the trasmission of sound.* 21 On the subject see aso amped pinxo: Descartes et la musique, Fischbacher, Paris 1907, pp- 37-8. ® MARIN MERSENNE: Harmonie wniverselle [...], Cramoisy, Paris 1636-7, “Traitez des consonances”. . 66. PSD wscota eanno: ln libros Macorlogcorum Aritotelis eommenteria et questiones, Corbellea, Roma 3646, Lib. u, pp. 294-6: “publice dicavi anno 1621 Parma ad libros de anima cum philosophiam publice legerem’. Cabeo engages in the anti-Galileo polemic in other poines of his work as well: sce DoMtenico ‘AccAMO: “Cabeo, Niccold”, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, vol. xv, Istituto della Enciclopedia Traliana, Roma 1972, pp. 686-90: 688. 2 In this T particularly thank Father Enrico Padoan (Parma, Casa Professa Padri Gesuiti) and Marzio Dall'Acqua (Parma, Archivio di Stato). I also got negative resulis from the consultation of the only manuscript of a mathematical character dating to the period Cabeo spent in Parma: Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, Ms. parmense 120. The (highly fragmentary) biographical documentation on this scholar’s activities are collected in vco BaLomst: “Legem impone subactis” seudi su filbsofia e sciemza det ‘gouiti in Italia, 1540-1622, Bulzoni, Roma 1992: it confirms that in fact in the years 1618-21 he was 2 reader of logic, natural philosophy and metaphysics at the Collegio in Parma (pp. 428-9) and thar in. the same petiod he made important experiments and observations in the field of physics and asronomr - 457). mg NicoLA caBzo: Philbsophia magrerica[...], Succi, Ferrara 1629, p. 308.“GALILEO ’'S” COINCIDENCE THEORY OF CONSONANCES 209 1623, Mersenne, in that mine of information that is the Quastiones celeber- rime in Genesim, dedicates a whole section to the subject: “For what reason is ‘one consonance better than another: because of physics”.” To resolve this vexa- 42 questo he adopts a procedure similar to that formerly followed by Mau- rolico, a writer he seems not to know. He begins by quoting the above-cited passage of Boethius, which he praises; then “following in his footsteps”, he moves on to illustrate the coincidence theory in greater derail” In his trear- ment of the subject he is the first writer to mention explicitly that the ear is disturbed by the non-coincidence of pulses, and concludes: Iraque illa invervalla ingratiora sunt, And so those intervals in which que pluribus percussionibus opponun- many percussions are opposed to one tus atque aded sensum audicus diutitis another are more unpleasing, and even divellunt, gratiora verd qu pauciori- continually torment the organ of hear- bus. ing, whereas those with fewer are more pleasing. It is not known whether Mersenne was aware of the research of the earlier writers.” What is certain is that he attributes the source of the theory to Boethius. Later, as we shall see, he returned to the theory at greater length in the Harmonie universelle. 1636. Michaél Keller, rector of the Gymnasium of Nysa (southern Silesia), expounds the coincidence theory and even illustrates it. Also, for the first time, he extends the theory to a triad, the major triad (figure 1). And on this matter he makes no reference to any writer.” 1637. The French mathematician Pierre Herigone also gives a clear exposi- tion of the coincidence theory in certain Scholia appended to the Sectio canonis harmonici of the pseudo-Euclid.* It is incidentally worth noting that this treatise was present in Galileo's private library.” 7 anni wnnsenne: Questiones celeberime in Genesim {...}, Cramoisy, Paris 1623, cols, 3562-3: “Unde sit, ut consonantia una prestet alter. ex Physica”, % yyensEnne: Quartiones, col. 1562: “Placer autem elus vestigia proprits urgere”. » Concerning Beckman, we can say that Mersenne knew this author only in 1629: see BECKMAN: Journal, vol. , p. 0x. As regards his “carliest relations” with Descarces, according to Cornelis de Waard they can be dared ro FebruaryMay 1623, atthe eatliese the entire winter of 1622-4: sce MBRsENNE: Cor- respondance, ol. 1, p- 149. There appears ‘0 have been a lexcer becween the two of 1618, now ne longer taceable: see CLIFFORD A. TAVESDELL: The rational mechanics of flexible or elastic bodies, 1638-1788. Insroducsion 10 Leonbardi Euleri opera omnia vol. X et 1 seriei secunde, Orell Flsli, Ziirich 1960, p. 28. The Questiones cited, after the imprimatur of 17 February 1622, cartes the following mesage: “Hee prima edicio perfec fuit prima die februari 1623”. 2 MICHAEL KELLER: Monochordum, sive Tractarus de rasione harmonie musice(...], Schubart, Nysa 1636, Cap. vm 5 Tacx comocn: Games athens vl. y Ue Gray Pa 1657, p. 804. % ANTONIO FAVARO: “La libreria di Galileo Galilei", Bulletina di bibliografiae di storia delle science raatematichee ache, xox 1886, pp. 219-93: 265PATRIZIO BARBIERI 210 Figure 1. Succession of “coincidences” of certain consonances (from Keller, 1636). Fol. p2r: octave 1:2 (a), fifth 2:3 (B), fourth 324 (c), major third 4:5 (p), minor third 5:6 (£). Fol. av: major tii 4:5:6. 1638. Ic is only at this stage that the Tivo new sciences, the work in which Galileo illustrates the theory, was published.” We do not know exactly when he actually conceived the theory, but already around 1627 there were rumours that he had arrived at an otherwise unspecified scientific explanation of con- sonances.* In the Tivo new sciences Galileo shows more caution than Mersenne. In fact, unlike Mersenne he neither hazards a classification of the relative degrees of douceur, not ascribes the character of consonances solely to coincidences.” Though he does not explicitly say so, he must have heeded Zarlino’s claim made in 1558: that compared to the octave, the fifth gives the ear “more delight” (pix diletto), and the thirds even more than the fifth. This is because consonances ® gaunt: Discorsi e dimosrasion matematicke, intorno 2 due nuove sienze, pp. 103-7. ERSENNE: Correspondance, vol. 1, p. 603 (letter from Mersenne probably dating to November 1627). 8 yansenne: Harmonie universlle, “Traiten des consonances”, pp. 61, 76-80.“GALILEO ’S” COINCIDENCE THEORY OF CONSONANCES 2 tanto piti sono vaghe, quanto pitisi par- are the more pleasing the more they tono dalla semplicit’, della quale i no- depart from simplicity; in which our stri sentimenti non molto si rallegrano, feelings find litle delight, and are ac- et si accompagnano ad altre consonan- companied by other consonances; for ze; poi che amano maggiormente le they love the compound more than the cose composte, che le semplice.* simple. In fact Galileo judges the octave to be “sickly and lacking in verve” (sdoloinata e senza brio), while the fifth “seems to both sweetly kiss and bite” (par che insieme soavemente baci e morda). In this matter, Stillman Drake observes that, accord- ing to Galileo's theory, “only the pattem of single pulses that separates pulses of double strength is responsible for the tonal sensation associated with the per- fect fifth. The simplest such pattern is that of strings sounding the octave”.” Otherwise Galileo adds nothing new to what had already been noted by the earlier writers. Indeed, below in § 3.2 we shall see that he does not even allude to the most important consequence of the coincidence theory: the explanation of the phenomenon of beats, to which Mersenne had arrived in 1636-7, along with its important repercussions on the theory of consonances. It is no surprise, therefore, thar in October 1638 Descartes wrote to Mersenne that the content of the Tivo new sciences concerning consonances — but not the vibrating string, as we shall see below in § 4.2 — “is vulgar both for you and for me™* Despite thar, thanks to Galileo's fame and lucid literary style, it is only in this worke that full knowledge of the coincidence theory can be said to have been achieved.” % GIOSEFFO zaRLINO: Le istitutioni harmoniche ...], n.p.. Venezia 1558, p. 55 (Pt. mt, Cap. 8). © sTILLMAN DRAKE: “Music and philosophy in early modern science", Music and science in the age of Galileo, ed. Victor Coelho, Kluwer, Dordrecht 1992, pp. 3-16: 15. In any case, it is worth remem bering that a similar observation — on the pulses, one strong and one weak, of the octave, tho without reference to the character of the consonances—had already been advanced in 1614-5 srecewan: Journal, vol. bp. 53- 2 MERSENNE: Correspondance, ed. Cornelis de Waard, vol. vit, CNRS, Paris 1963, p. 100: “tour ce qu'il mer jusques ala fin de ce dialogue, couchant la musique, est vulgaire pour vous et pour moy”. % Sce for example the enthusiastic lercer waitten by Bonavencura Cavalieri to Galileo himself of August 1639: Le opere di Galileo Galilei, vol. xvtt, Barbera, Firenze 1906, p. 84. Thomas Hobbes, in Trips (4650), was to wie that the reason for consonances is to be sought in this theory, “as is well proved by Galileo in the first dialogue concerning lacal motion”: THOMAS HoBaEs: The English works, ed. William Molesworth, vol. rv, Bohm, London 1840, p. 36. Again in