818 . M U 
of our notes are changed by different clefs and keys, the 
one hundred and twenty Greek characters produced one 
thoufand fix hundred and twenty notes! Two rows of 
thefe characters were ufually placed over the words of a 
lyric poem; the upper row l'erving for the voice, and the 
lower for inftruments. 
If we had not the teftimony of all the Greek writers 
•who have mentioned thefe characters, for their ufe and 
defoliation, it would be natural to fuppofe that the dou¬ 
ble row of different letters placed over each other, and 
above the words of a poem, were intended to exprefs dif¬ 
ferent parts, with refpeCt to harmony ; as with us, in mo¬ 
dern mufic, the treble notes are written over the bafs, and 
the firlt treble over the fecond ; but Alypius, who is ex¬ 
tremely minute in his inftruCtions concerning- the ufe of 
thefe characters, in all thefe modes, tells us, in exprefs 
terms, that the upper line of the notes is for the words, 
and the lower for the lyre. And we are told, not only 
by Alypius, but by Gaudentius, that, of the two row’s of 
letters ufed for mufical characters, the upper is for the 
words, that is, to he Jung-, and the under to he played. And 
he afterwards proves them to have been unifons to each 
other, both by his definitions and by placing them oppofite 
to the fame lound in all the feales. 
In this author, the notes of the great fyftem of the 
Lydian mode in the diatonic genus are arranged in the 
following order: 
ygRbCPMieruZEu^xMT 
h r l FCuTCVNZ^jZti a n' 
And thefe he defines in fuch a manner as leaves no room 
to doubt of the identity of their fignification. 
It is fomewhat ftrange that the notes for the voice in 
ancient mufic fhould be placed above thofe for the lyre, 
and confequently further from the words. Meibomius, in 
bis preface, has, however, given a curious reafon for this 
cuftom, from a fragment of Bacchius, fenior ; “ The upper 
line of notes is for the poem, the lower for the lyre ; be- 
caufe the mouth, which alone gives utterance to the 
words, is placed by nature above the hands, which pro¬ 
duce tones from the inftrument.” 
It is from the indefatigable labour of the learned Mei¬ 
bomius, in his Commentaries upon the Ancient Greek 
Muficians, particularly Alypius, that we are able to decy¬ 
pher thele characters; which, before his time, had been 
fio altered, corrupted, disfigured, and confounded, by the 
ignorance or negligence of the tranfcribers of ancient 
manuferipts, that they were rendered wholly unintelligible. 
But yet, fays Dr. Burney, “ with our utmoft ftudy, read¬ 
ing, and contemplation, we could reduce the Greek nota¬ 
tion to no order, nor afeertain whether it was to be read 
upwards or downwards.” 
The fyltem of modern Greek notation appear flill more 
complicated and obfeure than the ancient. The charac¬ 
ters convey nothing to the mind either by their form or 
names, the greateft part of which cannot be conftrued, 
and the relt are conltrued to no purpofe. Their fignifi¬ 
cation, as words, does not point out their meaning as 
mufical characters ; and all that we can difeover is, that 
fome of them feem deferiptive of gefticulations; fuch as 
v^ana-pa, which, perhaps, directed the priell to look up, 
oritretch his hands towards heaven ; orai^o;, which might 
direCt him to make the fign of a crofs, or to carry the 
crofs ; Avyio-p.w, bending. Indeed, it is laid that fome of 
thefe characters are for the xngovoy.iu, or “ legerdemain,” 
and not S'kx. (piovriv, “ for the voice.” This is the more 
likely, as the Greek fervice abounds in gefticulations and 
manual dexterity. 
