Hermann's Major Sixth

Author(s): Richard L. Crocker

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of the American Musicological Society, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Spring, 1972), pp. 19-37
Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the American Musicological Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/830298 .
Accessed: 03/02/2013 13:24

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of California Press and American Musicological Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Musicological Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:24:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Hermann'sMajorSixth

BY RICHARD L. CROCKER

To begin with, let us look at one rule for recognizing the modes which
has hitherto been dug out as a rough mass, so to speak, by previous writers, but
not fully worked clear of dross, and let us state it in such a way that it may
stand forth clear and pure for earnest students. This matter of recognition, to
be sure, though it may be reduced to a brief statement, is nevertheless ex-
tensive and notable in character, since that which is very elegantly indicated
in it finds a place among the proper and rightful foundations of the modes.

HESEARE THE WORDSof Hermannus Contractus, writing around the

middle of the i ith century.' In taking them for a text, and also a motto,
this article will discuss what Hermann meant and will try to polish up
something roughed out by others.2 It seems to me that Hermann had a
certain justification for speaking as he did and that the precious thing he
presented at the end of his Musica had been in fact a primary goal of early
medieval theorists since Hucbald in the 9th century.
Hermann goes on to describe what he has in mind (see also Table 1a).
Take any tetrachord you wish-say, that of the graves; add a tone at both
ends; you then have the limits of the tonal patterns which form the basis of
the modes. There are four modes and as many tonal patterns. The first tonal
pattern is that which falls a tone and rises a first species Fifth: this is recognized
in the Antiphon Prophetae praedicaverunt, in the In tuo adventu, and in
similar ones which do not exceed six pitches in range. This pattern is recogniza-
ble on the principal pitches of protus, A, D, a, d. The second pattern, which

1 Musica Hermanni Contracti, ed. and trans. Leonard Ellinwood ([Rochester,

N. Y.]: Eastman School of Music, 1936), p. 57. "Ut vero coepimus ad huc unam
de agnitione troporum regulam a maioribus quidem ut rudem massam effossam,
sed non pleniter a rubigine excoctam videamus eamque ut diligentibus constare
p9terit lucidam et puram reddamus.Quae videlicet agnitio licet contracta sit brevitate,
tamen lata et celebris est nobilitate; quia quod valde pulcrum in ea notatur, inter
proprias et legitimastroporum sedes construitur."
2
Jacques Handschin, Der Toncharakter:eine Einfiihrung in die Tonpsychologie
(Ziirich, 1948), pp. 316-39, especially pp. 332-35, refers to the passages to be dis-
cussed here and comments on them in his characteristically incisive but sometimes
mercurialway. His discussion indicates the fundamentalimportance of these materials
and opens up many (sometimes conflicting) ways of using them. Nonetheless, these
materialshave not become part of our common understandingof medieval theory-
partly because of Handschin's interpretation of them. My purpose in recapitulating
the whole matter here is to lay the foundations for a somewhat different interpre-
tation. Valuable discussions are also found in two books by Handschin's pupil,
Hans Oesch, Guido von Arezzo, Publikationen der Schweizerischen Musikfor-
schenden Gesellschaft, Ser. II, Vol. IV (Berne, 1954), and Berno und Hermann von
Reichenau als Musiktheoretiker,Publikationender Schweizerischen Musikforschenden
Gesellschaft, Ser. II, Vol. IX (Berne, z96I), especially pp. 234-37.

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:24:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
20 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MIUSICOLOGICAL
SOCIETY

falls two tones and rises a second species Fourth, and which is found on the
principal pitches of deuterus, B, E, ? [b quadratumi], e, is exemplified by the
Antiphon Gloria haec est, and similar ones, whether authentic or plagal, which
do not exceed six pitches in range. The third pattern falls a third species Fourth
and rises two tones, as established on the principal pitches of tritus, C, F, c, f;
an example of this occurs in the Antiphon Modicum et non videbitis, and the
like. The fourth tonal pattern, which rises a tone and falls a fourth species
Fifth, we assign to tetrardus, since the principal pitches of that mode, D, G,
d, g, establish it; this can be recognized in the Antiphons Si vere fratres and
Multi venient, and the like. These, then, which have been described as com-
posed of six pitches, exhibit the perfection both of the number six and of the
largest interval, which consists of that number of pitches."
In spite of the fact that Hermann speaks of "recognition of the modes,"
what he has presented here is not a particularly useful description of the
eight modes as we usually think of them-or even of the four finals as
found in many pieces. Hermann has to go to some trouble to pick out
pieces that fall within the limits of a major sixth. And in the case of the
fourth tonal pattern, his scheme ascends only one whole tone from the
final (G), which will not take us far in working with most G-final pieces.
We might infer from the selection of Si vere fratres (range G up to e)
that in this case we are to locate the chant on the pitches G to e while
imagining a tetrardus final on d, so that the description of the pitch set
("rises a tone and falls a fourth species Fifth") corresponds exactly to that

SMusica Hermanni, trans. Ellinwood, pp. 57-59. "Accipe tetrachordum quod-

cumque volueris, verbi gratia gravium, addito utrinque tono, habes terminos
modorum qui fiunt sedes troporum. Sunt autem quatuor tropi, et totidem vocum
modi. Primus modus vocum est qui tono deponitur et prima specie diapente in-
tenditur; hic habet agnitionem in hac antiphona, Prophetae praedicaverunt, et In
tuo adventu, et similibus quae sex chordas non excedunt. Hic modus in principalibus
secunda
proti chordis, A, D, a, d, agnoscitur. Secundum modum ditono remissum et
specie diatessaron intensum in principalibus chordis deuteri, B, E, ? [b quadratum],
e, existentem, pandit haec antiphona, Gloria haec est, et similes seu autenticae seu
subiugales, quae sex chordas non excedunt. Tercius modus tercia specie diatessaron
remittitur et ditono intenditur, sicut triti principales chordae, C, F, c, f, declarant;
huius indicium est in hac antiphona, Modicum et non videbitis et similibus. Quartum
modum vocum tono intensum et quarta specie diapente remissum tetrardo aptamus;
quia ipsius principales chordae D, G, d, g illum conficiunt. Qui in his antiphonis,
Si vere fratres, et Multi venient et similibus potest dinosci. Quae ergo dicta sunt in
sex vocibus constructa tam senarii numeri quam maximi intervalli quod tot vocibus
constat perfectionem demonstrant."
Ellinwood calls attention (p. 57) to the importance of the set of pitches around
the final and quotes from the dissertation of Frederick S. Andrews, "Medieval Modal
Theory" (Cornell University, 1935), who calls it a "modal nucleus." Of the pieces
cited by Hermann in this passage, Propbetae praedicaverunt appears in Le Codex F
i6o de la Bibliothdque de la Catbhdralede Worcester, Paleographie musicale, Vol.
XII (1922-25), p. 18; Gloria haec est, although in neither the Worcester nor the
Lucca Antiphonaries, appears in Corpus antiphonalium officii, ed. R.-J. Hesbert,
Rerum ecclesiasticarum documenta, Series major, Fontes VII (Rome, 1963), at
iMonza I 15, Matins for All Saints; Modicum et non videbitis is an Antiphon at the
Magnificat, tone 6, for Vespers of Saturday before the Third Sunday after Easter,
LU (Desclke, 1950), p. 820-not the Communion Antiphon, LU p. 824, cited by
Ellinwood p. 68; Si vere fratres is an Antiphon at None of Sexagesima, LU p. 509.

