tones. To Mr Albert A. Howard of Harvard University is due the credit of having identified the syrinx of the aulos with the speaker of the clarinet.[1] This assumption is doubtless correct, and is supported by classical grammarians,[2] who state that the syrinx was one of the holes of the aulos. It renders quite clear certain passages in Aristoxenus, Aristotle and Plutarch, and a scholion to Pindar’s 12th Pythian, which before were difficult to understand (see Syrinx).
|
Fig. 4. —The Plagiaulos. Castellani Collection (Maenad Pipes), British Museum. |
|
Fig. 5. —Ancient Greek |
The aulos or tibia existed in a great number of varieties enumerated by Pollux (Onomast. iv. 74 et seq.) and Athenaeus (iv. 76 et seq.). They fall into two distinct classes, the single and the double pipes. There were three principal single pipes, the monaulos, the plagiaulos and the syrinx monocalamos. The double pipes were used by the great musicians of ancient Greece, and notably at the musical contests at Delphi, and what has been said above concerning the construction of the aulos refers mainly to the double pipes. The monaulos, a single pipe of Egyptian origin, which, by inference, we assume to have been played from the end by means of a reed, may have been the archetype of the oboe or clarinet. The plagiaulos photinx or tibia obliqua, invented by the Libyans (Pollux iv. 74), or, according to Pliny (vii. 204), by Midas of Phrygia, was held like the modern flute, but was played by means of a mouthpiece containing a reed. Three of the existing pipes at the British Museum (the two in the Castellani collection, and the pipe from Halicarnassus) belong to this type. The mouthpiece projects from the side of the pipe and communicates with the main bore by means of a slanting passage; the end nearest the mouthpiece is stopped as in the modern flute; in the latter, however, the embouchure is not closed by the lips when playing, and therefore the flute has the acoustic properties of the open pipe, whereas the plagiaulos having a reed mouthpiece gave the harmonics of a closed pipe. The double pipes existed in five sizes according to pitch, in the days of Aristoxenus, who, in a treatise on the construction of the auloi (Περὶ αὐλῶν τρήσεως), unfortunately not extant,[3] divides them thus:—
(1) Parthenioi auloi (παρθένιοι αὐλοί), the maiden’s auloi, corresponding to the soprano compass.
(2) Paidikoi auloi (παιδικοὶ αὐλοί), the boy’s pipes or alto auloi, used to accompany boys’ songs and also in double pairs at feasts.
(3) Kitharisterioi auloi (κιθαριστήριοι αὐλοί), used to accompany the cithara.
(4) Teleioi auloi, the perfect aulos, or tenor’s pipes; also known as the pythic auloi (πυθικοὶ αὐλοί); used for the paeans and for solos at the Pythean games (without chorus). It was the pythic auloi and the kitharisterioi auloi more especially which were provided with the speaker (syrinx) in order to improve the harmonic notes (see Syrinx).
(5) Hyperteleioi auloi (ὑπερτέλειοι αὐλοί) or andreioi auloi (ἀνδρεῖοί αὐλοί) (see Athenaeus iv. 79), the bass-auloi.
The Phrygian pipes or auloi Elymoi[4] were made of box-wood and were tipped with horn; they were double pipes, but differed from all others in that the two pipes were unequal in length and in the diameter of their bores;[5] sometimes one of the pipes was curved upwards and terminated in a horn bell;[6] they seem to have had a conical bore, if representations on monuments are to be trusted. We may conclude that the archetype of the oboe with conical bore was not unknown to the Greeks; it was frequently used by the Etruscans and Romans, and appears on many has-reliefs, mural paintings and other monuments. For illustrations see Wilhelm Froehner, Les Musées de France, pl. iii., “Marsyas playing the double pipes.” There the bore is decidedly conical in the ratio of at least 1 : 4 between the mouthpiece and the end of the instrument; the vase is Roman, from the south of France. See also Bulletino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, Rome, 1879, vol. vii., 2nd series, pl. vii. and p. 119 et seq., “Le Nozze di Elena e Paride,” from a bas-relief in the monastery of S. Antonio on the Esquiline; Wilhelm Zahn, Die schönsten Ornamente und die merkwürdigsten Gemälde aus Pompeji, Herkulaneum und Stabiae (German and French), vol. iii., pl. 43 and 51 (Berlin, 1828–1859).
For further information on the aulos, consult Albert A. Howard, “The Aulos or Tibia,” Harvard Studies, iv., 1893; François A. Gevaert, Histoire de la musique dans l’antiquité, vol. ii. p. 273 et seq.; Carl von Jan’s article “Flöte” in August Baumeister’s Denkmäler des klassischen Altertums (Munich, 1884–1888), vol. i.; Dr Hugo Riemann, Handbuch der Musikgeschichte, Bd. I. T. 1, pp. 93-112 (Leipzig, 1904); Caspar Bartholinus, De Tibiis Veterum (Amsterdam, 1779). (K. S.)
AUMALE, HENRI EUGÈNE PHILIPPE LOUIS D’ORLÉANS, Duc d’ (1822–1897), French prince and statesman, fifth son of Louis Philippe, duke of Orleans, afterwards king of the French, and of Marie Amélie, princess of the Two Sicilies, was born at Paris on the 16th of January 1822. While still young he inherited a large fortune from the prince de Condé. Brought up by his parents with great simplicity, he was educated at the college of Henri IV., on leaving which at the age of seventeen he entered the army with the rank of a captain of infantry. He distinguished himself during the conquest of Algeria, and was appointed governor of that colony, in which capacity he received the submission of the amir Abd-el-Kader. After the revolution of 1848 he retired to England and busied himself with historical and military studies, replying in 1861 by a Letter upon the History of France to Prince Napoleon’s violent attacks upon the house of Orleans. On the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War he volunteered for service in the French army, but his offer was declined. Elected deputy for the Oise department, he returned to France, and succeeded to the fauteuil of the comte de Montalembert in the French Academy. In March 1872 he resumed his place in the army as general of division; and in 1873 he presided over the court-martial which condemned Marshal Bazaine to death. About this period, being appointed commandant of the VII. army corps at Besançon, he retired from political life, and in 1879 became inspector-general of the army. By the act of exception passed in 1883 all members of families that had reigned in France serving in the army were deprived of their military positions; consequently the duc d’Aumale was placed on the unemployed supernumerary list. Subsequently, in 1886, another law was promulgated which expelled from French territory the heads of former reigning families, and provided that henceforward all members of those families should be disqualified for any public position or function, and for election to any public body. The duc d’Aumale protested energetically, and was himself expelled. By his will of the 3rd of June 1884, however, he had bequeathed to the Institute of France his Chantilly estate, with all the art-collection he had gathered there. This generosity led the government to withdraw the decree of exile, and the duke returned to France in 1889.
