ARISTOXENUS ON RHYTHM

Lewis Rowel1

The surviving fragments of musical speculation bearing the name of

Aristoxenus of Tarentum (4th c. B. C. ) have long been recognized as
one of the oldest, most significant, and enigmatic monuments in the
theory of music. Although there have been several attempts to recon-
struct his complete theory of rhythm by piecing together the extant
scraps of text,' the task is indeed like reconstructing an amphora from
a few shards of pottery. Still the Aristoxenian principles of rhythm, as
amplified by later authors and supplemented by the principles of Greek
prosody, remained the pedestal on which the rhythmic structure of
European art music was based until the Later Middle Ages.
Born between 375 and 360 B. C. in Tarentum, a Calabrian seaport
on the arched sole of the Italian "boot," Aristoxenus received a musical
education from his father Spintharus, a well known and widely travelled
musician, and later studied with Lamprus of Erythrae. His subsequent
studies took him to Mantinea, an Arcadian city, and later to Italy again
and, after 343, to Corinth. Shortly after Aristotle took up residence in
Athens and established his Lyceum, Aristoxenus arrived to join the
company of scholars; there he absorbed the Peripatetic philosophy,
remained to teach, and became one of the most prominent members of
the academic community. Although he had expectations of succeeding
Aristotle, his colleague Theophrastus was designated as the heir, suc-
cessor, and literary executor. Nothing is known of Aristoxenus' later
life, travels, or the date of his death.
Of his thought in general and his influence, a few points may be
briefly noted: trained in the methods of systematic thought and
scientific observation, his mind sharpened and disciplined by one of
Antiquity's most remarkable teachers, Aristoxenus formulated the basic
principles of an empirical theory of music, a distinct departure from
the long-prevailing Pythagorean tradition which he had studied in his
youth. Macran's comment is worth quoting:
So busy were the Pythagoreans in establishing the mere physical and
mathematical antecedents of sounds in general, that they never saw
that the essence of musical sounds lies in their dynamical relation to
one another. Thus they missed the true formal notion of music,
which is ever present to Aristoxenus, that of a system or organic
whole of sounds, each member of which is essentially what it does,
and in which a sound cannot become a member because merely
there is room for it, but only if there is a function which it can
discharge .2
This observation is equally applicable to the Aristoxenian theory of
musical rhythm: his is a dynamic concept of temporal relationships in
which formal function, not determinable magnitude, is the basis for the
operation of the system.
Aristoxenus, if we can credit the impressive accomplishments listed
in the ~ u d a ?was the author of at least 453 books on such diverse
subjects as biography, history, philosophy, education, politics, and
"table-talk." But of these only two works survive. The longer and better
known is the Harmonics, available in English since 1902 in Henry
Macran's charmingly Victorian translation? The text, consisting of two
complete books and part of a third, appears to be a patchwork and
includes interpolations from other authors.' Nevertheless, with the
aid of later treatises in the Aristoxenian tradition, one can glimpse the
full scope of Aristoxenus' harmonic thought and place the surviving
text within its proper context of harmonic theory.
The rhythmic fragments are more problematic. The corpus con-
sists of a single continuous passage of some 250 lines, entitled
APIXTOEENOT P"I'OMIKGN XTOIXEIGN B, and a few isolated
citations by later authors, notably the 11th-century Byzantine Michael
sell us.^ Perhaps the best outline of the Aristoxenian theory of rhythm
is the concise exposition of Aristides Quintilianus (3rd or 4th century
A. D.), in the first of his three books on music.' I have chosen to trans-
late the single long fragment (hereinafter B), since it is the only
substantial passage on rhythm that can reasonably be attributed to
Aristoxenus himself. The translation is based on Westphal's Greek text,
but I have made detailed comparisons with Feussner's text and critical
apparatus.8 Only those variant readings which affect the translation in
any substantive way will be noted.
If we are correct in inferring the standard format of a Peripatetic
treatise, B is the opening section of the second of three books-very
likely the greater part. The missing Book A would be the introduction
or ~pooipwv,B the exposition of basic principles, the apxai, and the
final book r would be organized into a detailed set of U T O ~ X E ~ ,
"elements." Aristoxenus' method is the systematic dissection of his
subject matter, laying out his field of inquiry clearly and proceeding to
separate each of his topics from extraneous ideas and potential mis-
understandings. He introduces each topic with a precise definition and
continues with discussion of the "differences" applicable to each topic,
often digressing into brief essays on difficult problems.
The literary style is sententious, argumentative, a bit self-conscious
in its rhetoric, and obsessed with logical continuity-constantly referring
to the "aforementioned" and promising t o make things clear "in what
follows." Occasionally the previous references are vague. Aristoxenus,
like most Greek authors, is fond of the piv/GP construction ("On the
one hand . . . /on the other. . ."). His favorite method of argument is
by analogy. His writing reveals traces of both the philosopher and the
musician: the organization, logic, and style are those of a typical
Peripatetic philosopher, but the conclusions are those of a sensitive
student of music and the other arts.
The following conspectus of the rhythmic topics treated by
Aristoxenus and Aristides Quintilianus will be helpful in determining
the context of B. It is clear that what is missing is at least equal in size
and import to the present fragment. Perhaps the greatest loss is the set
of three topics in Aristides I/ 19.