the seventeenth cencury, the coincidence theory was to be accepted also by: PIERRE GASSEND: Manu-ductio ad theoriam, seu Parters speculasivarn rausice, in wea: Miscellanea, vol. v, Anisson, Lugduni 1638, pp. 643-4; CLAUDE PERRAULT: Exay de Ld vol. 1, Coignard, Paris 1680, pp. 123-4; Robert Hooke: see PENELOL?: GOUK: “Some English theories of hearing in the seventeenth cencury: before and after Descartes”, The second sense: soadies in hearing and oa adem sansiquity to she sevenseenth century, eds, Charles Bur- nett, Michael Fend and Penelope Gouk, The Warburg Insticute ~ University of London, London 1991, pp. 95-113: m1. Te was rejected, on the other hand, by Pietro Mengoli: see FAoco Gozza: “A mechanical account of hearing from the ‘Galileian School’: Pietro Mengoli’s Speculationi di musica of 1670", The second sense, pp. 11$-36: 118.22 PATRIZIO BARBIERI 3. Later criticisms and developments 3.1. Criticisms, In Florence the theory published by Galileo was immediat- ely attacked by “certain practicianers greatly versed in music, even of theory”. Their opposition is reported in an appendix to the Dialoghi sopra il Timeo, a P ber. His account starts as follows:* Imperito {= Ricasoli Rucellai]: Mi pare avere udito dire, come cotesto grand'uomo un non so che er- rore in simigliante discorso: & egli vero? lengthy manuscript by Orazio Ricasoli Rucellai (ca. 1665-73), a neo-platonist losopher and from 1635 a gentleman of Grand-Duke Ferdinand 1s cham- Imperito {= Ricasoli Rucellai): I seem to have heard it say thar this great man fell into I know not what error in that discourse: is that rue? ‘Magiorsi: Qui alcuni pratichi molto —-Magiotri: Here certain practicianers intendenti nella musica, etiamdio della greatly versed in music, even of theory, teorica vengono opponendo per questa. are making their opposition in the fol- guisa: [...]. lowing way: [...]. Though the writer does not explicitly mention names, the only people he praises in this manuscript as eminent theoretical and practical musicians are Pietro Salverti and Francesco Nigetti.” In fact, Nigetti, first organist of the cathedral of Florence (1649-81) and inventor of a then celebrated enharmonic harpsichord with thirty-one keys per octave, was indicated in 1727 as the effective author of these criticisms.” Let us now examine the three objections he advanced: their date is not specified, though it must be prior to 1673, the year of Ricasoli Rucellai’s death. © oRAZIO RICASOLE RUCELLAL: Segue il Timeo. Delle musiche proporzioni, Firenze n.d. (nine dia- logues in all): Firenae, Biblioteca Nazionale, ms. Cl. 1.141.269, fols. 101v-108: 101-102 (I thank Carlo Picchietti, of the Biblioteca Nazionale, for locating the shelf-mark of this mansucript). The most impor- tant character taking par in the dialogue is Raffaello Magiout (1597-1656), one of the three favoured pupils of Galileo: raul LawRENce nose: “Magioti, ", Dicrionary of scientific biography, vol. 2, Scribner's Sons, New York 1974, pp. 33-4. On this dialogue — undated though attributable to 1665-73 see avcusto ateass: Delle vita e deg simi di Orazio Ricasoli Rucellai, Barbera, Firenze 1872, pp. xem, 46, 62, 121-4. The Dizloghi sopra il Timea, of which the above-mentioned manuscript constirutes the continuation, are collected in Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale, ms. Cl. .10.266. “On these two characters, see PATRIZIO BARBIERI: “Il cembalo onnicordo di Francesco Nigett in due memorie inedice di G. B. Doni (2647) e B. Bresciani (719)”, Rivime italiana di musicologia, soa 1987, pp. 34-13; IDEM: “L’accordanura strumentale in Toscana: proposte ¢ contrasti da V. Galilei a Cristofori (. 1580-1730)", Musicologia humana: studies in honor of Warren and Ursula Kirkendale, eds. Sigfried Gmeinwieser, David Hiley and Jorg Riedlbauer, Olschki, Firenze 1994, pp. 209-32: 227-32 (on s ‘lirone enarmonico”); and WARREN KIRXENDALE: The court musicians in Florence during the principate of the Medici, Olschki, Firenze 1993, pp. 402-6 (Salverti), 380, 391, 453, 647 (Nigetti). ‘© qauiLeo Gatmet: Opere, vol. 1, Stampetia di S. A. R., Firenze 1728, p. x2. The author of the “Prefarione universale” says, in connection with the “pratici molto intendenti della musica” men- tioned by Ricasoli Rucellai: “ali non furono, se io non fallo, che Francesco Nigert, uomo della musica intendentissimo”.“GALILEO ’s” COINCIDENCE THEORY OF CONSONANCES 23, 1. In musical practice it is very rare that the sounds constituting a consonance are emitted in such a way as to begin exactly in phase (fol. 102r). Given that they therefore remain constantly out of phones they present no coincidence and — according to Galileo's theory — should thus give rise to a dissonance: which is not the case. A similar objection was subsequently also raised by Isaac Newton (1677)* and Robert Smith (1748)." In the light of present knowledge, this criticism can be considered as unfounded, given that (1) thanks to the phenomenon of forced oscillations (‘mitnahme Effekt”), the partials — if sufficiently strong— tend to fall automatically into phase; and (2) in any case, for steady tones, the effects of differences of phase are generally small on the ear.* Nor does it appear there was any knowledge of the mechanism of the destructive interference of two harmonics of the same frequency, but in phase opposition.“ 2. There are consonances that present fewer coincidences than other intervals which instead are classified as dissonances (fols. 102v-31). According to Galileo's theory — which was to be exemplified in 1727, again in connec- tion with the criticism — the ratio 8:5 should be less consonant than 7:5. Which is in contrast with experience, since 8:5 corresponds to the conso- nant interval of a minor sixth, while 7:5 is generally judged to be a “form of harshest dissonance” (forma della pitt aspra dissonanza).” This second objection raised the controversial problem of the seventh harmonic. The Jesuit Honoré Fabri — who had definitively settled in Italy in 1646 and had assiduous contact with the Accademia del Cimento in 1660 — tackles the question in his Physica (1670)." In contrast with current © conten: Quantifying music, p. 232. 4 popert swrre: Harmonics, or The philosophy of rausical sounds, 2nd ed., Merril, London 1759, pp. 104-6, The fist edition of the work, which it has not been possible to consult, is dated 1749. © Om these subjects see: DIEGO GONZALEZ, DAVIDE BONSt and DOMENICO STANZIAL: “Non-linear modelling of the ‘Mimahme-effele’ in coupled organ pipes”, Musical sounds from past raillennia, proceedings of she International Symposium of Musical Acoustics 2001 (Isa 2001), eds. Davide Bonsi, Diego Gonzalez and Domenico Stanzial, rssa-cnr clo Fondazione Giorgio Cini, Venezia 2001, pp. J89°7) THOMAS p ossiNe: The science of und, ad ed, Addison-Wesley, Reading 99, p62 © syarre: Harmonics, pp. 105-6, for example supports his thesis by stating that if with a fingernail ‘we graze the midpoint of a vibrating string, each of The tro halves io which divided will emi che high octave, but that these two octaves — though in unison — will be in opposition of phase: none- theless, Smith concludes, the sound that artives at the ear is perfectly “agreeable”. Smith neglects co consider that man is equipped with two ears and that only in certain very specific points of space are the two octaves in opposition of phase: eg, see Rossina: The science of sound, p. 49. On the other hand, 1a case of descructive interference, due to two harmonics in counterphase, can be easily obcained by rotating an ordinary tuning-fork by 360° near one ear only: ALEXANDER WOOD: The physics of music, sch ed. ed. J. M. Bowsher, Methuen, London 2950, p. 19. © Gaunt: Opere, vol. 1, p. XL. HONORE FABRE: Physica id ext, Scientia rerum corporearum, vol. 1 [...