I.

A CONTRIBUTION TO THE HISTORY OF ACOUSTICS.[134]

While searching for papers by Amontons, several volumes of the Memoirs of the Paris Academy for the first years of the eighteenth century, fell into my hands. It is difficult to portray the delight which one experiences in running over the leaves of these volumes. One sees as an actual spectator almost the rise of the most important discoveries and witnesses the progress of many fields of knowledge from almost total ignorance to relatively perfect clearness.

I propose to discuss here the fundamental researches of Sauveur in Acoustics. It is astonishing how extraordinarily near Sauveur was to the view which Helmholtz was the first to adopt in its full extent a hundred and fifty years later.

The Histoire de l'AcadÉmie for 1700, p. 131, tells us that Sauveur had succeeded in making music an object of scientific research, and that he had invested the new science with the name of "acoustics." On five successive pages a number of discoveries are recorded which are more fully discussed in the volume for the year following.

Sauveur regards the simplicity of the ratios obtaining between the rates of vibration of consonances as something universally known.[135] He is in hope, by further research, of determining the chief rules of musical composition and of fathoming the "metaphysics of the agreeable," the main law of which he asserts to be the union of "simplicity with multiplicity." Precisely as Euler[136] did a number of years later, he regards a consonance as more perfect according as the ratio of its vibrational rates is expressed in smaller whole numbers, because the smaller these whole numbers are the oftener the vibrations of the two tones coincide, and hence the more readily they are apprehended. As the limit of consonance, he takes the ratio 5:6, although he does not conceal the fact that practice, sharpened attention, habit, taste, and even prejudice play collateral rÔles in the matter, and that consequently the question is not a purely scientific one.

Sauveur's ideas took their development from his having instituted at all points more exact quantitative investigations than his predecessors. He is first desirous of determining as the foundation of musical tuning a fixed note of one hundred vibrations which can be reproduced at any time; the fixing of the notes of musical instruments by the common tuning pipes then in use with rates of vibration unknown, appearing to him inadequate. According to Mersenne (Harmonie Universelle, 1636), a given cord seventeen feet long and weighted with eight pounds executes eight visible vibrations in a second. By diminishing its length then in a given proportion we obtain a proportionately augmented rate of vibration. But this procedure appears too uncertain to Sauveur, and he employs for his purpose the beats (battemens), which were known to the organ-makers of his day, and which he correctly explains as due to the alternate coincidence and non-coincidence of the same vibrational phases of differently pitched notes.[137] At every coincidence there is a swelling of the sound, and hence the number of beats per second will be equal to the difference of the rates of vibration. If we tune two of three organ-pipes to the remaining one in the ratio of the minor and major third, the mutual ratio of the rates of vibration of the first two will be as 24: 25, that is to say, for every 24 vibrations to the lower note there will be 25 to the higher, and one beat. If the two pipes give together four beats in a second, then the higher has the fixed tone of 100 vibrations. The open pipe in question will consequently be five feet in length. We also determine by this procedure the absolute rates of vibration of all the other notes.

It follows at once that a pipe eight times as long or 40 feet in length will yield a vibrational rate of 12-1/2, which Sauveur ascribes to the lowest audible tone, and further also that a pipe 64 times as small will execute 6,400 vibrations, which Sauveur took for the highest audible limit. The author's delight at his successful enumeration of the "imperceptible vibrations" is unmistakably asserted here, and it is justified when we reflect that to-day even Sauveur's principle, slightly modified, constitutes the simplest and most delicate means we have for exactly determining rates of vibration. Far more important still, however, is a second observation which Sauveur made while studying beats, and to which we shall revert later.

Strings whose lengths can be altered by movable bridges are much easier to handle than pipes in such investigations, and it was natural that Sauveur should soon resort to their use.

