In his Great Book on Music, Abū Naṣr al‑Fārābī (d. 339/950) appeals to the science of nature (physics) and in particular to Aristotle’s lectio to reject the idea that planets and stars could generate music.[1] He thus opposes not only Pythagorean and Platonic doctrines, but also several of his predecessors within the Islamicate tradition, Abū Yūsuf Yaʿqūb al‑Kindī (d. c. 256/870) and Iḫwān aṣ Ṣafāʾ (ca. 10th century).[2] Instead, through a thorough training in Aristotelian writings and ideas, al‑Fārābī proposes a rather modern approach for his investigation of music. This approach will be the topic of this blog post.
Among al-Fārābī’s four surviving works on music, the Great Book on Music (Kitāb al-Mūsīqī al-kabīr) is certainly one of the most important. In the Latin Middle Ages, however, only the small chapter on music in his Iḥṣāʾ al-ʿulūm (De scientiis) was known. In it, he writes about the classification of the sciences and their respective objects. Music is counted among the mathematical sciences, which he lists in the following order: Arithmetic, Geometry, Astronomy, Music, Weights and Engineering.
In the chapter on music he says the following:[3]
وأمّا علم الموسيقي فإنّه يشتمل بالجملة على معرفة أصناف الألحان وعلى ما منه تؤلّف وعلى ما له ألّفت، وكيف تؤلّف، وبأي أحوال يجب أن تكون حتّى يصير فعلها أنفذ وأبلغ. والذي يعرف بهذا الاسم علمان:
أحدهما علم الموسيقي العملية والثاني علم الموسيقي النظرية.
فالموسيقي العملية هي التي شأنها أن توجد أصناف الألحان محسوسة في الآلات التي لها أعدّت إمّا بالطبع وإمّا بالصناعة. والآلة الطبيعية هي الحنجرة واللهاة وما فيها ثمّ الأنف والصناعية مثل المزامير والعيدان وغيرها. والصاحب الموسيقي العملية إنّما يتصوّر النغم والألحان وجميع لواحقها على أنّها في الآلات التي منها تعوّد إيجادها.
Wa-ammā ʿilmu l-mūsīqī fa-innahū yaštamilu bi-l-ǧumlati ʿalā taʿarrufi aṣnāfi l-alḥāni wa-ʿalā mā minhu tuʾallafu wa-ʿalā mā lahū ullifat, wa-kayfa tuʾallafu, wa-bi-ayyi aḥwālin yaǧibu an takūna ḥattā yaṣīra fiʿluhā anfaḏa wa-ablaġ. Wa-llaḏī yuʿrafu bi-hāḏa l-ʿilmi ʿilmānī: aḥaduhumā ʿilmu l-mūsīqi l-ʿamaliyyati wa-ṯ-ṯāniyyu ʿilmu l-mūsīqi n-naẓariyya.
Fa-l-mūsīqi l-ʿamaliyyati hiya llatī šaʾnuhā an tūǧada aṣnāfu l-alḥāni maḥsūsatun fi l-ālāti llatī lahā uʿiddat immā bi-ṭ-ṭabʿi wa-immā bi-ṣ-ṣināʿa. Wa-l-ālatu ṭ-ṭabīʿiyyatu hiya l-ḥanǧaratu wa-l-lahātu wa-mā fīhā ṯumma l-anfu wa-ṣ-ṣināʿiyyatu miṯla l-mazāmīri wa-l-ʿīdāni wa-ġayrihā. Wa-ṣāḥibu l-mūsīqi l-ʿamaliyyati innamā yataṣawwaru n-naġama wa-l-alḥāna wa-ǧamīʿa lawāḥiqihā ʿalā annahā fi l-ālāti llatī minhā taʿawwada īǧāduhā.
As for the science of music, it deals comprehensively with the knowledge of the types of melodies, what is composed from and for them, and how to compose as well as by which necessary conditions its practice becomes most effective and eloquent. What is understood by this designation are two sciences: The first is the science of practical music, the second the science of theoretical music.
Practical music has for its object that which is found in the kinds of melodies which can be perceived on instruments furnished for them either by nature or in an artificial manner. The natural instrument consists of the larynx, the uvula and of what is in it, then: the nose; and the artificial [instruments] are, for example, woodwind instruments, lutes, and others. The practical musician shapes the tones and the melodies and everything that belongs to them only insofar as they are produced by means of the instruments whose use is customary.