Aristides (book/chapter) Aristoxenus ( 5 )

I/ 13 rhythm defined 1,2,7
its properties: arsis and thesis
perception of rhythm 5,8
differences of rhythm in motion, speech, and
melody 4,9
the rhythmicized substance (buOpi{bp~vov) 3 - 10
the five topics of rhythm listed:
1. the primary time unit (wbvoc. T ~ ~ T O C )
2. the foot (nohc)
3. rhythmic progression (a-ywyq puOpi~rj)
4. rhythmic modulation (p~~c$?o)lq +9pucq)
5. rhythmic composition @&ponoiia)
1/14 primary time 10 - 12
Aristides (book/chapter) Aristoxenus (8)
composite and incomposite durations 13 - 15
types of rhythms: enrhythmic, arrythmic,
rhythmoid
the foot 16 - 21
the seven differences of the feet: 22
1. magnitude 23
2. genus 24
3. composition 26
4. proportion (rational/irrational) 25
5. division 27
6. structure 28
7. antithesis 29
the rhythmic genera 3off
equal (1 :1)
hemiolic (3:2)
duple (2: 1)
epitritic (4:3)
here Aristoxenus B breaks off
combining of rhythmic patterns
1/15 the dactylic genus (1 :1) and its patterns
etymologies of terms
1/16 the iambic (2: 1)
the paeonic (3: 2)
I/ 17 compounds of the above
1/18 a polemic against the indiscriminate combination of rhythms
rests (KEVOL
~pbuoi)
1119 rhythmic progression
rhythmic modulation
rhythmic composition
11115 on the ethos of rhythm
It was an article of faith among Greek theorists that the disciplines of
rhythmics and harmonics were parallel and that the same method of
exposition and set of structural principles were appropriate for both.
The following set of topics, used (with minor variations) by both
Aristoxenus and the later Cleonides to organize their ~ a r m o n i c s , ~
resembles closely the rhythmic topics:
1. note (@Odyyoc)
2. interval (6 d o r ~ a )
3. genus (yboc)
 4. system (uriurqpa)
5. key (rbvoc)
6. modulation (perapohd)
7. melodic composition (p~honoiih)

Each system-tonal and temporal-was built on the following archi-

tectonic progression: unit +pattern+pattern combination-+progression
+modulation+composition. Whereas the analogy between the single
musical tone and the primary time unit is obvious, less so is the analogy
between the tetrachord (in harmonics) and the rhythmic foot-the
small building blocks and their proportions with which the entire
edifice of the system was erected. Certain principles applied to both
systems: the concept of genus (proportional relationship of part to
part), progression, modulation, composition, and the relationship of
form to substance. The differences of the intervals and systems cited by
Cleonides" are similar to the differences of the feet listed in B 922. To
the Greek mind the various musical dimensions were governed by the
same set of laws, differing only in material and in certain idiomatic ways.
Their insistence upon this point has inspired the quest for a universal
organizing principle that has managed to elude theorists since the time
of Aristoxenus.
B-or at least that part of it which remains-is a mixture of straight-
forward expository detail and broader philosophical analysis. The main
issues are these three: the rhythmicized substance (rhythmizomenon),' '
sense perception (aisthesis), and proper rhythmic proportion (as
opposed to the free combination of numbers). The latter topic is
peculiar to musical speculation, but the first two issues have larger
implications and were explored at length by Aristotle himself and by
Theophrastus, among others.''
Aristoxenus' concept of musical time is atomistic, and his temporal
forms-expressed as rhythmic proportions-are treated much like
geometric forms. If his rhythm can be said to "flow," it does so within
strictly defined channels and is articulated by clearly located points.
Proper patterns were generated by simple number proportions, and the
persistence of the formal functions of these proportions (the genera) was
the supreme organizing principle of the Aristoxenian system of rhythm.
As for the phenomenon of rhythm itself, it must be felt and marked by
physical gesture, impressed upon the aesthetic sense and thereby
understood by the mind, and experienced through the action of its
ethos. Underlying the entire text is Aristoxenus' recognition that the
rhythmizomenon (the "rhythmicized substance"), the raw material to
which the principles of rhythm are applied, is a complex, triadic sub-
stance in music: it consists of the sounds of the voice, the melodic
tones, and the body itself. These remain passive and formless until their
activation by the rhythmic forms translates them into articulate speech,
melody, and gesture. Whether rational or irrational, composite or
incomposite, or differing in any other aspect, the function of musical
rhythm depends upon how the operation of rhythmic form upon the
rhythmic substance is perceived by the senses. From the tattered
remnants of B we can see that Aristoxenus attempts herein not only to
inform his readers of the principles of rhythm but also to give them
insight into the underlying philosophical foundations of music and the
psychological/physiologicalprocesses by which music is perceived.
The content of B can indeed be better understood within the larger
context of Aristotelian psychological and physical theory.13 I will
explore briefly (1) the relationship of form to substance, ( 2 )the func-
tion of the aisthesis in perception, and (3) the implications for
rhythmic theory of Aristotle's famous doctrine of the "four causes."
Greek, unlike Latin, is abundant in words, often with closely over-
lapping meanings. Perhaps this explains why drawing fine distinctions
between potentially confusing terms is an important part of a typical
Aristotelian exposition. One of the great semantic casualties of music
theory occurred when the Latin forma and jigura replaced an assort-
ment of Greek words specifying various properties or aspects of what
we in English loosely call "form" or "structure." The Greek terms for
"form" tended to develop certain specializations of meaning, although
not every author maintains these precise lexical distinctions.

