The Classical Review http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR Additional services for The Classical Review: Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here Some Pompeiian Musical Instruments and the Modes of Aristides Quintilianus C. F. Abdy Williams The Classical Review / Volume 16 / Issue 08 / November 1902, pp 409 - 413 DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X00206756, Published online: 27 October 2009 Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009840X00206756 How to cite this article: C. F. Abdy Williams (1902). Some Pompeiian Musical Instruments and the Modes of Aristides Quintilianus. The Classical Review, 16, pp 409-413 doi:10.1017/S0009840X00206756 Request Permissions : Click here Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR, IP address: 144.173.6.37 on 18 Mar 2015 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 409 the real character of those charges. I take the usual, or the accepted reading, nor has for this purpose, as a fair sample, the most it any manuscript authority. In another, serious charge of all, namely the one in- Plaut. Cas. 404, cave obiexis is a mere con- volved in the following sentence near the jecture in a corrupt line (the MSS, have end of his article : ' When his {i.e., Elmer's) neither cave nor obiexis). Another, Plaut. list of perfects, which he believes to be " prac- True. 943 (933 in Ussing) was actually tically complete," lacksat least 11 examples given in my. list (p. 142), though the of ne or cave with the second -person printer's omission of 'True' before 933 (Bennett and I have supplied that number), seems to make the line-number refer to the his figures' on any subject are likely to be preceding ' Pers.' Thus disappear 7 of regarded with grave suspicion.' Of these 11 the alleged careless omissions. (12 i) examples to which he refers, two Professor Clement has then convicted me (Plaut. Vid. 83 and.91) were not found, at the simply of having overlooked 5 (41) instances time when I was making my collections for (only one prior to Cicero) in my reading of The Latin Prohibitive, even in those com- the more than ten thousand pages of Latin plete editions of Plautus that contained the from the earliest times down to the end of fragments of the Vidularia (Studemund's the Augustan Age—one omission to two discussions and Winter's Fragmenta I had thousand pages or more. He has discovered not seen, nor have I yet seen Weise's last these omissions by re-reading the authors ' in edition of the fragments). Another, viz. most cases, from two to eight times,' as he Plaut. Cist. 300 had not, as yet (with only tells us. I have no desire to belittle the one exception, if I mistake not), been importance of this achievement. I merely embodied in the text of the editions of that venture to repeat a sentiment expressed in play. In another, Plaut. Pers. 572, the my previous article, viz. that a critic who reading regularly found in editions existing makes such serious charges as Professor at the time was Tie, si parseris, etc., (not ne Clement has made against a fellow-investi- parseris, as since read by Goetz-Schoell and gator should be far more sure of his ground. Leo). In another, Plaut. True. 606 ne H. C. ELMBE. responsis (Goetz-Schoell) is not, even yet, Cornell University. SOME POMPEIIAN MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS AND THE MODES OF ARISTIDES QUINTILIANUS. IN the Naples Museum there is a small exactly the condition in which it was found, instrument, found at Pompeii in 1876, and and is considered of sufficient importance to described in the official catalogue as ' Instru- be placed in a case by itself. The Museum ment de musique k neuf tuyaux. II res- Authorities were kind enough to take its semble a un orgue.' Little interest seems measurements for me, and to give me per- to have been taken in this instrument, mission to photograph it; but owing to its which is passed over by Gevaert {La Musique fragmentary condition it was found impos- de I'Antiquiti, Vol. II. p. 301, Note) with sible to place it in a suitable position for the single remark, 'Je n'ai remarque au photography without risk of serious injury. mus^e de Naples, parmi les nombreux debris I believe it to be some kind of portable d'instruments pompeiens, qu'un seul frag- pneumatic organ, the mechanism of which, ment de syringe.' being of leather and wood, has entirely Of late years a second instrument has disappeared, leaving only the bronze pipes been found at Pompeii, similar in every and outer casing. respect to the above, but larger, and