C 771 ] 
whence it appears, that he relied on the doctor’s ap- 
pendix for this part at lead; of his explanations. In 
his notes on the dialogue of Plutarch, printed alfo in 
the fame memoirs, the not underftanding the mufical 
do&rine has led him into a very falfe explanation of 
the paflage cited above, concerning the invention of 
the Mixolydian mode. He fets out (5 5-) with ex- 
cluding the only fuppofition, that could lead him to 
the fenfe of his author, by denying, that the octa- 
chord fyftem could have any thing to do with this 
invention; and then flies (56) to two other fuppofi- 
tions, viz. that either the hendecachord or difdia- 
pafon' was here meant, both which are equally wide 
of the truth. The public is much indebted to this 
writer, for the laborious collections he has made in 
thefe notes, concerning the antient muficians ; but 
his harmonic explanations are not always to be re- 
lied on. 
(55) Lamprocle n’eft point ici donne comme 1 ’auteur de Phar- 
monie Mixolydienne, il en eft regarde feulement comme le re- 
formateur. Mais en quoi pouvoit confifter cette reforme? C’etoit, 
comme le dit Plutarque, a determiner le veritable fyfteme de cette 
harmonie, ou de ce mode, quant a fa disjonCtion, ou a Parrange- 
ment des divers tetrachordes, qui compofoient ce fyfteme. En le 
reduifant a Petendue de Po&ave, ou de 1 ’oCtachorde, c’eftadiredu 
double tetrachorde disjoint; le lieu de cette disjon&ion eft unique, 
et par confequent n’eft point equivoque, comme on le peut voir par 
la progreflion de ce fyfteme, que void, mi, fa, fol, la, ft, ut , re, 
mi\ il ne s’agit done point ici du double tetrachorde disjoint. 
Note 1 1 4. 
(56) Mais 1 ’hendecachorde, ou le triple tetrachorde disjoint, 
pouvoit etre le fyfteme, dont parle icy Plutarque — fuppofe qu’il foit 
icy queftion du fyfteme complet de l’ancienne mufique, &c. 
Ibidem. 
5 g 
Vol. LI. 
The 