bvepbc (rhythmos):the most significant formal concept underlying

the temporal dimension of music.14 Rhythm is a dynamic species of
form, signifying the internal structure of a moving thing-ordered
movement, movement in accordance with certain principles of struc-
ture. The derivation of pvepbc has been hotly argued; my conclusion
is that the basic meanings "flow" and "pause" have become mingled
in its semantic development, representing both (1) the alternation of
stronglweak, sound/silence, movement/rest that characterizes the
experience of rhythm and ( 2 ) the constraints imposed upon the
"flow" of music by its internal organization. According t o Aristides
pvOpbc is a K L V ~ U E Oratic-an
~ "order of m~vement."'~
m i p a (schema):a very popular term for outward, visible form-
form as opposed to matter. Two semantic tendencies can be dis-
cerned: (1) u x a a as shape, boundary, contour, outline, or frame
and (2) mipa as geometric form: plane figures, networks, linear
forms. If pv8p6c represents emerging form, form as "becoming,"
uxqpa represents existing form, form as "being."
pop@q(morphe):perhaps the least specific of all the formal terms-
form as opposed to content, external and/or internal form, form in
the abstract, solid forms. p o p d is seldom encountered in rhythmic
theory.
 rci$ic (taxis): the most powerful formal concept and aesthetic cri-
terion in Greek thought, signifying form qua order, disposition,
array, arrangement, proportion, ratio. From the time of Plato and
Aristotle until the Late Renaissance, beauty of form was held to be a
good arrangement of the parts. Other related Greek words were
appovia (harmonia) , o v p p ~ ripa (symmetria) , and K dopoc (cosmos),
all standing for measure, order, and proper mutual relationships
(namely "proportional relationships") between parts.
E ~ O (Ceidos): etymologically form that is seen, but developed in
the philosophy of Plato into the special concept of "conceptual
formw-form as idea, image, "insight," that which is seen with the
"eye of the soul," the object of intuition, intuitive perception. The
aspect of form known as E ~ O Cis essential form (as opposed to the
accidental or superfluous features of objects), the irreducible mini-
mum and/or distinctive feature.
All of the above have, on occasion, been used as synonyms; all were
often held to signify "good" form, "proper" form, and all became
attenuated in meaning at times to "general appearance," "kind,"
"character," "manner," and "way." Rhythm, according to Aristoxenus,
was both ra$ic and oxfjpa: the properly constructed rhythmic foot was
a o y j p a , as were the gestures of the body that rendered visible the
function of the arsis and thesis. rats was contributed by the propor-
tions of the parts of the foot and the relationship of one foot to
another. And the basic definition of harmonics, "the mutual relation-
ships of well ordered sounds," combines the two formal concepts. The
notion of eE60c was vital to the Greek theory of sense perception, and
to that subject we turn.
Entelechy ( ~ v T E ~ ~isx aE term ~ ) coined (as far as we know) by
Aristotle. It is derived from a phrase meaning "that which has comple-
tion" or "that which has a goal" (rihoc), and it is usually translated as
"actuality" (asopposed to "potentiality"). The role of the aisthesis, our
faculty of sense perception, was to actualize the imprint of form upon
the mind. As Aristotle noted in his On the Soul, "Matter is potentiality,
while form is realization or a ~ t u a l i t ~ . " ' ~
Actuality, to Aristotle, signified both the possession of knowledge
(the knowledge of forms and the readiness to recognize them, both
stored at the back of one's mind) and the exercise of knowledge (as in
perception). Our senses remain inert matter and pure potentiality until
they are acted upon by sensible objects. The noun a'ioOqoic stands for
both the process of sensation and the receiving apparatus itself (which
Aristotle, in his biological writings, failed to localize).17 Sense percep-
tion is clearly a noetic process, a function of mind responding to
external sensation. Matter in all of its manifestations-the organs of
sight, hearing, and the other senses as well as the critical mind-was
 seen as passive substance, inactive until it receives the impression of the
active formal principle. A favorite image used by Aristotle and others
was the application of a signet ring to hot wax: the wax remains inert
until it takes on the form (but not the material) of the ring. It is
interesting to note that Aristides called melody the passive, feminine
aspect of music, rhythm the active, masculine principle that imposes
form upon the melodic tones.18 This agentlpatient principle was the
cornerstone of the Peripatetic theory of perception.
TO be ready to perceive properly, the aisthesis must be in a neutral
state, not a state of rest but a delicate balance between opposing ten-
sions which could be harmed or even destroyed by overstimulation, just
as a tensed string (another favorite metaphor) could be snapped by
overexcitement. But the receptive aisthesis is also "primed" by
(1) man's natural affinity to certain ratios and proportions, making
the mind potentially the same as the objects of the senses, and (2) a
knowledge of forms. The actual process of perception is an "assimila-
tion" (bpoiooic) in which the receiving sense undergoes a change of
state and becomes like that which stimulates it.
It would be digressing too far to analyze Aristotle's more contro-
versial doctrine of the "common sense," the coordinator of stimuli that
is located "near the heart," which perceives directly what he termed
the "common sensiblesV-shape, size, number, movement, and time-
qualities that cannot be perceived by a single sense.lg Considering the
importance which movement, number, and time have for the percep-
tion of rhythm, it would be instructive to know how Aristotle or
Aristoxenus would have explained the process. Unfortunately for us,
the surviving texts d o not address this intriguing question.
In the Metaphysics Aristotle set forth his celebrated theory of the
"four causesm-the material, formal, efficient, and final causes.20
Aristoxenus, in the present text, tells us little about the efficient cause
(the singer, poet, or composer), nor does he speculate about the final
cause of music (although we may safely infer that he shared the prevail-
ing Greek view that education and therapy were as much the proper
goal of musical practice as was pleasure). But in the relationship of the
remaining two causes-the material cause (the rhythmizomenon) and the
formal cause (the principles of rhythm)-we have the central issue of B.