having The three portions or plates, A, B, C, are two additional pipes. For convenience I not joined, but were found in the position will refer to these instruments as No. I. (the shown in the diagram. Their ends are bent earlier), and No. II. (the later and larger back at a right angle to the depth of 14 instrument). millimetres. There is nothing to support No. II., of which a diagram accompanies the pipes, which, if the instrument were this article, being more decayed than No. I., placed upright, would simply fall down has been laid out on a plaster frame in behind the plates. I believe them to have 410 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. been flute and not reed pipes, and that their lower corner of Plate A, are some very mouthpieces were of wood.1 corroded fragments of oblong pipes : similar With No. I. were found a few short ones were found with No. I., but detached pieces of bronze which exactly fit the oblong from it. They appear to have had some boles in its pipes. These holes, which are connection with the conveyance of the wind, at varying distances from the top* are found the arrangements for which may have in pipes Nos. 3 to 8 of the smaller instru- occupied a considerable space below and at ment, and Nos. 5 to 10 of the larger. the back. The diagram is to scale. The pipes of No. I. are on the left hand side, the largest being nearest the outer edge of the plate : they are therefore exactly in the reverse position of those of No. II. This, however, may be an accidental arrangement, due to a mistake in replacing the instrument in its resting-place after removal for measurement, and No. II., having been preserved exactly as it was found, is the more authoritative on this point. I place the measurements alongside of one another for facility of comparison. No. I. has nine pipes, No. II. eleven. The measurements are in centimetres. No. II. No. I. Plate A.—40 x 8. 37x7. „ B.—40 x 15. 35-5x9-8. ,, C—40x8. 37x6-7. Diameter j . .„ of Pipes. ) 1'45. /No. 1 : 27. , 2: 26-5. , 3: 24. No. 1: 24-5 , 4: 21. , 2 : 22. 0 S 10 20 SO *O Lengths , 5: 20. , 3: 209. of Pipes. • 6: 17 0). , 4: 18-8 , 7 : 17 (?). , 5: 17. No. I. has, in addition to its three plates, , 8: 15. , 6: 15. , 9: 12. , 7: 13-2. an oblong piece of bronze containing eighteen ,10: 10. , 8: 11-1. holes similar to, and arranged in the same , 11: 9. ,9:9. order as, those shown in Plate C of the diagram. In No. II., I counted twelve of Taking Nos. 5 and 10 as representing the these holes, but owing to its corroded con- two F's of the treble stave, the scale result- dition I could not see if there were more. ing from the measurements of the pipes of At the left hand, projecting from the No. II. gives these intervals: Ex. 1. 6 9 10 11 ZZ3Z ZJB1 which I obtain as follows : or ' Sharp' Fourth, slightly larger than the Nos. 5 and 10, being in the ratio of 2—1 perfect Fourth, 4-3. give an Octave. Nos. 5 and 2, ratio 20-26-5 = 53-40, Nos. 5 and 1, ratio 20-27 give a ' High' between the true Major Third, 5-4 and the 1 Pythagorean Major Third 81-64. Therefore In 1892 I made a thorough examination of very nearly the major third of equal tempera- No. I. and found nothing of the nature of metal tongues such as would be used for pipes of this ment. calibre if they were ' reeds.' Nos. 5 and 3 ratio 5-6. This interval, THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 411 the Minor Third, is given by Eratosthenes the interval of a 12th from the fundamental and Didymus for the chromatic tetrachord, note, to sound out clearly to the disadvant- and by Ptolemy for the soft chromatic. age of the fundamental, and first harmonic. (Claudius Ptolemy, Edited by Wallis, The insertion of the bronze tongues in pipes p. 171). 5 to 10 would therefore probably cause this Nos. 5 and 4 ratio 20-21. This semitone portion of the scale to be transposed a 12th is given by Ptolemy (p. 177) in the mixed higher, without increase of wind pressure. soft diatonic genus. The series of notes given in Ex. 1 forms no Nos. 5 and 6, ratio 20-17. No recognised regular scale or mode as understood by us ; interval. but my impression is that the ancients never Nos. 5 and 7. No. 7 gave the same used a complete diatonic scale in actual per- measurement as no. 6. My impression is formance. This seems to be shown by the that a difference formerly existed, that the flutes found at Pompeii and elsewhere, and pipes have become altered by corrosion, and by the series of notes used in the Delphic that we have here to do with an enharmonic Hymns, of which I gave an analysis in the tetrachord.