(al‑Fārābī, Le recensement des sciences. Al‑Ihsāʾ, ed. Amor Cherni (Paris: Alburaq, 2015), 151, 153; the translation from the Arabic and the following ones are my own.)
Here, al‑Fārābī gives a definition of the science of music, the division into practical and theoretical music, and a further explanation of both of them. First, he establishes the criterion for the identification of practical music, which is strictly related to the locus of sound production: natural and artificial instruments (By “natural instruments” he means those parts of the human body involved in the production of vocal sounds; by ‘artificial’ he means actual musical instruments.) In other words, practical music is limited to the music that can be generated instrumentally.
He then moves to music theory, which he initially deems to be independent of musical practice:
والنظرية تعطي علمها وهي معقولة وتعطي أسباب كلّ ما سأتلف من الألحان لا على أنّها في مادّة بل على الإطلاق وعلى أنّها منتزعة عن كلّ آلة وعن كلّ مادّة.
Wa-n-naẓariyyatu tuʿṭī ʿilmahā wa-hiya maʿqūlatun wa-tuʿṭī asbāba kulli mā taʾtalifu minhu l-alḥānu lā ʿalā annahā fī māddatin bal ʿala l-iṭlāqi wa-ʿalā annahā muntazaʿatun min kulli ālatin wa-kulli mādda.
Theoretical [music] adds science to [practical music], [science] that is intelligible, and it gives reasons for everything that can be composed of the melodies, not on the basis of their material, but in an absolute [sense], and detached from any instrument and any matter.
(al-Fārābī. Le recensement des sciences, ed. Cherni, 153.)
In his Great Book on Music, however, music theory and practice seem to entertain a closer relationship:
وفيه يتبيّن ما يوجد من الأشياء التى لُخّصت في كتاب الاسطقسات محسوسًا في الآلات المشهورة وإحصاء ما اعتيد أن يحسّ فيها وما قد يمكن أن يوجد منها في هذه الآلات محسوسًا وإن كانت العادة لم تجرِ به..
Wa-fīhi yutabayyanu mā yūǧadu mina l-ašyāʾi llatī luḫḫiṣat fī kitābi l-isṭaqisāti maḥsūsan fi l-ālāti l-mašhūrati wa-iḥṣāʾu ma ʿtīda an yuḥassa fīhā wa-mā qad yumkinu an yūǧada minhā fī hāḏihi l-ālāti maḥsūsan wa-in kānat al-ʿādata lam taǧri bih.
In [this chapter], the things that are summarized in the book on the elements are clarified [in] a sensually perceptible [way] by means of [the execution] on widespread instruments: the comprehension of what one has become accustomed to perceive on them; what can be found sensually perceptible [by the theory] on these instruments, and – if it was so common – what did not occur on them.
(al‑Fārābī. Kitāb al‑Mūsīqī al‑kabīr, ed. Ḫašaba and al‑Ḥifnī (Cairo 1967), 493)
Al-Fārābī asserts that the music-theoretical foundations he laid in the book on the elements would be better understood through the perception of music. What he does not say, but can nevertheless be deduced implicitly, is that this perception is caused by artificial musical instruments, not by the human voice. The following chapters of his book clarify that theory is easier to demonstrate on artificial instruments because their material conditions, such as the length of the string or the pipe, are easier to represent than those of the human vocal apparatus.
He then lists in three points what a ‘comprehension by perception’ would involve, namely 1) comprehension of the music [generally played] on the instrument in question, 2) comprehension of what [parts] of the theory can be made perceptible on an instrument independently of its actual use, and 3) comprehension of what is unusual to play on the instrument in question.
Especially important for my argument is point 2). Here al‑Fārābī moves away from the Pythagorean claim of absoluteness of music, by saying that musical instruments can be used to make theory perceptible, and thus more understandable, independently of the actual use of the instrument.
Moreover, in the chapter on musical instruments, al-Fārābī not only elaborates on how to follow theoretical points on each instrument, but he also tells us about the common musical practices of his time. In this way, he bridges the gap between theory and practice, a connection that gets reinforced in the section of the Great Book on the art of composition, owing to his comprehensive understanding of music.
To come back to al‑Fārābī’s rejection of the ‘harmony of the spheres,’ we can say that his approach is quite scientific in that while he provides a definition of music abstracted from practice, he turns back to practical music as what makes theory more comprehensible. So the planets cannot sing, but the instruments can! In this sense, his approach is similar to that of Ptolemy, who, while stating that reason is preferable to senses, he concedes that theoretical choices must be verified by perception.[4] However, unlike al‑Fārābī, Ptolemy still relies on the Pythagorean assignments of musical ratios to planetary relationships. Al‑Fārābī’s ideas about music theory and practice will find him a successor in Ibn Sīnā[5] (d. 428/1037).