}, Anisson, Lyon 1670, pp. 279-80, On his contacts with the Florentine scientific environment, see JOHN L. HeILBRON: “Honoré Fabri, S. J., and the Accademia del Cimento”, in ar Congres international dhistoire des sciences: acte Tome unis Science er philosophie, Xa es xva" siécles, Blanchard, Paris 1972, pp. 45-9.ee PATRIZIO BARBIERI opinion, he claims that without doubt the interval 7:1 (the broadly spaced “harmonic” seventh) is more consonant than 8:1 (repeat of the octave). He holds that the prime number 7 is not admitted in music solely because itis incompatible with the numbers 1, 3 and 5, on which the scale used by musicians is based. This interpretation was then reasserted in 1692 by Francis Robartes.” Even Christiaan Huygens — in certain notes dating to ca. 1661, though published only in 1940—had arrived at the same conclusions.” All of this agrees with what is stated above, given that 7:5 is the dissonant interval that needs to be added to the just major third 5:4 in order to obtain the harmonic minor seventh 7:4. "The conclusions given here are those still accepted today." We need only recall that at the end of the century Fontenelle, one of the most famous secrévaires perpétuels of the French Académie des Sciences, was to propose arguments that were still of « metaphysical nature:* un accord qui de lui-méme ne plairoit point, plaira, s'il achéve octave d'un autre accord agéable. Ce dernier ac- cord entendu plusieurs fois avec plai- sir, aura conduit 'ame & imaginer ce qui y manquoit pour aller jusqu’’ l'oc- tave, et comme Poctave lui plate, Pac- cord qui en est le complément se sera lié & une idée agréable. a chord that in itself would not please, will please if it completes the octave of another pleasant chord. This latter chord, often heard with pleasure, will have led the soul to imagine whar it lacked to arrive up to the octave, and given that the octave is pleasing to it, the chord which is its complement will be associated with a pleasant idea. Even though no reference is made to it, we clearly see that the condition expressed is that advanced by Descartes in the Compendium musica to jus- tify the consonance of the just minor sixth 8:5, an interval whose presence in Zarlino’s senario had always created problems of a formal nature, given that it was the only one whose ratio comprised a number higher than 6: its inversion is in fact the just major third 5:4.” Following this line of thinking, Fontenelle concludes that 7:6 and 8:7 are dissonant also because they have “no natural link” (nulle liaison naturelle) with consonant chords. © rrancts noBERTS [+ RoBARTES]: “A discourse concerning the musical nores of the trumpet, and rrumpet-marine, and of the defects of the same”, Philosophical iransactions, vol. xvm, no. 195 (October 26), wp. 59-65: Sic. For the sme reson, Robarces adds, the prime numbers 1 and 13 are also 3 CHpistuaaN HUYGENS: Ocwores complies [...), Vol. 2% Nijhoff, La Haye 1940, p. 37. The contr- bution of the Dutch scientist has already been observed by conEN: Quuantifjing music, p. 214. 3) On the subject see sanstent: Acustica accordanura e temperamento nellilluminisma veneto, pp. 3ag-s5 Il sertimo armonico nella teoria ¢ nella pratica”). 5 pERNARD LE BOYER DE FONTENELL#: “Sur un nouveau systeme de musique”, Hiitoire de [Académie Royale des Sciences, avec les raéroire |...), Année 1703 (ed. Paris 1743), pp. 123737 of the “Histoire”: 124. ® pescarres: Compendium musica, p. 101.“GALILEO 'S” COINCIDENCE THEORY OF CONSONANCES 2s 3. The third objection introduces the temperament of the contemporary Flo- rentine keyboard instruments, which — as we read on fol. 104r of Ricasoli Rucella’s above-cited Dizlogo — left the octave alone unaltered. “All” the ‘ining consonant intervals were turned into irrational ones, which nonethless remained pleasing to the ear, despite the fact that their coinci- dences were reduced to zero. In 1749 Robert Smith was to add that a slightly tempered consonance presents fewer coincidences than the same interval strongly tempered, with the absurd implication that according to this theory the former of the two intervals was the more dissonant.” ‘Towards the end of the eighteenth century this third objection was to turn out to be a most effective weapon in the hands of the Jesuit Andrea Dra- ghetti. Draghetti— in opposition to the coincidence theory and the other theories of consonance based on discontinuity, that then held sway — pro- posed a theory based on continuity, which has strong analogies with those formulated in modern times from Helmholtz onwards” This third objection also raised issues of a philosophical character which at the time were evidently still the object of lively differences of opinion. On fol. 104r-v of Ricasoli Rucellai’s manuscript we read that not only the tem- pered fifth remains agreeable to the ear, but also that in due cembali accordati insieme, dove in uno di loro si accordi una quinta esattamente, con la razionalit’ perfetta della sesquialtera [ie. = 3:2], ¢ nelfalero unfalua quinta itrazionale [= tempe- rata], secondo che la vuole Porecchio, sonandole amendue insieme, ogni orec- chio, che sconcertato non sia, discerne consuonar’ meglio senza agguaglio 'ir- razionale, che la razionale non f&. on two harpsichord runed together, on one of which a fifth is tuned exactly, with the perfect rationality of the ses- quiaktera [e. = 322], and on the other a different, irrational [= tempered] fifth, ing to the wishes of the ear, when playing them together, every ear that is not disturbed finds that the isrational sounds beyond compare better than the rational. Evidently the ideas expounded by Vincenzo Galilei in the Dialogo of 1581, a work cited in the manuscript a litele further on, had established them- selves even beyond their author's own intentions.” For in fact Vincenzo had merely said that on the lute the narrowed fifths “of Aristoxenus” (ie. of equal temperament) were more pleasant than the pure ones, But he had also added — as shall see better below — that the same temperament failed to make a good effect on harpsichords because of the instrument's harsher tone. suarrit: Harmonics (1759), p. 100. This is evident, for example, for the fifth 300:200, if we reduce itto 6 299:200 jand 298:200 (= 149:100) respectively. 5 anprea DRAGHETT: Prychologie specimen (..., Mare, Milano 1771, pp. 47-52, 327-9. On the subject ste rATRIZIO BARBIERI: “La nascita delle teorie ‘continue’ della consonanza: la ignorata curva di Draghetti e Foderi, poi di Helmholez (:773-1837)”, Acsa musicologica, txxvls 2002, pp. 55-75- % vancenzo camer: Dialoge della musica antica et della moderna, Marescotti, Firenze 1581, p. 55.216 PATRIZIO BARBIERI From the context (fols. 105r-6v) we deduce that the Florence of the late seventeenth century had opted for Vincenzo Galilei’ empirical-sensorial approach, which was paradoxically used to upset the theory of his son Galileo. On fol. 106r, in fact, it is clearly stated that “most people nowa- days reject” the approach of the Pythagorean canonists and espouse that of Atistoxenus: and that unlike what one might commonly expect, the rational ratios of just intonation are only an approximation of the true and natural ones, which are in fact irrational.” Similar ideas — which had aroused the opposition of Descartes, Mersenne and Huygens, among others — had been published in 1605-8 also by the Dutch mathematician Simon Stevin, who claimed that the natural intervals are those correspond- ing to equal temperament, and not merely to just intonation.” Without any doubt Stevin’s path had been opened up by Vincenzo Galilei. 3.2. Developments 3.2. Beats. The phenomenon of beats is recorded in the printed sources at least from 1511.” From the scientific point of view, its correct interpretation is first offered by Mersenne (1636-7), who derives it as a simple corollary of the coincidence theory: every time the vibrations “se rencontrent” (je. are in phase), their amplitudes are added together, thus producing periodic rises in the intensity of the sound.® Because of a rather muddled and partly erro- neous passage of the Harmonie universelle, hitherto Mersenne has not been credited with the paternity of this correct interpretation of the phenomenon.” In actual fact, in successive passages of the voluminous treatise — which, it is worth remembering, was written and published in “instalments” — he clearly states the following:* & wicasour nuceitat: Segue il Timeo. Delle musiche proporsioni, fols. sosy-6r: “Buonaccors: Dice Boczio nella musica non doversi il professore dare totalmente in preda al senso dell'udito, che pud variamente ingannarsi in varie persone, ma nelle regole della ragione, la quale n'é giudice pid legittimo, pitt comperente. Magiott: I pit al rempo d’oggi negano sf fatta proposizione [...]". © puYGENS: Ocwires, vol. 206, pp. 32-33 JAMES MURRAY BARBOUR: Tuning and temperament: a hise torical survey, Michigan State University Press, East Lansing 1951; reprint Da Capo Press, New York 1972, p. 7: COMEN: Quantifiing music, pp. 48, 8. 3H. FLORIS ConEN: “Beats and the origin of early modern science”, Music and science in the age of Gale pea seEcKn: Journal, vol. 1, p. 3, had observed that — precisely on account of the coincidences — the pulses of the octave were one strong and one weak, hence the consonance came 10 be very similar to the unison (see aso above, note 37). © See for example sicatta DOSTROVSKY: “Early vibration theory: physics and music in the seven- teenth century”, Archive far bisory of exac siences, x1V 1975, pp. 169238: 202. The passage in. question is found in wensenwe: Harmonie univerelle,“Traité des instramens & chordes’, p. 362. © yansenne: Harmonie universll, “Traité des instrumens 2 chordes”, p. 3895 “Nouvelles observa- tons physiques et mathemariques", p. 20.