One of his bridges accidentally not having been brought into full and hard contact with the string, and consequently only imperfectly impeding the vibrations, Sauveur discovered the harmonic overtones of the string, at first by the unaided ear, and concluded from this fact that the string was divided into aliquot parts. The string when plucked, and when the bridge stood at the third division for example, yielded the twelfth of its fundamental note. At the suggestion of some academician[138] probably, variously colored paper riders were placed at the nodes (noeuds) and ventral segments (ventres), and the division of the string due to the excitation of the overtones (sons harmoniques) belonging to its fundamental note (son fondamental) thus rendered visible. For the clumsy bridge the more convenient feather or brush was soon substituted. . While engaged in these investigations Sauveur also observed the sympathetic vibration of a string induced by the excitation of a second one in unison with it. He also discovered that the overtone of a string can respond to another string tuned to its note. He even went further and discovered that on exciting one string the overtone which it has in common with another, differently pitched string can be produced on that other; for example, on strings having for their vibrational ratio 3:4, the fourth of the lower and the third of the higher may be made to respond. It follows indisputably from this that the excited string yields overtones simultaneously with its fundamental tone. Previously to this Sauveur's attention had been drawn by other observers to the fact that the overtones of musical instruments can be picked out by attentive listening, particularly in the night.[139] He himself mentions the simultaneous sounding of the overtones and the fundamental tone.[140] That he did not give the proper consideration to this circumstance was, as will afterwards be seen, fatal to his theory.

While studying beats Sauveur makes the remark that they are displeasing to the ear. He held the beats were distinctly audible only when less than six occurred in a second. Larger numbers were not distinctly perceptible and gave rise accordingly to no disturbance. He then attempts to reduce the difference between consonance and dissonance to a question of beats. Let us hear his own words.[141]

"Beats are unpleasing to the ear because of the unevenness of the sound, and it may be held with much plausibility that the reason why octaves are so pleasing is that we never hear their beats.[142]

"In following out this idea, we find that the chords whose beats we cannot hear are precisely those which the musicians call consonances and that those whose beats are heard are the dissonances, and that when a chord is a dissonance in one octave and a consonance in another, it beats in the one and does not beat in the other. Consequently it is called an imperfect consonance. It is very easy by the principles of M. Sauveur, here established, to ascertain what chords beat and in what octaves, above or below the fixed note. If this hypothesis be correct, it will disclose the true source of the rules of composition, hitherto unknown to science, and given over almost entirely to judgment by the ear. These sorts of natural judgment, marvellous though they may sometimes appear, are not so but have very real causes, the knowledge of which belongs to science, provided it can gain possession thereof."[143]

Sauveur thus correctly discerns in beats the cause of the disturbance of consonance, to which all disharmony is "probably" to be referred. It will be seen, however, that according to his view all distant intervals must necessarily be consonances and all near intervals dissonances. He also overlooks the absolute difference in point of principle between his old view, mentioned at the outset, and his new view, rather attempting to obliterate it.

R. Smith[144] takes note of the theory of Sauveur and calls attention to the first of the above-mentioned defects. Being himself essentially involved in the old view of Sauveur, which is usually attributed to Euler, he yet approaches in his criticism a brief step nearer to the modern theory, as appears from the following passage.[145]

"The truth is, this gentleman confounds the distinction between perfect and imperfect consonances, by comparing imperfect consonances which beat because the succession of their short cycles[146] is periodically confused and interrupted, with perfect ones which cannot beat, because the succession of their short cycles is never confused nor interrupted.

"The fluttering roughness above mentioned is perceivable in all other perfect consonances, in a smaller degree in proportion as their cycles are shorter and simpler, and their pitch is higher; and is of a different kind from the smoother beats and undulations of tempered consonances; because we can alter the rate of the latter by altering the temperament, but not of the former, the consonance being perfect at a given pitch: And because a judicious ear can often hear, at the same time, both the flutterings and the beats of a tempered consonance; sufficiently distinct from each other.

"For nothing gives greater offence to the hearer, though ignorant of the cause of it, than those rapid, piercing beats of high and loud sounds, which make imperfect consonances with one another. And yet a few slow beats, like the slow undulations of a close shake now and then introduced, are far from being disagreeable."

Smith is accordingly clear that other "roughnesses" exist besides the beats which Sauveur considered, and if the investigations had been continued on the basis of Sauveur's idea, these additional roughnesses would have turned out to be the beats of the overtones, and the theory thus have attained the point of view of Helmholtz.

Reviewing the differences between Sauveur's and Helmholtz's theories, we find the following:

1. The theory according to which consonance depends on the frequent and regular coincidence of vibrations and their ease of enumeration, appears from the new point of view inadmissible. The simplicity of the ratios obtaining between the rates of vibration is indeed a mathematical characteristic of consonance as well as a physical condition thereof, for the reason that the coincidence of the overtones as also their further physical and physiological consequences is connected with this fact. But no physiological or psychological explanation of consonance is given by this fact, for the simple reason that in the acoustic nerve-process nothing corresponding to the periodicity of the sonant stimulus is discoverable.

