Talk:Heinrich Glarean

Glarean's proposal that there are actually twelve modes?

The table on the very first page of the Dodecachordon shows Glarean's proposal is of fourteen modes.

Even though Glarean prefixes the last two ("hyperphrygius" and "hyperaeolius") with an asterisk, is this reason enough to just assert in this article without further explanation that Glarean's proposal is "that there are actually twelve modes"?

Contact Basemetal here 15:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Clement Miller's article in the current NG states twelve unequivocally: "Glarean's fame as a musical theorist rests above all on his Dodecachordon, published in Basle in 1547 by Heinrich Petri... This vast tome is divided into three books: book 1, based mainly on Boethius and Gaffurius, treats the elements of music, consonance and dissonance, and solmization; book 2 concerns the theory of 12 modes applied to plainsong and other monophony; book 3 discusses mensural music and the theory of 12 modes applied to polyphonic music" and "From [his visit to St Georgen] came the impetus to make an edition of Boethius's De musica and to develop his own system of 12 modes" ... "...the most fruitful results of Glarean's modal principles are found in the many instrumental compositions of late Renaissance composers who applied his ideas. Such men as Merulo, Padovano, and Andrea and Giovanni Gabrieli wrote toccatas and ricercares in all 12 modes..." etc. Nowhere mentions 14. I don't have the illustration in front of me. Does it explain what the asterisk means? Antandrus (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You can take a look at that first page here. There's no explanation as to the meaning of the asterisks on that page or immediately after since what follows is the dedication. Of course there might be something later on in the text. I'm not questioning Miller's statement. Of course I have not read the whole book. What I'm saying is that an explanation may be desirable since Glarean's "hyperaeolian" is mentioned at article Locrian mode. Just to minimize (by a very small amount) confusion, as there's enough of it on these matters of modes as it is. Article Locrian mode seems to be saying that Glarean recognized the "hyperaeolian" as an octave species but not as a mode. What does the "Dodecachordon" in the title stand for? And incidentally, do you know if "Glarean" is a real family name, or is it a humanist's nom de plume? Contact Basemetal here 19:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! interesting. -- "Dodecachordon" means "instrument with twelve strings". He was from the canton of Glarus in Switzerland, hence the name (Heinrich Glarean, or latinized as Henricus Glareanus). I believe you are correct that he recognized Hyperphrygius / Hyperaeolius as octave species rather than modes (Jerome Kohl can probably clarify this better than I can). Note the hyper- (over) vs hypo- (under) prefix. Here is a short bit on Hyperaeolian and Hyperphrygian from Book III, chapter 24 of the Dodecachordon: "Of the sixth combination, that of Hyperaeolian and Hyperphrygian, we have deliberately omitted an example, for none is to be found anywhere and it would be foolish to invent one, especially with so great a choice of modes; the tenor, too, would have an outrageous ambitus, actually exceeding all the remaining combinations of the modes by an apotome. Aside from this, in our previous book we have given an invented example, less for imitation than for illustration, so that the matter might be understood, not so that something of the sort might be attempted by anyone, a thing we find that no one has attempted." (tr. Oliver Strunk) Antandrus (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Since my name has been invoked, I suppose I had better chime in, though Antandrus has explained the situation as well or better than I could do. The only thing I can think to add is that Glareanus mentions requesting a hypothetical example in the Hyperaeolian from the famous composer Sixtus Dietrich in Constance, who obliged with a three-voice composition, printed in the Dodecachordon as Exx. 277, "O Domine Jesu Christe fili Dei". Glareanus also gives a second example from an actual composition (Exx. 278/279), a four-voice setting of the "Christe eleison" from a mass by Petrus Platensis (better-known today as Pierre de la Rue), though whether this is legitimately in Hyperaeolian is debatable, as can easily be seen in the example at the Thesaurus Musicarum Latinarum website, where the text of book 3 of the Dodecachordon is found here. The examples (for those who can read 16th-century notation) are found as GLADOD3 053GF/GLADOD3 054GF and GLADOD3 055GF /GLADOD3 056GF (each on two pages), respectively. I'm not immediately finding the passage in which Glareanus explains the horrible defects that caused him to reject this and its companion plagal mode (for which he did not even seek an artificial example), but I'm sure it's in there somewhere.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I was looking in the wrong book. Glareanus's discussion of his reasons for omitting the Hyperaeolian and Hyperphrygian is found in book 1], near the very end, in chapter 21. He is discussing Aristoxenus, Ptolemy, and, especially, Martianus Capella, with whose 15 tones he finds some fault: "At nos sex principes cum singulis plagijs, ut Aristoxenus, ponemus, ut sit numerus 12. Omissis hypermixolydio, qui Ptolemaei est, et hyperaeolio hyperphrygioque quos posteri adiecerunt. Sunt autem principes nostri sex. Dorius, Phrygius, Lydius, Mixolydius, Aeolius et Iastius, siue (utroque enim modo reperias) Ionicus. Plagij item 6. cum [to hypo] compositi, Hypodorius, Hypophrygius, Hypolydius, Hypomixolydius, Hypoaeolius, Hypoiastius qui et Hypoionicus. Hi sunt ueri indubitati 12 Modi, de quibus sequentis libri commentationem suscepimus." The discussion is long, and my Latin weak, but the last sentence runs, "These are the undoubtedly true 12 modes, of which a commentary is undertaken in the following books."—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