“GALILEO ’S” COINCIDENCE THEORY OF CONSONANCES nz — the number of beats is equal to the number of coincidences (renconsres); and it is specified, though with a certain degree of approximation, that the number of beats of the semitone 16:15 is over four times greater than that of the comma 81:80, precisely “because 81 contains 16 more than four times” (parce que 81 contient 16 plus de quatre fois); — the higher the octave in which the given interval occurs, the faster such beats will be. Mersenne is therefore the first writer to apply the superposition principle in acoustics. He adds that by applying it an organ could be tuned even by a person without a musical ear, since it would be sufficient to count the number of beats of the tempered consonances.* On this point he correctly observes that in equal temperament “the fifth beats once every second”," and that there is also a connection between beats and dissonance: Or les batemens qui se font de se- Now the beats that are produced conde en seconde minute ou environ, entre les chordes qui font la Quinte, et Jes autres consonances temperées, font voir quéelles sont plus douces quand elles sont justes, car pour lors Ton every second, or thereabouts, between the strings thar form the fifth and the other tempered consonances, show that they are sweeter when they are just, for then no beat is heard. rfoyt nul barement.* ‘Ac the end of the century the beats between the fundamentals of two sounds were to be assessed quantitatively by Joseph Sauveur. Though without © yaensenwe: Harmonie universelle, “Traité des instrumens & chordes”, p. 367. & yeensenne: Harmonie univerelle, “Nouvelles observations physiques et mathematiques", p. 20: evidently fering ro dhe cenel zane ofthe keyboard, hein fee nats tat "la quine bet une fs dans chaque seconde minute, lorsque la quinte est temperée comme il faut”. This certainly reveals that Mer- senne stil hadn't clearly grasped the distinction between the beats of the fundamentals and those berween the overtone. inthe Bf in question, i is in fact the third harmonic ofthe fundamental note that beats against the second harmonic of the higher note. But this was to occur only in the nineteenth cent wry. © Loa. cit of the previous note. Mersenne dissents from the opinion of “certain excellent players of the lute”, according to whom the fifths of equal temperament — which they used to tune their instru- ments —were sweeter (“plus douces et plus charmantes”) than the pure fifths. And in so doing he indirecly criticizes causte: Dialogo della musica antica et della moderna, p. 55. As already mentioned in § 3.4 in acrual fact Vincenzo also observes that equal temperament did not ensure a “good effect” (buono ceffto) on harpsichords, because of the “great sharpness” (molza acutezex) chac the thirds and sixths had on this instrument (pp. 47-8). From the modivations he offers, we find thar for che fist time the degree of consonance of an interval is associated with the timbre of che instrument on which itis played: “and the reason [...] is none other than that the material of chese strings, and the agent that strikes them, has more and efficacy in its activity to strike the hearing with greater vehemence: which does not happen for chose [strings] of the lute, owing to the different quality of both of the above subjects” (Yet Ia ragione [...] non da altro nasce, che dall'havere la materia di esse corde, et dallagente che le ppercuote, pit forza et efficacia per la loro ativia, di ferice Pudito con vehementia maggiore: Ia qual cosa A quelle del liuco non occosre per la diversa qualita dell'uno er dell’altro subbietto”).28 PATRIZIO BARBIERI even making the slightest reference to Mersenne, he adopts his concepts on both beats and dissonance, and arrives at the following conclusions: — beats lie at the origin of dissonance, hence “the chords in which beats cannot be heard are those which musicians identify as consonances, and those in which beats are heard constitute the dissonances”: in the octave, for example, the coincidences are so frequent that the beats to which they give rise cannot be perceived separately from one another; — since the frequency of the beats varies according to the octave in which a given chord is found, that chord can constitute a “dissonance in a given octave and a consonance in another, according to whether it beats in one or fails to beat in the other”.“ Already in 1588 Zarlino had warned the practical musicians that the degree of consonance of an interval depends on the octave in which it occurs.” For example, the fifth (3:2) is poor in the low octave of the harpsichord (C-c) but improves decidedly as one ascends; the major third (s:4) should preferably be employed only from the third octave (c’~c’") and he also asserts that the major triad is unbearable in the bottom octave (C-c). As theoretical justification he merely observes that this is indicated by the very postion they occupy in the senario: for in the sequence 1:2:3:4:5:6, the interval of a fifth appears only from the second octave, and the two thirds in the octave immediately above that. Even Mersenne, evidently basing himself on Zarlino, agrees with this claim, though a litde confusedly. Sauveur, however, while restricting himself to the beats of the fundamental harmonics only, is the first to expound a quantita- tive justification.” In fact he arrives at the correct conclusion that two sounds & See the lucid report of Sauveur's memoir written by the secréeaire of the Paris Academy, BERNARD Le BOYER DE FONTENELLE: “Sur Ja determination d'un son fixe”, Histoire de U'Académie Royale des Sciences, avec les mérmoires|...], Année 1700 (ed. Patis 1761), pp. 134-43 of the “Histoire”. On pp. 142-3, wwe read: “on tzouve que les accords dont on ne peut entendre les battemens, sont justement ceux que le ‘musiciens taitent des consonances, et que ceux dont les battemens se font sentir, sont les dissonances, ex que quand un accord ex dissonance dans une ceraine octave, ex consonance dans une autre, cest WH bat dans une, et qul ne bet pas dans Iaume. Aus esi taicé de consonance imparts, Lex fort aisé par les principes de M. Sauveur qu’on a établis ici, de voir quels accords battent, et dans quelles octaves au-dessus ou au dessous du son fixe”. This last poine is an indirect reference ro the scant consonance of the third in the lower register. © zaruno: Le istitutioni harmoniche, pp. 247-8 (Pt. ut, Cap. 61). Mersenwe: Harmonie univerelle, “Traitee des consonances”, p. 64. Christiaan Huygens had also pointed out that major thirds are not very consonant in the low register: COHEN: must p. 2, ® Towards the middle of the eighteenth century this theory was to be criticized by swat: Harmonies, p. 97. Today, however, the English physicists condemnation seems unjustified. For even though he somehow arrived at a formula thar gives che correct number of beats of the tempered ‘consonances, Smith never makes any explicit reference to the phenomenon of harmonics. And because of this he claims that the coincidence theory applies only to untempered consonances, which he“GALILEO of frequency f, and f, beat with a frequency equal to |f, - |, an observation which he also uses to accomplish the first measurement of the number of vibrations per second of a sound he proposes as a frequency standard: the “son fixe” of 100 Hz." 3.2.2. Eardrum and cochlea. \n 1623, as we saw above in § 2, Mersenne had conjectured that a chord with a scant number of coincidences generated a sensation of annoyance in the eardrum, and hence dissonance. In 1636~7 he then specified that this sensation was due to the beats, In 1638 Galileo, on the other hand, did no more than espouse a hypothesis that turns out to be the same as that expressed in Mersenne’s earlier position: “consonant, and received with delight will be those pairs of sounds” in which “the strokes made inside at the same time are commensurable in number, so that the cartilage of the eardrum does not have to remain in a perpetual torment of inflecting itself in two different manners so as to obey and yield to the constantly discordant beats”.” On the exact contrary, Pierre Gassendi had conjectured that the scant pleasure given by the unison (as compared to the other consonances) was due to the continual coincidence of the vibrations of the two tones constituting it, which “tires the eardrum and makes it suffer” (stracca il timpano e lo fa patire), seeing that it is always struck in the same place.” In the second half of the century this “physiological” hypothesis was to undergo development, as we shall see. In 1650 Kircher’s Musurgia attests that by then the real sensitive organ of hearing had been identified in the inner ear, i.e. the cochlea. In fact, it was even held (erroneously) that there the sounds were amplified by resonance, as a result of repeated reflections.” In 1680 Claude Perrault specifies that “the COINCIDENCE THEORY OF CONSONANCES 219 believes are che only ones not to give tise ro beats (pp. 100, 104). For his formula on beats, sce BARBIERI: Acustica, accordarura e emperamento nelillaminioma veneto, Pp. 123-4. * On this measurment see: DOsTROVSKY: “Early vibration theory”, pp. 202-3; PATRIZIO BARBIERI: “Giuseppe Sarti fisico acustico ¢ teorico musicale”, Giuseppe Sarsi musicin faentino, eds. Mario Baroni and Maria