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:24:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HERMANN'S MAJOR SIXTH 21

of the chant; only then the final we have located is not in the same posi-
tion as the final of the chant, G. This confusion is, I believe, an indication
that Hermann's ultimate purpose is not a mere identification of individual
finals. This point will be pursued later in the article.
Why the limitation to a sixth-this particular sixth? Hermann says,
"Take any tetrachord you wish-say, that of the graves ..." and goes on
to say that a given tonal pattern can be found at each of the four "princi-
pal pitches" in each mode, for example A, D, a, d in protus. For Hermann,
a tetrachord is a first species fourth (one with a semitone in the middle)
and the tetrachord of the graves is A, B, C, D. The other tetrachords are
those of the finales (D, E, F, G) the superiores (a, b, c, d) and the
excellentes (d, e, f, g). (See Table ib.) In each of these locations, the
ascents and descents around each of the four finals are identical as long as
the range of the major sixth is not exceeded. For example, start on low A
and ascend through the fifth to E; that ascent is identical to the ascent
starting on D up though a. In each case the ascent has reached the top of
the range of the major sixth (r-E, C-a). To ascend further would bring
a semitone in one case (to F), but a whole tone in the other (to bk). A
bb would be required to preserve the identity in ascent. Only within the

TABLE I
HERMANN'S MAJOR SIXTH

E a e aa
D G d g tetrardus

C F c f tritus
B E e deuterus

A D a d protus J
r C G c

b.

"graves" "superiores"
I II III IV I II III IV

F A B C D E F G a c d e f g aa

I II III IV I II III IV
"finales" "excellentes"
l 1

I = protus r- I= major sixth

II = deuterus = tetrachord
III = tritus
IV = tetrardus

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:24:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
22 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

TABLE 2
GUIDO'S MAJOR SIXTH

E a

D G tetrardus

tritus C F I
deuterus B E

protus A D

r C

I II III

I A B C D E F G a C
I II III

IV

major sixth are the ascents and descents around the four finals identical
at all locations of these finals. And the multiple locations of the finals
seem to play an essential role in the whole construction.
This, for the moment, seems to be the meaning of Hermann's major
sixth. It is obviously a complex, second-order concept; how and especially
why it should have been developed are questions not easily answered. We
can believe Hermann when he tells us it was the work of more than one
theorist. We should believe him, I think, when he expresses belief in its
value for music theory.
Is it possible to identify the other theorists Hermann has in mind? The
most immediate source for Hermann's sixth seems to be Guido's Micro-
logus. Hans Oesch, in his very useful book Berno und Hermann, finds no
direct evidence that Hermann knew the work of Guido; and yet even
Oesch points to several indications of a possible relationship.4 It seems to
me that if we consider Chapter 7 of the Micrologus in the light of the
passage quoted from Hermann, the connection becomes evident (see
Table 2).
Since, moreover, there are seven pitches (the others, as I said, being the
same) it suffices to explain in sevens what different modes and qualities
there are.
The first tonal pattern is down a tone, and up a tone, semitone, and two
tones, as from A or D.
SOesch, Berno und Hermann, p. 239-

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:24:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HERMANN'S MAJOR SIXTH 23

The second tonal pattern is down two tones, and up a semitone and two
tones, as from B or E.
The third tonal pattern is down a semitone and two tones, and up two
tones, as from C and F.
The fourth tonal pattern is down a tone, and up two tones and a semitone,
as from G.
And note that these follow one another in order, for the first is on A, the
second on B, the third on C; then the first is on D again, the second on E, the
third on F, the fourth on G. Also note the affinities of the pitches arranged by
fourths and fifths: A is joined to D, B to E, and C to F, by a fourth below and
a fifth above, as shown here.5
In discussing ascents and descents around the four finals, Guido con-
tains three sets within a major sixth-the same sixth as Hermann-but
places the ascent and descent around the fourth final in a separate range
bounded by a fifth (F-c). The similarity between Guido's arrangement and
Hermann's is clear, and the difference between them seems to correspond
exactly to Hermann's words, "not fully worked clear of dross." And when
Hermann goes on to criticize his predecessor the connection becomes
even clearer.
Now these persons of whom we are speaking, ignorant of the fact that the
patterns we have spoken of consist most perfectly of six pitches, adopted seven
pitches, regularly laying out the three modes on A, B, C, but denying the
existence of the fourth mode; and seeking again a sequence of the above-
mentioned modes by similar rule on D, E, F, they fixed the fourth mode finally
on G alone, making it fall a tone and rise two tones and a semitone. Their error
was threefold as we have said because firstly they did not set this same mode
off against its opposite, i.e. protus, in the way we have described; secondly they
extended it beyond the pattern and exceeded the legitimate limit of six pitches
which begins on C and sretches to a; and finally they make this extension with
no established species.6
5 Guidonis Aretini Micrologus, ed. Joseph Smits van Waesberghe, Corpus scrip-
torum de musica, Vol. IV ([Rome], 1955), pp. 117-19. "Cum autem septem sint voces,
quia aliae ut diximus, sunt eaedem, septenas sufficit explicare, quae diversorum
modorum et diversarum sunt qualitatum. Primus modus vocum est, cum vox tono
deponitur et tono et semitonio duobusque tonis intenditur, ut .A. et .D. Secundus
modus est, cum vox duobus tonis remissa semitonio et duobus tonis intenditur, ut
.B. et .E. Tertius est qui semitonio et duobus tonis descendit, duobus vero tonis
ascendit, ut .C. et .F. Quartus vero deponitur tono, surgit autem per duos tonos
et semitonium, ut .G. Et nota quod se per ordinem sequuntur, ut primus in .A.,
secundus in .B., tertius in .C. Itemque primus in .D., secundus in .E., tertius in .F.,
quartus in .G. Itemque nota has vocum affinitates per diatessaron et diapente con-
structas: .A. enim ad .D., et .B. ad .E., et .C. ad .F., a gravibus diatessaron, ab
acutis vero diapente coniungitur hoc modo."
6Musica Hermanni Contracti, trans. Ellinwood, p. 60. "Hi ergo de quibus
loquimur, ignorantes ea quae dicta sunt in sex vocibus perfectissime constare, dum
exactis regulariter tribus tropis per A, B, C quartus secundum eos defuisset, assump-
serunt ad huc septem voces et ante dictorum troporum ordinem aequali regula per
D, E, F repetentes, quartum demum tropum per solum G tono remissum, duobus
tonis semitonioque intendebant, ter ut dictum est delinquentes, quia eundem tropum
contra oppositum suum, id est protum eo quo dictum est modo non converterunt,
deinde quod eum supra modum intendentes, legitimam sex vocum metam excesserunt,
quae a C incipiens in a porrigitur, postremo eandem intensionem nulla propria
specie confecerunt."

