[ 757 ] 
refped to its effeds, is manifelt, from the whole 
paifage : fo that, though the modes are not diredly 
mentioned, they are necelfarily to be implied. But 
Ptolemey is ftill more exprefs ; for, in the paifage 
cited above, from book fecond, chapter feventh, he 
diredly affirms, that the ethos, or character or the 
mode, depended on the mufical doctrine, and not 
on the harmonic ; and is ftill more explicit, to the 
fame purpofe, in the paifage cited alfo from the fixth 
chapter of the fame book. Thefe two palfages are 
fo clear, that there is no evading their teftimony, 
but by fuppoling the author to be lingular in Ins 
opinion ; which there is, indeed, room to think was 
his cafe, with refped to many of the muficians, his 
contemporaries ; for the pains he has taken to clear up 
and diftinguifh the two dodrines, is a fufficient proof, 
that miftakes had prevailed concerning them; but 
that what he has advanced is not repugnant to the 
dodrines held in earlier antiquity, has, I think, been 
amply Ihewn. I fhall now dole thefe proofs with 
three remarkable palfages from Plutarch’s dialogue 
on mufic, which will all become intelligible from 
the explanation given of this fubjed, at the lame 
time, that they will ferve to confirm it. The fir It 
refpedts the invention of the Mixolydian mode, 
which we fhall fee he treats as a fpecies of diapafon, 
telling us between what founds of the fyltem it lay, 
and in what part of the diapafon the diazeudic tone 
was fituated ; in both which circumftances, the 
paifage agrees with the preceding explanation, and 
with the firlt diagram. 
<c Lyfis informs us, that Lamprocles the Athenian, 
feeing, that it (the Mixolydian harmony) had not the 
f E z disjundion 