Gioia Tavoni, Mucchi, Modena 1986, pp. 221~40: 221-7. * Gaunss: Discorsi e dimostrazioni, p 104: “consonanti, ¢ can diletto ricevute saranno quelle copie i suoni, che verranno & percuoterc con qualche ordine sopra ‘| simpano; il qualordine ricerca prima, che le percosse farce dentro all'istesso tempo siano commensurabili di numero, accid che la cartilagine del impano non habbia & star’ in un perpewuo tormento d'inflerersi in due diverse maniere per accon- sentire, et ubbidire alle sempre discord bartcure”. As reported by RICASOLI RUCELLAL Segue il Timeo. Delle musiche proporsioni, fo. sov: “quando i colpi delle vibrazioni delle corde unisone battono a un’ modo, e nel medesimo luogo seriza mutare, ne attediano, ¢ ne offendano, e per cosi dire impiagano quasi la carilagine del timpano, se col mucare spexto i ltoghi non vengano variando il sito delle percosse”. ® xruanastus eamciten: Musurgic universalis (...], vol. 1, Corbelleci, Roma 1650, pp. 277, 305. ‘What is contained in the Musurgia is substantially repeated by THOMAS Wns: De anima a ass ta ar mata ee, Weds as Sone, Lot $67, psa. Aad feta ge Ws ae mention of the cochlea as “sensitive organ of hearing” has hitherto been attributed: see ALISTAIR C. cromete: Science, opts and music in medieval and early moder shought, The Hambledon Press, London and Ronceverte 1990, p. 373.220 PATRIZIO BARBIERI immediate organ of hearing” is to be identified as the basilar membrane contained in the cochlea, though he fails to formulate a scientifically valid theory.* Three years later (1683) Duverney finally advances the hypothesis that this basilar membrane, being elastic and of gradually decreasing breadth, always presents a point which resonates selectively when stimulated by a well specified frequency.” This theory, suitably adapted, is still accepted today. In 1737 De Mairan was to propose for the basilar membrane a behaviour that has some analogies with what Galileo had hypothesized for the ear- drum.” He asserts that when sounds are in a harmonic ratio, they excite the membrane at points that are somewhat distant from one another, sweetly deforming it into “a kind of undulation” (une espece dondulation) that provokes a sort of pleasure: ‘Au contraire les sons non harmo- niques, les mauvais accords, dont la commensurabilité avec le son principal est beaucoup moindre, ou nulle, ré- pondant & des fibres trop proches les tunes des autres, ne pourront les ébran- ler ensemble d'un et d'autre cdté, sans causer sur la membrane des plis aigus, pllatét que des ondes, et sans risquer parla de la fausser, de la déchirer, ou da la rompre. C'est pourquoi, et par les mémes lois, nous devrons dans cette occasion éprouver un sentiment On the contrary, the non-harmonic sounds, the bad chords, whose com- mensurability with the main sound is much lower, or nonexistent, correspond to fibres 100 close to one another and thus cannot activate them on both sides without creating sharp folds (instead of waves) on the membrane and hence without running the risk of falsifying it, tearing it or damaging it. Te is be- cause of this (and because of the same Javis) that in this situation we expe- rience a sense of uneasiness or pain. @inquétude ou de douleur. Although espressed in “mechanical” terms, Mairan’s hypothesis substan- tially agrees with the modern theory of Plomp and Levelt (1965): if two tones excite the basilar membrane at two points close to one another, they find themselves within the so-called “critical band” and hence produce beats or roughness, i.e. a sensation of dissonance.” 7% perraucr: Essays de physique, pp. 247-39: “la membrane spirale est Vorgane immediat de Toitic’. josEPH GUICHARD DuvERNEY: Tractatus de organo auditus (...] E gallo latine reddiras(...], Langerak, Lugduni Batavorum 3730, pp. 28-9 (the first edition is dated 1685). His theory was later taken up by ANTONIO MARIA VALSALVA: De axire humana sractatus ...], typis C. Pisarii, Bologna 1704, pp: 128-30. On the subject see: LUIGI BELLONE: “Suono € orecchio dal al Valsalva nel terzo centenario della nascita di AM. Valsalva", Simposi clinic, uu/3 1966, pp. 200Gn-x1n, and CROMBIE: Science, opties and music, p.373. 76 JEAN-JACQUES DORTOUS DE MArRAN: “Discours sur la propagation du son dans les différents tons qui le modifient”, Hioire de VAcadémie Rayale des Sciences: mémoires de mashémasique et de physique, Année 1737, pp. 1-60: 16. 7 On the critical band, see JouN n. pierce: The science of musical sound, Scientific American Lib- sary, New York 1985, pp. 76-9.“GALILEO’S” COINCIDENCE THEORY OF CONSONANCES 221 4. The empirical law of the vibrating string and the persistence of the Ptolemaic heritage ‘While illustrating the coincidence theory in the previous sections, refer- ence was often made to certain conflicting hypotheses on the physics of the vibrating string, which susprisingly survived right up to the central stage of the scientific revolution, ie. after the Mersenne ~ Galileo experimental (or empirical) law (1638). Let us therefore examine the stare of knowledge on the subject. 41. Pitch and pulse frequency. In § 2 we examined Francesco Maurolico’s anticipation of the coincidence theory. Again in his Opuscula of 1575 — this time in the “Summary of Boethian music” —the same writer presents another anticipation, of decidedly greater scientific importance:” Sonum esse percussionem aeris, ad audicum delatam., Percussionem autem ex motu corporum eri. Corpora verd maiora tardius ac rarius, minora velo- ius ac crebrius moveri [...]. Sonum autem tunc fieri ex tremore tact chor- dz crebris ictibus aerem percutientis. [...] Mows itaque corporibus propor- tionales esse, et sonos motibus, secun- dim icaum numerositatem. Et ideo sonorum proportionem ex numerorum proportione sumi. In other words: Sound is a percussion of air pro- pagated to one’ hearing, In turn this percussion arises from the vibrations of bodies. These vibrations are slow and infrequent in large bodies, faster and more frequent in small ones [...]- Sound therefore is produced by the shaking of the plucked string that strikes the air with frequent strokes, (...] The vibrations are therefore proportional ro the bodies, and the sounds to the vibrations, according to the number of strokes. And so the proportion of the sounds is assumed equal to the pro- portion of these numbers. Pitch is proportional to the frequency of strokes and thus Pythagorean ratio of pitches = ratio of frequencies. ‘These fundamental tenets of the theory of vibration — which indeed cannot be found in Boethius — will soon be rediscovered by Benedetti (1585), Beeck- man (1614-5), Mersenne (1623) and Galileo (by 1636).” ™ waurowico: Opuscule mathematica, p. 146. On these last four authors see TRUESDELL: The rational mechanics of flocible or elastic bodies, 3638-2788, p. 23.222 PATRIZIO BARBIERI 4.2. Pitch: density versus hardness. Maurolico states also that: bel 2. Corpus magis densum wemit velocius, sicut chorda aenea nervo, et intentus nervus remisso. (J 2, The denser a body, the faster it shakes, such as a string of copper alloy compared to one of gut, and a taut = string to one that is relaxed. 4, Tremor velocior facic sonum acu-—[..-] tiorem, Unde sequitur, ur densius cor- pus, ut aenea chorda, quam nervus, et aenea canna, quim plumbea sonet acutius.” 4. A faster vibration gives a higher sound. Hence it follows thar the denser the body the higher the sound it emits, such as a strig of copper alloy compared to one of gur and an [organ] pipe of copper alloy compared to one of lead. This time Maurolico's statements are decidedly wrong. Moreover, as we shall see, they turn out to be derived from Ptolemy's theory. Now since this was the theory then followed by practically all writers, it is worth briefly examining both its genesis and its Thflaence. Until the Renaissance it was believed that sound was generated “by the violent constriction of the air between the striking body and the struck body”." In the case of the crack of a whip or a tone produced by a vibrating string, however, this theory seemed not ro work, since what was not clear was the location of the third body, i. the struck body. Now, in the De anima Aristotle had hypothesized that — under particular conditions — this third body was constituted by the air itself “this happens when the air after being struck resists the impact and is not dispersed. Hence the air must be struck quickly and forcibly if it is to give forth sound; for the movement of the striker must be too rapid to allow the air time to disperse”." The theory was [ater taken up by Albertus Magnus (thirteenth century) and nearly all the later writers, right up until the early seventeenth century.” ® mavrowico: Opuscula mathematica, p. 150. ® See for eae JOHANNES BLUND: Tractatus de anima [first half of thirteenth century], eds. D. A. Callus and RW. Hunt, Oxford University Press, London 1970, p. 46: “sonus provenit ex violenta constrictione seris inter percutiens et percussum”; and PEDRO