THE ELEMENTS OF RHYTHM B2'

1. In the preceding book we asserted that there are many natures

[@tjueic]of rhythm, and we outlined what these were, for what reasons
each of these received its name, and what were the underlying princi-
ples. Now it remains for us to speak of how rhythm is arranged in
music.
 2. We must once again take up the subject of time units and our
perception of them, as set forth in the preceding book, for this is the
proper point of departure for the understanding of rhythm.
3. One must first understand that there are two certain natures:
that of rhythm and the rhythmicized substance, closely related to
one another just as the form [ q f i p a ] and that which is formed
[ox~pari{dp~vov]
are related."
4. For just as the body takes on many sorts of shapes whenever its
parts are placed in different ways (either some or all of them), in like
manner each of the rhythmicized substances takes on many forms, not
in accordance with its own nature but in accordance with the nature of
rhythm. For speech, which is likewise arranged into time units differing
one from another, takes on certain divisions which correspond to the
divisions produced by the natural order of rhythm. And the same
principle obtains with respect to melosZ3 and anything else that is
organized rhythmically by means of this rhythm that is composed of
time units.
5. To continue with the previous analogy, we must now consider
the subject of sense perception in our attempt to discern-in the case of
each of the previous topics-what is the essential nature of rhythm and
of the rhythmicized substance. For to have form imposed on the body
is by no means the same thing as any of the forms themselves; on the
contrary, the form is a certain disposition of the parts of the body,
from whence each individual form somehow arises and is recognized as
such. Similarly it must be conceded that the rhythm is by no means
the same as the rhythmicized substance, nor is this substance identical
to the arrangements of time units made in one way or another.
6 . But the above resemble one another and do not occur
independently. For it is clear that form cannot be produced unless it is
initiated by that which is to receive the form. And similarly, rhythm
cannot occur apart from the rhythmicized substance that divides the
time, since one time unit cannot divide itself (as we remarked earlier)
but requires something different to divide it. Thus the rhythmicized
substance must be divisible into intelligible parts, with which one
could divide the time.
7. It is consistent with the preceding to say also on this same
phenomenon that rhythm arises whenever the division of the times
takes on a certain well-defined order, for not every arrangement of time
units is enrhythmic.24
8. And so it seems plausible and goes almost without saying that
not every arrangement of times is enrhythmic; but we must pursue the
subject further and attempt to understand by means of the previous
analogy until we are convinced by the phenomenon itself. We are well
aware of the principles by which we combine letters and musical
intervals: that neither in speech do we put together the letters in
 random combinations, nor do we so combine the intervals in melody.
On the contrary, there are but a certain few ways in which these are
properly combined-there are many, however, in which neither can the
uttered sound be combined nor can the result be accepted by the sense
-nay, it rejects it! For this reason the harmonious appears in many
fewer forms, but the inharmonious in many more.25 And thus it is
with regard to temporality: for many of the divisions are com-
mensurable and yet appear foreign in arrangement to the sense; a
certain few, however, are both familiar and are capable of arrangement
into the natural order of rhythm. The rhythmicized substance, though,
is somehow common to both the arrhythmic and the rhythmic: for this
substance is by nature amenable to both systems-the enrhythmic and
the arrhythmic. To speak precisely, one must understand that the
rhythmicized substance is capable of transformation into all kinds of
time durations and in all combinations.
9. Time, therefore, is divided by the parts of each of the rhythmic
substances. Now these substances are three: speech, melos, and bodily
movement. Thus speech will divide the time with its parts, such as the
letters, syllables, words, and the like. Similarly the melodic substance
divides the time with its notes, intervals, and systems; and movement
by its forms, and anything else of this sort that is a component
of movement.
10. Let us call chronos protos [the primary time unit] that which
can be divided by none of the rhythmic substances. Let us call the
diseme [6ioqpoc]that which measures twice the duration of the former,
the triseme thrice, and the tetraseme four times its duration. The
names of the remaining time durations are assigned according to the
same principle.27
11. It is necessary that we attempt to examine closely the function
of chronos protos: for of those times clearly manifested to the sense,
its role is not to measure the swiftness of the movements in their
infinite series; instead its role is to serve as a locus for the placement of
the various time units in which are disposed the parts of that which is in
motion [ K ~ V O V ~ E V O V By