2. In the recognition of beats as a disturbance of consonance, both theories agree. Sauveur's theory, however, does not take into account the fact that clangs, or musical sounds generally, are composite and that the disturbance in the consonances of distant intervals principally arise from the beats of the overtones. Furthermore, Sauveur was wrong in asserting that the number of beats must be less than six in a second in order to produce disturbances. Even Smith knows that very slow beats are not a cause of disturbance, and Helmholtz found a much higher number (33) for the maximum of disturbance. Finally, Sauveur did not consider that although the number of beats increases with the recession from unison, yet their strength is diminished. On the basis of the principle of specific energies and of the laws of sympathetic vibration the new theory finds that two atmospheric motions of like amplitude but different periods, a sin(rt) and a sin[(r + ?)(t + t)], cannot be communicated with the same amplitude to the same nervous end-organ. On the contrary, an end-organ that reacts best to the period r responds more weakly to the period r + ?, the two amplitudes bearing to each other the proportion a: fa. Here f decreases when ? increases, and when ? = 0 it becomes equal to 1, so that only the portion of the stimulus fa is subject to beats, and the portion (1-f)a continues smoothly onward without disturbance.

If there is any moral to be drawn from the history of this theory, it is that considering how near Sauveur's errors were to the truth, it behooves us to exercise some caution also with regard to the new theory. And in reality there seems to be reason for doing so.

The fact that a musician will never confound a more perfectly consonant chord on a poorly tuned piano with a less perfectly consonant chord on a well tuned piano, although the roughness in the two cases may be the same, is sufficient indication that the degree of roughness is not the only characteristic of a harmony. As the musician knows, even the harmonic beauties of a Beethoven sonata are not easily effaced on a poorly tuned piano; they scarcely suffer more than a Raphael drawing executed in rough unfinished strokes. The positive physiologico-psychological characteristic which distinguishes one harmony from another is not given by the beats. Nor is this characteristic to be found in the fact that, for example, in sounding a major third the fifth partial tone of the lower note coincides with the fourth of the higher note. This characteristic comes into consideration only for the investigating and abstracting reason. If we should regard it also as characteristic of the sensation, we should lapse into a fundamental error which would be quite analogous to that cited in (1).

The positive physiological characteristics of the intervals would doubtless be speedily revealed if it were possible to conduct aperiodic, for example galvanic, stimuli to the single sound-sensing organs, in which case the beats would be totally eliminated. Unfortunately such an experiment can hardly be regarded as practicable. The employment of acoustic stimuli of short duration and consequently also free from beats, involves the additional difficulty of a pitch not precisely determinable.

---

II.

REMARKS ON THE THEORY OF SPATIAL VISION.[147]

According to Herbart, spatial vision rests on reproduction-series. In such an event, of course, and if the supposition is correct, the magnitudes of the residua with which the percepts or representations are coalesced (the helps to coalescence) are of cardinal influence. Furthermore, since the coalescences must first be fully perfected before they make their appearance, and since upon their appearance the inhibitory ratios are brought into play, ultimately, then, if we leave out of account the accidental order of time in which the percepts are given, everything in spatial vision depends on the oppositions and affinities, or, in brief, on the qualities of the percepts, which enter into series.

Let us see how the theory stands with respect to the special facts involved.

1. If intersecting series only, running anteriorly and posteriorly, are requisite for the production of spatial sensation, why are not analogues of them found in all the senses?

2. Why do we measure differently colored objects and variegated objects with one and the same spatial measure? How do we recognise differently colored objects as the same in size? Where do we get our measure of space from and what is it?

3. Why is it that differently colored figures of the same form reproduce one another and are recognised as the same?

Here are difficulties enough. Herbart is unable to solve them by his theory. The unprejudiced student sees at once that his "inhibition by reason of form" and "preference by reason of form" are absolutely impossible. Think of Herbart's example of the red and black letters.

The "help to coalescence" is a passport, so to speak, made out to the name and person of the percept. A percept which is coalesced with another cannot reproduce all others qualitatively different from it for the simple reason that the latter are in like manner coalesced with one another. Two qualitatively different series certainly do not reproduce themselves because they present the same order of degree of coalescence.

If it is certain that only things simultaneous and things which are alike are reproduced, a basic principle of Herbart's psychology which even the most absolute empiricists will not deny, nothing remains but to modify the theory of spatial perception or to invent in its place a new principle in the manner indicated, a step which hardly any one would seriously undertake. The new principle could not fail to throw all psychology into the most dreadful confusion.

