Professional Documents
Culture Documents
authors were partially preserved. In brief, classical music theory recognized six consonances: the diatessaron (perfect
fourth), diapente (perfect fifth), diapason (octave), diapason
cum diatessaron (octave plus perfect fourth, i.e., perfect eleventh), diapason cum diapente (perfect twelfth), and bis diapason (double octave); Pythagorean intonation was assumed.
Greek theory had originally conceived of consonance in melodic terms, but by late antiquity both melodic and harmonic
consonances were distinguished. 1 This is the approach taken by
Boethius himself and is the point from which medieval theorists
took their departure . 2
1 "The Classical Greek concept of harmony considered consonances in melodic terms; if the mese (a) was sounded following the hypate (e), the result
would have been considered a consonance, that is, a melodic consonance"
(Calvin M. Bower, Boethius' "The Principles of Music," An Introduction,
Translation, and Commentary [Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1967], p.
440). In post-classical times this notion was replaced by that of simultaneous
consonances. The following passage from Boethius' De institutione musica
IV .1 is instructive: "Consonant sounds are those that sound sweet and intermingled when struck at the same time, while dissonant sounds are those which
do not sound sweet and intermingled when struck at the same time" (Bower, pp.
212-213). Bower states in notes to this passage that the phrases italicized above
were added to an earlier definition by Boethius or an intermediate source. For
a fuller discussion of this question see Bower, pp. 440-43.
2 lbid., p. 443.
John L. Snyder
Then [the composer] should place the first note of the organal voice,
i.e., the inception, with the cantus, either at the octave below or
above, or at the unison, or at the fifth or fourth, or sometimes at the
third or sixth. The organum may never be at the second or seventh
from the cantus, because it sounds badly. The notes in the middle,
between the beginning and the predetermined last two, he should
place either at the fifth or fourth or third or sixth, but more frequently
at the fourth or fifth, because it sounds better.
Postea primam vocem organi id est inceptionem ponat cum cantu vel
inferius in diapason vel superius, vel in eadem vel in quinta vel in
quarta, aliquanto et in tertia vel sexta. In secunda autem vel septima
voce a cantu numquam erit organum, quia male sonat. Medias autem
voces, inter primam et ultimas duas preelectas, ponat in quinta vel
3 Hucbald and the author of the Enchiriadis treatises accepted Boethius'
views on the subject; Guido d'Arezzo and John of Afflighem were not specifically concerned with consonance but seem also to have accepted traditional
thought on the matter.
4 MaiMnder Traktat, ed. Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht in Ad Organum Faciendum (Mainz: B. Schotts S6hne, 1970), pp. 111-15. See also the edition with
English translation by Jay A. Huff in Ad organum faciendum & Item de organo
(Institute of Medieval Music, 1969).
5 Traktat von Montpellier, ed. Eggebrecht in Ad Organum Faciendum, pp.
187-88.
6 "Quasi dulcis fistula." Both Eggebrecht and Huff translate fistula as flute,
which seems unnecessarily narrow.
quarta vel tertia vel sixta, sed frequentius in quarta vel in quinta, quia
pulcrius sonant. 7
These excerpts show a definite, if not very systematic, preference for thirds and sixths over seconds and sevenths; however,
the authors of these early organum treatises did not attempt to
fit the thirds and sixths into a comprehensive consonancedissonance scheme. 8
Theinred of Dover
Theinred's treatise, De legitimis ordinibus pentachordorum
et tetrachordorum, survives in only one manuscript, MS Oxford, Bodley 842, folios 1-44v 9 Theinred is not otherwise defini
tely known. 1 He was long thought to have written in the late
fourteenth century, but modern investigations indicate that he
lived in the twelfth century. 11 Although the main thrust of
Theinred's treatise deals with the problem of non-diatonic tones
in plainsong, the work also presents some interesting views on
consonance. Indeed, the only passages from the treatise to have
;
8 Serge
Early medieval theorists did not venture beyond this position. 3 With the rise of polyphony, however, a more comprehensive theory was neededone that would define the relative
consonance of all the diatonic intervals. The beginnings of this
process may be seen in two of the earliest organum treatises,
the Treatise of Milan (late eleventh century) 4 and the Montpellier Treatise (early twelfth century). 5 In the former, a major
third (C and E) before a cadence by contrary motion (on D) is
said to sound "like a sweet pipe. " 6 In the latter, thirds and
sixths are allowed in organum, except that they may be used
only sparingly at beginnings and never at endings:
111
112
diversisoni
aequisoni
inaequisoni
consoni
dissoni
This diagram is not entirely accurate, however; a better representation of Theinred's classification of sounds follows:
Soni
unisoni
diversisoni
aequisoni
inaequisoni
consoni dissoni
consoni dissoni
' 5 Ptolemy, Harmonics 1.4.9-10 and 1.7.15-16, quoted in Boethius, De institutione musica, ed. Godofred Friedein (Leipzig: Teubner, 1867), V,v and V,
xixii.