] . this I mean just as the voice is moved both in
speech and in singing, so is the body in marching, dancing, and other
such types of motion. Of the motions thus manifested, it is evident that
there must be certain minimal time units in which each of the melodic
notes can be placed. And the same principle applies clearly both to
speech syllables and units of m ~ v e m e n t . ? ~
12. So then we call that time unit primary in which neither can two
notes be placed in any manner, nor two syllables, nor two units of
movement. How the sense responds to this phenomenon will become
evident in our subsequent discussion of the types of rhythmic feet.
13. We say that a certain time is incomposite, with reference to its
usage in rhythmic composition. It is not at all easy to make clear that
rhythmic composition and rhythm are not one and the same, but the
following analogy should be convincing: for just as we have seen, in
the nature of melos, that it is not the same as the system or melodic
composition [melopoeia], or the key, or genus, or m ~ d u l a t i o n ;so ~~
must we presume it to be true with regard to the rhythms and
rhythmic composition. Inasmuch as we have discovered melodic
composition to be a certain characteristic usage of the melodic sub-
stance, similarly we shall say in this rhythmic treatise that rhythmic
composition is a certain characteristic usage of the rhythmic substance.
We shall see this more clearly in the course of the treati~e.~'
14. We call a time incomposite, with reference to the employment
of the rhythmic composition, as follows: whenever a certain time
duration is perceived as a single syllable, a single melodic note, or a
single unit of movement, we call this time incomposite. If, however, this
same duration be perceived as consisting of multiple notes, syllables, or
movement units, the time will be called composite. We may cite a
specific example from our treatise on ~ a r m o n i c :s for
~ ~ there the same
magnitude may be composite in the enharmonic genus yet incomposite
in the chromatic, and further it may be incomposite in the diatonic yet
composite in the chromatic; and sometimes the same genus presents the
same magnitude as both composite and incomposite-but not, how-
ever, in the same place within the system.32 Now we may see the
application of our example: for, on the one hand, a time duration may
be either incomposite or composite with reference to the rhythmic
composition, and-on the other-a melodic interval may be either
incomposite or composite with reference to the genera or the order of
the scale. Now then, concerning the general characteristics of incom-
posite and composite time, let it be stated in this manner:
15. Since the criterion is the manner of division, simply let that be
called incomposite which is divisible by none of the rhythmic sub-
stances, composite that which is divisible by all of them.33 Now then
let us say simply that a duration is incomposite when it is occupied
neither by multiple syllables, notes, or units of movement; let it be
called composite when occupied by multiples of all or more than one
of these; and let it be called mixed when it happens that a duration be
occupied by a single note but by multiple syllables, or-conversely-
by a single syllable but by multiple notes.
16. The foot, single or multiple, is the means by which we mark the
rhythm and make it intelligible to the ~ e n s e . ~ "
17. Some of the feet are composed of two times-both the upward
[arsis] and the downward [thesis]; others of three, either two in arsis
and one in thesis or one in arsis and the other two in thesis; still others
of four, two in arsis and two in thesis.35
18. Now it is evident that a foot could not be formed with a single
time unit, inasmuch as a single unit cannot constitute a division of time;
 for unless there be a division of time, a foot cannot occur. And our
apprehension of a foot with more than two units is influenced by its
size: for some of the lesser feet, having a magnitude easily com-
prehended by the sense, are easily and immediately grasped by means of
their two units; the greater feet are affected in the opposite manner:
for, having a magnitude difficult to be grasped by the sense, they
require a greater number of units, so that the magnitude of the whole
foot (being divided into many parts) is more easily perceived. It will
later be shown why a foot, acting in accordance with its natural
function, does not occur with more than four units.
19. But one should not assume wrongly from what has been said
that a foot is not divided into more than four numbers [apdpdc]. For
some of the feet are divided into double this number and into many
times more. But not of its own nature is the foot divided into quantities
greater than four; on the contrary, such a division is the result of the
rhythmic composition. One must distinguish carefully between the
units that preserve the function of the foot and the divisions arising
from the rhythmic composition. And we must add that the units of
each foot (being equal) are persistent, both with regard to number and
magnitude; but the divisions resulting from rhythmic composition
display considerable variety. This will become clear in what follows.36
20. Each of the feet has been arranged either in accordance with a
certain proportion or some irrationality which will lie between two