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:24:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
24 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MIUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Hermann's account in this passage of the view he is criticizing seems to

coincide exactly with Guido's Chapter 7 of the Micrologus-the parallel-
ism of the three finals A, B, C, with D, E, F, and especially the anomalous
construction of the range of a fifth around G.
From the context in the Micrologus we can determine that Guido's
purpose is the same as Hermann's: he wants to express the interval set
within which the ascents and descents around the finals are identical in
their several locations. Guido, however, apparently felt that to express the
ascent and descent from the fourth final, G, within the major sixth C-a
was undesirable-either because it would not be useful for pieces on a G-
final, or because he felt the ascent and descent around G were sufficiently
different from those around any other pitch as to render analogy fruit-
less. At any rate, he does not find a tetrardus final a fourth below G
or a fifth above (corresponding to the alternate locations of protus, deu-
terus, and tritus on A, B, C); and he designates an interval set for the
ascent from G that would require an F? if constructed in one of these
alternate locations.
Guido calls the alternate locations of the finals "affinities" and spends
a relatively large portion (Chapters 7 and 8, and in a certain sense 9 and
io) of the very condensed Micrologus pursuing the implications of these
affinities. One result is a very interesting but not often noticed construc-
tion embodied in the diagram of Chapter 8.7 The diagram is not without
its difficulties; and of it Guido says, "If anyone seeks in the diagram a
representation of anything we have discussed, he can find it there," which
leaves room for more than one interpretation. But the most striking fea-
ture is the insistence on three basic pitches. These are specified in the
diagram itself as C, D, E, although it might seem from the discussion just
before the diagram that they were D, E, F. Guido seems to be saying that
the ascents and descents around finals can be subsumed under three basic
categories, which because of the construction of the diatonic system have
to be-or can be-expressed by various letters. He seems to be emphasiz-
ing that these three categories, however expressed, are more basic than
either the scale as a whole or the usual doctrine of four finals. In Chapter
7 he treated the fourth final as an exception to his rule of the major sixth;
here in Chapter 8 he locates the fourth final in the group of notes F, G, a,
b?-as a subsidiary group in comparison to the principal finals C, D, E.
Expressing Guido's thought specifically in terms of finals, then, it can
be argued (as I think Guido was arguing) that three finals are all the
finals there really are-if one considers only the immediate ascent from
the final. That is, one kind of final has above it a whole tone, then another
whole tone; a second kind has above it a whole tone, then a semitone; a
third kind has a semitone, then a whole tone. There are no other kinds, at

7 Guidonis Aretini Micrologus, ed. Sinits van Waesberghe, p. I29; cf. Handschin,
Der Toncharakter, pp. 324-25.

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:24:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HERMANN'S MAJOR SIXTH 25

least in the diatonic system. But what is the purpose of limiting so drastic-
ally the range to be considered? Perhaps we might understand Guido a
little better if we called his first final "major," his second "minor," his third
"phrygian," recalling that those are the three principal cadences (from
some points of view, the only ones) in polyphony as used in either a two-
part system or a triadic one. None of that, of course, was in Guido's mind
in the early i ith century. But one could say that he wanted to express the
relationship of finals to the whole diatonic system as simply, as concisely,
as he could.
For the time being, however, Guido's suggestion of three finals was
not followed; and Hermann, at least, felt that instead of emphasizing three
finals it would be better to normalize the four within the major sixth.
From Guido to Hermann, then, we can follow the logic easily; but what
lay behind Guido?
Hans Oesch has shown convincingly that Guido's general approach
in the Micrologus proceeds directly from the Dialogus, known for con-
venience as Odo's-although certainly not by Odo of Cluny, but rather
written around 00ooo.8With its exclusive reliance on the monochord, the
Dialogus seems the most pragmatic of early treatises. At the end of the
Dialogus is a passage that is roughly analogous to Guido's Chapter 7, but
with a significant difference: in the Dialogus's account of the ascents and
descents, and also in the location of the finals, there is little or no system-
certainly no major sixth-only a carefully pragmatic response to the reali-
ties of the chant. (The Dialogus, for example, locates a deuterus on a with
bb directly above; and that location was indeed used for certain Antiphons
as they were fixed on staff notation during the I and I2th centuries.)
So while the Dialogus may be systematic in somelth other respects, it is not
so with respect to ascents and descents around the finals; if Guido's ar-
rangement is less systematic than Hermann's, it is vastly more so than that
of the Dialogus, which knows nothing of a common range of a major
sixth.
In spite of the scorn with which Guido (and Hermann too) refer to
the Musica enchiriadis and its erratic scale, there do seem to be points of
contact; Handschin was aware of them.9 From the MS representation, if
nothing else, it is clear that the Musica enchiriadis was not as isolated in
the Ioth and I th centuries as one might think.10 At any rate, Guido and
8 Oesch, Guido von Arezzo, pp. 41-53, 72-1ii. The question of authorship is
pursued in the very impressive study by Michel Huglo, "L'auteur du Dialogue sur
la musique," Revue de musicologie, LV (1969), 119-71; Huglo comes to the con-
clusion that the Dialogus remains anonymous. Text of the Dialogus in Martin
Gerbert, Scriptores ecclesiastici de musica sacra, (San-Blasian, 1784), I, 252-64;
part translated in Oliver Strunk, Source Readings in Music History (New York,
1950), pp. 105-16.
9 Der Toncharakter,
pp. 323-24; see also Oesch, Berno und Hermann, pp. 239-40.
Text of the Musica enchiriadis in Gerbert, Scriptores, I,
i52-73.
10 See, for example, Joseph Smits van Waesberghe, ed., The Theory of Music,
Vol. I, RISM, B III1 (Munich, 196I), index s.v. "Enchirias."

