C 762 ] 
In his note alfo on the paffage I have cited above, 
from Ariftides, page 18. verfe 11. he explains the 
expreffion, quality of the harmony, to fgnify the 
fpecies of diapafon, or tone (41), which is the fenfe 
I 1 have put upon it. We fee therefore, that though 
he haftily afcribes to the harmonic dodtrine alone the 
effedts, which I have luppofed to arife only from the 
mufical, yet he clearly admits both the dodtiines to 
be warranted from antiquity j and I am glad to have 
fo far the fupport of this learned critic’s opinion : but 
of the connection between the two dodtrines, as I 
have explained it, I fee no trace in his notes j noi is 
it to be imagined, but that, if he had feen it, he 
Would have enlarged upon it. 
In relpedt to Dr. Wallis, though he had the ad- 
vantage ot the notes of Meibom i us, who had cleared 
up fo many difficulties, and had alfo taken under his 
own management the text of Ptolemev, the author, 
of all others, the moft likely to have given him a 
thorough in fight into this fubjedt, yet we find him 
not only defedtive in his explanations of it, but, con- 
trary to his ufual accuracy, even in mifleading his 
readers by falle dodtrines. With refpedt to the mu- 
fical dodtrine, if we may judge by his filence, he ap- 
pears to have feen lefs of it than Meibomius; foi, in 
the appendix to his edition of Ptolemey, wherein he 
g-i a harmonia, apud optimos autores legimus. Deinde eaedem toni 
et tropi, feu modi funt adpellati. Meibom, in Euclid. Introduc . 
Harm. p. 42. . 
(41) Id eft quae fit fpecies oftachordi, feu quis tonus; nam duo- 
bus modis ufurpatur vox «p y.ovtct^ uno pro genere enarmonio, a- 
tero pro tono, feu tropo, feu modo ; quie lignificatio eft huic JCO 
propria. Meibom, in Arift. Quint, p. 230. 
under- 
