Language Log

« previous post | next post »

[This is a guest post by Sara de Rose]

I am currently writing a paper outlining the similarities between the Mesopotamian and ancient Chinese tonal systems, which will be published in Sino-Platonic Papers.

I have a question for those of you knowledgeable in ancient Chinese music. It concerns the terms "clear" (qīng 清) and "muddy (zhuó 濁), which were discussed a few days ago on Language Log:  "'Clear' and 'turbid' in Chinese phonology" (11/29/20). Before I pose my question, here’s a quick synopsis of what is known about the Mesopotamian tonal system:

Cuneiform tablets translated since the early 1960s show that, for over a millennium, from at least 1800 BC onward, the Mesopotamians used seven diatonic modes – scales that are closely related to the Western, seven-note major scale.

The Mesopotamians had specific names for the intervals between the notes of the scale. The intervals they described are not – as one would expect – between, the 1^st and 2^nd notes, and the 2^nd and 3^rd notes, etc. Instead, the intervals listed are between the 4^th and 1^st notes; the 1^st and 5^th notes; the 5^th and 2^nd notes; the 2^nd and 6^th notes; the 6^th and 3^rd notes; the 3^rd and 7^th notes; and the 7^th and 4^th notes. Why? Because each of these intervals is a fifth and therefore easy to tune (by ear or by harmonics). In other words, to tune a diatonic scale, all the Mesopotamian musician needed to know was how to tune a fifth. Very simple!

To be more precise, though, not all of these intervals are fifths. In fact, in every mode (there are seven diatonic modes, one of which is the major scale), one interval has to be one semitone smaller than a fifth (today, we call this size of interval a tritone). Why does one of the seven intervals have to be a tritone? Because, when this is the case, all seven intervals, together, will span an exact octave (note: a fifth is seven semitones and a tritone is six semitones, so six fifths + one tritone = 48 tones, which is a multiple of twelve, and therefore an octave multiple).

The Mesopotamians called any tritone interval “not clear”. Conversely, they called any fifth interval “clear”. To re-tune from one mode to another, all the musician needed to do was make the “unclear” interval “clear” – by increasing the size of the tritone interval by one semitone. This was done by raising the pitch of one of the notes that bound the interval (i.e., tightening one of the strings: each string played one note) by one semitone. The result was that a tritone interval would then appear in the new mode – but located between a different pair of strings (either the 4^th and 1^st; 1^st and 5^th; etc…). One particular tablet (UET VII 74, dating from 1800 BC) describes the process of re-tuning to all seven diatonic modes, during which twelve distinct pitches are created – in the order of the circle of fifths. The evidence, therefore, suggests that not only did the Mesopotamians use the seven diatonic modes, they were also aware of the circle of fifths.

As those of you familiar with the ancient Chinese tonal system know, the ancient Chinese “up-and-down principle” generates twelve distinct pitches using the intervals of the fifth and the octave. These twelve tones – the Shí-èr-lǜ (十二律) – were used to create scales having fewer than twelve notes, most notably pentatonic and heptatonic scales. The ancient Chinese heptatonic scale, which was used predominantly in the North of China, is virtually identical to one of the seven diatonic modes used by the Mesopotamians.

Now, for my question:

Two people have mentioned that the terms "clear" (qīng 清) and "muddy (zhuó 濁) refer (with respect to ancient Chinese music) to raising or lowering a pitch, possibly by one semitone:

1)      “To heighten/lower a note by one semitone, respectively” (unnamed respected scholar)

2)      “normal vs. flatted musical pitch” (David Prager Branner)

And Wolfgang Behr said that the two terms refer to “the balancing of the tones on a pentatonic scale (wuyin 五音), the tuning of pitchpipes, the equilibrium sough in singing, etc., and as a metaphor for political and cosmological "harmony", or even the selection range in divination. Clear and muddy are, so to speak, "negative polarity items" opening a space from which the ear has to make a selection to produce well-tuned music — and the ruler to produce "well-adjusted political measures.”

If you read the description of the Mesopotamian tonal system (above), you’ll see that, if the Chinese did, in fact, use the two terms to mean “to raise and lower a pitch by one semitone”, respectively, then the Mesopotamian use of the terms “clear” and “not clear” is virtually identical.

So, my question is this: Does anyone know of a text that states that the terms "clear" (qīng 清) and "muddy (zhuó 濁) were used, in the context of ancient Chinese music, to mean “raising or lowering a pitch” – possibly by one semitone?

 

Selected readings

Anne Draffkorn Kilmer, "The Musical Instruments from Ur and Ancient Mesopotamian Music", Expedition Magazine, 40.2 (1998): n. pag. Expedition Magazine. Penn Museum, 1998 Web. 30 Nov 2020 <http://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/?p=5425>  For Pages Numbers please consult the PDF version.

Maude de Schauensee, Two Lyres from Ur (Philadelphia:  distributed for the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology by the University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002).

"Transcendent Tonality" (11/5/15)

December 4, 2020 @ 7:17 pm · Filed by Victor Mair under Language and music, Phonetics and phonology, Tones

Permalink