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:24:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
26 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

TABLE 3
SCALEOF THE Musica enchiriadis

.. I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV I II...

[r A Bb C D E F G a c d e f# g aa cc #~

Hermann do not sound as though they were criticizing something of no

importance."1
Explicit in the terminology of the Musica enchiriadis is the fact that
its scale is built upon a tetrachord of the finals-protus, deuterus, tritus,
tetrardus (Table 3). The peculiarity of the scale is due to the fact that the
constituent tetrachords are disjunct, never conjunct: there is always a
whole tone of disjunction between the tetrardus of one tetrachord and
the protus of the next higher one. As a result, the scale does not embody
consistent octave duplication, for on one hand the same function (such as
protus) does not return at the distance of an octave (D is protus, d is
tetrardus, e is protus). On the other hand not all pitches have a corre-
sponding scale degree an octave higher or lower (B is flat, b is natural).
Instead of octave duplication, the scale embodies consistent duplication
at the fifth, comparable-but more consistent-to Guido's affinity at the
fifth. As Handschin observed, Hermann's instructions, "Take any tetra-
chord ... add a tone at either end ..." apply exactly to the constituent
tetrachord of the Musica enchiriadis scale, the tones added at either end
corresponding to the tones of disjunction between successive tetrachords.
Hence Hermann's major sixth could be found around every tetrachord in
the scale of the Musica enchiriadis, suggesting that the anonymous author
shared Hermann's interest in establishing identities among the various
locations of the finals.
The idea of constructing a scale out of a single kind of tetrachord was
as old as the Greeks. The use of the tetrachord of the finals, however,
was obviously not that old. I find it first in Hucbald's De harmonica in-
stitutione, although its presence there was not noted by Handschin or
Oesch, nor was it identified by Weakland; its importance in Hucbald
has not been generally recognized.12
Hucbald runs down and up the Greater Perfect System first using the
11 Guidonis Aretini Micrologus, ed. Smits van Waesberghe, pp. 112-13; Musica
Hermanni Contracti, ed. Ellinwood, pp. 23-24, 40.
12 Oesch, Berno und Hermann,
pp. 104-6, believes the Musica enchiriadis to be
the first to use the tetrachord of the finals. Handschin touches upon the matter in
Der Toncharakter, p. 323, but without identifying the tetrachord of the finals.
Rembert Weakland, O.S.B., "Hucbald as Musician and Theorist," The Musical
Quarterly, XLII (1956), 66-84, describes the construction but likewise fails to
identify the tetrachord of the finals or to perceive its significance (pp. 8o-8i). In
addition to being extremely useful, Weakland's article certainly provides the right
approach to Hucbald and to early theorists in general: "He [Hucbald] selects
from Boethius only that which serves his purpose and constructs a new theory
conforming to the practice of his day" (p. 84). But much more needs to be said

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:24:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HERMANN'S MAJOR SIXTH 27

Greek tetrachord-the one with the semitone at the bottom (mese,

lichanos, parhypate, hypate, or a, G, F, E).13 (See Table 4.) Then he runs
TABLE 4
HUCBALD'S TWO TETRACHORDS

Greek Greater Tetrachord

Tetrachord Perfect System of the Finals

aa nete

hyperbolaion g paranete

f trite
Se nete
diezeugmenonnete
d nete d paranete

synemmenon J paranete c trite c

1 paramese
b trite b synemmenon
a mese a mese a
meson G lichanos G

F parhypate
E hypate
hypaton D lichanos
C parhypate
B hypate

A proslambanomenos

(r)

about the tonal constructions Hucbald uses and does not use, and his methods
need to be set in a more specific historical context. See also Joseph Smits van
Waesberghe, "La place exceptionelle de l'ars musica dans le developpement des
sciences au siecle des carolingiens," Revue gregorienne, XXXI (1952), 81-104. Text
of Hucbald in Gerbert, Scriptores, I, io4-z1; corrections and observations by Weak-
land, loc. cit. Hucbald's remarks on the tetrachord of the finals on pp. 111-14.
It is extremely frustrating, in the context of this article, to be able to do no
more than point to the passage in which Hucbald apparently refers to a "cithara
of six strings"; he cites the two Antiphons Cure audisset populus (LU, p. 586)
and Hodie completi sunt (LU, p. 886), and shows in a diagram of another Antiphon,
Ecce vere Israhelita, that he has in mind the major sixth used by Hermann. See
Weakland, pp. 77-78; Gerbert, Scriptores, I, og9.
13 I continue to use the letter notation (r, A, . . . G, a . . .) for the convenience
of the modern reader. It must be remembered that-in spite of the habit of many
scholars to call it "the medieval letter notation"-this notation did not exist before
the Dialogus, ca. iooo, coming into general use only after that time. Before
Iooo
there was no standard letter notation or any standard way of naming pitches other