proportions that are intelligible to the sense. The preceding may be
clarified as follows: if two feet be taken, one equal in the ratio of arsis
t o thesis and each of these a diseme, the other a diseme in thesis but
half that in arsis; to these let a third foot be taken, having-moreover-
the same thesis as the first two but an arsis intermediate in duration t o
the arses of the preceding. Such a foot will be irrational in the propor-
tion of arsis to thesis, and the irrationality will be between two
proportions that are intelligible to the sense: the equal and the duple.
And this is known as an irrational choreic. 37
21. But let us not misunderstand here out of ignorance of how the
rational and the irrational are taken in the principles of rhythm. For
just as it is in the elemental principles that apply t o intervals, one type
is held to be rational in accordance with the r n e l o ~(which
~ ~ is first sung
and subsequently is intelligible with respect to magnitude-like the
symphonic intervals or the keys or things commensurate to these), and
another type is held to be rational solely with respect to the propor-
tions of the numbers (which happens to be unmelodic); and one must
suppose that there are both rational and irrational types among the
rhythms. For the one is held rational in accord with the nature of
rhythm, and the other rational only with respect to the proportions of
the numbers.39
Now it is necessary in rhythm that the time duration that is
considered rational must first be among those belonging to rhythmic
composition, and consequently that part of the foot in which it is
deplbyed is considered rational. And it is necessary to perceive the other
one considered rational according to the proportions of the numbers as
similar to the twelvefold nature of the key (with regard to the intervals)
and anything else detected in the differences of the i n t e r ~ a l s . ~
And from the preceding it is evident that the median being taken
between the arses will not be proportionate to the thesis; for they have
no measure in common with the enrhythmic.
22. Let these seven differences of the feet be set forth: f i s t ,
according to whether they differ in magnitude from one another;
second, according to genus; third, in that some of the feet are rational,
others irrational; fourth, in that some are incomposite, others com-
posite; fifth, in that they differ in division one from another; sixth, in
that they differ in structure from one another; seventh, according to
antithesis.
23. A foot differs from another in magnitude whenever the dura-
tions occupied by the feet are unequal.
24. Feet differ in genus whenever the proportions of the feet differ
from one another, such as when one is in equal proportion and another
in duple or any other of the enrhythmic times.
25. The irrational differ from the rational in that their arsis is not in
rational proportion to their thesis.
26. The incomposite differ from the composite in that the former
are not divisible into smaller feet as are the latter.
27. Feet differ from one another in division whenever the same
duration is divided into unequal parts, either by both number and
magnitude or by one of the two.
28. Feet differ from one another in structure whenever the same
parts of feet having the same magnitudes are not arranged in the same
manner .4l
29. Feet differ from one another in antithesis, some having the time
of arsis in opposition to that of the thesis. This same difference will also
exist in those feet equal in duration yet unequal in the placement of the
arsis against the the~is.4~
30. There are three genera among the feet that take on the succes-
sive divisions of the rhythmic composition: the dactylic, the iambic, and
the paeonic. The dactylic is that which is in equal proportion, the
iambic that which is in duple, and the paeonic that which is in
hemi0lic.4~
31. The smallest of the feet are those a triseme in magnitude, for
the magnitude of the diseme would give an absolutely constricted
expression to the foot. Those a triseme in magnitude belong to the
iambic genus, for the only proportion contained in the number three
will be the duple.44
 32. Second are those a tetraseme in magnitude; these are dactylic in
genus: for two proportions are contained in the number four-the
equal and the triple; of these the triple is not enrhythmic, but the equal
belongs to the dactylic genus.
33. Third are those a pentaseme in magnitude, for in the number
five two proportions are included-the quadruple and the hemiolic; of
these the quadruple is not enrhythmic, and the hemiolic will produce
the paeonic genus."'
34. Fourth are those a hexaserne in magnitude; this magnitude is
common to two genera-the iambic and the dactylic: for of the three
proportions included in the number six (the equal, the duple, and the
quintuple), the last mentioned is not enrhythmic; but of the rest, the
equal proportion belongs to the dactylic genus, the duple to the iambic.
35. The magnitude of the heptaseme contains no division relevant to
the foot; for, of the three proportions comprehended in the number
seven, not one is enrhythmic: one is the epitritic [4:3], the second that
of 5 : 2 ,and the third is the sextuple.
36. Fifth, therefore, are those an octaseme in magnitude; these will
be dactylic in genus, inasmuch as . . .