MARTINEZ DE TOLEDO Y BREA In tres Libros Avistotelis De anima commenta Gratianus, Segundi 1575, p. 206: “in duorum corporum collsione intermedius ar vehement impelica- On the subj sev also rarmio banaten: “Alchemy, symbolism and Aristotelian acoustics in medieval organ-pipe technology”, The organ yearbook, xxx 2001, »P- 7-39: 7-8. PPE Goa and eamei A source bok th Gre ios p28 8 qusgatus MaGNus: De anima, ed. Clemens Stroick, in 1beM: Opera omnia, vol. vit, Aschen- dorff, Cologne 1968, p. 125. See also: sLuND: Tractatus de anima, p. 46; PAULUS VENETUS [= PAOLO micoLerrih: In libros De anima explanatio (...], Locatelli, Venezia 1504, fol. 797; LuDOVICUS BUCCA- ‘renius [= LODOVICO BoCCADIEERRO]: Lectiones in libros Arisitelis De anima. Liber secundus (o541), in MICHAEL WrrTMANn: Vox azgue somus: Studien sur Reception der Arisoteischen Schrift “De Anima” und“GALILEO ‘S” COINCIDENCE THEORY OF CONSONANCES 223 ‘The requisites that a string must have in order to be able to “strike the air quickly” are found not in Aristotle, however, but in a passage of the Harmonics of Prolemy (100-178 ap)." Then Ptolemy's theory was adopted, and more fully illustrated, by music theorists such as Ugolino da Orvieto (1430-40) and Zarlino (1588). In brief, it stated that a string strikes the air more quickly — and hence emits a higher pitched sound — the more it is: 1. Thin. Ugolino da Orvieto observes that a thin string rotated in the air emits a higher sound than a thick one. We see therefore that the problem of the vibrating string was erroneously equated with that of the aeolian tones. Of dense and hard material. It is explicitly stated that a copper string, all other conditions being equal, emits a higher sound than one of gut. Btol- emy adds, however, that hardness is more influential than density: copper, for example, emits a higher sound than lead because — though less dense — itis harder. Taut. In fact, tension gives greater “vehemence” to the percussion and is thus equivalent to greater hardness. x » Ugolino da Orvieto adds that a string penetrates more quickly, and hence emits a higher sound, into a less dense air (ger subtilis). The same point is made by Francis Bacon (1624-6). In 1637 this theory was still accepted by Pierre Herigone, who however seems to get his information from Maurolico.” Completely similar consider- ations are expressed by certain writers concerning organ and wind instrument pipes. . ‘The first objections to the Ptolemaic theory come from Mersenne, who contests the above-mentioned passage and claims instead that “experience shows that a string of hemp is lighter [= has less density] and softer that one of copper alloy, yet ic emits a higher sound” (1636). thre Bedeutung fir die Musiktheorie, vol. 1, Centaurus-Verlagsgesellschaft, Pfaffenweiler 1987, pp. 222-84: 227-8; THEMISTUS: Paraphrass in Avistotelis Posteriora, et Physica, in libro item De anima {...), apud Hi. Scorum, Venezia 1570, p.155. * The first Latin wanslation appeared in Aristoxeni musici antiguissimi Harmonicorum elementorum bri us, Cl Prolemai Harmonicorum, seu de rousica libri ut |...] nunc primum latine conscripta et edita ab ‘Ant. Gogavino Graviens, apud V. Valgrisium, Venetis 1562, pp. 47-450. In che present article reference is made to the edicion of JOHN wautis: Opera mathematica, vol. ui, E Theato Sheldoniano, Oxford 1699, pp. 1-182: 6. ® ‘ucoumus URBEVETANUS: Decleratio musice discipline, ed. Allert Seay, vol. 11, American Insti- tute of Musicology, [Rome] 1962, pp. 112-6 (Lib. v): Gioserro zaniino: Sopplimenti musicali, F. de? F i, Venezia 1588, pp. 60-1. * FRANCIS BACON: syloarum or, A natural history |...], in EM: The works, vol. 1, Millar, London 3765, p. 186: “chin airis better pierced”. © saenicone: Cursus mathematicus, vo. 1, pp. 802-3. & wansenne: Harmonie universelle, “Traitez de la nature des sons”, p. 205: “Texperience fait voir que la chorde de chanvre ext plus rare et plus molle que celle d'airain, ee neantmoins qu'elle monte plus haut”.224 PATRIZIO BARBIERI On this point it is worth mentioning that in the empirical law that gives the fundamental frequency of the vibrating string, defined by various writers between 1585 and 1638, the density of the material was precisely the last parameter to be correctly evaluated. Only in 1638 was it clearly stated, by Galileo, that Brequency was inversely proportionate to the square root of density.” Most likely the petsistence of the Ptolemaic approach made the scientists of the time somewhat reluctant to subject the role of this parameter to critical re-examination. This last hypothesis would seem to be confirmed by what Descartes writes to Mersenne in October 1638, in a comment on the passage ftom the Tivo new sciences where Galileo had just advanced such observations: “He says that the sound of gold strings is lower than that of brass strings because gold is heavier; but [instead] it is rather because it is softer”.” And surprisingly, Mersenne himself, this time in July 1643, was to agree with Descartes’s opinion; in a list of objections to the Tivo new sciences — sent “in the name of the mathema- ticians of Paris to the friends of Galielo in Italy’ (Galileo himself had died in 1642) — he says among other things: “The sounds of gold strings are not lower because of the greater weight of gold, but because of its greater softness”.” This is a surprising remark, because in the Harmonie universelle he had stated that strings made with heavier metals “descend lower”, without taking into account their “softness”. He-had also included the results of experiments he himself had carried out in 1625, on strings of equal size but made of metals of different density. Though substantially in agreement with what was later said by Galileo, these results contained errors of measurement too large to allow him to deduce a law with any certainty.” Even in his Nowvelles pensées de © caer: Discorsi ¢ dimastrazioni, p. 103. On the subject see Dostrovsky: “Early vibration theory”, pp. 187-8. % meRsENNE: Correspondance, vol. vi, CNRS, Paris 1963, p. 100: “Il dit que le son des chordes d'or est plus bas que celuy des chordes de cuivre, & cause que For est plus pesant; mais cest plutost & cause gel explartsol, 31 MERSENNE: Correspondance, vol. xm, cNRS, Paris 1972, p. 222, lemer of 1 July 1643, “au nom des mathématiciens de Paris, aux amis de Galilée, en Italie”: “9°. Soni chordanim aurearum non sunt graviores ob auri maius pondus, sed ob majorem mollicem”. Thar the Italians were convinced that this ‘was due to greater density is shown by a document of ca. 1633-4, by Nicol Aggiunti, a pupil of Galileo. In it Aggiunsi asserts chat, all else being equal, a string of gold sounds about an octave lower than one of aes (= copper allay), because the latter material weighs approximately half that of gold (by a among ote things, cs confimed that at cat time a come incason of deny in the law had not yet been ceached). Sec: RAFFAELLO CAVERNT: Storia del metodo sperimentale in ala, 2 CCivelli, Firenze 1892, p. 219; aNTONIO FavaRO: “Amici e corrispondenti di Galileo Galle. roou Niccold Aggiund”, Asti del Reale lvituro Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Art, wot, P. 1, 3913-4, pp. 1°77: 74°5 (Prop. 0). 52 ‘eRsENNE: Harmonie universlle, “Traité des instrumens & chordes” p. 152: ifin fact he had hypo- thesized thar the frequency of the vibrations was inversely proportional wo che square root of densiry, Menenoe would bane found an enor of thour a qunestoe cents) in his jental ae na the density and relative frequency of gold and brass strings. In any case, the teakiee x0’) leaves no doube about his opinion on the subject: “L’on peut monter 'epinerce de aA“GALILEO’S” COINCIDENCE THEORY OF CONSONANCES 225 Figure 2. of a vibrating string (from Perrault, 1680). As one notes from the shorter wavelength, the hah baranantes are emitted by the extremities, considered as tenser than the central part. Galilée (1639), which offers a free and annotated translation of Tivo new sciences, when he gets to the point where the law of density is stated, Mersenne merely refers back to his results in the Harmonie. He also reports Galileo's obser- vation that density has more influence on the frequency of the string than the resistance of the air. A thick and light string, therefore, vibrates faster than a thin and heavy one. Hence the role of the air — which (as we saw) was still important for Ugolino da Orvieto and Francis Bacon — was thus reduced, and that of density of the material was even reversed.” So in the objections to Galileo's treatise, drawn up in 1643 “in the name of the mathematicians of Paris”, it seems likely that Mersenne was obliged to submit to the authority of the still Ptolemaic Descartes. Another demonstration of the persistence of certain erroneous theories of Antiquity on the vibrating string is offered by Claude Perrault’s Essays de physique (1680). In the post-Aristotelian De audibilibus it is stated that “the parts near the bridge itself and the screw which tightens the strings are under greater tension” than the central part (probably because the two extreme zones are less yielding to the finger’s pressure). Well, even though he does not mention his source, Perrault makes use of this assertion to explain the origin of the higher harmonics of a vibrating string. He claims that they are emitted by the two extreme zones, those believed to be tenser. He also illus- tates this in a drawing, which is actually the first attempt ever to represent the actual shape of a vibrating string emitting higher “partials” (figure 2).” Only six years later Perrault was to be confuted (though his name is not explicitly mentioned) by the Jesuit Francesco Lana Terzi.” dVargent, de cuivre et des autres metaux, dont les plus pesans descendent plus bas, c'est dire font les sons plus graves [.). MARIN MeRsENNE: Les nouvelles pensées de Galilée, ed. P. Costabel and M.