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:24:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
28 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MIUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

down and up the Greater Perfect System a second time using a different
tetrachord; this tetrachord is the tetrachord of the four finals, with the
semitone in the middle (lichanos hypaton, hypate, parhypate, lichainos,or
D, E, F, G). This tetrachord had no function (other than being one of the
three species of fourths) in Greek theory and is applied here by Hucbald
to the Greater Perfect System-apparently for the first time.
What could be the purpose of articulating the scale into smaller units
such as the tetrachord-as Hucbald did and as most other theorists did
after him? Why, when early theorists had a complete scale-the Greater
Perfect System-did they go through all this business with scale segments?
We should note, for another discussion, the fact that Hucbald also had at
his disposal pitch names (the Greek ones), various Roman-letter notations
as suggested in Boethius, as well as the traditional Greek-letter notations
that have been called "vocal" and "instrumental." Hucbald actually used
the Greek names and recommended an adaptation of one of the Greek-
letter notations; nevertheless, for reasons he himself set forth, the neumatic
notations prevailed, and the West did not settle on a letter notation until
after the Dialogus.14 The general lesson we can read out of this is that the
passing on of precept in the person of the teacher was at that time more
reliable than any graphic alternative for preserving the totality of a piece
of chant. It was not the case that alternatives were altogether lacking; only
that alternatives were inadequate-that is, not as good as personal instruc-
tion.15
But if that was true, why did the Frankish chant teachers bother to
create theory, to conceptualize and to systematize, in the first place? As
far as singers go, there is no theoretical problem: a singer could-and
probably did-learn the Gregorian repertory as a number of melodies to
be memorized by rote. Yet early medieval theorists diligently, enthusi-
astically pursued the construction of systematic concepts. Ultimately,
instead of specific answers we may have to be content with general ones:
these theorists were Franks, hence tended to make that characteristic
Frankish response of seeking order in things or imposing it on them. As
teachers they were in daily need of ways to communicate general con-
cepts as quickly and reliably as possible. Later on, Guido recommended
his methods for their speed and efficiency,1G and others made similar
claims. There was a great deal of chant to be sung; and if the Roman
schola cantorumn was content with rote memorization, the Frankish
monasteries clearly were not.
than the Greek names. In struggling with the Greek names without letters, we
would perhaps develop more patience and less scorn for the early medieval theorist
and what he was able to accomplish.
14 Hucbald, De harmonica institutione, Gerbert, Scriptores, I, 118.
15 Compare Guido's remark, "But such things as these are shown better by con-
ferring (colloquendo) than by writing." Micrologus, ed. Smits van Waesberghe,
p. 167.
16 Micrologus, ed. Smits van Waesberghe, Prologus, pp. 85-86.

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:24:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HERMANN'S MAJOR SIXTH 29

The point is, I think, that the Frankish musician started with the
singing of the chant and worked his way toward theoretical constructions
such as the scale, rather than the other way around. He was singer,
teacher, theorist, in that order. Cantus, not musica disciplina, was his
starting point; his curriculum was that of the monastic school of the 7th
and 8th centuries, not the liberal arts curriculum of an earlier-or a later-
time.7 The Greater Perfect System itself was not a basic assumption but
rather a theoretical abstraction, relatively remote from practical experi-
ence.
In terms of that experience there was a clear need for a scalar module
of manageable size, such as a fourth or a fifth. The Greater Perfect System
presented itself as a two-octave string of nearly unintelligible names; there
was not even explicit in the Greater Perfect System an octave module, for
the names in the upper octave did not refer to those in the lower one. Nor
was an octave module itself especially appropriate; we are so accustomed
to thinking of the octave as the basic scalar module that we do not imme-
diately recognize the circumstances under which it is inappropriate. From
the Frankish point of view, the octave seemed too large a module. When
early theorists spoke of the octave, it was often in terms of its identity of
resonance-"as when men and boys sing the same note."'8 And in con-
sidering any extended scalar construction, we have to remember that there
was no handy mechanical embodiment-no keyboard-for a standard
reference. (It is in terms of this lack that we must read the enthusiastic
recommendations of the monochord in the Dialogus, where it is first em-
ployed for practical instruction.) Any tonal structure referred to must be
sung and held in the ear. Hence the obvious advantage of using repertory
pieces of chant to illustrate, or rather to embody, tonal constructions. We
saw Hermann provide carefully chosen examples for each instance of a
final within the major sixth; Hucbald has a chant illustration for every-
thing from unisons on up. This is a specific demonstration of the central
importance of chant repertory in the development of medieval theory.
The structure of the scalar module was as pressing a matter as its size.
17 C. W.
Jones, "An Early Medieval Licensing Examination," History of Educa-
tion Quarterly, III (1963), 19-29, sets forth the point that the early monastic
curriculum was a practical one devoted primarily to Latin grammar (for reading
Scripture), computus (for keeping track of the calendar), and music, or more
properly, singing (for the daily round of services). As far as the earlier centuries
(7th to IIth) went, the monastic curriculum was based on these subjects, not
the seven liberal arts. The difference between musica in the liberal arts curriculum
and cantus in the monastic one is very large and very important. See also Joseph
Smits van Waesberghe, Musikerziebung:Lehre und Theorie der Musik im Mittelalter,
Musikgeschichte in Bildern, ed. Heinrich Besseler and Werner Bachmann, Vol. III, 3
(Leipzig, 1969), pp. 5-14. There is a striking parallel between the problem of
establishing a standard calendar out of all the conflicting methods inherited from
antiquity and the problem of establishing a standard scale. In the 7th- and 8th-
century monastery, these problems lay on the desk of the same man-the cantor-
teacher-librarian.
18
Hucbald, De harmonica institutione, Gerbert, Scriptores, I, Io7.

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:24:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
30 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

