[ 755 3 
the harmonic dodtrine feem to fuppofe : and this 
proof it would not be eafy to obtain, fince each of 
thefe modes had its fpecies belonging to it, and was 
only exceptionable, becaufe it repeated the melody of 
one or other of the feven. 
4thly, The denominations given by the Arifto- 
xenians to five of the fpurious modes, after the ge- 
nuine ones, whofe fpecies they afforded, furnifli an- 
other ftrong proof j for this could fcarce have hap- 
pened, if the pitch of the fyftem had been the prin- 
cipal diftindtion. 
ythly, We find in Plutarch, Pliny, and other 
authors, the invention of particular modes afcribed 
to particular muficians ; which may be accounted 
for, on the fuppofition, that the modes were fo many 
different fpecies of diapafon; fince it requires great 
art and fkill to introduce agreeably melodies, to 
which the ear has not been accuftomed : but the 
taking the fame melody at a different pitch is a va- 
riety, for which the inventor would hardly have had 
his name fo carefully delivered to pofterity. 
But 6thly, there are paffages, that ftrongly con- 
firm the preceding arguments. Ariftoxenus fpeaks 
of modes of the melopoei (28), by which I under- 
fland him to mean the fpecies of diapafon, in contra- 
diftindtion to the modes of the harmonicians ; for I 
fufpedt the modes of melopoei'a, mentioned by Ari- 
ftides Quintilianus (29), and divided by him into 
three kinds, viz. nomic, which was netoidesj di~ 
thyrambic, which was mefoides j and tragic, which 
(28) Pag. 40. v. 21. 
(29) Pag. 29. v. ult. 
Vol. LI. 
was 