-P. Lerner, vol. 1, Vrin, Paris 1973, pp. [97]-198] * De audibilibus, p. 7. > pearavrt: Exays de physique, pp. 129-30 (Figure 2 is on p. 129). Perrault seems also to be the first wwriter to use the term “partial sound” to designate one of the harmonics: his “son total” is produced by the set of the various “sons partiaux” (p. 127) % FRANCESCO LANA TERI: Magisterium nature et artis, vol. tt, Ricciardi, Brescia 1686, p. 451. This publication is also the first to allude to a matter that must have been already well known ro harpsichord. seiko and pipes: theese emir haste timbre when it is plucked near of its ends than in the part (p. 402).226 PATRIZIO BARBIERI 43. Pitch and volume of the pereusied air. As mentioned above in § 1, until the first successors of Aristotle it was held that the frequency of a sound was proportionate to the velocity of the air activated by the “striking” body. Already in the first half of the fourth century 8c Archytas had in fact observed that a rod produces a higher or lower sound when it is rotated in the air at a greater or lesser speed respectively.” In the Problems of the pseudo- Aristotle this observation was extended to the human voice: one gets a higher voice “when the movement [of the air] is quick, and a deep voice when the movement is slow”.* The modern current theory, according to which a sound is the product of many separate air blows or percussions, and in which pitch is connected with their greater or lesser frequency, is later, however, and dates to the third century Bc.” In any case the old hypothesis of Archytas can be found expressed in another form. In the above Problems we read that, unlike women and boys, “men, being strong in breathing power, move much air, and being in great quantity it must move more slowly and produce a deep voice”."® Further on it is also explained why “weak persons speak in a high-pitched [oxits] voice”: “Tt is because the weak move but litde air, and a little air travels more quickly than a larger quantity”. The statement that “frequency rises with a rise in the speed of the percussed air” could therefore be expressed in the following equivalent form: “frequency rises with the decrease in the volume of the percussed air”. This approach, however, had two main defects:'” 1. Since the loudest sounds were normally associated with violent air- movements, it followed that the loudest sounds were also necessarily high- pitched. In fact, according to Archytas: “Those [sounds] that are projected by an intense breath are loud and sharp, while those projected with weak breath are soft and low”."® 2. As already seen in § 1, the low notes and the high notes of a chord would never be able to reach the ear at the same time. ® conEN and paaskin: A source book in Greek science, p. 287. % [rszupo-Janistorie: Problems, with an English translation by W. S. Herr, vol. 1, Heinemann, London 1961, p. 2553 see also pp. 265 and 26; ® corrscuatk: “The De cudibilibus”, pp. 441-6; De audibilibus, p. 73. The repercussions of the preceding theory were in any case still evident in 1630, given that — according to Descartes and Mer- senne — “the high-pitched sound travels faster chan the low-pitched”: maxsewe: Correypondance, vol. , pp. 370 and 377. © [pseupo-lanistonts: Problems, p. 265. ™ [pseupo-lanistotie: Problems, p. 267. © GorrscHaLx: “The De audibilibus”, p. 440 "2 COHEN and DaABKIN: A source book in Greek science, p. 287.“GALILEO 'S” COINCIDENCE THEORY OF CONSONANCES 227 Here I have highlighted this second form of the theory because otherwise the expressions found in certain late-renaissance writers might seem incon- gtuous. For example, Fabio Colonna, of the Accademia Lincea, writes in 1618:"" ‘Troviamo noi che facendosi il suo- no dalla corda percossa, et quella per- cotendo l'aere intorno 2 lei, il quale risuona poi alle orecchie de gli ascol- tanti, che essendo vero che la maggior uantita d’aere mosso faccia il grave, et Sie cond funga mova pil sereidella, breve, nel medesimo modo tirata, che percid la corda breve faccia pit: acuto suono, perché move meno aere [...]. ‘We find — seeing that, in making a sound from a struck string and that [string] striking the air around i, which then resounds to the ears of the listen- ers, and it being true that the greater quantity of air moved makes 2 low sound and that a long string moves more air than a short one taut in the very same way—that therefore the short string makes a higher sound, because it moves less air [...]. To demonstrate this he also mentions the example of two round copper plates, of identical diameter but different thickness: the thicker one emits a higher sound because (Colonna explains) i it vibrates with less amplitude and therefore “moves a smaller quantity” of air. Remembering also what was already shown in § 4.2, this confirms that in those days the role played by mechanical parameters such as hardness, Young's elastic modulus and density was still not well differentiated. Confusion was also made between bodies that vibrate by internal elasticity (rods, plates) and those that instead acquire lesiuiey ares ts Geuees appliel Hons the olisute (Grins), ‘The fact that the two ways of expressing the theory “of velocity” were interchangeable is also clearly stated by Francis Bacon: “It is evident, that the percussion of the greater quantity of air causeth the baser sound; and the less quantity the more treble sound. [...] It is also evident, that the sharper or quicker percussion of air causeth the more treble sound; and the slower or heavier, the more base sound”."* This theory, however, displays all irs limita- tions when Bacon tries to use it to explain the difference of timbre between scrings plucked in two different ways: “in playing upon the lute or virginals, the quick stroke or touch is a great life to the sound. The cause is, for thar the quick striking cutteth the air speedily; whereas the soft striking doth rather beat than cut”."* From the above we can also deduce that in the late Renasissance the rem- nants of this approach must surely have been a considerable obstacle to the °% sapi0 coLoNNa: La sambuca lincea, overo Dellstromento musico perfeto lib. ut{...], Vitale, Na- poli 1638, pp. 30-1. ° pacon: Sylva sylvarum, pp. 178-9. "% Bacon: ge Sylva slvarums, pp. 376-7.228 PATRIZIO BARBIERI affirmation of the pulse theory. In 1646 Nicola Cabeo considered it proper to warn his readers that “the sound is not high-pitched because it moves less air’, and explained that because of the isochronism of the oscillations the frequency of the string remains the same even if there is an increase in the amplitude of the vibrations (hence intensity of the sound).'” As late as 1670 Honoré Fabri accused Mersenne of being very muddled on the matter, in a passage from his Cagivata physico-mathematica (1644). Full acceptance of the pulse theory was to arrive only after Newton's Principia (1687): with the introduction of the concept of wave length he in fact transformed the pulse theory into the present “wave theory”. 5. Conclusions 1. The coincidence theory is already found in Nicomachus of Gerasa (second century AD), who seems to have quantized an idea of Euclid. In 1575 the mathematician Francesco Maurolico arrives at the same con- clusions, by explicitly forming his ideas on Nicomachus, whose hypothesis on the subject were transmitted through Boethius. Even Mersenne, the first to publish the theory after Maurolico and Benedetti, declares in 1623 that he had based himself on Nicomachus ~ Boethius. 3. The most awkward aspects of the coincidence theory —and its apparent conflict with the harmonic intervals that did not belong to Zarlino’s senario — were identified around the mid seventeenth century (i.e. before hitherto supposed) in the Florentine environment (Francesco Nigetti, Orazio Rica- soli Rucellai and Honoré Fabri). Later developments, leading to a prelim- inary formulation of the modern theory of beats and hence of consonance, were also already mentioned in Mersenne (1636-7); at the end of the century they were quantized by Joseph Sauveur. The repercussions on the physiology of the ear, in Mersenne and Galileo limited to the eardrum, were subsequently extended to the inner ear by Dortous de Mairan (1737). 