Bibliography
Barker, Andrew. Greek Musical Writings. Volume II: Harmonic and Acoustic Theory. Cambridge et. al: Cambridge University Press, 1989
Düring, Ingemar (ed.). Die Harmonielehre des Claudios Ptolemaios. Göteborg: Elanders Boktrycheri, 1930
al‑Fārābī. Le recensement des sciences. Al‑Ihsāʾ. Ed. Amor Cherni. Paris: Alburaq, 2015
al‑Fārābī. Kitāb al‑Mūsīqī al‑kabīr. Ed. Ḫaṣaba and al‑Ḥifnī, Cairo: Dār al‑Kātib al‑ʿArabī li-ṭ‑Ṭibāʿa wa-n‑Našr, 1967
Granot, Roni and Nabil Shair, “The Origin and Power of Music According to the 11th-Century Islamic Philosopher Ibn Sīnā,” JRAS Series 3, 29,4 (2019)
Ibn Sīnā. aš-Šifāʾ. ar-Riyāḍiyyāt. 3- Ǧawāmiʿ ʿilm al-mūsīqī. Ed. Zakariyāʾ Yūsuf. Cairo: al-Maṭbaʿa al-Āmiriyya, 1956
Shehadi, Fadlou. Philosophies of Music in Medieval Islam. Leiden et. al.: Brill, 1995
Stephanie Schewe. al-Kindī und die Wirkung der Musik. Das „Buch der Cordophone von den einsaitigen zu den zehnsaitigen“ (Kitāb al-Muṣawwitāt al-watariyya min ḏāt al-watar al-wāḥid ilāḏāt al-ʿašarat al-autār) in deutscher Übersetzung. The Science of Music in Islam, vol. 9. Frankfurt am Main: Institute for the History of Arabic-Islamic Science, 2018
Wright, Owen (ed., transl.), Epistles of the Brethren of Purity. On Music. An Arabic Critical Edition and English Translation of Epistle 5, Oxford: Oxford University Press, The Institute of Ismaili Studies, 2010
[1] Al‑Fārābī, Kitāb al‑Mūsīqī al‑kabīr, ed. Ḫaṣaba and al‑Ḥifnī, Cairo: Dār al‑Kātib al‑ʿArabī li-ṭ‑Ṭibāʿa wa-n‑Našr, 1967, 89; cf. Fadlou Shehadi, Philosophies of Music in Medieval Islam, Leiden et. al.: Brill, 1995, 54-57.
[2] About al‑Kindī cf. Stephanie Schewe, al-Kindī und die Wirkung der Musik. Das „Buch der Cordophone von den einsaitigen zu den zehnsaitigen“ (Kitāb al-Muṣawwitāt al-watariyya min ḏāt al-watar al-wāḥid ilāḏāt al-ʿašarat al-autār) in deutscher Übersetzung, Frankfurt am Main: Institute for the History of Arabic-Islamic Science, 2018, 167-172; 281-287; about Iḫwān aṣ Ṣafāʾ, cf. Owen Wright (ed., transl.), Epistles of the Brethren of Purity. On Music. An Arabic Critical Edition and English Translation of Epistle 5 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, The Institute of Ismaili Studies, 2010), ۷۳-۸۰, 117-121.
[3] I only changed some punctuations, paragraph breaks and the spelling of mūsīqī (the edition has mūsīqā, which is not the correct Arabic spelling of the Greek ἡ μουσική).
[4] Cf. Andrew Barker, Greek Musical Writings. Volume II: Harmonic and Acoustic Theory (Cambridge et. al: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 270f., 276-279; Ptol., Harm., I, 1-2.
[5] Cf. Ibn Sīnā, aš-Šifāʾ. ar-Riyāḍiyyāt. 3- Ǧawāmiʿ ʿilm al-mūsīqī, ed. Zakariyāʾ Yūsuf (Cairo: al-Maṭbaʿa al-Āmiriyya, 1956), 3-4; Roni Granot and Nabil Shair, “The Origin and Power of Music According to the 11th-Century Islamic Philosopher Ibn Sīnā,” JRAS Series 3, 29,4 (2019), 587, 592 and n. 39; Shehadi, Philosophies of Music, 67-69.