In order to appreciate the significance of the module eventually selected,

it is essential (I believe) to have at least a tentative understanding of what
was involved in the theoretical constructions that must have taken place
before 800. We do not know how these constructions were arrived at; we
know only the end product they produced-the tonary, which presented
a classification of chants according to tones or modes. The first preserved
tonary, a Frankish one, occurs in a MS dated 795-19 What follows here is
an attempt to reconstruct the essential moments in the development that
led to the tonary and the scale.
The primary step was the classification itself. This was carried out on
the basis of the final, the last note of a piece.20 Chants were grouped
according to the pattern of intervals surrounding the last note: in com-
parison to it, the rest of the chant could be perceived as moving through a
realm that extended, say, down a whole tone and up a tone, then a semi-
tone, and another tone. This manner of accounting (which persists until
Guido and Hermann) reveals the pragmatic nature of the classification;
the fact that the account takes in only a few pitches suggests (among
other things) that the musician was concentrating on the pitches immedi-
ately preceding the final in the piece of chant-the pitches still fresh in
the ear when the chant ends.
Several important moments follow close upon this classification-in-
deed, the initial decisions in a long development such as medieval theory
seem by their density of ramification to require generations for full work-
ing-out. It is essential, however, to notice first that the placement of the
several finals on a common scale-so basic a step that we take it for
granted-is actually distinct from the classification itself,21 which pre-
sumably came first as a separate step. It would be possible (by analogy)
for a pianist to learn all the sonatas of Beethoven, observing that move-
ments in major resembled each other and differed from the rest, without
ever being aware of the common tonal system within which major and
19 Michel Huglo, "Un Tonaire du Graduel de la fin du VIIIe siecle (Paris B.N.
lat. 13.159)," Revue gregorienne, XXXI (1952), 176-86, 224-33-
20 A
presumed earlier method of classification by the first note, discussed by
Willi Apel, Gregorian Chant (Bloomington, 1958), pp-. 73-74, depends upon a
misunderstanding of a passage in Aurelianus Reomensis, Musica disciplina (Gerbert,
Scriptores, I, 44), the principal piece of evidence. Aurelian, indeed, uses the word
toni in this sentence, but it is clear from the context of the chapter that he is
referring to the differentiae; and the passage only makes sense if that is the case.
If a primary classification by first note were intended, that would automatically
preclude any discussion of differentiae, whose function is to match up a psalm
tone, chosen to fit a given final, with the several different beginnings that Antiphons
with the same final may have. A classification by first note would have resulted in
a grouping (as well as an assignment of psalm tones) totally different from the
usual one. It is difficult to see what theoretical rationale or practical use it would
have had. The other piece of evidence is a comment by Regino of Priim, Epistola
de harmonica institutione (Gerbert, Scriptores, I, 231), which is less obviously
directed to the differentiae but by the same token less relevant to any kind of
modal classification. See also Huglo, "L'auteur du Dialogue sur la musique," p. 153.
21 But it is not
entirely distinct from the number of finals identified, for this
number will depend to some degree upon the type of common scale selected.

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:24:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MAJOR SIXTH 31
HERMANN'S

minor could be located. Even if such an analogy is meaningful, however,

it still may require an effort to imagine the situation as it first presented
itself to the chant singer: he would have perceived several autonomous
groups of chants, each group with its own pecular set of tones and semi-
tones, but he would not necessarily have been aware of any common
scalar denominator that would relate the groups to each other. Indeed,
there may have been no such common denominator.
At some point the finals were projected onto a diatonic system. A
diatonic system, in its simplest sense, is one in which there are at least
two whole tones between any two semitones. If octave duplication is
desired, further conditions must be met, traditionally by adding a third
whole tone onto every other pair of whole tones: . . . STTSTTTS....
Chant melodies, however, require considerably more flexibility than is
provided by such a system. Thus in the Greater Perfect System-the dia-
tonic system used by Hucbald-the synemmenon tetrachord (d, c, bb, a)
of the Lesser Perfect System had constantly to be invoked to provide the
pitches actually called for by the melodies.
Incompatibilities more subtle and profound emerge only after making
a sustained attempt to go through the process of superimposing the chant
repertory onto the Greater Perfect System. The difficulties are sufficiently
great so that, if it were not known that the process had actually occurred,
one might doubt that it could occur. But it did, and the necessary modifi-
cations undertaken by the Franks, far from proving that they "misunder-
stood" the tradition in some basic way, show in fact their characteristic
disinterest in a tradition for its own sake, their clear-headed resourceful-
ness and originality in adapting it for their own practical purposes.
One of the best ways to gain insight into the problem is to see that the
placement of the finals on the Greater Perfect System could have been ac-
complished differently than it was. For example, the final on lichanos
hypaton (D) could have been placed on mese (a) and numbered tetrardus,
the other three staying where they are but renumbered.
tetrardus mese (a)
tritus lichanos (G)
deuterus parhypate(F)
protus hypate (E)
In this case it would be necessary to raise the trite hyperbolaion (f) a
semitone frequently for the sake of those melodies that in D-protus use
paramese diezeugmenon (b ). Otherwise, this alternative makes a neater
adaptation, placing the four finals all within the meson tetrachord.
Or the tetrardus could have been placed on parhypate hypaton (C)
and numbered protus.
tetrardus parhypatemeson (F)
tritus hypate meson (E)
deuterus lichanoshypaton (D)
protus parhypatehypaton (C)

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:24:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
32 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

In this case "protus" would have used the synemmenon tetrachord (with its
bb) consistently for the sake of the trite hyperbolaion (f) normally
occurring in the G-tetrardus.
As for the way the finals were in the end actually located, the authen-
tic forms of protus and tritus (tones i and 5), when placed on lichanos
hypaton (D) and parhypate meson (F) respectively, require very fre-
quent use of the synemmenon tetrachord for the bb; and the plagal forms of
protus and tritus (tones 2 and 6) always require it, so that as far as these
positions are concerned, they are not on the Greater Perfect System at all
but rather on the Lesser Perfect System. In addition there are enough
other accidentals even within the Liber usualis (the most obvious being
at the start of the Easter Gradual Haec dies) to indicate the extent of the
gap between the reality of the chant and the theoretical abstraction of a
diatonic system.
The reason there were alternative positions available for the finals
was the fact that the Greater Perfect System had built into it a limited
amount of duplication at the fourth and at the fifth. Duplication at the
fourth was found mainly between and within conjunct tetrachords
(parhypate hypaton, C, stood in similar relationship to its neighbors as
parhypate meson, F, did to its neighbors); duplication at the fifth mainly
between and within disjunct tetrachords (mese, a, stood in the same rela-
tionship to the pitches in the diezeugmenon tetrachord above the tone of
disjunction a-bk, as lichanos hypaton, D, to the pitches up to the tone of
disjunction).22 As a result, as soon as a final was located at lichanos
hypaton (D), taking into account the note below the final and the four
notes above it, that same final-that is, the same set of interval relationships
around the final-appeared automatically at mese (a) (and also at lichanos
meson, G, if the synemmenon tetrachord were to be used). It is a misun-
derstanding to think of such alternate locations as "transpositions": it
could not have been the case that the protus was first placed at one princi-
pal position and subsequently moved to another subsidiary one. The early
theorist would first have been aware of the several alternate positions; his
problem was, precisely, which of these was to be considered the principal
one?
The projection of the finals upon a common scale adapted or devised
for this purpose must have been a difficult process; it could well have
absorbed most of the Frankish theorists' attention during the time before
800. Once accomplished (at least in the rough), the next problem was
how to understand this common scale; it is at this point that the selection
of the module becomes important. And now we can see that Hucbald's
22 Aristoxenus expressed this in his law of fourths and fifths, referred to a number
of times in his three treatises on pitch: The Harmonics of Aristoxenus, ed. and trans.
H. S. Macran (Oxford, 1902); see Richard Crocker, "Aristoxenus and Greek Math-
ematics," Aspects of Medieval and Renaissance Music, ed. Jan LaRue (New York,
1966), p. Io5.