4. The coincidence theory is based on considerations connected with the frequency of the vibrations of a musical string. On this subject Maurolico precedes Benedetti, Beeckman, Mersenne and Galileo in asserting that 1 caneo: Jn libros meteorclogicoruim Arisotelis Commentariz, Lib. u, p. 288 and Index: “Sonus non est magis acutus quia minus acris moveat”. 18 pases: Physica, vol. , p. 376: “hie cert omirtere non possum, authorem reflexionum Physico- ‘Mathematicarum tantulism hallucinarum esse, c. 20 pag. 270 ubi dicit, sonum eiusdem acuminis, ese ‘quoque eiusdem intensionis; in quo certe assentiri non possum; nempé intensio ad magnitudinem soni, non verd ad ad acumen refercuc". 1 Salli 3686, the pulse theory was rejected, for example, by the above-cited Francesco Lana Terzi, head of the chair of mathematics at the University of Ferrara: LaNA TER: Magitterium nature et artis, ‘vol. 1, pp. 454-5. On Newton's contribution see Dostrovske: “Early vibration theory”, pp. 209710. e“GALILEO 's” COINCIDENCE THEORY OF CONSONANCES 229 pitch is proportional to frequency, a hypothesis that was not accepted by everyone still in the first half of the seventeenth century. However, he also adds some erroneous considerations, of Ptolemaic origin, concerning the density of the string’s material. Such considerations, which are incidentally also found in Ugolino da Orvieto (ca. 1430-40) and Zarlino (1588), were to survive even in Descartes (1638). And to Descartes’ erroneous arguments, Mersenne surprisingly lent his support in 1643, even though Galileo five years previously had completed the empirical law, in which he correctly included the term corresponding to density. ‘The conclusion suggested by the above is that in the initial phases of the scientific revolution the theory of Nicomachus ~ Boethius formed the nucleus of the coincidence theory, while Ptolemy's theory was instead just an obstacle to a proper understanding of the physics of the vibrating string. So Galileo found himself contesting Prolemy not only on the astronomic front, but also on the acoustic. (iranslated by Hugh Ward-Perkins) Patrizio Barbieri teaches at the University of Lecce (Musical acoustics, Applied acoustics, His- ory of rausical theories) and at the Universita Gregoriana of Rome (Ancient organs). He has published mary soudies related to these topics.230 PATRIZIO BARBIERI SOMMARIO La teoria delle consonanze ‘di Galileo’, da Nicomaco a Sauveur Nel 1558 Zarlino ridefini il problema pitagorico delle consonanze, stabi- lendo che consonanti fossero solo i rapporti armonici contenuti nel ‘senario’, quelli ciot costituiti dai numeri interi compresi tra 1 ¢ 6. Il ‘senario’ zarlinia- no, giustificato sulla base di criteri platonico-mistici, nella prima met del Seicento venne a stia volta gradualmente rimpiazzato da una teoria fisica, oggi detta ‘delle coincidenze’: secondo tale teoria, un intervallo é tanto piti conso- nante quanto maggiore é il numero di vibrazioni ‘coincident’ — cio’ in fase — delle note the compongono. Fino a buona parte del Settecento, que- stultima venne riguardata come la piti accreditata giustificazione scientifica delle consonanze musicali ¢ fu tradizionalmente attribuita a Galileo (Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche intorno a due nuove scienze, 1638). In seguito all’esame della corrispondenza di Marin Mersenne ¢ del Journal inedito di Iseac Beeckman, nel 1932 la prima formulazione di tale teoria fu perd fatta risalire a quest'ultimo autore (1614-5). Claude Palisca, in un im- portante articolo del 1961, la fece ulteriormente arretrare, avendola riscontra- ta in una pubblicazione del matematico Giovanni Battista Benedetti (1585). Dal presente studio risultera che essa non @ affatto un prodotto originale del- la rivoluzione scientifica, ma che invece proviene dall’antichita greco-romana (Nicomaco), ¢ come tale fu ricevuta dai teorici del rinascimento, primo fra tutti Francesco Maurolico (1575). Nel Seicento essa ebbe inoltre importanti sviluppi. Vediamo ora per sommi capi il contenuto dei quattro paragrafi in cui @ stato distribuito il materiale (il § 5 contiene le conclusioni). § 1. Verso la met& del secondo secolo d.C. il matematico Nicomaco di Gerasa propone una sua spiegazione del fenomeno della consonanza (serven- dosi anche di elementi delle teorie dei suoi predecessori). Essa ci & stata tra- mandata dal De institutione musica di Severino Boezio (secolo sesto): (1) nel- Porecchio umano, i singoli impulsi sonori emessi da una corda vibrante si fondono in modo da dare origine 2 una nota continua, (2) se si aggiunge una seconda nota, essa former consonanza con la prima qualora i suo! impulsi si inseriscano in modo da amalgamarsi il pits possibile con quelli della prima, il che avviene quanto piti alto @ il numero delle lora coincidenze, cio® quanto pit alto @ il loro grado di commensurabilits. Cid & confermato dalla seguente classificazione degli intervalli armonici, in ordine decrescente di consonanza, fornita dallo stesso Nicomaco: ottava (2:1), duodecima (3:1), decimaquinta (4:1), quinta (3:2), quarta (4:3)."GALILEO 'S” COINCIDENCE THEORY OF CONSONANCES 231 § 2, Tale teoria venne ripresa nel rinascimento. La prima fonte documen- tata — segnalatami da Guido Mambella, che ringrazio — 2 costituita dagli Opuscula mathematica di Francesco Maurolico (1575). In una introduttoria Boetianae musicae epitome, il matematico messinese cost riassume il passo in questione: «La commensurabilita delle percussioni da luogo alla consonanza». Nella pagina seguente aggiunge sue personali considerazioni, fra le quali al- cune confermano la sua adesione a tale teoria e alla citata classificazione di Nicomaco. Posteriore é quindi Papporto, gia noto, di Benedetti (pubblicato nel 1585, anche se il manoscritto otiginale — ora perso — potrebbe essere anteriore al 1565) e di Beeckman (1614-5). ‘Anche Marin Mersenne, il primo a pubblicare tale teoria dopo Maurolico e Benedetti, nel 1623 dichiara di essersi basato sul De institutione musica, Pri- ma di Galileo (1638), anche Isaac Beekman (1614-5), Michaél Keller (1636), Pierre Herigone (637) ¢ forse Nicola Cabeo (1621) erano giunti alle stesse conclusioni. § 3. I pit contraddittori asperti della teoria delle coincidenze —e il suo apparente conffitro con gli intervalli armonici non appartenenti al ‘senario’ zailiniano —furono rilevati prima di quanto finora supposto, nel terzo quarto del Seicento, da Francesco Nigetti, Orazio Ricasolii Rucellai (che dal 163s fu gentiluomo di camera del granduca Ferdinando 1 e quindi vicino all'entourage galileiano) ¢ Honoré Fabri. Ulteriori sviluppi, che portarono a una prima formulazione della moderna teoria dei battimenti ¢ quindi della consonanza, si trovano inoltze gia menzionati da Mersenne (1636-7); alla fine del secolo essi vennero messi in forma quantitativa da Joseph Sauveur. Le ripercussioni sulla fisiologia dell orecchio, in Mersenne e in Galileo ancora limitate al timpano, furono nel 1737 estese all’orecchio interno (membrana basilare) da Dortous de Mairan. § 4. La teoria delle coincidenze si basa su considerazioni connesse alla fre- quenza delle vibrazioni della corda. A tale riguardo Maurolico precede Bene- detti, Beeckman, Mersenne e Galileo nell’affermare che l‘altezza del suono prodotto & proporzionale alla frequenza delle vibrazioni, ipotesi che ancora nel- Ja prima meta del Seicento non da tutti era accettata. Maurolico aggiunge perd alcune erronee considerazioni di derivazione tolemaica, riguardanti la densita del maceriale costituente la corda. Queste ultime, che del resto si tro- vano anche in Ugolino da Orvieto (ca. 1430-40) ¢ Zarlino (1588), persisteranno ancora in René Descartes (1638). Mersenne (1625-36) sara il primo a conte- stare — su basi sperimentali — tale dottrina, ma sorprendentemente nel 1643 si fara portavoce delle critiche, ancora di impianto tolemaico, che proprio su questo punio Descartes sollevera contro Galileo (quando quest’ultimo aveva232 PATRIZIO BARBIERI ormai da cinque anni complerato la legge empirica della corda vibrante, in- serendo correttamete il termine corrispondente alla densit). Quanto ora esposto ci permerte di concludere che — nelle fasi iniziali della tivoluzione scientifica — la teoria di Nicomaco-Boezio and a costituire il nucleo della teoria delle coincidenze, mentre invece quella di Tolomeo fu solo di ostacolo alla corretta comprensione della fisica della corda vibrante. Galileo si trovd quindi a combattere quest ultimo autore non solamente sul fronte astronomico, ma anche su quello acustico. Patrizio Barbieri t profesore a contratto preso l'Universita di Lecce (Acustica musicale, Acusti- ca applicata, Storia delle teorie musicali) e 'Universith Gregoriana di Roma (Organi antichi). Ha pubblicato studi concernenti le materie in oggetto.