As to the modification which is needed there can be hardly any doubt as to how in the face of the facts and conformably to Herbart's own principles it is to be carried out. If two differently colored figures of equal size reproduce each other and are recognised as equal, the result can be due to nothing but to the existence in both series of presentations of a presentation or percept which is qualitatively the same. The colors are different. Consequently, like or equal percepts must be connected with the colors which are yet independent of the colors. We have not to look long for them, for they are the like effects of the muscular feelings of the eye when confronted by the two figures. We might say we reach the vision of space by the registering of light-sensations in a schedule of graduated muscle-sensations.[148]

A few considerations will show the likelihood of the rÔle of the muscle-sensations. The muscular apparatus of one eye is unsymmetrical. The two eyes together form a system which is vertical in symmetry. This already explains much.

1. The position of a figure influences its view. According to the position in which objects are viewed different muscle-sensations come into play and the impression is altered. To recognise inverted letters as such long experience is required. The best proof of this are the letters d, b, p, q, which are represented by the same figure in different positions and yet are always distinguished as different.[149]

2. It will not escape the attentive observer that for the same reasons and even with the same figure and in the same position the fixation point is also decisive. The figure seems to change during the act of vision. For example, an eight-pointed star constructed by successively joining in a regular octagon the first corner with the fourth, the fourth with the seventh, etc., skipping in every case two corners, assumes alternately, according to where we suffer the centre of vision to rest, a predominantly architectonic or a freer and more open character. Vertical and horizontal lines are always differently apprehended from what oblique lines are.

3. The reason why we prefer vertical symmetry and regard it as something special in its kind, whereas we do not recognise horizontal symmetry at all immediately, is due to the vertical symmetry of the muscular apparatus of the eye. The left-hand side a of the accompanying vertically-symmetrical figure induces in the left eye the same muscular feelings as the right-hand side b does in the right eye. The pleasing effect of symmetry has its cause primarily in the repetition of muscular feelings. That a repetition actually occurs here, sometimes sufficiently marked in character as to lead to the confounding of objects, is proved apart from the theory by the fact which is familiar to every one quem dii oderunt that children frequently reverse figures from the right to the left, but never from above downwards; for example, write e instead of 3 until they finally come to notice the slight difference. Figure 50 shows how pleasing the repetition of muscular feelings may be. As will be readily understood, vertical and horizontal lines exhibit relations similar to symmetrical figures which are immediately disturbed when oblique positions are chosen for the lines. Compare what Helmholtz says regarding the repetition and coincidence of partial tones.

I may be permitted to add a general remark. It is a quite universal phenomenon in psychology that certain qualitatively quite different series of percepts mutually awaken and reproduce one another and in a certain aspect produce the appearance of sameness or similarity. We say of such series that they are of like or of similar form, naming their abstracted likeness form.

1. Of spatial figures we have already spoken.

2. We call two melodies like melodies when they present the same succession of pitch-ratios; the absolute pitch (or key) may be as different as can be. We can so select the melodies that not even two partial tones of the notes in each are common. Yet we recognise the melodies as alike. And, what is more, we notice the form of the melody more readily and recognise it again more easily than the key (the absolute pitch) in which it was played.

3. We recognise in two different melodies the same rhythm no matter how different the melodies may be otherwise. We know and recognise the rhythm more easily even than the absolute duration (the tempo).

These examples will suffice. In all these and in all similar cases the recognition and likeness cannot depend upon the qualities of the percepts, for these are different. On the other hand recognition, conformably to the principles of psychology, is possible only with percepts which are the same in quality. Consequently there is no other escape than to imagine the qualitatively unlike percepts of the two series as necessarily connected with other percepts which are qualitatively alike.

Since in differently colored figures of like form, like muscular feelings are necessarily induced if the figures are recognised as alike, so there must necessarily lie at the basis of all forms also, and we might even say at the basis of all abstractions, percepts of a peculiar quality. And this holds true for space and form as well as for time, rhythm, pitch, the form of melodies, intensity, etc. But whence is psychology to derive all these qualities? Have no fear, they will all be found, as were the sensations of muscles for the theory of space. The organism is at present still rich enough to meet all the requirements of psychology in this direction, and it is even time to give serious ear to the question of "corporeal resonance" which psychology so loves to dwell on.

Different psychical qualities appear to bear a very intimate mutual relation to one another. Special research on the subject, as well also as the demonstration that this remark may be generally employed in physics, will follow later.[150]