NOTES

1. The most recent of these is Rudolf Westphal's Aristoxenos von Tarent, Melik
und Rhythmik des classischen Hellenentums (Leipzig: A. Abel, 1883, 1893;
reprint Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1965), 2 vols.
2. The Harmonics o f Aristoxenus, trans. and ed. Henry S. Macran (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1902; reprint Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1974), pp. 88-89.
3. Suda or Suidas is the name of the lexicon, not an author; this most important
historical/literary encyclopedia was compiled near the end of the tenth
century.
4. Op. cit.
5. J. F. Mountford, "Aristoxenus," The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 2nd ed.
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970).
6. The texts have been assembled by Westphal, Aristoxenus, Vol. 11, pp. 75-95.
7. Aristides Quintilianus, De musica libri tres, ed. R. P. Winnington-Ingram
(Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1963). See also Rudolph Schafke's German transla-
tion, Von der Musik (Berlin: M. Hesse, 1937). An English summary can be
found in W. H. Stahl, Martianus Capella and the Seven Liberal Arts, Vol. I
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1971) pp. 219-227. Readers who
happen upon C. F. A. Williams, The Aristoxenian Theory o f Musical Rhythm
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911) should be aware that it is not
a textual study but an interpretation that attempts to apply the principles of
Greek rhythm to 19th-century music. (Ed. note: An English translation of the
complete De Musica of Aristides Quintilianus is being prepared for the Yale
Music Theory Translation series by Thomas J. Mathiesen.)
 8. A detailed history of the text is beyond the scope of this paper. For the
various sources of the Aristoxenus rhythmic texts see a most important
reference: Thomas J. Mathiesen, A Bibliography of Sources for the Study of
Ancient Greek Music (Hackensack, N.J.: Boonin, 1974) items 46 (Morelli),
49 (Feussner), 50 (Bartels), 52 (Marquard), and 54 (Westphal, cited above).
Feussner (Aristoxenus, Grundziige .,der Rhythmik, ein Bruchstiick, in
berichtigter Urschrift mit deutscher Ubersetzung [Hanau: C. F. Edler, 18401
includes Morelli's critical apparatus as well as his own more extensive col-
lection of variant readings; Westphal's critical apparatus appears o n pp. CCIV-
CCVI of Vol. 11.
9. Cf. Cleonides, "Harmonic Introduction," in Source Readings in Music
History, selected and annotated by Oliver Strunk (New York: W. W. Norton,
1950) pp. 34-46. For the Greek text see Karl von Jan's Musici scriptores
graeci (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1895; reprint Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1962)
pp. 167-207.
10. Ibid., 55 and 38.
11. The terms rhythmizomenon and aisthesis have been retained for the sub-
sequent discussions of their very specialized meanings but discarded in the
translation. See also notes 17 and 22.
12. Especially in Aristotle's De Anima and De Sensu, and Theophrastus' De
Sensibus (for full citations see note 13).
13. The following discussion draws o n the following sources: Aristotle, On the
Soul, Parva Naturalia, On Breath, trans. W. S. Hett (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1936, rev. 1957); Aristotle, De Anima, ed. with
intro. and commentary by Sir David Ross (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961);
and G. M. Stratton, Theophrastus and the Greek Physiological Psychology
before Aristotle (London: Allen & Unwin, 1917).
14. For a comprehensive catalog of the uses of the word pvOpdc and an account
of its semsntic development see Robert Christopher Ross, "'PvOp6c: A
History of its Connotations," Ph.D. diss., University of California, 1972.
15. I, 13.
16. 11, 1.
17. aibOqorc is derived from the verb aloOdvopar (to perceive, apprehend by the
senses, understand).
18. I, 19.
19. On the Soul, 11, 6.
20. Book A , 2.
21. Westphal, Vol. 11, pp. 77-85.
22. Rhythmizomenon is a present passive participle in form, in the nominative
singular, neuter gender, and is regularly derived from the verb buOp&w, (to
bring into measure, rhythmicize). Its literal meaning is thus "that which is
rhythmed." puOpdc is to pvOpddpevov just as form is to matter, active
principle to passive substance. Other similar pairs of terms appear frequently
in rhythmic theory, either derived regularly or by analogy: o x f i ~ a l
oxqparr<dpevov (formlthat which is formed) and ~ i v q o r s l ~ r v o d p e v o(motion1
v
that which is moved).
23. Melos (melodic substance) should not be confused with melodia (melody). In
3 9 Aristoxenus clearly identifies melos as one of the three rhythmizomena.
24. Enrhythmic (in rhythm), eurhythmic (good rhythm), and rhythmic are
synonyms;arrhythmic means "out of rhythm, nonrhythmic."
25. Hermosmenon, translated here as "the harmonious," is a parallel term from
Greek harmonic theory and signifies the substance that is organized according
to the principles of harmony.
26. oqpeiov is an important word in Greek rhythmic theory. Its literal meaning
 is "sign, mark, signal." I believe that its musical application derives from its
usage in mathematics and geometry as a "point." There are two applications
in B: (1) [ K W ? ~ U E W C ] or,peiOv, lit. a "point of [bodily] movement," which I
have consistently translated as a "unit of movement," and (2) the oqpeia that
represent the units of rhythm, small time durations (referring generally to
the minimal unit of primary time, ~ p d v o c n p i k o c ) or-as in 5 18-19-the
components of the foot: arsis and thesis.
27. It seems simpler not to translate the names of the multiples of the basic unit.
Seme is an obvious derivation from oqpeiov. These are the durations men-
tioned in B: the diseme (2), triseme (3), tetraseme (4), pentaseme ( 9 ,
hexaseme (6), heptaseme (7), and octaseme (8). See 5 31-36.
