[ 76 5 ] 
fettled by Ptolemey are acknowleged by the moderns, 
in their feven pofitions of the mi. For nothing favours 
lefs of the mulical dodtrine, than what the moderns 
hold in this refpedt. And it is manifeft alfo, from 
his negledting to affid the explanation of this doc- 
trine of Ptolemey, by any citations from other au- 
thors, that fpeak to the fame purpofe ; which he 
would not have failed to do, if it had druck him as 
an antient and genuine theory of the modes. But it 
is plain to me, that, however he may have penetrated 
the fenfe of thefe particular paffages, he did not grafp 
their confequences. This the midakes he has fallen 
into fufficiently (hew ; which I (hall now proceed to 
point out, and which a thorough comprehenlion of 
the fubjedt could not but have prevented. 
In (peaking of the mefe of the Hypophrygian 
mode, he explains it by c # 3 indead of f '# (47), a 
midake, which, I think, mud be imputed to his 
hade. 
In the table of the modes, which he has given 
from Meibomius (48), he has placed the letters in 
ufe with the moderns, againd the Hypodorian, as 
well as the Dorian, making A anfwer to the prodam- 
banomenos of the former, as well as the latter by 
which, it is to be prefumed, he means them to exprefs 
the abfolute pitch of the founds in the Dorian, and 
in the Hypodorian, to denote only the general rela- 
tions of the fydem ; but this fhould have been far- 
ther explained. 
(47) Not. ad Ptol. p. 154. lin. 41. 
(48) P. 155. 
SF 2 
But 
