51. These last considerations show that, while it is quite safe to
attribute the substance of the First Book of Euclid to Pythagoras, the
arithmetic of Books VII.-IX., and the “geometrical algebra” of Book II.
are certainly not his. They operate with lines or with areas instead of
with units, and the relations which they establish therefore hold good
whether they are capable of numerical expression or not. That is
doubtless why arithmetic is not treated in Euclid till after plane
geometry, a complete inversion of the original order. For the same
reason, the doctrine of proportion which we find in Euclid cannot be
Pythagorean, and is indeed the work of Eudoxos. Yet it is clear that the
early Pythagoreans, and probably Pythagoras himself, studied proportion
in their own way, and that the three “medieties” in particular go back
to the founder, especially as the most complicated of them, the
“harmonic,” stands in close relation to his discovery of the octave. If
we take the harmonic proportion 12 : 8 : 6,[248] we find that 12 : 6 is
the octave, 12 : 8 the fifth, and 8 : 6 the fourth, and it can hardly be
doubted that it was Pythagoras himself who discovered these intervals.
The stories which have come down to us about his observing the harmonic
intervals in a smithy, and then weighing the hammers that produced them,
or of his suspending weights corresponding to those of the hammers to
equal strings, are, indeed, impossible and absurd; but it is sheer waste
of time to rationalise them.[249] For our purpose their absurdity is
their chief merit. They are not stories which any Greek mathematician or
musician could possibly have invented, but genuine popular tales bearing
witness to the existence of a real tradition that Pythagoras was the
author of this momentous discovery.
Footnote 248:
Plato (_Tim._ 36 a 3) defines the harmonic mean as τὴν ... ταὐτῷ μέρει
τῶν ἄκρων αὐτῶν ὑπερέχουσαν καὶ ὑπερεχομένην. The harmonic mean of 12
and 6 is therefore 8; for 8 = 12 - 12/3 = 6 + 6/3.
Footnote 249:
For these stories and a criticism of them, see Max C. P. Schmidt,
_Kulturhistorische Beiträge_, i. pp. 78 sqq. The smith’s hammers
belong to the region of _Märchen_, and it is not true either that the
notes would be determined by the weight of the hammers, or that, if
they were, the weights hung to equal strings would produce the notes.
These inaccuracies were pointed out by Montucla (Martin, _Études sur
le Timée_, i. p. 391).
[Sidenote: Things are numbers.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account