16 [f.31". . .non a numero sonorum, sed a sonitu musicae melodiae tonum
dixerunt." For a discussion of various etymologies for the term tonus, see the
remarks of John of Afflighem in the translation by Warren Babb (Hucbald,
Guido and John on Music, ed. Claude Palisca [New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1978]), p. 116 and note. It seems unlikely that Theinred knew John of
Afflighem's treatise.
113
114
For if nothing were heard, there would not have existed any argument
concerning sound whatsoever. . . . the Pythagoreans take a certain
middle path. For they measure consonances themselves with the ear,
but the distances by which consonances differ among themselves they
do not intrust to the ears, the judgments of which are unclear, but to
rules and reasonas though the sense were an obedient servant, and
the reason were truly a commanding judge. 19
19 Boethius
The reasons for these orderings are not given and are not at all
clear.
Theinred states that when the point of interruption (the
number five) is reached, the progression of consonances is terminated. Thus, when the multiple series reaches 5:1, this interval (double octave plus major third) and all succeeding
multiple-proportion intervals will not be consonances. This rule
excludes from consonance the sextuple proportion (6:1, two octaves plus fifth) and the triple octave (8:1). Likewise, the superparticulars are consonant through the sesquitertia (4:3, perfect
fourth); superparticulars from the sesquiquarta (5:4, just major
third) onward are not consonant. Since the simplest superpartient (5:3, just major sixth) is not a consonance, no superpartient
assumed that proportions are stated in simplest terms: 14/4, for example, is not
a multiple superpartient but another manifestation of the multiple superparticular 7/2. Musical consonance, except for the problematic case of the diapason
cum diatessaron (to be discussed below), was associated with the multiple and
superparticular proportions.
21 Respectively: octave, twelfth, double octave, and double octave plus
fifth.
22 Respectively: perfect fifth, perfect fourth, tone.
23 Respectively: minor seventh, major sixth, minor third.
24 Respectively: octave plus major ninth, major ninth, double octave plus
perfect fourth.
25 Respectively: perfect eleventh, double octave plus major sixth, major
thirteenth.
Theinred does not provide series for the other types of proportionality, as only these two classes (theoretically) produce consonances; other types of proportions are represented, however,
in the series of intervals, which are grouped according to
proportion-type (<II,v> , f.19r):
Multiples: 21 2:1
3:1
4:1
6:1
Superparticulars: 22 3:2
4:3
9:8
Superpartients: 23
16:9
27:16 32:27
Multiple superparticulars: 24 9:2
9:4
16:3
Multiple superpartients: 25
8:3
27:4
27:8
And so: the first (simplest) proportion in any type of proportionality is in sound the most consonant. And so far as a proportion is removed from the simplest [of its type], so much less is it consonant
unless it seems to approximate the proportion of some consonance, as
the ditone, which is near in sound to the sesquiquartian proportion
(5:4), which is the first [superparticular] after the sesquitertia (4:3):
the former exceeds the latter by one eighty-first, 27 which is difficult to
hear. Or the semiditone, which is near to the sesquiquinta (6:5), which is
the second [superparticular] after the sesquitertia: the latter is exceeded by the former by only two twenty-fifths of the smaller term;
but this is easily heard. 28
26 <II,vi,be>
(f.19v).
has the relationship right, but we would prefer to say that the
ditone (81:64) exceeds the sesquiquarta (80:64) by one eightieth, not by one
eighty-first.