How much science wasted by Antandrus and Jerome Kohl on a mere talk page! Let's hope readers of the article will be wise enough to turn to the talk page too and will be, as I am, grateful for their contributions. The thing that made me suspicious about Glareanus being a real family name was precisely that he came from the canton of Glaris. And it turns out he had another name namely Loris as I discovered by browsing through the corresponding articles on foreign language WPs (Latinized as Loriti according to the French WP or Loriti or Loritti or Loretti or Loritis according to the Spanish WP). Was that perhaps his real family name? Who knows with those humanists? For the benefit of my fellow readers (not yours): many 16th c. and 17th c. intellectuals tended to like Latin noms de plume, of if they thought they were really cool, Greek ones, e.g. Schwarzerd who was known as Melanchthon, the Greek translation of his name, e.g. the cartographer Cremer known as Mercator, the Latin translation of his name, and many many others; even the composer Schütz I think used at times Sagittarius, but I might be wrong; the article Renaissance Humanism fails to mention this, admittedly minor, fact. On whose authority do we have it that the Dodecachordon of the title refers to a 12 string instrument? I'm not questioning that it could, but the reason I asked is that I was wondering if the title has anything to do with the 12 modes, and if it is a 12 string instrument, I don't immediately see what instrument that would be. Ancient lyres tended to have 7 or 10 strings I thought. Finally the status of the hyperphrygian and hyperaeolian in Glarean's theory. There's no doubt, from Antandrus's excerpts, that as far as bona fide full modes he only accepts the first 12 in the table (and note that not only are the hyperphrygian and hyperaeolian asterisked but they also are not placed in the right sequence, but "at the back" as it were). So what exactly was their status and why did he include them in his table at all? Article Locrian mode (not me) says that he took the hyperaeolian as an octave species. That's fine, but I don't see how this could apply to the hyperphrygian: I don't see how the division into plagal and authent could apply to octaves species. As far as octave structure, the hyperphrygian would be identical to the lydian, wouldn't it? Unless I am mistaken, the preliminary table (see the smaller print where Glarean gives, next to his names, modal names assumed by other theorists, such as for example Martianus Capella, when they differ from his) seems to say that Glarean's hyperphrygian and hyperaeolian are not those of Martianus Capella. So his discussion may well reject some of the views of Martianus Capella, but how could he be rejecting specifically modes which he on the other hand equates (according to that table at least) with modes he accepts? But I'll keep Jerome Kohl reference (Book 1, Chapter 21) for when I get my hands on an English translation of the work to see exactly what Glarean has to say and maybe finally to understand not only why he rejected those two but also why he thought necessary to include in the preliminary table modes he ended up rejecting. Do I understand correctly that Antandrus quotes from an English translation by Oliver Strunk? Finally: in WP "hyperphrygian mode" redirects to "hypodorian mode". Another WP mystery. Contact Basemetal here 15:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You are addressing a lot of issues here. Let me try to answer at least some of your questions. First of all, formal (legal, usually patronymic) family names were only just coming into use in the 16th century in many European countries. When there was need for a person to differentiate himself from some other person with the same or a different name, it was often done informally (e.g., "Clemens non Papa" = that Clement guy who is not the Pope of the same name), though using a patronymic was also an often-used option. Naturally this can create all sorts of problems of identity when researching early sources, and Glarean himself supplies an example here, with Petrus Platensis (Pete from the Low Countries, you know the guy I mean!).