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:24:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HERMANN'S MAJOR SIXTH 33
solution-the selection of the tetrachord of the finals-had the great
virtue of using what was most concrete in the experience of chant musi-
cians up to that time. In effect rejecting the Greek tetrachord (with the
semitone at the bottom) as a purely traditional construction, Hucbald
substituted the tetrachord of the finals as the basic module of the Greater
Perfect System. The extent to which he was willing to rebuild the tradi-
tional system as set forth in Boethius is shown by his handling of the
synemmenon tetrachord: this, too, he makes into a tetrachord of the finals,
going from lichavos meson (G) up through mese (a), trite (bb), and
paranete (c)-from the Greek point of view a completely anomalous
procedure. On one hand, Hucbald wanted to use the tetrachord of the
finals as the basic module; on the other, he needed a bb, as in the tradi-
tional synemmenon tetrachord; disregarding all other traditional aspects
that stood in his way, he proceeded to supply the bb as expeditiously as
he could.
The underlying moment in this process was (in the terms I have
suggested) to understand the extended pitch realm of the scale in terms
of the relationships among the finals---that is, the relationships among any
one final and the pitches above and below it and then the relationships
among the finals when they themselves were taken to be the pitches above
and below each other. This step led outside of and beyond any one final;
to put it another way, the ultimate purpose of the tetrachord of the finals
was not so much to understand a particular final in terms of a scalar
construction as to understand a scalar construction in terms of the net-
work of finals. For it was the scale, not the finals, that needed under-
standing. It is this difference that makes possible a positive appreciation
of the later developments.
The Musica enchiriadis was the most extreme exponent of this point
of view. The scale of the Musica enchiriadis, which is unlike any Western
scale before or since, adopts the tetrachord of the finals as the only
knowable element worth bothering with and repeats it in perpetual dis-
junction. The effect is to maximize, to universalize this tetrachord as a
module of the scale, so that the relationship among the finals provides a
complete understanding of the content of the scale. The ascents and
descents around the finals are identical-but identical-at all possible
locations of the finals. If you ask, why does the Musica enchiriadis not
use the major sixth found in Guido and Hermann, the answer is that this
sixth expresses the limits within which the ascents and descents are identi-
cal in the Greater Perfect System. In the scale of the Musica enchiriadis
there are no such limits: the ascents and descents are identical for as far
as you care to go.
The logical conclusion of that line of thought is to eliminate the no-
tion of range from the scale; and, indeed, the Musica enchiriadis comes
very close to doing just that. At any rate, the range imposed is so arbi-

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:24:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
34 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

trary and whimsical that it cannot easily be assimilated to the rest of this
hard-headed theorist's reasoning. He sets limits at eighteen pitches;23since
this extends through a range of two octaves and an augmented fourth
(r to cc? in letter notation), not much theoretical rationale can be found
there, and one is thrown back to the explanation that eighteen is the num-
ber of pitches in the Greater and Lesser Perfect Systems combined, hence
purely as a number becomes a model for the Musica enchiriadis. Not a
very convincing reason, perhaps; and the author spends but little time
with it, for he seems more interested that his scalar construction proceeds
indefinitely in either direction. Hence it is not even necessary to know
where (that is, on "which tetrachord"-grave, finale,...) one is located,
for every tetrachord stands in the identical relationship to every other.
Not all theorists thought in these terms. Some-in fact most-theorists
inclined to some degree toward a scalar orientation in which range, octave
duplication, and general fixity of the scale as a referent played a greater
role. At this extreme stands the Dialogus; and one can grasp something of
the independence of early theorists from each other--as well as from
antique texts-by comparing the Dialogus to the Musica enchiriadis.
While we usually think of the Dialogus as an exponent of octave dupli-
cation, that is true only in a broader sense. We should note that taken
literally the Dialogus does not have complete octave duplication (bb is
not duplicated in the lower octave); that it presents a scale that is unlike
any classical model (it has bb and b? in a single series); that it has a use
of letters never encountered before. Ultimately, the Dialogus does not
rely on the rationale of a scalar construction but rather on a mechanical-
acoustical instrumentation-the monochord-on which the pitches were
fixed more firmly than on the Greater Perfect System. The Dialogus is
strikingly free of the systematic scalar constructions (such as species of
fourths and fifths) often found in other theorists. The Dialogus and the
Musica enchiriadis can be taken as a diptych, the one presenting an ex-
treme functi6nalism in its use of the relationship of the finals, the other an
extreme operationalism in its reliance on the measured steps on a string.
Against the background of Hucbald, the Musica enchiriadis, and the
Dialogus (see Table 5), it is easy to see Guido and Hermann as moderates,
interested in reconciling the various drastic solutions offered by their pred-
ecessors with each other and with the realities of musical practice (which,
by the IIth century, now included large repertories besides the Gre-
gorian). Guido, starting from the monochord scale of the Dialogus, laid
increasing stress on a seven-tone, octave-oriented, strictly diatonic scale
with octave duplication. At the same time he persistently explored the
affinities, that is, the relationships among the finals at their various alternate
locations, and eventually expressed these affinities in terms of the major
sixth that encloses the tetrachord of the finals. Hermann, starting from the
23 Gerbert, Scriptores, I,
152-53.