28 Theinred's treatment of the two minor thirds is a sleight of hand, so far as
the proportions are concerned: he says that the semiditone (32:27) is exceeded
by the sesquiquinta (30:25) by two twenty-fifths of the smaller term. The semiditone is indeed larger than the sesquiquinta, but to compare the denominators
in this way, without a common numerator, is senseless. The actual difference
27 Theinred
[f.19v] Omnis namque generis, prima proportio in sonis consonissima est. Et quanto magis [f.20r] a prima elongatur, tanto minus consona invenitur, nisi propinquitate alicujus consonae proportionis consona videatur, ut ditonus, qui sesquiquartae sonorum proportioni
quae prima sequitur sesquitertiam adeo propinquus est, ut octogesima prima tantum parte majoris termini hic superet hanc: quod
auditu percipere difficile est. Vel semiditonus, qui sesquiquintae
sonorum proportioni quae secunda sequitur sesquitertiam adeo propinquus est, ut duabus tantummodo vicesimis quintis partibus minoris termini, haec superetur ab hoc: quod auditus aut facile discernit.
Theinred thus hedges on his own scheme: he admits that the imprecision of the ear (mentioned earlier) may cause intervals of
complex ratios to be accepted as consonances, if they closely approximate the proportions of some recognized consonance. But
here he allows thirds on the grounds that they approximate the
5:4 and 6:5 intervalssounds which were previously excluded
from the canon of consonances! Theinred's vacillation on this
issue is certainly an honest reflection of his musically revolutionary times, but it is not otherwise very helpful. Theinred concedes that 5:4 and 6:5 follow 4:3; he thus seems to imply that the
boundary between consonance and dissonance is not a matter
of black and white, but rather a process of continuous shading
from one to the other. Theinred does not go so far as to create a
category of "intermediate consonances" 29that idea appeared
between the two major thirds is, of course, exactly the same as that between the
two minor thirds. Fritz Reckow quotes this passage in a lengthy footnote in his
edition of the treatise of Anonymous IV, p. 78, and suggests emending the last
sentence: ". . .quod auditus aut [ = haud] facile discernit" ("which the ear does
not easily discern"). This suggestion is quite tempting, as it at least renders the
last clause as a true statement, but I have not adopted it because it seems to
make a correct conclusion follow faulty premises. Theinred has certainly erred,
but I think that the mistake is in his comparison of the semiditone and sesquiquinta, not in his subsequent reasoning.
29 Gut interprets Theinred's remarks as equivalent to the use of a category
of "intermediate consonances." This is reasonable as a summary but does not
reflect the actual complexity (or confusion) of Theinred's discussion.
115
116
of this piece has been a matter of some debate: Apel regards it as a twelfthcentury composition, but see, for example, John Beveridge, "Two Scottish
Thirteenth-Century Songs," Music and Letters 20 (1939): 352-64, and Anselm
Hughes' discussion in the New Oxford History of Music, vol. 2 (rev. ed., London: Oxford University Press, 1967), pp. 341f.
33 Reaney, pp. 29-30.
colorful (and sometimes obscure) metaphors, the last and clearest and most musical of which runs thus <II,x,a,6-7>:
Lyres, differing from each other by a tone, when heard singly, delight
the ear by the sweetness of melody, but moved simultaneously, they
roughen the sounds. So the superpartient, which by itself could not be
consonant, is consonant when multiplied, just as the multiple superparticulars can in no way be consonant, though the multiples and superparticulars are in themselves consonant.