Second, there is an English translation of the complete Dodecachordon by Clement Miller, in the series Musicological Studies and Documents 6 ([N.p.]: American Institute of Musicology, 1965). It is not available online, as far as I know, and I didn't have the opportunity to hike over to the library to consult it, which is why I used the Latin text from TML. The Strunk translation referred to by Antandrus is an excerpt, included in Oliver Strunk's excellent anthology Source Readings in Music History (Norton, 1950; new edition, with added material by Leo Treitler, Thomas J Mathiesen, James W McKinnon, Gary Tomlinson, Margaret Murata, Wye Jamison Allanbrook, Ruth A Solie, and Robert P Morgan, 1998).

The confusion over mode names on WP (and elsewhere) in cases like this is to do with the fact that they are nonstandard. Glareanus grabbed names out of the air, so to speak, simply because he felt the need to supply terms for reference (and the same really applies to the Aeolian/Hypoaeolian and Ionian/Hypoionian, which are also arbitrary choices—the difference being that these names stuck). He uses them consistently throughout the Dodecachordon, but this usage does not necessarily apply in other sources and contexts, especially where ancient Greek terminology is concerned.

I agree with your criticism of the article on the Locrian mode, and will see if I can do something to repair the defects you point out.

The "octave species" issue is indeed confusing. The distinction between authentic and plagal ought not to apply here, and may well be one reason that Glarean does not give a separate discussion of his Hyperphrygian, since dismissal of the defective octave species for the Hyperaeolian is sufficient.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

But this is what I don't understand. I might have badly misunderstood terminology, but I thought that the B to B octave is shared by the Hyperaeolian and the Hypophrygian, that they have the same octave B to B and that the difference is that the final is B in the case of the Hyperaeolian and E in the case of the Hypophrygian, and similarly that the Hyperphrygian and the Lydian both share the same octave F to F but that the final is B in the case of the Hyperphrygian and F in the case of the Lydian. If this is the case then how can mere consideration of the octave species lead to declaring the Hyperaeolian and the Hyperphrygian unsuitable if both share their octave with perfectly good and acceptable modes, namely the Hypophrygian and the Lydian respectively? But, again, there's something I may have misunderstood. Contact Basemetal here 12:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC) PS: A moderately amusing point of (perfectly understandable) terminological inconsistency on Glarean's part: the Hyperphrygian ought to be called the "Hypohyperaeolian". Had Glarean done that it no doubt would have been even easier to convince everyone that the "Hypohyperaeolian" just had no place in the music of Christian civilized European societies! Contact Basemetal here 13:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as it goes, you are correct. The distinction has to do with the inability to divide the octave into an appropriate tetrachord/pentachord pair. By "appropriate" I mean that one of them must begin on the assigned mode final (what this boils down to is that the interval between the mode final and the fifth note above may not be a diminished fifth). This is the trick that discriminates between the octave species in the Hyperaeolian/Hypophrygian and Hyperphrygian/Lydian pairs. I still haven't gotten to the library to consult Clement Miller's translation, but I have found an English translation of the entire concluding chapter of book 1 of the Dodecachordon, together with a commentary. This is in volume 2, chapter 3 of John Hawkins's General History of the Science and Practice of Music in Five Volumes (London: T. Payne & Son, 1766), which can be found online here. Hawkins adds a summary table of the octave species on p. 423. I hope this helps clarify this matter.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Odd wording

The article says that "It was in Cologne where he held a poem as a tribute to [the] Emperor". What does "to hold a poem to someone" mean? To declaim it? To dedicate it? Is this a German idiom that doesn't translate well? I think that "where" should probably be "that", or else "It was in Cologne where..." should be rewritten as something along the lines of "He was in Cologne when..." or "Cologne was where..." or the like, but before emending it I want to know what holding a poem to someone means. --Haruo (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)