28. There are several textual questions in this passage, and its sense is not
immediately apparent. I take it to mean the following: we recognize chronos
protos not because it is the shortest musical duration that can be per-
ceived but because of its appropriateness to the individual units of speech,
music, and movement-the syllables, notes, and units of movement. It is a
relative, not an absolute, standard of measurement. In line 29 of Westphal's
text, I follow Feussner's o t j p a ippaivdv in preference to Westphal's ( o b d
orjpa or,patrov.
29. p e ~ a p o h i , following, Westphal's emendation (although most of the older
sources read pehonoiih).
30. Rhythmopoeia (rhythmic composition), according to Aristides (I, 19), was
divided into the same three categories as melopoeia: lepsis (choice), chresis
(usage), and mixis (mixture). Lepsis refers specifically to the selection of
characteristic rhythms, chresis to the appropriate arrangement of the arses
and theses, and mixis to the artful combining of rhythms. Rhythmopoeia and
melopoeia share also the same three styles (tropoi):the systaltic (contract-
ing), diastaltic (expanding), and hesychastic (soothing). The employment of
these tropoi imparted the characteristic ethos to rhythmic and melodic
composition.
31. III,60, line 10, through III,61, line 3. Cf. Cleonides 5 5.
32. The text of this passage is badly mangled. Westphal (in 0 14, lines 26 and 27)
omits the phrase ~ a ndhiv i 76 piv S d ~ o v o vh o w B e ~ o v76
, 66 x p G p a o h B e ~ o v .
It has all the earmarks of a gloss, but I have restored it, since it adds the
example that clinches the meaning.
33. Here I have omitted the sentence n? 6; o6vBe~oq~ a nr, i h o 6 O e ~ o cb bnb pE)v
sivoq SiqpqpCvoq, bnb S i ~ i v o qh6KLipe70q 6 v ("How composite and how
incomposite [being] that the one is divisible by a certain thing, the other
indivisible by a certain thing"). I strongly suspect that it is another gloss, this
time adding little to the meaning of the text.
34. no6q (foot) has about the same range of meanings as the English "footm-a
human or animal foot, a base for anything, a unit of length, a foot in prosody.
35. Aristoxenus uses 76 hlvw (the upward) and 76 K ~ T W(the downward) in
preference to the more familiar termsarsis and thesis.
36. The opposition between bvepdc (rhythm) and hpdpdq (number) plays upon
the phonetic and accentual resemblances between the two words, despite the
difference of the radical vowel: to be hprOpdc is to be hp&pdc! This passage
emphasizes that the divisions of proper rhythm were relative, few in number,
and in functional relationship to the structure of the whole; the divisions of
the numbers were absolute and included many more possibilities (cf. 58).
Apparently rhythmopoeia is closer to the modern concept of rhythm,
rhythmos closer to what we call meter.
37. Aristides lists two irrational choreics among the feet resulting from mixed
genera (I, 17): the iamboid (a long in arsis and two in thesis) and the
 trochoid (two in arsis and a long in thesis). Aristoxenus is citing the first of
these in which the arsis is more than one but less than two of the units in the
thesis.
38. For pE'Aoc Feussner has pE'poc (part), but the evidence of the sense of the
passage as well as the evidence of most of the texts are on Westphal's side.
39. I take this passage to mean that any component of music-while it can in one
sense be considered rational in that it can be measured by some absolute
number-becomes rational in a special, musical sense only by becoming an
actual part of melody or rhythm and can thus be identified as a functioning
component within the system. A rhythmic figure of seven beats can be
arbitrarily broken down into three proportions (4:3,5:2,6:1), as Aristoxenus
points out in $ 35, but none of the three proportions has a specific function
among the accepted genera of rhythm. Hence it is rational only with respect
to the combination of the numbers.
40. Aristoxenus (Harmonics I, 16, 19-31) and Cleonides ($5) agree on the five
differences applying to intervals: in magnitude, in genus, in the symphonic as
opposed to the diaphonic (consonant/dissonant), in composition (incom-
posite/composite), and in proportion (rational/irrational). The differences of
the feet set forth in B $ 22 are obviously patterned after these.
41. E.g., the difference between the simple spondee (long in thesis, long in arsis)
and thegreater anapest (long in thesis, two shorts in arsis).
42. By the first of these principles, thegreater anapest (long in thesis, two shorts
in arsis) differs from the lesser anapest (two shorts in arsis, long in thesis). By
the second principle, the composite foot known as the trochaic bacchic
(long-short in arsis, short-long in thesis), a coupled foot of the iambic [2:1]
genus, would differ from the greater ionic (two longs in arsis, two shorts in
thesis) and the lesser ionic (two shorts in arsis, two longs in thesis), both
coupled feet of the dactylic [1:1] genus; all are a hexaseme in magnitude,
to use Aristoxenus' terms.
43. Dactylic here refers to the proportion 1 :1, not to that metric foot which is
the reverse of the anapest. The scheme is as follows:
Genus
- Proportion Name of the Proportion
dactylic 1:l equal
iambic 2: 1 duple
paeonic 3:2 hemiolic
Aristoxenus did not consider the epitritic (4:3) proportion enrhythmic, but
apparently certain other authorities did.
44. In other words, 3 = 2: 1. The scheme continues: 4 = 2:2 and 3: 1 ;5 = 4: 1 and
3:2; 6 = 3:3, 4:2, and 5 : l ; 7 = 4:3, 5:2,and 6:1;8 =4:4,5:3,6:2,and 7.1,
etc.
45. Feussner must have been asleep here, substituting-on no apparent textual
authority-rpmhaoiou (triple) for rerparrhaoiov (quadruple) in both instances.

I would like to acknowledge with gratitude the kind assistance of Professor

Robert Littman of the University of Hawaii's Classics Department; his comments
were of particular value in clarifying some of the peculiarities of Aristoxenus'
syntax.