[f.201 Lirae autem tono in omnibus sonis suis distantes, singulae
autem audientis auditu[m] modulationis suavitate oblectant; simul
vero motae, voci[b]us exasperant. Ita superpartientia cum multiplicate consonat, quae per se consonare non possit sicut multiplicitas
[et superparticularitas in margine] per se consonant [quae conjunctae
consonare nequeunt in margine]
Theinred apparently recognizes the weakness of his position, as he offers two further explanations for the consonance
of the eleventh (<x,b>). The first is dependent upon the fact
that consonances, which are not directly associated with superpartient proportions, are nevertheless divisible into (unequal)
superpartient ratios. Theinred presents interesting and apparently unprecedented divisions of the octave and fifth: 8:11:16
and 10:13:15. 34 The point would seem to be that if the proportion of the eleventh could be similarly divided, it should be considered a consonance. Theinred attempts no such division,
even though one is readily available (3:5:8); perhaps he considered this sufficiently obvious to his readers that only a hint was
necessary.
The foregoing is still weak, so Theinred invents yet another
means of justifying the diapason cum diatessaron as a consonance <II,x,b,6-8>:
Furthermore, if any consonant interval is subtracted from an
equisonal consonance [i.e., an octave or double octave], in fact that
34 Respectively:
117
118
Theinred cannot adopt this approach, however, as it would allow the triple diapason to become a consonance (double diapason plus a diapason), and so on. His subtraction method apparently is contrived to allow (1) the diapason cum diatessaron as a
consonance, but (2) still limit the total number of consonances
to six.
To summarize his position: Theinred defined consonance in
terms of harmonic compatibility of sounds. In this he followed
then-current trends in music theory. Unlike his immediate
predecessors, however, he proposed a rather elaborate, if
mathematically confused, rationale that was intended to ac35 Boethius
[f.2 1 1 Amplius si quid absciditur ab aequisona consonantia, si abscisum consonantia est, et quod relinquitur consonantia erit. Si vero abscisum dissonantia est, et quod relinquitur dissonantia erit. Si itaque a
bis diapason, diapente absciditur, et diapason cum diatessaron inter
consonantias computari debet.
A quarter-century later, however, Walter Odington still questioned the consonance of the diapason cum diatessaron, eventually classifying it as a dissonance; nor did he accept sixths as
consonances:
[The diapente cum tono] consists in 16 plus 11 of its parts (that is, sixteenths), and this genre [of proportionality] was previously rejected
[as a source of consonances]. Nevertheless, in the music of this time,
the diapente cum tono is many times used as if it were a consonance.
39 Reckow,
pp. 77-78.
The following concerns simultaneous harmonies. Some simultaneities are called "concords," others "discords." It is called a concord
when two voices are joined at the same time, such that one voice can
be accepted with the other by the ear. A discord is defined as the reverse. Concords are of three classes, for some are perfect, some imperfect, and some intermediate. . . .
And it is to be known that the above-named concords can be extended into infinity. . . .
It is called a "discord" when two voices are joined simultaneously,
such that, according to the ear, one voice cannot mix with the other.
Some discords are said to be perfect, others imperfect, and others intermediate. . . .These species of dissonance . . . can be extended
into infinity, just as the concords.
119
120
The consonant/dissonant status of particular intervals continued to be debated for some time (in a few cases until our own
century), but a basic framework for the discussion had been established. The remaining difficulty with which Theinred wrestled, the difference between "pure" and "Pythagorean" thirds,
4 11.12.5-7 (p. 74), 11.15.2-3 (p. 75).
was of course not resolved until the invention of tempered tunings during the Renaissance.
In conclusion, we may say that Theinred of Dover both followed and kept pace with musical-theoretical history, and that,
if he had little actual influence, he did anticipate some important later developments. He generally accepted and worked
from the notions of consonance and dissonance he had inherited from antiquity but struggled to reconcile those venerable
ideas with new trends emerging in his own day. Thus, he defended the classical canon of six consonances but sought to justify the use of thirds and sixths in organum. He regarded multiple octaves beyond the bis diapason as technical dissonances but
admitted that the ear cannot perceive their dissonance. He
clung to Pythagorean intonation but explained the growing acceptance of thirds partly on the grounds that they approximate
another (just) intonation. Theinred was surely only dimly aware
of the ramifications of his work, yet, the fact is that he was an
early exponent of ideas which, when their time had come, produced far-reaching results. Despite his inconsistencies, he has
earned a place in the ranks of original musical thinkers.