The abate Martini was informed, that, though the 
oriental Greeks have fi.gns for mufical founds equivalent 
to ours, they fing more by tradition than fcience. How¬ 
ever, the diltinCtions for the duration of founds, fuch as 
our tirne-table furnifhes, are Hill wanting. The abate 
procured an extraft from a traCl upon the mufic of the 
modern Greeks, written by Lampadarius; but who he 
was, or when he lived, no one could inform him. In this 
i I c. 
it appears, that the characters amount to more than fifty; 
among which moll: of the names of thole mufical terms, 
given by Du Cange, from a MS. treatife on the ecclefiafti- 
cal mufic of the Greeks, are to he found. (Glolf. Med. et 
Inf. Grascitatis.) Du Cange, who has fo amply collected 
and explained the characters ufed by the modern Greeks 
in chemiftry, botany, aftronomy, and other arts and fid¬ 
elities, is iilent as to their mufical notation ; nor have we 
been able ,to acquire any information on that fubjeCt, ex¬ 
cept that with which the abate Martini has fupplied us. 
_ To infert here the mufical characters Itill ufed in the 
rituals of the Greek church out of Rulfiaj and endeavour 
to explain them, will perhaps be conferring but a final 1 
favour on our readers; for, from thefcarcity of mufic writ¬ 
ten in fuch characters, fo few will be their opportunities 
of making ufe of any knowledge they may acquire by the 
ftudy of them, that it Would be like learning a dead lan¬ 
guage in which there are no books, or a living language 
without the hopes of either reading or converting in it. 
Thofe readers who may be defirous of gratifying them- 
felves in matters of curiofity, may confult Dr. Burney’s 
Hiftory of Mufic, vol. ii. where they will find the fourteen 
mufical characters that occur in the Greek MSS. of the 
Evangelifts, written in capitals during thefeventh, eighth, 
and ninth, centuries, though at prefent they are wholiy 
unintelligible, even to the Greeks themfelves. It is ob- 
fervable that the more ancient the MSS. the fewer and 
more fimple are the notes: the Codex Alexandrinus, in 
the Britilh Mufeum, has none; and the Evangelifteriae 
MSS. in tl.3 Harleian collection, 5785, 5598, both of the 
tenth century, have only fuch as thofe in Burney, which 
were copied in Greece by Martini. The Codex Ephrem, 
in the king’s library at Paris, of the fifth century, has 
likewife the fame kind of mufical notes ; and it is aifigned 
as a reafon for the Codex Alexandrinus not having them, 
that it was written for private ufe, not for the fervice of 
the church. 
Kircher undertakes to give his reader an idea of modern 
Greek mufic and its characters ; and has indeed collected 
a great number of notes and their names, but pretends 
not to furnifii equivalents in the mufic of the weftern 
world. And to infert fuch barbarous names, and more 
barbarous characters here without explanation, would no 
more help to initiate a ftudent in the mylteries of Greek 
mufic, than the Hebrew or Chinefe alphabet. At the firft 
glance they very much refemble the characters ufed in. 
Choregrapby, an art invented about two hundred years 
ago to delineate the figures and fteps of dances. 
This being the cale, we fliall puzzle our readers and 
ourfelves no more about Greek notation; but come at 
once to (comparatively) modern times, and that great 
era in mufic, the time-table. We have already mentioned 
that the time-table was invented by Franco of Cologne 
about the year 1040. The characters which he ufed were 
perhaps more ancient, though Marchetto da Padoua, who 
wrote in the year 1274, cites him as “ the inventor of the 
four firft mufical characters.” Thele ancient mufical notes 
were the maxima, or large, the long, the breve, and the 
lernibreve. Thus the Ihorteft of the ancient notes cor- 
refponded with thelongeftof the modern notation ; for the 
lernibreve is the longelt note at prelent in ufe ; the minim 
the next; the crotchet the next, and fo on to the demi- 
femiquaver, which is the Ihorteft note. The length of 
each reft follows in the fame decreafing proportion ; and 
the characters, ancient and modern, are exhibited at one 
view in Ex. 5. 
The firft notes in the old time-table had no tails till 
the minim was invented, which had a tail to diftin- 
guifti it from the femibreve, as the crotchet had a black 
head to diftinguilh it from the minim, of which the head 
is white,and the quaver a hook to the tail, to diftinguilh it 
from the crotchet, of which the tail was ftraight, &c. 
A dot added to any note makes it half as long again. 
A double dot makes the firft dot half as long again. 
Other Charuders ufed in Mufic. — A lharp ^ raifes a 
note one femitone, or half-tone. A flat 5 lowers a note 
one 