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:24:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HERMANN'S MAJOR SIXTH 35
TABLE 5
SCHEMA OF CERTAIN EARLY MEDIEVAL THEORISTS

8oo00 900 o000 I100

Hucbald Berno,-+ Hermann

Aurelian 0

Musica enchiriadiss, Johannes

Scholicaenchiriadis

Regino -- Guido
"Alia musica" Dialogus

emphasis laid by his teacher Berno of Reichenau on the species of fourths

and fifths, first relied on them to mediate the anomalies between the re-
curring tetrachord of the finals and the scale of the Dialogus, then eventu-
ally came to the same major sixth. And in Hermann's.discussion, this ma-
jor sixth so strongly resembles the hexachord that it seems the two should
be identified without hesitation.24
Handschin, however, hesitated; and even though his thought on this
point is hard to follow, an attempt must be made to come to terms with what
he said.25 In a particularly Handschinesque passage in Der Toncharakter
(p. 335), he denies (or seems to deny) that the major sixth is anything
more than an observation of similarity between two stretches of the
diatonic system (an "Ahnlichkeitsdoppelreihe") and-as far as Guido is
concerned-denies an identification of this "row" with a "transposable"
hexachord. Behind these denials lies a basic mistrust and disbelief in the
hexachord when used as a "transposable" entity (for example, when
24
It was Guido, of course, who provided the major sixth with the syllables
ut, re, mi, fa, sol, la in his Epistola de ignoto cantu ("Letter to Michael"), Gerbert,
Scriptores, II, 43-50 (translation in Strunk, Source Readings, pp. 12I-25)-thus
creating traditional solmisation. But it should be obvious that the use of syllables
is merely incidental to the central theoretical development and that the use of the
hymn melody Ut queant laxis is just another instance of embodying theoretical con-
structionsin a real piece of chant.
The first full discussion of the hexachord, as we know it from later medieval
theory, appears in Jerome of Moravia's compendium Tractatus de musica, ed. S. M.
Cserba,O.P. (Regensburg, 1935), PP. 46-55. But solmisationis set out at the beginning
of Johannes'sDe musica (JohannisAffligemensisDe Musica cum Tonario, ed. Joseph
Smits van Waesberghe, Corpus scriptorum de musica, Vol. I [Rome, 1950], pp.
49-50) as an essential prerequisite, then used occasionally in the chapters following.
25 Especially since it forms the basis for the article on the
early hexachord in
MGG, Vol. VI, cols. 349-52, by Hans Oesch. The result has been, I think, that on
this point scholars have concluded from what Handschin said that the material
had indeed nothing to do with the hexachord, or they have ignored him entirely,
thereby missing all the decisive material reviewed in the present article.

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:24:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
36 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

placed on F or on any of the other notes upon which medieval theorists

eventually placed it). And while pointing out the connection of the finals,
together with their affinities, to the major sixth, Handschin still felt that
the hexachord was nothing but a "transposable" entity, a sterile exercise
in juggling the basic facts of the seven-tone, octave-duplicating scale. On
this set of convictions seems to depend his refusal to see any important
relationship between earlier theory and the later hexachord-or any real
importance in the hexachord itself.
Contra, I propose that the major sixth was in fact just what Hand-
schin said it was not (and he implied that no intelligent person, Guido
especially, could come to this conclusion)-a "row of essential tone quali-
ties" (Qualitdtsreibe). Explication of those terms would take us too far
into the theories of Der Toncharakter, but it sufficiently defines my posi-
tion here to assert that the essential features of "tone character" can be
derived from, or at least represented by, the early medieval finals and their
functions (a proposition Handschin explored and might agree with); that
the major sixth of Guido and Hermann, being essentially the tetrachord
of the finals, is a summary statement of their respective "characters"
(about which he hesitated); and that the later hexachord theory is nothing
but the systematic application of the earlier concern with the major sixth
and with the finals (which he emphatically denied).
Looking at the matter in the way I have suggested depends on attribu-
ting a greater sense of tonal reality to the relationships of the finals than to
the diatonic system. Clearly, this is a point upon which everyone will have
different opinions-including medieval theorists. What I am trying to say
is that the relationship of the finals should be given far more serious con-
sideration than we have given it, partly because at least some medieval
theorists thought that way and partly because these relationships provide
such a fruitful basis for understanding the development of medieval
theory.
Handschin's emphasis in Der Toncharakter on an octave diatonic scale
is based in turn on his preference for generating this scale from a circle
of fifths.26 The opposition between that view and the view I take to be
characteristic of the early medieval cantor-teacher can be summed up in
the two statements: "The pitches to be used are derived from a progres-
sion of fifths in one direction away from a given pitch," as opposed to
"The pitches to be used are as found in pieces of chant." Because of his
own theoretical position, I think, Handschin favored Guido-at least in
those respects in which Guido's theory conforms to Handschin's; for I
find much less consistency in Guido than Handschin asserts. But in any
26 In his preface there are indications that already by the time of publication
he was coming to have second thoughts about this relatively naive concept. See also
my comments about the pythagoreans and the circle of fifths in "Pythagorean
Mathematics and Music," Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, XXII (1963),
196-97.

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:24:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HERMANN'S MAJOR SIXTH 37
case, Guido is not the only medieval theorist or even the only good one.
Handschin insisted on the importance, indeed the correctness, of
Guido's seven-tone diatonic scale. Hence he held in horror the chromatic
system as developed by unlimited "transposition" of the hexachord. The
opposing attitudes can here too be represented by contrasting statements:
"The movable hexachord is a counter-diatonic factor," against "The mov-
able hexachord is a reaffirmation of the relationships among the finals, no
matter where they are to be found."
It is unfortunate, I think, that Handschin undertook discussion of this
important matter within a book devoted basically to theory-more spe-
cifically to "psychology of tone" (Tonpsychologie). It must be admitted
that any single affirmation of tonal relationships, such as those among the
finals, when vigorously and systematically extended to explain an entire
tonal field, will eventually entail insoluble problems; but these problems
are not necessarily an argument against the historical status of the con-
cepts involved. The objections raised by Handschin are real enough and
occurred to medieval theorists in due course. The difference is whether
one raises them in terms of theory (as Handschin does) and in con-
sequence proceeds to judge the results sub specie aeternitatis, or only in
terms of history. The judgment in the latter case is very different and
does not affect the importance and usefulness of the hexachord in its
own time-it remained the central concept for both chant and polyphony
up through the I6th century.27One can continue to think of the history
of medieval theory as a vast accumulation of misunderstandings,in-
accurate or irrelevant,all to be swept aside and rectified by a Rameau,
a Helmholz, a Riemann,or a Schenker,but that is an unfruitfulprogram:
it does not lead to an understandingof medieval concepts in their own
terms as responsesto specificallymedievalproblems.

University of California,Berkeley
27 See my article, "Perche Zarlino diede una nuova numerazione ai
modi?"
Rivista italianadi musicologia, III (1968), 48-58.

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:24:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions