Heinichen, Rameau, and The Italian Thoroughbass Tradition - Concepts of Tonality and Chord in The Rule of The Octave

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/journal-of-music-theory/article-pdf/51/1/5/436645/03-JMT51.1_HoltmeierFpp.
pdf by UNIV CA BERKELEY PERIODICALS user on 30 November 2021

Heinichen, Rameau, and the
Italian Thoroughbass Tradition
Concepts of Tonality and Chord
in the Rule of the Octave
Ludwig Holtmeier
Abstract This essay explores the understanding of tonality and in particular the concept of chord, as demon-
strated in the Italian thoroughbass tradition, especially in the didactic tradition of partimenti. For a long time this
tradition was entirely overlooked because of the dominance of the neo-Ramellian Harmonielehre tradition. The
differences are exemplified by comparing Rameau’s basse fondamentale with Heinichen’s fluctuating understand-
ing of tonality. It was Heinichen who, at the start of the eighteenth century, attempted most thoroughly to concep-
tualize Italian music theory. Like Rameau, he, too, developed an overarching explanatory model of harmony that
involves coherent concepts of harmonic functionality and chord morphology. Heinichen’s and Rameau’s “systems,”
however, rest on opposing assumptions. However many speculative aspects it may embrace, Heinichen’s music
theory nonetheless remains directly indebted to musical practice and consistently rejects that esprit du système
that is so characteristic of Rameau’s theory. While Rameau, acting in the modern, scientific spirit of the early
Enlightenment, attempts to derive all aspects of his theory from a few fundamental principles, Heinichen works
through the many tensions and contradictions between the modern Klang progression, as formalized in the Rule
of the Octave, and the old legacy of traditional counterpoint instruction.
A blind spot in the history of music theory
in the last few years, with the strengthening of that movement within music
theory commonly known as historische Satzlehre or “historically informed music
theory,” it seems as if an awareness of a forgotten “culture” of music theory has
been given new life. The nineteenth-century German Harmonielehre tradition
occupied,1 well into the twenty-first century, such an unquestioned, nearly
1 The bourgeois tradition of the Harmonielehre (meaning of the texts originating outside of Germany—particularly
both “the theory of harmony” and “the harmony textbook”) those in the English-speaking world—follow those models
is “German” in view of the fact that those treatises that in their organization. It is not asserted, however, that the
later served as models were nearly all published in Ger- Harmonielehre tradition was the only one, or that there was
many. During the course of the nineteenth century, these a lack of relevant national differences.
treatises were translated into several languages, and many
Journal of Music Theory 51:1, Spring 2007

DOI 10.1215/00222909-2008-022 © 2009 by Yale University 5
6 J our n a l o f M usi c T h e ory
monopolistic position that one must first come to terms with the notion that,
existing alongside the theoretical lineage of Jean-Philippe Rameau, there was
yet another music-theoretical culture no less significant in music history and
Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/journal-of-music-theory/article-pdf/51/1/5/436645/03-JMT51.1_HoltmeierFpp.pdf by UNIV CA BERKELEY PERIODICALS user on 30 November 2021

the history of music theory. It is this forgotten culture and its renaissance that
are the focus of this essay.
The fixation of the Harmonielehre tradition on the late, “abstract” writ-
ings of Rameau2 and his successors has led to one of the largest omissions of
music-theoretical historiography: the nearly complete neglect of Italian music
theory, its concept of tonality, and particularly the so-called partimento tradi-
tion, which contributed so much to the true face of European composition
teaching from the seventeenth to the early nineteenth century.3 There can be
little doubt, for instance, that the thoroughbass teachings of “Viennese classi-
cism” were at their core a Ramellian reshaping of an Italian music theory,4 just
as the prevailing music theory at the Paris Conservatory was likewise minted in
Italy.5 In Europe, the Ramellian and neo-Ramellian tradition was an essential
music-theoretical current, but until the mid-nineteenth century it was by no
means the one with the greatest practical impact.
In terms of reception history, there are many reasons why the partimento
tradition could never step out from the shadow of Rameau’s theory. Here it
is sufficient to note only the most obvious: the textbooks of the partimento
tradition usually consisted mainly of music notation. In these books, “theory”
is not, in the common meaning of the word, presented and developed “sci-
entifically.” In general, nineteenth-century music theorists could no longer
take this tradition to be, strictly speaking, “theory,” let alone take it seriously
(Weber 1826). Viewed in retrospect, it decayed into Generalbasslehre (thor-
oughbass teaching), to “pure practice,” and simply fell outside the concept
of theory.6 The sharp and often polemical delimitation of eighteenth-century
thoroughbass teaching, which continues beyond Hugo Riemann up to Carl
Dahlhaus, is a precondition for the rise of the nineteenth-century Harmonie
lehre tradition.7
2 Meaning those writings produced after the Traité de the partimento tradition, and one can still clearly detect
l’Harmonie (1722). this provenance in Simon Sechter’s already unequivocally
Ramellian Practische Generalbass-Schule (1830). Only the
3 Regarding the history of the Neapolitan conservatories,
neo-Ramellian turn taken in Sechter’s Grundsätze (1852/54)
see Florimo 1882/83. In this connection, the works of
represents a real break.
Rosa Cafiero 1993, 1999, 2001, 2005 and Giorgio Sangui-
netti 1999, 2005 merit special mention. After Carl Gustav 5 On the reception of partimenti in France, see the article by
Fellerer’s early studies (1939), Florian Grampp gave a first Rosa Cafiero in this issue.
larger overview of the topic (2004/2005). In 2007, Robert O.
6 On this point, compare the disparaging remarks of Fétis
Gjerdingen presented his comprehensive study (Gjerdingen
quoted by Rosa Cafiero in her article in this issue (150).
2007). Bruno Gingras 2008 followed with a study on the
German partimento fugue. See also Aerts (2006). Holtmeier 7 Even a cursory glance at the leading music journals in the
and Diergarten 2008 offers a general overview. first half of the nineteenth century shows that “thorough-
bass bashing” was pervasive. Gottfried Weber speaks of a
4 On this point, see especially Budday 2002, Holtmeier
“jumble of note numbers and other symbols that one calls
2008, 2009, Grandjean 2006, Kaiser 2007a, and Diergar-
thoroughbass” (1824, 55). In the context of his discussion
ten 2008. The harmony and thoroughbass text of Bruck-
of Johann Bernhard Logier’s System der Musikwissen-
ner’s teacher Dürrnberger (1841) is written in the spirit of
Ludwig Holtmeier Heinichen, Rameau, and Italian Thoroughbass 7
A digression on partimento reception
Alexandre-Étienne Choron’s Principes d’accompagnement des Écoles d’Italie (1804) and his
monumental Principes de composition des écoles d’Italie (1808) together represent what is

surely the most obvious source for the French reception of the partimento tradition,
and the influence of Choron on François-Joseph Fétis is of central importance for
French music theory (Simms 1975). But Choron’s direct influence on the teaching of
composition at the Conservatoire remained limited. “Italian” influence, however, goes
far beyond these explicit documents. The structure of Charles-Simon Catel’s popular
Traité d’harmonie, for example, shows clear vestiges of “Italian” practice (1802). But it
was first and foremost Luigi Cherubini’s teaching method (1847) that stood completely
within this tradition. Even the basses données and chants donnés exercises found in text-
books like Henri Reber’s Traité d’harmonie (1862) and François Bazin’s Cours d’harmonie
théorique et pratique (1875)—both texts already clearly marked as Ramellian—document
the continuing influence of the Italian partimento tradition.
While for a long time partimento practice remained a living tradition in Pari-
sian conservatories and in Italy (Vidal and Boulanger 2006), its decline in Germany
was accelerated by the collapse of the old bourgeois and clerical institutions of music
education. With the establishment of the Leipzig Conservatory (1843), the training of
musicians in Germany was reprofessionalized. The Italian partimento tradition could
find only sporadic admission into this new civil institution. Nevertheless, the tradition—
reshaped by other music-theoretical tendencies—did survive at other conservatories,
especially in Munich. There Josef Gabriel Rheinberger taught “high-Romantic” parti-
menti (both figured and unfigured; Rheinberger 2001; Irmen 1974), and the exercises
provided in the influential Harmonielehre (1907) of Rudolf Louis and Ludwig Thuille
also remain in this tradition. In Germany, however, the partimento tradition—and, in
particular, the practice of the Rule of the Octave—survived best in the “lower” music
pedagogy of teacher seminars with a practical orientation (Piel 1887). Their complete
abolition with the general program of the Kestenberg reforms in 1925 (Leo Kesten-
berg was an influential music educator in the Weimar Republic) sealed the fate of the
partimento tradition in Germany.
From thoroughbass to Harmonielehre
The purely performance-practice term thoroughbass (Ger.: Generalbass, It.:

basso continuo), which underlies the above-mentioned polemic, oversimplifies
the facts. In 1873, the Beethoven researcher Gustav Nottebohm had already
pointed out that in Beethoven’s time one understood a “twofold” meaning by
the term thoroughbass (Nottebohm 1873, 5): “(1) the embodiment of the rules
for accompanying a figured bass, and (2) the science of the combination and
connection of intervals and chords, with or without consideration of thor-
oughbass performance.” Johann David Heinichen grounded his thoroughbass
schaften (1827), Adolf Bernhard Marx speaks of the “anti-

musical sloppiness of thoroughbass” (1830, 414). As late as
1860, Heinrich Josef Vincent titled his text on the basics of
music theory Kein Generalbass mehr (No More Thorough-
bass; Vincent 1830).
method on the categorical distinction between Accompagnisten and Componis

ten (Heinichen 1728, preface). In the eighteenth century, Heinichen’s distinc-
tion became part of common sense and led to music theory differentiating

between a “theory” and a “practice” of thoroughbass, as Johann Friedrich
Daube described it (Daube 1756, vii). Johann Georg Sulzer even speaks of
a “science of thoroughbass” (1771/74, 456). Although the borders between
theory and practice were fluid, their relationship was nevertheless subject to
a clear hierarchical order. As declared in Sulzer’s Allgemeine Theorie der schönen
Künste (1771/74, 456), “Without a complete understanding of harmony it is
impossible to play thoroughbass correctly.” Daube defined the relationship
between the theory and practice of thoroughbass as follows (1756, viii):
To it [thoroughbass performance] belongs, besides a skill in the practical exer-
cise, a theoretical cognisance so that one knows: (1) from whence most chords
originate, (2) to where they may be connected, and (3) how, from the first
chord, one can deduce the subsequent ones. . . . In addition to the practice of
thoroughbass, an accompanist should also understand the theory, so that he
can know how the rules of composition derive from it. A well grounded com-
poser could even dispense with the practice of thoroughbass if he only pos-
sessed a complete command of the theory. Nevertheless having both together
is better still. A complete understanding of thoroughbass always remains the
foundation for the melodic structures that can be built upon it.8
Thus, in the eighteenth century, the term thoroughbass covered exactly the
subject matter that, in the nineteenth century, would fall under the jurisdic-
tion of a Harmonielehre.
Riemann spoke of thoroughbass as a “simple tool of performance prac-
tice.” Equally problematical is the overgeneralizing discourse of “the” thor-
oughbass, which implicitly assumes a single two-hundred-year period embrac-
ing a broadly static, self-contained historical and theoretical entity. But what
one comprehends by thoroughbass around the year 1600 is entirely different
from what the term implies around 1700 or even 1800. Notions of an “Age of
Thoroughbass” (Generalbasszeitalter) or of “Thoroughbass Harmony” (Dahl-
haus 1990, 125) provide little help. In particular, the typical German Harmo
nielehre tradition, which attained international prevalence in the second half
of the nineteenth century, had an undifferentiated and markedly one-sided
understanding of thoroughbass. In the process, nearly all Harmonielehre theo-
reticians developed an almost manic fixation on the numerical shorthand,
on the “figures” of “figured bass.” They read the figures as representatives of
8 Hierzu gehört, neben der der praktischen Ausübung auch entspringen. Ein gründlicher Componist kann noch eher
eine theoretische Kenntniß, daß man wisse: (1) woher die die Praxis des General-Basses entbehren, wenn er nur die
meisten Accorde entspringen. (2) Wohin sie sich lenken las- Theorie vollkommen besitzet. Doch ist beydes beisammen
sen. (3) Und wie man aus dem ersten Accorde den darauf- noch besser. Die völlige Kenntniß des General-Basses bleibt
folgenden errathen solle. . . . Ein Accompagnist soll neben jederzeit der Grund des darauf zu bauenden melodischen
der Praxis auch die Theorie des General-Basses verstehen, Gebäudes.
damit er wisse: wie die Regeln der Composition daraus
chords, understood them almost exclusively vertically, built “stacks” of thirds

over the respective bass notes, and thus unconsciously transferred their own
understanding of chord, harmonic progression, and, above all, harmonic anal-

ysis to the music of the past. For the Harmonielehre tradition, whether oriented
toward theories of scalar degrees (Roman numerals, Stufentheorie) or func-
tional theory (Funktionstheorie), harmonic progression meant the leap from
chord to chord, and it was in this sense that even thoroughbass was under-
stood and its figures read.9 In this purely vertical reading, the figures can be
read off clearly. Hence, the Harmonielehre theorists were unable to engage with
thoroughbass appropriately because the separation of Harmonielehre and Kon
trapunkt had already been completely internalized and transferred to the past
as something self-evident. The opposition between “harmony” and “melody,”
and the resultant division between the teaching of harmony and counterpoint,
is the starting point for the neo-Ramellian German Harmonielehre. The more
the Harmonielehre theorists decried, wrote against, and tried to surmount this
“artificial” separation, the more it became solidified and, as it were, a natural
law. They attempted to resolve a self-inflicted problem. The reconciliation of
harmony and melody, of line and Klang (i.e., a sonority perceived as a chord),
is the central theme of the entire Harmonielehre tradition (Kühn 1994).
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, considering the typical
case, thoroughbass figures had not only vertical but also linear significance.
One is often unable to draw a line between the contrapuntal and harmonic
sense of the figures.10 The recurring formulation in Italian lesson books,
where one learns counterpoint through thoroughbass or partimento, should
be taken seriously and understood quite concretely—by contrapunto one had
in mind not just the “special disciplines” of counterpoint but above all the
correct disposizione (Sanguinetti 2005, 496f.), that is, “die beste Lage,” the cor-
rect voice leading above the thoroughbass (Förster 1818, 1; Holtmeier 2009).
The trio sonatas of Arcangelo Corelli became the unquestioned pedagogi-
cal models for this ideal voice leading. They embodied a compositional ideal
valid from the seventeenth century to the mid-eighteenth century. That is, a
four-voice texture was considered a three-voice texture supplemented by the
presence of an added voice (ad libitum), which could as easily be missing.
For the Ramellian and neo-Ramellian Harmonielehre, however, a three-voice
texture is an idealized four-voice texture missing one voice. I return later to
the substantial difference between these concepts of chord.
9 Hugo Riemann also understood the figures as pure “instruc 10 One is tempted to say—with all due caution—that at the
tions for hand positions” (Griffanweisung) to which no func- beginning of the eighteenth century the linear significance
tional harmonic or contrapuntal significance is attached. still predominates, and that thoroughbass or the under-
Characteristically he put not only his notorious Klangschlüs- standing of thoroughbass becomes increasingly “vertical-
sel but also his symbols for harmonic function under all the ized” during the course of the century under the influence
exercises in his Anleitung zum Generalbaß-Spielen (Rie- of Ramellian thinking. The one-sided vertical reading of the
mann 1889). German Harmonielehre is only a (radical) consequence of
this development.
A digression on Corelli reception
Without exaggeration, can one assert that for the stilo moderno, Corelli had as authorita-
tive a stature as that of Palestrina for stilo antico. He was, in terms of the reception of

his style and the diffusion of his works, a composer of European importance. Angelo
Berardi had already called him the “new Orfeo of our time” (“nuovo Orfeo nostri
giorni”; Berardi 1689, 45). For Johann Mattheson he was “the prince of all composers”
(Mattheson 1739, 326). And Michel de Saint Lambert referred to him as the “famous
Corelli, so celebrated now in all Europe, and for several years so fashionable among
us” (“fameux Corelli, si celebre maintenant dans l’Europe, & si à la mode parmi nous
depuis quelques années”; Saint Lambert 1707, 41). Corelli’s music was so popular that
Denis Arnold spoke of a “Corellian cult” (Arnold 1978).
In 1681, the Pasquini pupil George Muffat became personally acquainted with
Corelli in Rome. One could point to Muffat’s Regulae concentuum Partiturae (1699) as
the theoretical document for the modern (Corellian) trio-sonata style of composition.
Here composition in four or more voices is consistently presented as an extension
of three-voice composition. Mattheson stressed, “If one can deal with three voices
properly, singably, and with full sonority, then all will go happily even with twenty-four
voices” (1739, 344). Even in Joseph Riepel’s dialogues, the Teacher explains to his Stu-
dent that one must “patch in” the fourth voice (Riepel 1996, 571). This procedure can
still be seen clearly in Stanislao Mattei’s four-voice settings of bassi numerati (1850)—the
viola part is an optional filler voice.
The single voice of the thoroughbass stood as representative of an essen-

tially three-voice, contrapuntal constellation of voices, whose contrapuntal
topoi had already been practiced during instruction in composition.11 Given
a schematic excerpt of the bass and/or the figures, one assigned it a two-voice
accompaniment. By no means could the harmonic “content” of a bass be logi-
cally derived, as it were, in the abstract from the figures themselves. Thus one
knew that the two-voice 2–6–7–3 model for the upper voices (bracket “a” in
Example 1b) was assigned to a rising fifth with the figures 4–3 (Example 1,
Ledbetter 1990, 12; Fenaroli 1978, bk. 3, 9). Likewise, one knew which upper
voices corresponded to the clausula of the cadenza composta (slur “b” in Exam-
ple 1b). One recognized larger contexts and allocated the missing voices, but
on no account was the point to be “counting out” chord tones from the bass.
11 Particularly in recent German music theory, the discus- two-volume Gehörbildung (Ear Training; 2000) and, on the
sion of compositional models represents its own strong other hand, the works developed in the environment of
tradition. In this regard, Ernst Seidel’s article on the “devil’s the so-called “historical composition training” (historische
mill” (Teufelsmühle; 1969) is of special significance (see Satzlehre). Here the teaching methods and the writings of
also Holtmeier 2008, s.v. “Teufelsmühle”; Dietrich 2007; Markus Jans have been exemplary (Jans 1987, 1993; see
Yellin 1998). Furthermore, one should mention, on the also Holtmeier 2002, 2008, s.v. “Satzmodelle”; Dodds
one hand, the teaching methods and the less historically 2006; Froebe 2007; Menke 2008; Schwenkreis 2008). See
than systematically oriented works of the “Berlin school” also the current discussions around these models: Aerts
centered around Hartmut Fladt (2005, 2007), which found 2007, Kaiser 2007b, and Schwab-Felisch 2007.
its most powerful expression in Ulrich Kaiser’s influential
JMT 51:1 149-3 Holtmeier ex. 1
Ý −� Ł
4 3
ð
4 3 4
ð
3
ð
4 3
Ł Ł Ł
6 4 3
Ł
Ł ð ð Ł

Example 1a. A typical series of bass tones and figures
a a b
Š − � ðð ŁŁ ŁŁ ŁŁ ŁŁ ŁŁ ŁŁ Łð Ł ŁŁ ŁŁ ðŁ Ł Ł ŁŁ
! ð ð ð ŁŁŁ
Ý −� Ł ð ð Ł Ł
Ł
Example 1b. A realization of the bass of Example 1 using preferred voice-leading models
Toward a history and theory of the Rule of the Octave
At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the splitting of thoroughbass into

“science” and “practice,” along with the “invention” of the Rule of the Octave
around 1700, was a pivotal turning point in the history of both thoroughbass
and harmonic tonality. It is a still widespread misunderstanding that the Rule
of the Octave is only a “model harmonization,” one among several possibilities
for furnishing major and minor scales with chords. But that view recognizes
only the most extrinsic aspect of the Rule of the Octave and overlooks its intrin-
sic significance for music history and the history of music theory. At heart the
Rule of the Octave is not merely “pragmatic” legerdemain (Christensen 1993,
170), but the crucial step toward a theorization of thoroughbass. It is not solely
a concrete statement of compositional norms but above all an instrument of
harmonic analysis.12 The Rule of the Octave codifies what is generally under-
stood by the terms “major-minor tonality,” “cadential harmony,” or “modern
tonality.” With the Rule of the Octave thoroughbass becomes a Harmonielehre
in the modern sense. The Rule of the Octave frees thoroughbass from tradi-
tional thinking in terms of model-bound (contrapuntal) contexts, isolates the
individual Klang, and leads to a hitherto unknown verticalization of harmonic
discourse—the Rule of the Octave is a theory of harmonic f unctionality.
12 Scholars did not follow up on Walter Heimann’s remarks Arnold’s monumental study on thoroughbass from 1931
on “Rule-of-the-Octave texture” (Oktavregelsatz) in his must also be mentioned in this context. Arnold comes close
splendid study of Bach’s chorale style (Heimann 1973, 62f.). to many of the insights that were presented in the works of
Only with Wolfgang Budday’s Harmonielehre Wiener Klassik. Heimann and Budday. But his general historical approach is
Theorie—Satztechnik—Werkanalyse (Harmony in Viennese underpinned by that tenacious neo-Ramellianism that was
Classicism; 2002) was the Rule of the Octave brought back so typical for his time.
into the discourse of practical music theory. Franck Thomas
No one more clearly recognized the verticalization of harmonic dis-

course and more radically formulated it than Rameau. If one does a close
reading of his Traité de l’Harmonie (1722), then there can be no doubt that

Rameau’s theory of the basse fondamentale arose from the attempt to theoreti-
cally pinpoint the Rule of the Octave (see Heinichen 1728, 764). In the first
two books of the Traité, he develops theoretically what in the central, third
book he achieves by practical application in the example of the Rule of the
Octave. That is, the basse fondamentale explains the modus vivendi of the Rule
of the Octave, its ruling principe. The basse fondamentale constitutes the inner
“essence” of harmony, the Rule of the Octave its outward appearance.13 It is
no doubt correct that, after the Traité, Rameau’s music theory distanced itself
ever further from its origins in the Rule of the Octave. From the publication
of the Nouveau système (1726) onward, Rameau’s theory becomes noticeably
more abstract and formalistic. The internal aspects of the theory turn ever
more clearly toward the external. The basse fondamentale becomes the para-
mount principle which usurps even musical practice. Paradoxically, the Rule
of the Octave itself becomes, at least dating from the public argument between
Rameau and Michel-Pignolet Montéclair in the Mercure de France (Rameau and
Montéclair 1729/30; Christensen 1993, 56), first a counterproposal to the basse
fondamentale, and finally the epitome of a spiritless, atheoretical practice pitted
against the lone scientific theory in the form of the basse fondamentale.14
One must always bear in mind the Janus-faced character of Ramellian
theory in order to understand its complex reception history. This divides along
two main paths, which one could reify and characterize as the “practical” and
the “speculative.” The practical takes its point of departure from the third
and fourth books of the Traité, in which the Rule of the Octave plays a central
role. The speculative derives from the first two books, which deal exclusively
with the basse fondamentale. The German, and above all the north German,
reception of Rameau can be predominantly assigned to the speculative path,
the French and Italian reception, save for isolated exceptions, to the practical.
The Viennese tradition of thoroughbass teaching is, as already mentioned, in
the broadest sense associated with the Italian tradition. In the French and Ital-
ian school of teaching composition (and the Viennese school can be regarded
as belonging to it), the basse fondamentale firmly integrated itself into the deep-
seated educational tradition of the Rule of the Octave. There the Rule could
hold its central position across the whole of the eighteenth century without
13 The Rule of the Octave occupied Rameau’s attention his philosophy of reason” (“seit der zeit seines [Rameaus]
whole life. He was always finding new interpretations of it Traité de l’Harmonie macht der Testore musico eines Tevo
(Christensen 1993). und andrer eine so schlechte Figur, als etwa eine Logik von
Christian Weisen, seit die Wolfsche Vernunftlehre existiert”;
14 This becomes clear, for instance, in the statement
Marpurg 1760, 57). That the basse fondamentale succeeded
by Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg that “since the time of his
to become the epitome of “modern” scientific method may
[Rameau] Traité de l’Harmonie, the Testore musico of some-
have been the essential reason behind the extraordinary
one like Tevo cuts as poor a figure as, for example, the logic
success story of Ramellian theory.
of Christian Weisen since the advent of [Christian] Wolff’s
any real dispute. On the other hand, already in the works of Friedrich Wilhelm
Marpurg and Johann Philipp Kirnberger, who more than any others spread
Ramellian theory into German-speaking lands, the Rule of the Octave plays

only a marginal role. And from the early writings of the German Harmonie
lehre tradition (Gottfried Weber, Adolf Bernhard Marx) it finally disappeared
almost completely. In the first half of the nineteenth century the Rule of the
Octave also begins to lose its significance in France and Italy. Toward the end
of the century it was displaced across nearly all of Europe by the modern scale-
degree (i.e., Roman numeral) theory of the German Harmonielehre tradition—
a global export success. It was completely forgotten that the Rule of the Octave
had once actually founded the “modern” conception of tonality.
A digression on Rameau reception
The reception of Rameau’s teachings was also hampered by the fact that, apart from a
relatively early translation of the third and fourth books into English (Rameau 1737),
no further translations were published during the eighteenth and nineteenth centu-
ries. Rameau’s theory came to Germany principally through Friedrich Wilhelm Mar-
purg’s translation of the “theory-laden” summary of Jean Le Rond D’Alembert (1757).
Yet there were traces of Italian music theory even in the Prussian north. Maximilian
von Droste-Hülshoff, a friend of Haydn, brought the Italian tradition to the district of
Münster (Droste-Hülshoff 1821; Fellerer 1939; Kantsteiner 1974/75); Bernhard Klein
brought the partimento tradition of the Paris Conservatory to the Sing-Akademie in
Ramellian Berlin (Eitner 1882). Klein’s pupil, the archivist and music theorist Siegfried
Dehn, was a great connoisseur of Italian music theory. Toward the mid-nineteenth
century, Dehn published two notable textbooks in the Italian spirit (Dehn 1840, 1859).
Characteristically, Klein brought down on himself the opposition of the all-powerful
Carl Friedrich Zelter (Eitner 1882), and Dehn’s harmony book became the target of a
famous polemical attack from Adolf Bernhard Marx (1841).
The fact that the Rule of the Octave was consistently understood as
“practice” and not as “theory” is based on the nature of the Rule of the Octave
itself. In contrast to the closed system of Ramellian theory, the Rule of the
Octave developed through a long history and melded together different, occa-
sionally divergent music-theoretical contents and traditions. The Rule of the
Octave has neither a sole “inventor” nor an unambiguously defined form. But
one can come up with three factors that define the nature of the Rule of the
Octave, and which I would like to describe schematically as the sequential,
the cadential, and the systematic. The intrinsic multiplicity of the Rule of the
Octave even explains its diverse manifestations—some emphasize the sequen-
tial factor, others the cadential or the systematic.
The Rule of the Octave is usually described as standing in the tradition of
models used in improvised contrapunto alla mente—from Guilielmus Monachus
(1965) to Fray Tomás de Sancta Maria (1565) to Spiridionis (1670/71/75;
Lamott 1980; Christensen 1992; Jans 2007; Gjerdingen 2007, 467f.). Thus,
ð ð ð ð ð ð ð
Ýð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Example 2. An improvised scale harmonization as precursor to the Rule of the Octave
the Rule of the Octave carries forward the traditional categories of intervals
and their “dynamic” qualities. The triad represents perfect consonance, the
persistent “cadential” sonority of repose, the initial and goal chord of a har-
monic progression. By contrast, the chord of the sixth represents imperfect
consonance, the sonority of motion, which demands a stepwise continuation.
Therefore, the primitive model of the Rule of the Octave would involve a
stepwise succession of chords of the sixth, linking a perfect consonance on
the first degree to a perfect consonance on the fifth degree, and ultimately to
a perfect consonance on the eighth degree (see Example 2).
But the specific Gestalt of the Rule of the Octave cannot be attributed
solely to the tradition of improvised scale harmonizations. On the contrary,
there is an aura of mystical revelation that surrounds the description of the
Rule of the Octave in quite a few early seventeenth-century sources.15 One can
still sense it in that intrinsically German-language, music-theoretical concept
of the “natural scale” (natürlicher ambitus) or “natural harmony” (natürliche
Harmonie) (Heinichen 1728, 750 and register s.v. “Ambitus”) (“It seems to me
as if this harmonic scale has been implanted into our ears from the beginning
of the world” [“Mir deucht, es sey diese harmonische Leiter unserm Gehör von
Anbeginn der Welt eingepflanzt”]; Riepel 1996, 580), and the many claims of
priority make clear that the Rule’s appearance was felt as a remarkable event
and an important demarcation within the histories of composition and theory.
That would hardly require explanation were it nothing more than a pure con-
tinuation of the traditional interval-progression models. The forerunners of
the Rule of the Octave presupposed a separation between a logic of progres-
sion tied to a model—in the sense of improvised Gymel ( Jans 1987)—and of
a cadential, punctuating segment. Model and cadence are the central catego-
ries of compositional instruction in the seventeenth century. To compose, one
might say somewhat simplistically, meant an alternating exchange between
cadential and sequential models. The second half of the seventeenth century
can be described as a process during which these sequential and cadential
models come ever closer to each other. The Rule of the Octave finally melds
both factors together.
15 Here one must mention François Campion (1716, 1730),
who claimed for himself the authorship of the Rule of the
Octave—an old musician bequeathed it to him, as it were,
on his deathbed (Mason 1981). This story spread quickly and
remained in circulation for a long time in northern Europe,
particularly through David Kellner’s frequently reprinted Treu
licher Unterricht im General-Bass (Kellner 1732).
In the early eighteenth century, contemporary writers clearly recognized

that the changed role of the “false” (diminished) fifth and the “major” (aug-
mented) fourth was the central sign of the new harmonic language. It is also

one of the central theorems of Italian music theory and of Ramellian teaching
that the relationship between the “leading tones” 7 and 4 forms the core of
a theory of harmony. As a matter of fact, the feature that most clearly differ-
entiates the Rule-of-the-Octave harmony in the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries from the harmony of the seventeenth century is the compelling
assignment of the (dominant-function) six-four-two chord to the descending
fourth degree.16 It is precisely that new role for the “false” fifth and “major”
fourth that differentiates the Rule of the Octave, in qualitative respects, from
all the older harmonization models of the scale.17
A digression on the “false” fifth
A remark made by Angelo Berardi in the context of discussing a resolution of the dis-
sonant second into a “false” fifth supports the thesis that the “consonant” and free use
of the diminished fifth in the modern harmony at the close of the seventeenth century
was borrowed from popular music: “Some moderns have resolved the suspended sec-
ond to the false fifth; one allows this method of resolution, it being hard and harsh,
only in popular song for the expression of certain words. Thus, one should use it with
caution” (“Alcuni moderni hanno legato la seconda con la quinta falsa: questo modo
di legare, per essere duro e aspro, si concede solamente nelle cantilene volgari per
esprimere qualche parola. Si deve perciò usare con prudenza”; Berardi 1687, 137).
Mattheson grasped the changed role of the diminished fifth precisely when, in Der
vollkommene Kapellmeister, he maintained one would have “good reasons” (billige Ursache)
for “appending it to the consonances,” since “it does far more harmonious service than
the perfect fifth” (Mattheson 1739, 235). At the beginning of the nineteenth century,
Jérôme Joseph de Momigny still maintained that one had to treat the tritone and the
false fifth “as if they were consonant, . . . for thirds, sixths, false fifths, and tritones
are the true harmonic intervals that can be used in two-part composition” (“comme
s’ils étaient des consonnans, . . . les tierces, les sixtes et les fausses quintes ou tritons
sont les vrais intervalles harmoniques, employable dans la composition à deux partie”;
Momigny 1803/1806, 1:284). Similarly, Fétis regarded both the diminished fifth and
the augmented fourth as consonant intervals (Simms 1975, 122). Nicolò Zingarelli
16 And likewise, the (dominant) six-five chord on the ascend- and one could thus with equal justification designate the
ing seventh degree. In terms of historical development, the fifth degree as a “preparation” for the descending fourth
fact that (along with the four-two chord on the descending degree.
fourth degree) it concerns a harmonic passing-chord phe-
17 Johann Georg Albrechtsberger stresses that there is a
nomenon remains evident for a long time in the Italian par-
“bass scale of the old composers” and a “bass scale of
timento tradition. According to Giovanni Paisiello (Dellaborra
the newer composers” (Albrechtsberger 1790, 12/13). For
2007), the dominant four-two chord occurs “when one
the chord on the descending fourth degree, the four-two
descends from the fifth of the key to the third of the key”
chord suits the “newer” scale—the modern Rule of the
(“quando discende dalla Quinta del Tono alla Terza del Tono”;
Octave, while the simple six-three chord, which only serves
Paisiello 1782, 5; Holtmeier, Menke, and Diergarten 2008).
the distinction between perfect and imperfect triads, suits
In the course of this development, however, this passing-
the older scale.
chord phenomenon becomes emancipated from its origin,
opened up his lessons in composition with what he considered to be the core rela-
tion of harmony. He wrote the tritone and the diminished fifth and their resolutions
on a piece of paper with the words: “You shall begin from the scale in two voices; and

remember, in harmony the fourth descends, and the seventh ascends” (Sanguinetti
2005, 451f.).
It is not difficult to discern the derivation of the harmonic formula for

the descending 4–3–2–1 scale-degree progression in the Rule of the Octave:
its source is the cadenza doppia (see Example 3), which plays such a prominent
role in the music of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Gjerdingen
2007, 169).
Early-eighteenth-century Italian thoroughbass manuals recognized three
types of cadences, which were designated in the eighteenth-century parti-
mento tradition by the terms semplice (simple), composta (compound), and dop
pia (double).18 Thus, semplice generally signifies a simple dominant-tonic rela-
tionship, composta the classical 4–3 suspension cadence, and doppia the “grand”
cadence with the consonant fourth. These cadences have not merely an artic-
ulating, punctuating function, but in the seventeenth century they become
comprehensive compositional models that pervade entire compositions. It is
crucial to note that these cadences are contrapuntal models. At its core, each
cadence consists of three voices, which relate to each other in triple counter-
point: although the unfigured bass clausula of the cadenza doppia (Example
3a) can only be set over a soprano clausula, not over the tenor clausula, some
other standardized figurations (c–f) even permit the later arrangement.19
Underlying the Rule of the Octave is less a collection of interval-progres-
sion models and more a Durchkadenzierung (thorough cadentializing) of the
scale by means of these contrapuntal cadence models—above all the cadenza
doppia. Starting points for the emergence of the Rule of the Octave might be
phrases “in the style of Corelli,” as in Example 4.
In Example 4a, the slurs mark the doppia versions of tenor clausulae, the
brackets mark the doppia versions of soprano clausulae (see also Example 4b),
and the wavy line designates the figuration of a doppia bass clausula. One can
easily clarify the derivation of the Rule of the Octave from the modern Italian
18 See Gjerdingen 2007, 141f. A historical investigation of perceptible process of standardization—the terminology is
this concept is a topic of current scholarship and would by no means consistent. Similarly ambiguous are the deriva-
exceed the limits of this essay. The term doppia and the tion and meaning of the term doppia (double). On the one
quasi-standardized use of the conceptual triad of semplice, hand, it can refer to the (metrical) breadth of the cadence,
composta, and doppia is a relatively late feature of Italian and on the other hand, to the combination of semplice and
music theory. Also, the terms are hardly used in a consis- composta into one “doubled” cadence.
tent way. Even in the late eighteenth century, depending
19 The fifth scale degree thereby becomes a superjectio of
on the author, the terms may overlap in content, espe-
the fourth degree. The bass clausula thus actually becomes
cially with semplice and composta. In earlier sources the
a variant in double counterpoint of the alto clausula. This
doppia cadence is designated by a multiplicity of terms
quasi identity between figurations of bass and alto clausulae
like cadenza major, große Cadenz, grande cadence, great
is an essential element of innumerable contrapuntal designs
cadence (Godfrey Keller), gantze Cadenz or cadentia maior
in the music of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
perfectis (Muffat), and so forth. Even later—despite a clearly
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)
ŁŁ Łð ð Ł ð ŁŁ Łð ð Ł ð ŁŁ Łð ð Ł ðð
Š ðŁ ð ð Ł ðð ŁŁ ðŁ Ł ŁŁ ðð ŁŁ ðŁ Ł ŁŁ ðð
!

Ý Ð ð ŁŁð ð ŁŁŁŁ ð ŁŁð ð ŁŁŁŁ ð ŁŁð ð
Example 3. The cadenza doppia as a model of triple counterpoint
JMT 51:1 149-3 Holtmeier ex. 5a
(a)
ðý Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł ð Ł
Š � ð ý Ł Ł ð Ł Ł Ł Ł ð (²) ðŁ ð ð ² Ł Łð ð ¦ ð Ł ÐÐ
! 7777777777777
Ý � ðý Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł ð Ł Ł Ł ð Ð
JMT 51:1 149-3 Holtmeier ex. 5b
6 6 6 7 5 4 3 4 6 7 ²6 6 7 6
5 2
(b)
ð ð ð Ł Łð Ł
Š � ð ý Ł ð ý Ł Ł Ł Ł ð (²) ðŁ ð ð ² Ł Łð ð ¦ ð Ł ÐÐ
!
Ý� ð ð ð Ł Ł Ł Ł ð Ł Ł ð ŁŁ
Łð Ð
Example 4. The Rule of the Octave in the style of Corelli
“tonality” of the Corelli-style trio-sonata format if one makes a “reduction” of

Example 4a.20 To that end, one first removes all the suspension figures. That
includes the 7–6 suspensions in mm. 4 and 5, the 4–3 suspension in the third
measure, and even the 7–5 progression in that same bar, which is actually only
an “elision” of a 7–6–5–4–3 progression. In this form the progression also
appears in the then-current model-based phrases shown in Example 5. If one
20 In the early eighteenth century, this kind of dissonance

reduction is a common procedure in thoroughbass peda-
gogy. In particular, see Michel de Saint Lambert 1707 and
Godfrey Keller 1707.
¹ Ł� Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł ¹ Ł� Ł ¹
Š � Ł Ł Ł Ł ² Ł Ł Ł ŁŁ Ł ŁŁ Ł Ł Ł� ŁŁ −Ł ŁŁ Ł −Ł Ł
! Ł

Ý � Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł ²Ł ²Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł
7 6 5 4 3 7 6 5 4 3 7 6 5 4 3

Example 5. The 7–6–5–4–3 model
ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð
Š ð ð ð ðð ð ð ð ð Ł ² Ł ðð ² ðð ðð ðð ðð ¦ ðð ðð
!
Ýð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð
6 6 6 6 6 6 ²6 4 6 6
5 5 2
Example 6. The classical Rule of the Octave: reduction of Example 4a
now—retaining this organizing principle—also begins the descending scale

with a perfect consonance, there emerges the classical form of the Rule of the
Octave (Example 6).
It becomes clear during this process of derivation what is really revolu-
tionary about the Rule of the Octave: the derhythmization of the cadence,
the decoupling of dissonance from ligatura, from syncopatio. In short, the
breakup of the traditional cadential interrelationships. Only the dissolution
of the “bonds” (ties) in the clausulae frees the Klang.21 This emancipation of
individual sonorities inevitably accompanies a far-ranging loosening of super-
ordinate rhythmic and linear relationships. Thus, in the context of the dop
pia tenor clausula, the third scale degree in the bass actually becomes only a
“passing chord” on a weak beat, carrier of a consonant preparation for the
following dissonant tenor clausula (Example 7a). The principle of the step-
wise progression isolates the sonorities and permits a largely derhythmicized
“binary relationship” of chords to replace the three- and four-note contexts
21 Nowhere can one more clearly discern the factor of as concrete compositional building blocks can be, as it
abstraction, the “material character” of the Rule of the were, directly adopted and employed in compositional prac-
Octave, than in this process. Here too lies the crucial differ- tice. The Rule of the Octave, by contrast, always requires
ence between the sequential and cadential models, which positioning within the rhythmic design.
(a) (b)
ð ð
Š ððð ððð ðð ðð ðð ðð ðð ðð
! ð ð ð ð

Ýð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð
6 6 6 6
-
4 -
3 -
2 -
1 -
4 -
3 -
4 -
3
Example 7
of the clausulae (Example 7b). Thus, the third degree takes on a sonority in
its own right.
It is particularly here in the Rule of the Octave that one finds “old” inter-
val progressions and the “new” Corelli-style cadential harmony in a relation-
ship of dialectical tension. As a chord of motion, the imperfect consonance
on the third scale degree leads across the imperfect second degree to resting
point on the perfect first degree (Example 7a). Yet as a more “emancipated”
component of the cadenza doppia, the chord of the sixth is a goal and point of
resolution for the dissonant six-four-two chord on the fourth degree, which
precedes it (Example 7b). It is thus just as much a chord of repose. The cadenza
doppia carries the factor of harmonic tension and relaxation into the old pro-
gression model. This is exactly where Rameau’s theory begins—the model of
tension and relaxation becomes the central feature of his basse fondamentale.
Consonance and dissonance assume the place held by perfect and imperfect
consonance in the music theory of the seventeenth century. Dissonance takes
over the function of imperfect consonance. Harmonic movement is no longer
the progression, by means of a multiplicity of imperfect consonances, from
an opening perfect consonance through a series of intermediate caesura-
like perfect consonances to a closing perfect consonance (the so-called pip-
principle; Jans 1987). Now harmonic movement is a routine consequence of
dissonance and consonance, of tension and relaxation (Christensen 1993,
120f.).22 For Rameau, the juxtaposition of doppia clausulae in the Rule of the
Octave becomes a routine consequence of two-stage cadences parfaites. The
close dependence developed by Rameau’s basse fondamentale on the cadential
harmony of the Rule of the Octave becomes clear if one sets below the doppia
cadences of Example 4a a bass voice without figuration (Example 8a gives two
alternative versions) and then compares this supporting “fundamental voice”
22 Or the connection of two consonances by a chain of dis-

sonances. Thomas Christensen points out that for Rameau
“every non-tonic scale degree carries a seventh chord”
(1993, 129).
JMT 51:1 149-3 Holtmeier ex. 9a
(a)
$ ðð ýý ŁŁ Ł Łð Ł Ł ŁŁ ðŁ Ł ð ð
Š Ł Ł ð (²) Ł ð ² Ł ðŁ ð ¦ ð Ł ÐÐ

Ý ðý Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł ð Ł Ł ð ŁŁ
Ł ð Ð
ÝÐ Ð
Ð ð ð Ð Ð
Ý Ð
% Ð ð ð ð ð Ð Ð
(b)
Example 8. Rameau’s interpretation of the Rule of the Octave

Ý Ð Ð Ð Ð ²Ð Ð Ð Ð
6²
6 6
5 6 6 5 6

□
7 1 2 3 7 1 2 □
3
Example 9. “Implicit” harmonic structure of Rameau’s

ascending Rule of the Octave
with the basse fondamentale (Example 8b) that Rameau provided for the Rule
of the Octave (Rameau 1722, 382).
Even Rameau’s basse fondamentale uses only the tones of the doppia bass
clausulae: C, G, and D.23 One clearly recognizes, however, the differences.
Rameau applies, as it were, the same model to the succession of the descend-
ing scale as to the ascending scale. Thus, in the descending scale, the fifth
degree is treated like a first degree (as a notte tonique), and the leading tone
(notte sensible) is treated like a third degree (mediante). These degrees are thus
interpreted as if ascending: for Rameau, the schematic progression in Exam-
ple 9 implicitly underlies the ascending scale (Rameau 1722, 208).
The diatonic arrangement of the mode prohibits the leading tone to the
fifth degree from actually sounding (Rameau conceives the fifth degree comme
une notte tonique) (Rameau 1722, 213). Yet regarded functionally, the progres-
sion of the leading tone to the tonic (notte sensible to notte tonique) is identical
to that of the fourth degree to the dominant (quatrième to dominante) (Rameau
1722, 208). At the end of Rameau’s ascending scale (Example 8b) a scarcely
motivated, apparent leap from the leading tone to the fifth degree owes its
existence to Rameau’s logic of progressions. It clarifies the dual function of
the seventh scale degree, which must at the same time support an inversion
of a perfect triad (parfait) and a seventh chord (l’accord de la septième). On the
one hand, it is a mediante of a “tonicized” dominant accordingly ushered in by
its own dominant (D3 in the basse fondamentale of Example 8b) (Rameau 1722,
211). On the other hand, it really is the notte sensible, obliged to lead into the
tonic and to support a (dominant) six-five chord (l’accord de la fausse quinte).
One can clearly detect these changes of function from the basse fondamentale.
The basse fondamentale under the leading tone (G3) does not bear the signa-
ture of a seventh chord, because the sounding dissonance of the six-five chord
on this seventh scale degree is just an apparent one. In its true essence this
dissonance is a parfait in first-inversion form. Only with the next chord does
the fundamental seventh chord become “material” and resolve itself properly.
23 The much discussed problem area of the double emploi

(see Example 8b, m. 3) lies outside the scope of this
essay.
That the seventh of the basse fondamentale under the sixth scale degree (C
above D), which performs the function of a dominant to the mediante of the
tonicized dominant, is not resolving correctly but ascends to the D, justifies

Rameau in the prohibition of doubling the leading tone (B), which a proper
resolution of that dissonant seventh would violate (Rameau 1722, 213; see also
Rousseau 1768). So just as that six-five chord over the seventh scale degree
is actually a perfect triad, then conversely the six chord over the sixth scale
degree is actually, in a functional sense, a dissonant seventh chord.
Already we can clearly make out that tendency toward formalistic abstrac-
tion and esprit du système that in the late writings of Rameau often takes on such
abstruse manifestations.24 In the Traité, however, Rameau’s complex opera-
tions still have a recognizable basis in experience and in the musical features
themselves. The thesis that the fundamental principle of modern (Rule of the
Octave) harmony was the dogmatization of the cadence, understood as the
transition from a dissonant sonority to a consonant one (and vice versa), actu-
ally grasps an essential aspect of the new chordal basis of composition in the
style of Corelli’s trio sonatas. But one can also clearly distinguish in Rameau’s
basse fondamentale the difficulties and problems of a one-dimensional system-
ization of the Rule of the Octave. In concert with his theory of inversion,
Rameau’s consonance-dissonance dichotomy eliminates the concept of imper-
fect consonance. It may still be present as a phenomenon in compositional
technique, but as a music-theoretical category it disappears completely.25 The
consequences are far reaching. As imperfect consonances merge with perfect
consonances in the concept of chord, the concept of harmonic movement is
tied exclusively to dissonance. Beyond dissonance, Rameau’s system reaches
an impasse. Thus it is literally impossible for two accords parfaits (each with a
different basse fondamentale) to follow one another. At their core, the labored
constructions of the cadence irregulière (sixte ajoutée), the later sous-dominante,
and the infamous double emploi only serve the purpose of maintaining the rigid
logic of progression, which enforces the exclusion of imperfect consonances
and the dogmatization of dissonance. Rameau’s music theory does not engage
the dialectical tension between the old interval progressions and the “new”
cadential harmony of the Corelli style, which was worked out as a central fac-
tor in the Rule of the Octave. With a revolutionary gesture he simply wiped the
centuries-old and autonomous theory of intervallic qualities off the table.
Toward an “Italian” concept of chord
No music-theoretical theorem of the eighteenth century did more to imple-

ment a break with tradition than Rameau’s theory of renversement—“inversion”
24 In the Traité, Rameau himself points repeatedly to the 25 Christensen refers to the difference between a concept
fact that the basse fondamentale is “of little use in practical of inversion based on “inversional derivation,” which was
music” (inutile à la pratique; Rameau 1722, 381). already common before Rameau, and one based on this
new “inversional equivalence” (1993, 70f.).
sealed the fate of the old intervallic qualities. No other concept of Ramel-
lian theory would have a comparably wide diffusion. Even traditions of music-
theory teaching that took themselves to be anti-Rameau and rejected in par-

ticular his theory of chord progression26 nevertheless adopted as self-evident
the concept of inversion. By the end of the eighteenth century it had already
gained acceptance across all of Europe, and by the middle of the nineteenth
century it finally achieved a position where it had almost no competition.
Even today, it still holds sway so naturally, so unchallenged that it is worth-
while drawing attention to what a radical break it once represented from
a centuries-old tradition. According to Rameau, a chord of the sixth is no
longer an independent sonority in its own right, but becomes a “derivative”
chord, an “inversion” of a “fundamental” triad. The old pivotal distinction
between fifth and sixth, between a sonority of rest and one of motion, was
not only completely leveled, but perfect and imperfect consonances became,
in Rameau’s thoughts on inversion, nearly “identical.” His new principle of
the stacking of thirds takes the place of the old intervallic qualities. From it
Rameau derives both of his “root chords”: the triad (parfait) and the seventh
chord (dominante-tonique). He even bases the essential opposition between
consonant and dissonant chords—between consonance and dissonance—on
his principle of the stacking of thirds.
The partisans and interpreters of Rameau have always invoked the idea
that his theory was the first to actually develop a precise concept of harmonic
dynamism (Christensen 1993, 132). That would be correct if one has in mind
his attempt to trace harmonic process back to the “basic units” of tension
and release, to the dominant-to-tonic progression, and his efforts to develop
a holistic concept of harmonic space. Yet one could as easily argue the oppo-
site—that in its schematized ideas of inversion and the stacking of thirds,
Rameau’s theory leads to a complete antidynamic enervation of harmonic
process. For just as the difference between perfect and imperfect consonance
vanishes, so does any factor of linearity in the concept of chord.27
One can unproblematically ascribe the sonorities of the Rule of the
Octave to a series of cadences parfaites on the notes of the basse fondamentale
as long as it behaves like forms of cadenze di grado, thus as long as there is a
soprano or tenor clausula in the bass. The fifth degree of the ascending Rule
of the Octave—as the penultimate tone in a bass clausula—properly requires
a leap and so becomes a problematic case for Ramellian theory, a problem
whose elaborate solution has been discussed in detail above.
26 In the eighteenth century, Rameau’s theory of chord 27 In the early twentieth century, it was Heinrich Schenker
progressions—the actual heart of his theory—only plays a who time and again pointed out Rameau’s “overemphasis on
subordinate role, and even German scale-degree theory of the vertical” (1930, 11). As much as he was unconsciously
the early nineteenth century only marginally takes up this bound to an understanding of tonality that was Ramellian at
aspect of it. Only with the “neo-Ramellian turn” of funda- its core, it is his undisputed historical achievement to have
mental bass in Vienna (Sechter) and of functions theory in highlighted the significance of the compositional framework
Leipzig (Hauptman) does Rameau’s theory of progression and its figuration for “classical” tonality.
finally become relevant for musical practice.
24
J our n a l o f M usi c T h e ory
(a) (b) (c) (d)
ð ð ð ðŁ Ł Ł ð ŁŁŁ ŁŁ ŁŁ ðð
Š ððð ðð ððð ðð
ð ð ð ð Ł Ł ð
!

Ýð ð ð ð ð ð Ł ŁŁð Ł Ł Ł ð
7 6 6
5
Example 10
The cadential effect of the fifth degree is actually superior in the Rule of
the Octave, even if in a sense different from the one Rameau thought of. The
triad (Example 10a), but especially the seventh chord (Example 10b), on the
fifth degree almost compels a cadential resolution, thus a drop of a fifth or
third following it. The example makes it clear that in the Rule of the Octave,
degrees 6 and 7 following the dominant (Example 10d) should be understood
as merely a stepwise filling out of the ascending cadential leap of a fourth, and
are treated as “passing chords” (Schulz [Kirnberger] 1773, 36). If one consid-
ers m. 2 in Example 4a, one will see that the rising scalar passage from D3 to
G3 in the bass actually presents the figuration of a doppia bass clausula. One
can glean from this and other examples that Rameau’s interpretation of the
Rule of the Octave is doomed to failure because it does not respect the func-
tional differences and the functional variability of the individual degrees and
their sonorities. For Rameau, cadenze doppie, cadenze semplici, passing chords,
chords resulting from figurations—in short, everything—must conform to the
unitary mechanism of the consonance-dissonance succession of the cadence
parfaite. To be sure, the Rule of the Octave also isolates individual sonori-
ties from their originally linear contexts. Nonetheless, one can still document
within it a contrapuntal provenance from three-voice compositional and
cadential models. In Rameau’s theory of chords, however, chordal sonorities
become radically equalized. Chordal relationships that extend beyond the
simple two-stage progression from consonance to dissonance fall completely
outside the system.
The functional variability of chordal scale degrees (Stufen) can be clearly
demonstrated by the chord of the sixth on the third degree, one of the out-
wardly most stable harmonic constellations within the Rule of the Octave
(Example 11). On the one hand, the chord of the sixth on the third degree
can essentially serve, in Rameau’s sense, the function of a tonic chord in inver-
sion (Example 11a). But given its placement on a mi-degree, it can also be part
of a cadenza semplice and exercise the function of a “local” dominant to the
fourth degree, which in turn will be treated like a Mitteltonika (Riepel 1996,
(a) (b) (c)
Š ððð ððð ððð ðð

ð
ðð
ð
ŁŁ ŁŁ Łð Ł ðð
Ł Ł ð ð

Ýð ð ð ð ð Ł Ł ð ð
6 6 6 6 6 4 3
5
Example 11. The multifunctionality of the sixth chord on the third

scale degree
585) (Example 11b). Moreover, it is also frequently part of a dominant prepa-

ration, one that prepares the dissonant six-five chord on the fourth degree
(Example 11c).
Such fine differentiations find no resonance in the mechanism of the
basse fondamentale. Hence, the vanishing of the distinction between perfect
and imperfect consonance ultimately leads to an impoverishment in the con-
cept of harmonic functionality. Given the disappearance of all linear factors,
harmonic dynamism appears in the form of a monotonous, basically “undy-
namic” logic of progressions.
Johann David Heinichen and the

systematization of the Rule of the Octave
To speak of a concept of chord in the Italian thoroughbass tradition raises

its own problems. On the one hand, the notion is hardly more than a rough
summary of certain traditions of instruction, which each ought to be histori-
cally and geographically differentiated. The reader may have noted with some
confusion that the partimento tradition, the Italian thoroughbass tradition,
and the Rule of the Octave are not clearly set apart from one another in this
text. In fact, it is scarcely possible to draw clear boundaries between them. If
one refers to partimenti as the didactical thoroughbass exercises themselves,
it is not difficult to show a continuous traditional context throughout Europe,
extending far into the twentieth century, in which the difference between Ital-
ian, French, or even German theoretical approaches, between the Rule of the
Octave, basse fondamentale, or scale-degree (Roman-numeral) theory (Stufen
theorie) are of secondary significance. If one takes partimenti as a didactic
tradition, however, in which the accompaniment of unfigured basses is of fun-
damental importance, then “partimento” also contains a theoretical approach
that is inseparably tied to the principles of the Rule of the Octave and the
compositional models. If I refer here also to an Italian thoroughbass tradition,
it is because this theoretical approach is not bound to the didacticism of the
partimenti, even if it developed from them. Many schools of thoroughbass are

certainly in the partimento tradition, even if they do not make use of actual
partimenti (e.g., Kellner 1732). What they have in common is the central

concept of the Rule of the Octave.
On the other hand, as already pointed out, there was no explicitly articu-
lated theory and comprehension of chord that, in the sense that one might
contrast “Italian music theory versus French music theory,” one could set in
opposition to the Ramellian basse fondamentale. The singular and indeed puz-
zling success of Ramellian theory can substantially be attributed to the fact
that Rameau never fledged a real theoretical opponent, someone who could
have confronted his basse fondamentale with a competing concept. Thus, in the
course of the eighteenth century the Rule of the Octave took on ever more
clearly the role of conservative, “old Catholic,” and pretheoretical teachings
that shut themselves off from contemporary Enlightenment innovations, even
before their subversive progressive potential, the basis for Rameau’s own basse
fondamentale, could have penetrated at all into the general consciousness.
It would be incorrect, however, to state absolutely that no theoretical
counterproposals to Rameau came forward. The attempts made seem to have
found neither the language nor the form of presentation that would have
been recognized as “theoretical” in the discourse of the early Enlightenment,
nor did they develop in a sociocultural environment that would have facili-
tated a broad European impact transcending their narrower regional and lin-
guistic borders.28
If one wished to nominate one such counterproposal to Rameau’s the-
ory, then first and foremost the monumental second edition (1728) of Johann
David Heinichen’s Der General-Bass in der Composition (Thoroughbass in Composi
tion) comes to mind. The second part of this work, “On the Complete Sci-
ence of Thoroughbass” (“Von der vollkommenen Wissenschaft des General-
Basses”), explicitly represents the unique attempt of its time to systematize
and theoretically substantiate the music theory of the Italian partimento tradi-
tion (Horn 2000). No other eighteenth-century author made the Rule of the
Octave the basis of his theory to such a degree (Horn 2001, 2002).
A digression on Heinichen
The modern functionality of the Rule of the Octave, which Heinichen develops in his
thoroughbass treatise of 1728, stands at the top of a hierarchy. The “natural” harmonies
of unfigured basses “permit themselves to be discovered in three ways” (Heinichen
1728, 726–27):
28 Heinichen’s work was therefore unable to find an interna-

tional audience because German, in contrast to French and
Italian, was not a “European” cultural language. His influ-
ence on composition teaching in German was, however,
considerable. See, for instance, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach’s
very similar concept of chord (C. P. E. Bach, 1753/62).
I. From the vocal or instrumental voice written over the bass.

II. From some easy general rules, or from characteristic intervals of the
modes.

II. From some special rules, or from the ambitus of the modes themselves.
On the one hand, this acts like a systematic hierarchy. In order “to guess at” (erraten;
Heinichen 1728, 731) the missing voices from the intervallic relationships between the
upper and lower voices, only a knowledge and mechanical application of chord theory
is required. To move to the second hierarchical level where one applies “general rules,”
however, already calls for a clearly higher understanding and level of knowledge. Here
“general rules” mean the old Klangschrittregeln (rules for chord progressions) derived
from the tabula naturalis. Hardly any treatise of the seventeenth and early eighteenth
centuries lacks these rules for standardized chord combinations, for example,
1. The 5th [scale degree] in the major and minor modes naturally has a major
3rd above itself, and in the system of modes it may or may not be notated. 2. The
4th [scale degree] in the minor modes naturally has a minor 3rd above itself,
and in the system of modes it may or may not be notated. 3. The semitone [lead-
ing tone] beneath the major and minor mode, by which one modulates, natu-
rally has a “6” over itself. . . . (Heinichen 1728, 739)
“He who acquaints himself with these general rules,” continues Heinichen, “will fre-
quently acquire great facility in the practice of an unfigured thoroughbass” (738).
Attaining the highest hierarchical level, however, requires “the solid understanding of
the musical ambitus” (731)—by this is meant nothing else than the Rule of the Octave.
It is “the main source from which flow the aforesaid general rules” (738). The Klang
schrittregeln give rules for chord progressions, but they are based on a mere intervallic
relationship. Only the Rule of the Octave gives a precise place to those free intervallic
relations in the harmonic space of the scale.
It is obvious that this hierarchical order of precedence is also a didactic order
(“the easiest comes first”; Heinichen 1728, 727). That Heinichen’s course of study
begins quite traditionally with chord theory and then leaves Klangschrittregeln to follow
means that it represents, at the same time, a historical order of precedence. Klangschrit
tegeln, especially as explicated in the German tradition (compare, e.g., the treatises of
Matthäus Gugl 1719 and Johann Baptist Samber 1704, 1707) is, as it were, a histori-
cal prehistory (Christensen 1992, 113), now surpassed and nullified by the new func-
tionality of the Rule of the Octave. One can perceive the same relationship between
Heinichen’s later treatise and his own earlier one (1711; see Gjerdingen 2007, 15–16).
Although in 1728 Heinichen asserts that he had already explicated the Rule of the
Octave “in the year 1710 during the preparation of my old edition of this treatise”
(763), that is not really the case. Had his 1711 Klangschritt sequence extended across
all eight tones of the scale, it would take on just as little of the obligatory form of the
Rule of the Octave as with the treatises of Samber, Gugl, and Spiridionis—a qualitative
difference exists between the Klangschrittregeln and the Rule of the Octave (Gjerdingen
2007, 15–16).
Rameau’s schematized thoughts on inversion and the stacking of thirds

break with a further core aspect of the traditions of music theory and the his-
tory of composition: one of the oldest elements in European compositional

Example 12. Heinichen’s Schema (Rule of the Octave)
teaching is the distinction between step and leap. The notion that stepwise
progression is, as it were, the prototype of all harmonic and melodic motion
hearkens back to a centuries-old tradition. Thus, in a sense the leap is the
exception to the norm of regular stepwise motion. In Rameau’s music theory,
based on the prototypical falling fifth of the cadence parfaite, the leap not only
takes the place hierarchically of the step progression, but the step progres-
sion, as an independent music-theoretical category, became completely mean-
ingless: in Rameau’s theory every step is based on a leap. Heinichen’s music
theory, as we will see, retains the old distinction between gradus and saltus
(step and leap).
If the Rule of the Octave is to become the basis of a music-theoretical sys-
tem, then two central questions must be answered: (1) what happens when the
bass moves by leap, and (2) how does one explain and categorize sonorities
that do not reside in the model of the classic Rule of the Octave? The Rule of
the Octave must become both a comprehensive theory of chord progression
and a theory of the chord morphology.
Example 12 shows Heinichen’s version of the Rule of the Octave. Though
Heinichen also understands the Rule of the Octave as a practical aid to impro-
visation, it is primarily the representation of a harmonic system in itself: it rep-
resents a comprehensive “schema.” The systematic character of Heinichen’s
Rule of the Octave is immediately apparent, for it differs conspicuously from
its Italian and French precursors. Aside from the obligatory passing six-four-
two chord on the fourth scale degree, Heinichen does not present any (disso-
nant) four-note chords—only the “pure” perfect (vollkommene) and imperfect
(unvollkommene) chords. The absence of the six-five chord on the ascend-
ing fourth scale degree (l’accord de la grande sixte) is especially conspicuous.
“Through a complete omission of certain figures” (“durch gänzliche Hinweg
lassung einiger Ziffern”; Heinichen 1728, 765), Heinichen here establishes
something like a “Primary Rule of the Octave” made up of the most simple

Example 13. Gasparini’s Rule of the Octave after Heinichen
chordal elements: as in a modular system, all more complex and dissonant

variants can be derived from this prototype, as I show later on.
The form of representation is also noteworthy: Heinichen’s Rule of the
Octave does not move through the entire octave, as is the case with Rameau
and in many sources from the Italian partimento tradition; instead, his schema
ends on the sixth scale degree and then changes direction. The similarity to
Francesco Gasparini’s version of the Rule of the Octave is deceptive, however,
for Gasparini directly follows his Rule of the Octave in major with a harmo-
nization of the descending scale degrees 8–7–6–5, in order to make it clear
that on the descending sixth degree the chord with the major sixth should be
placed (Example 13).29
For Heinichen, this is unacceptable: he stresses that he “omitted the
major sixth over the sixth scale degree because it adds a new ≥ that does not
belong to the mode” (“die 6. maj. über die 6ta modi maj. deswegen gar wegge-
lassen, weil sie ein neues ≥ angiebet, welches gar nicht zu dem Modo gehöret”;
1728, 765). He considers what Gasparini does “already half a cadence and a
digression into D major” (“schon eine halbe Cadenz und Ausschweifung in
das D.dur”; 765). For Heinichen, however, the unity of the mode is an ines-
capable prerequisite of the “schema,” of the “natürliche Ambitus.” Thus, he
lets his Rule of the Octave ascend to the sixth scale degree in order to make
it particularly clear that its function does not fundamentally change whether
its motion is ascending or descending. The fact that he retains the traditional
representation of the modes, and first lets his notte tonique descend to the
leading tone, also stems from this strict understanding of mode: being the
29 Gasparini admittedly notes that “the sixth can be major

or minor” whether ascending or descending (la Sesta porrà
essere, o maggiore, o minore) (Gasparini 1722, 61), but he
leaves no doubt that major sixths on the descending sixth
degree “are necessary for their cadential effect” (“neces-
sarie per esser specie di Cadenze”) but do not constitute
a modulation to a different note (non fanno mutare il tono;
57).
“inseparable characteristic of all modes” (“das unzertrennliche Kennzeichen

aller Modorum”) he has “placed the leading tone next to the tonic at the very
outset” (“das Semitonium modi . . . gleich Anfangs neben sein 8vam lociret”;

764).
For our topic, however, something else is far more decisive: Heinichen
repeatedly emphasizes that his “schema” is “much more universal and applica-
ble” (“viel mehr universaler und applicabler”; 1728, 765) than Gasparini’s and
Rameau’s versions of the Rule of the Octave. According to him, they introduce
“many special signatures that only pertain for as long as the notes march along
nicely in the order in which they were written down” (“viel speciale Signaturen,
die nicht länger gelten, als die Noten fein in der Ordnung marschieren, wie sie
hingeschrieben worden”; 765), that is, for as long as the bass moves in stepwise
motion. For the main purpose of Heinichen’s reduction to the basic (perfect
and imperfect) chords is to turn the Rule of the Octave into an explanatory
model that also encompasses “leaping” bass progressions.
One sees that Heinichen sets the figures 5 and 6 one after the other over
the second degree (and the sixth degree) of the F-major scale. The intention is
by no means a model-bound progression like, for instance, a sequence of 5–6
motions, as is sometimes maintained (“that you are not allowed to play the sig-
natures one after another, as is usually done in thoroughbass” [“daß man also
nicht beyde Ziffern nacheinander (wie sonst im General-Bass gebräuchlich)
anschlagen darff”]; 1728, 750]). Instead Heinichen explains the deeper sense
of this double figuring as follows:
But concerning the major mode one should particularly observe that because
its second degree supports a perfect fifth, one is thus free to use either a 5 or a
6 over the said second degree. The 6 sounds more natural if [the bass] should
rise stepwise to the third degree or go backward [down to the first degree]. . . .
If, however, one is at the second degree midst a leap, then the 5 seems more
natural. (743)30
Here one can still clearly recognize the persistence of the old differentiation
between perfect and imperfect consonance. Particular types of motion are
assigned to particular sonorities: the leap is assigned to the perfect conso-
nance of the five-three chord; the step, to the imperfect consonance of the
six-three chord. The chord of the sixth is placed “more naturally,” namely, in
a stepwise progression, on the second degree. But if a sonority made from
stacked-up thirds (a triad or even a seventh chord) takes the place of the
30 Wegen des modi maj. aber ist besonders zu mercken,

daß weil seine 2da modi allerdings eine 5te perfect. in
ambitu hat, so stehet auch frey, ob man über besagter 2da
modi die 5te oder die 6te gebrauchen will. Natürlicher lautet
die 6. wenn man gradatim in die 3e auff oder rückwerts
gehet. . . . Kömt aber die 2da modi mitten im Sprung zu ste-
hen, so fället die 5te natürlicher aus. . . .
six-three chord on the second degree, then a leap ensues. (In case the leap
does not happen, as with the “tonic-like” [Riepel] triad on the fourth degree,
the five-three sonority has the effect of a caesura.) Even if Heinichen does

not fully work out all the consequences of these central ideas of his theory,
it nevertheless becomes clear that one functionally differentiates between a
degree’s step function and leap function. Of course a three- or four-note stack-
of-thirds sonority can occur on any scale degree on which a chord of the sixth
occurs in the classic Rule of the Octave. Such a sonority would only require a
change in the modus movendi—from step to leap.31
A digression on training manuals
In structure and organization, partimento textbooks follow popular training manuals

like Oratio Scaletta’s frequently reissued solfège textbook Scala di musica molto necessaria
per principianti (1595). In these solmization manuals, the first things taught were the
ascending and descending scales (portar la voce ascendendo, et descendendo; Scaletta 1595,
9). Then followed—likewise ascending and descending—diatonic patterns with leaps
of a third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and octave. In the seventeenth century, Klangschritt tables
of the so-called tabula naturalis (Christensen 2008, 113; Dahlhaus 1990, 108; Heimann
1973, 55f.) were arranged according to the same paradigm. The compositional models
in the partimento tradition were imparted according to the identical paradigm: harmo-
nization models of the scale ascending (principally chains of 5–6, 7–6, and 9–8 suspen-
sions and progressions of alternating sixths and thirds), the scale descending (chains
of 7–6 suspensions and progressions of alternating seconds and sixths), leaping thirds
ascending and descending, and so forth. Neapolitan composition manuals, above all
the exercises in style found in Francesco Durante’s partimenti bassi diminuiti (2003),
follow this organization, and many German training manuals are similarly structured.
Examples would be Friederich Erhardt Niedt’s Handleitung zur Variation (Musicalische
Handleitung, vol. 2, 1721), as well as Bach’s Vorschriften (1930), and also Händel’s (1978)
thoroughbass exercises. Fedele Fenaroli systematically cultivates the teaching of com-
positional models in his Partimenti (1978; Holtmeier 2007, s.v. “Satzmodelle”).
Renversement versus Verwechslung
This puts in sharp relief one of the central distinctions between the func-
tionality of the Rule of the Octave and that of Rameau’s basse fondamentale—
the former is totally aligned with movement. Rule-of-the-Octave functionality
not only distinguishes between a degree’s meaning in the context of a step
or a leap, but also differentiates the meaning of a degree according to the
direction of the motion, whether ascending or descending. Thus, the fourth
degree in ascent takes the six-three or six-five chord, but in descent the “domi-
nant” six-four-two chord; the seventh degree in ascent takes the six-five chord
31 Riepel (1996, 580f.) and Kellner (1732) follow Heinichen’s

conception relatively faithfully and even expand it.
but in descent the plain six-three chord, and so forth. For its reception his-
tory, one thus encounters a problem with Rule-of-the-Octave functionality. Its
“animate” dynamics elude being fixed by a “physicalist” systematization that

permits the derivation of more complex structures from simple basic axioms.
For Rameau’s supporters, one of the central arguments in favor of the basse
fondamentale is that it can explain the basic principles of harmonic tonality in
the shortest time and, as it were, free of presumptions.
As has often been stressed, the principle of inversion adapted by Rameau
was not new (Christensen 1993, 67f.; Barbieri 1991). The interchangeability
of the voices was one of the elementary assumptions of three-voice models for
sixteenth- and seventeenth-century cadences, sequences, and the “contrapun-
tal” orientation of teaching composition. Heinichen was well acquainted with
Rameau’s Traité de l’Harmonie. Above all the concept of renversement (inversion)
left lasting traces in his own theory. But an approach can be observed here
that is typical for the history of the French, Italian, and also Viennese thor-
oughbass tradition: though Ramellian basse fondamentale finds an entry into
the teachings, it still cannot displace (or only very slowly) the old theorems.
For Heinichen, a six-three chord can be regarded as being the inverted form
of a five-three chord. But the long commentary in footnotes that he dedicates
to notions of inversion (1728, 146–51) stands surprisingly detached from the
received thinking in terms of intervallic qualities which unfolds in the main
text. Heinichen, however, completely distances himself from the procedure
of systematic third-stacking, and thus from the basic principle of basse fonda
mentale. His term Verwechslung (recombination) designates a concrete proce-
dure of compositional technique—the regrouping of a sonority (usually with
an eventual return to its starting position; Heinichen 1728, 624–25).32 Thus,
each chord can become “recombined”: if a six-four-two chord is followed by
a seventh chord, built with the same notes (Kellner describes this concept of
inversion as based on a relation of “pitch classes”; 1732, 32), then this later
chord represents the “first inversion” (Verwechslung) of the first, and so forth.
To speak in Ramellian terms, every type of chord can be considered as a “root
chord.” Rameau’s idea of inversion, however, is theoretically an a priori—
every sonority has to be reduced to its stack-of-thirds prototype.
Beyond third-stacking: Toward an Italian morphology of chords
For Heinichen, the functional meaning of a chord is not determined by the

principle of third-stacking. Just as he brings leaping bass motions under the
interpretive authority of the Rule of the Octave by falling back on traditional
categories, so too he explains the complex chord morphology of the advanced,
32 In this regard, Daube follows Heinichen (see Diergarten

2008).
“theatrical” harmony of his era—his own focus—with the traditional terms of

Italian music theory. To begin with, his concept of chord has an entirely dif-
ferent basis from that of Rameau. For Rameau the chord is its own entity, an

inherently closed unit. Even here the ideal of the four-voice texture (Vierstim
migkeit) stands in the background. Though certain functions and tendencies
for linear motion are attributed to individual elements (notte fondamentale, notte
sensible, dissonance majeure and mineure, etc.), these constituents always pre
sent themselves in combination and remain functionally invariant even in the
process of inversion, as will be shown. They are subject to a rigid, hierarchi-
cal organizing principle. For Rameau, chords are primarily vertical blocks of
stacked-up thirds in which the linear tendencies have been frozen.
Heinichen’s way of thinking was shaped by his early “contrapuntal”
schooling in Germany, but above all by the Italian tradition of apprenticeship
that he got to know so well during his long stay in Italy (Buelow 1994). Yet
even though his theory of thoroughbass stands well apart from contemporary
sources on account of its high degree of theoretical awareness, neither with
him nor with any other contemporary author does one find a comprehensive,
systematically articulated theory of chord. In what follows, I have tried to work
out the “implicit” systematics of Heinichen’s theory of chord.
For Heinichen and traditional Italian music theory, the polyphonic chord
at heart was always something put together—a composite. The contrapuntal
pairing of two main voices formed the framework of a composite sonority,
which could be supplemented by Neben-Stimmen (secondary voices; Heinichen
1728, 171) to create a texture of three, four, five, or more voices. Understood
in this way, a distinct hierarchy controls multivoice sonorities, giving priority
to the chordal components, which effectively determines the comprehension
and functionality of the chord, and which has consequences for the forma-
tion of voice leading, consequences that extend the far beyond the chord-
progression, part-writing rules of the modern Harmonielehre tradition.
A digression on counterpoint
This other concept of chord also presupposes another concept of counterpoint. It is

significant that Johann Joseph Fux’s Gradus ad parnassum (1725), the founding docu-
ment of the modern, autonomous teaching of counterpoint, originated and was pub-
lished in close chronological proximity to Rameau’s Traité de l’Harmonie. In terms of
reception history, Fux’s treatise plays a role quite comparable to that of the Traité. It
monopolized the term counterpoint much as Rameau’s treatise did for that of harmony.
It is above all the idea of “strict counterpoint” (strenge Satz) or even more so what
the Fux reception made of it, that obstructs the view of what, at the beginning of the
eighteenth century, “counterpoint” really was. In the nineteenth-century Harmonie
lehre tradition, “strict counterpoint” changed from a stylistic category (stilo antico, the
“Königsdisziplin” of counterpoint) to the epitome of counterpoint itself. As a result of
this development the intrinsically comprehensive doctrine of counterpoint became
bound to a markedly narrow and invariable concept of dissonance and resolution. The
dissonant intervals are static sizes. Not only are the “false” fifth and “major fourth,” as
diminished and augmented intervals, always dissonant, but also the technical voice-

leading behavior of the dissonances—second, fourth, seventh, and ninth—is fixed
once and for all. With the fourth, seventh, and ninth, the upper note is dissonant.
With the second, the lower note. Thus, dissonance completely solidifies into intervallic
quality and abandons what it was in the consciousness of the early eighteenth century
when it actually represented something more: a rhythmic constellation. Significantly,
Berardi treats the dissonances under the heading “Introduction to syncopation or dis-
sonances” (“Introduzione alle legature—ovvero dissonanze”; 1687, 134). Essential for
the contrapuntal concept of dissonance in the late seventeenth or early eighteenth
century is the distinction between subsyncopatio and supersyncopatio. The fourth of strict
composition is a quarta supersyncopata (4ta sopra syncopata), which resolves to a third. By
contrast a quarta subsyncopata (4ta sotto syncopata; Heinichen 1728, 171), in which the
lower note must be “bound,” resolves in the ideal case to the sixth (as in 42 to 63). In addi-
tion, an intrinsically consonant interval can, by virtue of a tie, become a dissonance or
be treated like a dissonance. (“Often the quinta perfecta is used as a dissonance and a
quinta syncopata” [Heinichen 1728, 179], as in 65.) In place of rigid intervallic categories,
the early eighteenth century recognized an abundance of intervallic functions (quarta
consonans, quarta dissonans [quarta sopra syncopata], Hülffsquarte [quarta sotto syncopata],
quarte irregolare [quarta italica], quarta transiens, quarta suavis, quinta perfecta, quinta syn
copata, sexta perfecta, sexta syncopata, etc.; see Muffat 1699, 8-bis). It is this open concept
of interval that allows harmony and counterpoint to be conceived as a unity.
Examples 14 and 15 clarify the differences between Rameau’s and Hei-

nichen’s concept of chord, using the case of the dominant seventh chord and
its inversions. For Rameau, not only the (dominant) six-five chord (l’accord
de la fausse quinte ; Example 14b), but also the four-three chord (l’accord de la
petite sixte; Example 14c) and the four-two chord (l’accord du triton; Example
14c) are nothing but derivative forms of the stack-of-thirds dominant seventh
chord (dominante-tonique; Example 14a). The functional roles of the chordal
components are clearly distributed: G is the root (basse fondamentale), the third
B is the leading tone (notte sensible) and must move up a step as a dissonance
majeure, the chordal fifth D takes on the role of filler voice, and F is disso-
nant seventh, which must resolve down a step as dissonance mineure (Example
14e). The structurally controlling interval is the seventh. It is, so to speak, the
mother of all (chordal) dissonances. For Rameau’s thinking about inversion,
it is essential that the functional roles of chord tones remain fixed once and
for all, and persist in every inversion. Thus, B is always a leading tone, F a dis-
sonant seventh, D always a filler tone,33 and G always a root, regardless of the
particular constellation in which the tones occur.
33 Significantly, the fact that the chordal fifth in effect ful-
filled a dual function—both that of the filler tone and that
of the tenor clausula—hardly plays a role in Rameau’s idea
of inversion.
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Ð ÐÐÐÐ ð ð
Š [ ÐÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÐ
Ð
Ð ÐÐ ð ð
[

[ [
JMT 51:1
Example 14 149-3 Holtmeier ex. 16
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Ð ÐÐÐ Ð
Š ÐÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÐ
Ð
Ð ÐÐ
< < < < <
Š < [ <] < < <
!
Framework I I
voices
<
Š< < < [ Ð]
!
II II Level
Š< < < Ð

Secondary
<
voices
III
[ ] III
Example 15
In contrast to this novel, invariant chord morphology, one can posit a

concept of chord that clearly derives its origin from the contrapuntal think-
ing of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and in whose tradition Hei-
nichen also stands. In Example 15, one again sees Rameau’s basic chord and
its forms of inversion, but now examined in light of Heinichen’s concept of
chord (Example 15). Each chord is based on a two-voice framework (Example
15, staff I). It is assembled from those chord tones most clearly and unmis-
takably able to represent each sonority in a two-voice setting. This two-voice
framework is far more than a systematic category of organization. Rather, it
designates an “ideal placement,” a real aesthetic and didactic standard for
the relationship between bass and melody. The fact that as a theory of correct
voice leading it was assigned to training in counterpoint provides evidence for
the extensive, still intact unity of contrapuntal and harmonic thinking. Under
the term of disposizione or beste Lage (Förster 1818, 1) it was a central, practical
topic of eighteenth-century composition teaching.
This compositional framework can most clearly be derived by way of a
reductive process, one that at the same time uncovers the internal hierarchi-
cal structure of the chords. For instance, the chordal fifth occupies the lowest
level in the hierarchy of Rameau’s basic dominant chord (dominante-tonique).
It is a classic filler voice that enjoys a relative freedom in voice leading. It can
appear both as a classic “pedal” or “common tone” (Liegestimme) and as a tone
free to leap; it can (in the sense of a tenor clausula) be treated like a voice in

parallel upper thirds with the chordal third (the leading tone) or even like
a voice in parallel lower thirds with the chordal seventh. The chordal third
(leading tone) is one hierarchical level below the framework tones, which are
formed here by the mandatory bass note and the “characteristic” dissonance
of the seventh. The chordal third thus supplements the two-voice framework
to achieve the ideal three-voice setting.
In Example 15a, I, square brackets indicate framework tones of the dom-
inant seventh chords that form a diminished fifth between the tones B and F.
This alternative framework refers to the alleged “root” tone G being at times
able to appear as a secondary voice, as a lower third to the leading tone. That
is especially the case when the dominant seventh chord does not progress with
a genuine root progression (i.e., by leap) to a (cadential) chord of resolution,
but almost appears in transitu itself, that is, appears to be a passing chord (see
Example 10d).
In the six-five chord (Example 15b) the framework is formed by the
framing interval of the diminished fifth. The sixth (G), as bearer of the dis-
sonance, is an important but nevertheless hierarchically subordinate voice.
Functionally, it can appear upper sixth to the bass note (B). Here, the third
(D) takes over the role of the supplementary, filler voice.
In the four-three chord (Example 15c), the framework set is formed by
the major sixth between the bass note and the leading tone. The third (F), as a
voice in parallel thirds with the bass, supplements the two-voice framework to
form a three-voice setting. The fourth (G) is, however, pure filler—a dissonant
common tone that received special attention from contemporary theorists
due to its special dissonance treatment. It was called quarta irregolaris, quarta
irregolare (Heinichen 1728, 151), or quarta italica (Muffat 1699, 8). The special
position of this fourth highlights the fact that for many eighteenth-century
theorists—thus also for Heinichen—the four-three chord did not appear as
an independent chordal category, but was treated as a special form of the six-
three chord. Quarta irregolaris, often not marked even in a figured bass (“The
irregular fourth is not always expressly indicated above the notes” [“Es wird
aber . . . diese irregulaire 4 . . . nicht iederzeit über denen Noten ausdrück-
lich angedeutet”]; Heinichen 1728, 151), was a quasi-“improvisational” addi-
tion to the basic three voices of a six-three chord. The French term petite sixte
testifies to this origin.34
34 Riepel perceived the quarta irregolaris as a fashionable

aberration. He labeled such intervals pejoratively as “Turkish
fourths,” since they reminded him of Turkish “fifes” blowing
“a loud series of fourths one after the other,” which he had
heard “in the year 1737 near Banja Luka” (1757, 39).
Š ððð ððð ððð ðð

ð ² ÐÐ ð ² ð

Ýð ð ð ð ð ð
²5
6
4
6
²64 ²
3 3
Example 16. Two of the examples Heinichen gives

for the 3a syncopata
Naturally, that is not the only form in which the four-three chord can
occur. It can also appear as a terza syncopata as shown in some examples by Hei-
nichen (see Example 16) (Heinichen 1728, 163). The four-three chord with
terza syncopata most closely resembles a Ramellian chord of inversion. Yet in
the improvisatory and compositional practice of the eighteenth century, this
chord, when compared to the four-three chord with quarta irregolaris, is just
the exception. Heinichen stresses that the “syncopated” four-three chord is
properly understood as a variant of the four-two chord (“related to the synco-
pated second” [“der 2da syncopata . . . anverwandt”]; Heinichen 1728, 163).
And in fact the chord is also most often utilized in this form (see Arnold 1931,
632, his example 9).
Finally, the six-four-two chord (Example 15d) rests on the framework of
the augmented fourth (F–B). Heinichen describes this fourth, which resolves
to the sixth, as a “helper-fourth” (Hülffs-4te), as ancilla 2dae (handmaiden to the
second) (Heinichen 1728, 171). Here, one can clearly recognize how the hier-
archical concept of chord also implies a hierarchical concept of dissonance.
The notion of the ancilla 2dae is based on the central distinction between dis
sonantia dominans and dissonantia concomitans (Heinichen 1728, 186), between
a “controlling” and an “accompanying” dissonance. For Heinichen, the disso-
nant fourth is an “accompanying” dissonance, an upper third to the “control-
ling” dissonant second. In the musical practice of the eighteenth century, how-
ever, the circumstances seem to be just the reverse: the seventh scale degree
is the “ideal” upper voice for the fourth scale degree in the bass, and only the
augmented fourth can unambiguously represent the six-four-two chord in a
two-voice setting. Yet for Heinichen this fourth (B) is, according to its inner
nature, an upper third to the second (G). Conversely the G becomes the lower
third to the leading tone (B). The sixth (D) appears as its upper third or as a
“free” secondary voice. In the special case of this chord one can hardly speak
of a hierarchical priority between the two secondary voices.
In order to make this hierarchical concept of chord still clearer, Exam-
ple 17 constructs a few chords not from the perspective of Ramellian inver-
sion, but rather on the basis of the relationship between a two-voice composi-
(I) (II) (III)
ð
(a) Š ðð ð [ ð]
ðð + ð = ððð ððð +[ ð −ð ¦ ð ] = ðððð [ ðððð ð ] −ðððð [ ðððð ð ] ðððð [ ðððð ]

( ) ( )
-
2
ð ð ð
(b) Š ² ðð ð
² ðð + ð = ² ððð ² ððð +[ ð ð ] = ² ðððð
[ ²ððð ] ² ðððð
[ ððð ]
-
6
+[ ð ² ð ] = ðððð ð ð
(d) Š ðð + ð = ððð ððð ( )
[ ððð ð ] ( ²ðððð [ ððð ] )
( )
(c) Š ðð ðð
ð ððð ððð −ð ¦ ð ] = ðððð ð −ðððð ð ¦ ðððð ð
-
4
(e) Š ðð + = +[ ð [ ððð ð ]
( )
[ ððð ð ]
( )
[ ððð ð ]
( )
Example 17
tional framework and secondary voices. The “leading-tone” framework voices

determine the function of chords on the ascending and descending second
degree in major and minor, on the descending sixth degree in minor, and on
the descending fourth degree in major and minor (Example 17, col. I). They
mark the invariants of the functional concept of chord. The obligatory third
joins in as the first secondary voice added to the sixth on the second degree
and to the augmented sixth on the sixth degree (Example 17, col. II, staves a
and b) and either a sixth (Example 17, col. II, staff d) or a second (Example 17,
col. II, staff e) can be added with equal effect as a third voice to the tritone on
the fourth degree. For the fourth, “filler” voice, even more tones are possible.
Not only the fourth but also the diminished or perfect fifth can supplement
the sixth on the second degree (Example 17, col. III, staff a). A fourth or fifth
can be added to the augmented sixth on the sixth degree (Example 17, col.
III, staff b). And if a sixth is added as third voice to the tritone on the fourth
degree, the second, the minor third, or the major third can enter as a filler
voice (Example 17, col. III, staff e). Different chords (with “step function”)
can thus represent the scale degree. Though the choice of the filler tone can
crucially shape the aura and color of a chord, the function of that chord—its
dynamic tendency—is exclusively assigned by the framework voices.
The function of chord tones
In Rameau’s theory, chord tones retain the same functional qualities in vari-
ous inversion that had accrued to them in the “root-position” chord. The
function-defining dissonance remains the same in all inversions. In the Ital-
ian thoroughbass tradition as systematized by Heinichen, however, chordal
elements are subject to a great degree of functional variability. (The inter-

connected circles in Example 15 try to clarify this point.) Not only do these
elements belong to different hierarchical chord levels, thus having a differ-

ent structural significance in different chords, but they also alter their voice-
leading properties in the context of different chords. Only the leading tone
maintains its function, even for Heinichen, in all forms of Ramellian inversion.
The seventh, however, appears in three functionally distinct forms (Example
18): (1) as prototype of the (suspended or passing) dissonance, it appears only
in the basic, root-position chord itself (Example 18, I) and in the six-four-two
chord (Example 18, II); (2) in the six-five chord, it forms a “semiconsonant”
diminished fifth with the bass, which does not require preparation (Example
18, III); and (3) in the four-three chord it appears as a parallel upper-third
voice to the bass, consequently as an imperfect consonance not subject to the
need to resolve and thus free to move stepwise up (Example 18, IVa), down
(Example 18, IVb), or even to leap (Example 18, IVc).
With Rameau, the chordal fifth takes over the function of a filler voice.
It approaches this function with Heinichen too, but in the four-three chord
it lies in the bass voice and there its function changes. It becomes the penul-
timate tone of a tenor clausula and is therefore subject to a need to progress
stepwise (Example 18, IV). The second scale stage (the chord fifth) is func-
tionally ambiguous. It can be understood as a component of a tenor clausula
or
JMT as 51:1
a pure149-3
“patchHoltmeier
tone” (Riepel),
ex. 19 as so to speak a variant of an alto clausula.
(Ia) (b) (IIa) (b) (III) (IVa)
ð ð ð ðŁ Ł ðð ðð ðð ððð ðð ðð
Š ðð ðð ðð Ł Ł ð ðð
ð
ðð
ð
ðð
ð ð ð
ðð
ð ð ð ðð ððð ðð
ð ð
Ýð ð ð Ł Ł ð ð ð Ł Ł ð ²ð ð ð ð
ð ð ð ð
(b) (c) (Va) (b) (VIa) (b)
Š ððð ððð ððð ððð ððð ððð ðð ðð ðð ðð ð ð ð ð ððð ððð ððð ððð
ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð
Ýð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ðð ð ð ð ð
ð
Example 18
Also with the six-three, six-five-three, and six-four-two chords they mostly pro
gress stepwise, in the sense of a tenor clausula. This voice leading is not, how-
ever, mandatory. The fifth of the root chord can likewise leap to the fifth of

the chord of resolution, even if it should result in consecutive fifths (Example
18, Va) or if a fifth in the outer voices is reached by direct motion (motus rec
tus; Example 18, Vb). If the chordal fifth of the six-four-two chord lies in the
upper voice, then a leap is actually the rule: it is necessary to avoid the empty
cadential perfect consonance of the octave in the outer voices of the chord of
resolution (Example 18, VIa) and to go instead to the imperfect tenth in the
outer voices (Example 18, VIb). The difference, however, with Rameau’s static
functionality shows itself most clearly when one regards the functional vari-
ability of the very voice that, in Rameau’s theory, represents the foundation of
the chord. For Heinichen as well, the “root” appears in three distinct forms.
In the six-five and six-four-two chords it is the lower third or upper sixth of
the leading tone, and thus simply a secondary voice. In the four-three chord,
as quarta irregolaris, it actually takes the lowest place in the chordal hierarchy.
Only in the basic, root-position chord is it what Rameau saw in it—the centre
harmonique of the Klang.
If one allows a “contrast-enhanced” formulation of Heinichen’s theory
of chord, then there are two basic chords from which all other chord forms
are derived—the five-three sonority and the six-three chord. One sees the old
opposition of perfect and imperfect consonance that already determined Hei-
nichen’s concept of the Rule of the Octave, seamlessly brought forward into
modern chord theory. In harmonic discourse, the third, on which the whole
Ramellian system is based, had long become an unmarked filler interval that
indiscriminately characterized the pattern of all chords, whether consonant
or dissonant. And so there are essentially two intervals that determine the
nature of chords: a fifth or sixth distinguishes the basic functional orientation
of a sonority.
The crucial difference between Rameau’s basic chord and its inverted
forms can be viewed from the perspective that while the basic chord is deter-
mined by “static” fifth, the inversions are characterized by the “mobile” interval
of the sixth. This difference is categorical in nature and cannot be waived by
a simple process of derivation, in the sense of Rameau’s idea of inversion. For
Rameau, dissonance connects the basic chord with its inversional forms and
makes obsolete the differentiation between perfect and imperfect consonance.
In this understanding of chord, however, the dissonant character of a sonority
replicates the distinction between fifth and sixth, since it is these intervals that
determine the fundamental dynamic nature of sonorities. Rameau’s inver-
sion forms are first and foremost sixth chords and require stepwise motion (a
“variety of sixth chords”; Christensen 1993, 172). The fifth of the basic chord,
by contrast, requires a leap. Dissonance is added to the sixth or the fifth, as it
were, externally. To the sixth one can add a fifth (Example 19, Ia), or a fourth
(IIIa) (b) (c) (VIa) (b) (c)
ð Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł ŁŁŁ ððð ² ðð Łð Ł ² ðð
Š ÐÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÐÐ ² ÐÐÐ ÐÐÐ ÐÐÐ ðððð ýýýý ðððð ² ððð ðð Š ŁŁ ŁŁ ŁŁ ŁŁ ŁŁ ŁŁŁ ŁŁŁŁ ŁŁ ŁŁ ŁŁŁ ŁŁŁŁ
5!
ð ð ðð

Ł Ł Ł Ł ð ð
7 6 6 6
6 7 (7) 5
6 7
5 6 (7) 5 65
(I) (a) (b) (c) (II) (a)
Step 6 ascending 6 Leap

6 ascending 4 descending 4 descending
Š ÐÐ ÐÐÐ ÐÐÐÐ ² ÐÐÐÐ ÐÐÐ

6 5 3 2 5 7
[Ð] [Ð]
ÐÐ [Ð]
[Ð] Ð
()
(IVa) (b) (Va) (b)
² ððð ² ððð ðð ² ðð ððð

Š ðððð ððð ðð ðð ðððð ððð
ð Š ðððð ðððð ² ðððð ðððð ð ²ð ðð ðð ð
Example 19
and third (Example 19, Ib), or a fourth and second (Example 19, Ic). To the
fifth one can add a seventh as its upper third (Example 19, IIa).
In so doing, the original tendencies for motion are only strengthened by
the requirement for dissonance resolution. It is as if dissonance represents an
autonomous contrapuntal element within the chord. The dissonant “auxiliary
note” does not change the fundamental functional character of the chord, but
rather intensifies its tendency for motion and specifies its direction of motion.35
The added fifth lends a rising tendency to the six-three chord (Example 19,
Ia) because moving downward stepwise easily leads to parallel fifths (Example
19, IIIa), an added fourth (whether a “Turkish fourth” or as an accompanying
note to the terza syncopata) permits motion in either direction (Example 19,
IV), and an added second forces the sixth downward (Example 19, V). The
chords are not strictly bound to these forms of motion. The six-five chord
can resolve down a step into a six-four suspension (Example 19, IIIc), and in
certain harmonic formulas the dominant six-four-two chord can move up step-
wise (Example 19, Vb). Notwithstanding the inganno (deceptive cadence), a
35 “Von der Sextenkette, die zur Oktave strebt unterscheidet

sich Rameaus Septakkordfolge deren Ziel ein Dreiklang, ein
‘Accord parfait’ bildet, zwar graduell, aber nicht prinzipiell”
(Dahlhaus 1990, 27).
stepwise ascending seventh chord is often a passing chord (septima in transitu)

(Example 19, VIa) or an unresolved 7–6 suspension a “retarded” sixth chord
so to say that finds its resolution in the following consonance or dissonance

(Example 19, VIb, c). But according to their basic tendencies the six-five is a
rising chord, the six-four-two is a falling chord, and the four-three chord can
either rise or fall.
The idea of chord and sonority (Klang) dealt with here is fundamentally dif-
ferent from that of Rameau. His rigid system, made up of a few basic elements
and based on a logic of chord derivation, is set against a sophisticated frame-
work of variation and relational complexity.
It is perhaps this very richness that spelled doom for this understanding
of chord: as is well known historically, it was to succumb to Rameau’s theory.
It could raise scant opposition to the manifest logic of Rameau’s principle of
inversion. We can assume that Rameau’s theory was able to gain such popu-
larity only because his concept of chord filled a widely perceived vacuum. It
seems self-evident that the modern harmonic language of the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries craved a new explanatory model that transcended
the old counterpoint instruction of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
Rameau offered a clear and at the same time simple response to a question
that had never been put quite so explicitly before, but that had clearly been
hanging in the air: what is Klang ?
Heinichen also offers a resounding response—in favor of the Italian
tradition, as it were. But much of what has been “implicitly” reconstructed in
this essay remains unspoken by Heinichen, as in the entire Italian thorough
bass tradition: he neither develops the concept of framework voices in any
consistent manner nor systematizes the functionality of steps and leaps
conclusively.
No modern approach can remedy this alleged lack of systematic think-
ing, and this text, too, bears witness to the difficulty of coming closer to a
concept of chord and tonality (dealt with here in a very limited way) that lies
beyond the Ramellian concept of inversion and third-stacking. The internal
contradictions of an account that describes a four-voice chord, on the one
hand, as being a five-three or sixth chord supplemented by a “contrapuntal”
auxiliary note, and on the other hand, as a composite sonority made up of
a two-voice framework and secondary voices, are obvious: following the first
interpretation, the dominant six-four-two chord on the descending fourth
degree is a variant of a sixth chord, with the sixth being the function-defining
interval. Following the second interpretation, the tritone appears as the cen-
tral basis and the sixth as a secondary voice, a hierarchically subordinate note
that could easily be omitted from a three-voice texture.
Upon closer inspection, however, we must concede that it is not so much

a contradiction as rather one and the same phenomenon viewed from dif
ferent perspectives. If the idea of chord progressions is based on the dichot-

omy of perfect (vollkommen) and imperfect (unvollkommen) chords, dissonance
becomes a subordinate parameter. But if the movement of the dissonances
itself is the focus of consideration, the distinction between perfect and imper-
fect consonance becomes of secondary importance.
It is precisely the juxtaposition of these different perspectives that reflects
the historical situation around the turn of the century: the modern functional-
ity of the Rule of the Octave and the traditional contrapuntal texture of the
trio sonata compete with each other, though the one grows out of the other
in an organic fashion, as I have attempted to demonstrate.
One might consider it a deficit that the tradition of Italian thoroughbass
does not offer a comprehensive and straightforward systematics, but perhaps
this is precisely where its true strength lies: that it does not seek to deduce har-
mony and melody, line and sonority (Klang), chord and counterpoint from a
single coherent principle, as Rameau does, but permanently works through
the tension between those poles in a dialectical way.
Heinichen constantly wavers between the new chord functionality of the
Rule of the Octave and the “classical” theory of counterpoint and dissonance
treatment. This is not merely a sign of his theoretical indecision, however,
but also reveals his deep-seated aversion to a certain concept of nature and
science that he sees prevailing in Rameau’s theory: he confronts this form of
systematic thinking with his “rules of art” (Arth-Regeln) that “German, French
and Italian authors . . . have provided for the use of unfigured thoroughbass
a long time ago, which the latter [i.e., the Italian authors] since then brought
to the highest perfection” (“welche deutsche, französische und italienische
Autores . . . . vom General-Bass ohne Signaturen theils von langer Zeit her
zu geben angefangen, theils letztere zeithero zur Vollkommenheit gebracht”;
Heinichen 1728, 19). Heinichen draws the principles of his theory solely from
musical practice and tradition: for him, “nature” manifests itself in the “con-
ventional schemata of composition” (“den gebräulichen passibus composi-
tionis”; 19), but it cannot be deduced from the physical nature of the corps
sonore. It is this proximity to compositional practice and musical experience
in particular that makes the Italian (and accordingly the Italian-influenced)
thoroughbass tradition so interesting for us today.
It goes without saying that the complex concept of harmonic functional-
ity on which this Italian tradition of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth
centuries is based would always have merited our historical interest. Another
question, however—and perhaps actually the crucial one—is what we are to
make of this renaissance of Italian music theory. It opens up the possibility of
interpreting and analyzing the compositional techniques of the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries in a different way. Elucidating the possible nature of
this different way would exceed the scope of this essay; a study of such a kind
is in progress, however, and will appear at a later date.

Works Cited
Aerts, Hans. 2006. “Thoroughbass in Practice, Theory, and Improvisation.” Zeitschrift der Gesell
schaft für Musiktheorie 3. http://www.gmth.de/zeitschrift/artikel/0115/0115.html.
———. 2007. “‘Modell’ und ‘Topos’ in der deutschsprachigen Musiktheorie seit Riemann.”
Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Musiktheorie 4/1–2. http://www.gmth.de/zeitschrift/artikel/0123/
0123.html.
Albrechtsberger, Johann Georg. 1790. Anweisung zur Komposition mit ausführlichen Exempeln, zum
Selbstunterrichte erläutert. Leipzig: Breitkopf and Härtel.
Arnold, Denis. 1978. “The Corellian Cult in England.” Studi Corelliani 2: 37–51.
Arnold, Franck Thomas. 1931. The Art of Accompaniment from a Thorough-Bass as Practiced in the
XVIIth and XVIIIth Centuries. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Facs. New York: Dover,
1965.
Bach, Carl Philipp Emanuel. 1753/62. Versuch über die wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen. Berlin:
Christian Friedrich Henning/Berlin: Ludewig Winter.
Bach, Johann Sebastian. 1930. Vorschriften und Grundsätze zum vierstimmigen Spielen des General-
Bass. In Johann Sebastian Bach, ed. Philipp Spitta, 2 vols., 4th ed. Leipzig: Breitkopf and
Härtel. Reprint. Darmstadt, 1962, 913–50.
Barbieri, Patrizio. 1991. “Calegari, Vallotti, Riccati e le teorie armoniche di Rameau: Priorita,
concordanze, contrasti.” Rivista Italiana di musicologia 26: 241–302.
Bazin, François. 1875. Cours d’harmonie théorique et pratique. Paris: Escudier.
Berardi, Angelo. 1687. Documenti Armonici. Bologna: Monti.
———. 1689. Miscellanea musicali. Bologna: Monti.
Budday, Wolfgang. 2002. Harmonielehre Wiener Klassik. Theorie—Satztechnik—Werkanalyse. Stutt
gart: Berthold and Schwerdtner.
Buelow, Georg J. 1994. “The Italian Influence in Heinichen’s ‘Der General-Bass in der Composi
tion.’” Basler Jahrbuch für historische Musikpraxis 18: 47–65.
Cafiero, Rosa. 1993. “La didattica del partimento a Napoli fra Settecento e Ottocento: Note
sulla fortuna delle Regole di Carlo Cotumacci.” In Gli affetti convenienti all’idee: Studi sulla
musica vocale italiana, ed. Rosa Cafiero and Maria Caraci Vela, 549–80. Naples: Edizioni
Scientifiche Italiane.
———. 1999. “Metodi, progetti e riforme dell’insegnamento della ‘scienza armonica’ nel
Real Collegio di musica di Napoli nei primi decenni dell’Ottocento.” Studi musicali 28:
425–81.
———. 2001. “Teorie armoniche di scuola napoletana ai primi dell’Ottocento: Cenni sulla
fortuna di Francesco Durante fra Napoli e Parigi.” In Giacomo Francesco Milano e il ruolo
dell’aristocrazia nel patrocinio delle attività musicali nel secolo XVIII, ed. Gaetano Pitorresi,
171–98. Reggio Calabria: Laruffa.
———. 2005. “Conservatories and the Neapolitan School: A European Model at the End of the
18th Century?” In Musical Education in Europe (1770–1914): Compositional, Institutional,
and Political Challenges, ed. Michael Fend and Michel Noiray, vol. 1, 15–29. Berlin: BWV
Berlin Wissenschafts-Verlag.
Campion, François. 1716. Traité d’Accompagnement et de Composition selon la règle des Octaves de
Musique. Paris. Facs. Geneva: Minkoff, 1976.
———. 1730. Addition au Traité d’Accompagnement par la règle d’octave. Paris. Facs. Geneva:
Minkoff, 1976.
Catel, Charles-Simon. 1802. Traité d’harmonie conforme à l’édition du conservatoire. Paris: Leduc.
Cherubini, Luigi. 1847. Marches d’harmonie. Paris: Heugel.
Choron, Alexandre-Étienne. 1808. Principes de composition des écoles d’Italie. . . . 3 vols. Paris:

Leduc.
Choron, Alexandre-Étienne and Vincenzo Fiocchi. 1804. Principes d’accompagnement des Ecoles
d’Italie. . . . Paris: Imbault.
Christensen, Thomas. 1992. “The Règle de l’Octave in Thorough-Bass Theory and Practice.” Acta
Musicologica 64: 91–117.
———. 1993. Rameau and Musical Thought in the Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
———. 2008. “Fundamenta Partiturae: Thorough Bass and Foundations of Eighteenth-
Century Composition Pedagogy.” In The Century of Bach and Mozart: Perspectives on Histo
riography, Composition, Theory, and Performance, ed. Sean Gallagher and Thomas Forrest
Kelly, 17–40. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dahlhaus, Carl. 1990. Studies on the Origin of Harmonic Tonality, trans. Robert Gjerdingen. Prince
ton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Originally published as Untersuchungen über die Enste
hung der harmonischen Tonalität. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1968.
D’Alembert, Jean Le Rond. 1757. Systematische Einleitung in die musicalische Setzkunst, nach den
Lehrsätzen des Herrn Rameau; aus dem Französischen übersetzt und mit Anmerkungen versehen
von Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg. Leipzig: Breitkopf.
Daube, Johann Friedrich. 1756. General-Baß in drey Accorden. Leipzig: Andrä.
Dehn, Siegfried W. 1840. Theoretisch-praktische Harmonielehre mit angefügten Generalbassbeispielen.
Berlin: Wilhelm Thome.
———. 1859. Lehre vom Contrapunkt dem Canon und der Fuge, nebst Analysen von Duetten, Terzetten
etc. von Orlando di Lasso, Marcello, Palestrina u. A. und Angabe mehrer Muster-Canons und
Fugen. Berlin: Ferdinand Schneider.
Dellaborra, Mariateresa. 2007, “‘Musico Pratico al cimbalo.’ Paisiello e le regole per bene
accompagnare il partimento (1782).” Studi Musicali 36: 443–67.
Diergarten, Felix. 2008. “‘Anleitung zur Erfindung.’ Der Musiktheoretiker Johann Friedrich
Daube.” Musiktheorie 4: 293–312.
Dittrich, Marie-Agnes. 2007. “‘Teufelsmühle’ und ‘Omnibus.’” Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für
Musiktheorie 4. http://www.gmth.de/zeitschrift/artikel/0120/0120.html.
Dodds, Michael R. 2006. “Columbus’s Egg: Andreas Werckmeister’s Teaching on Contrapuntal
Improvisation in Harmonologia musica (1702).” Journal of Seventeenth-Century Music 12.
http://sscm-jscm.press.uiuc.edu/v12/no1/dodds.html.
Droste-Hülshoff, Maximilian von. 1821. Einige Erklärungen über den General-Baß und die Tonsetz
kunst überhaupt—in der Kürze Zusammengefaßt. MS, Schloss Hülshoff.
Durante, Francesco. 2003. Bassi e fughe. Un manuale inedito per riscoprire la vera prassi esecutiva
della Scuola Napoletana del Settecento. Ed. G. A. Pastore. Padova: Armelin Musica.
Dürrnberger, Johann August. 1841. Elementar-Lehrbuch der Harmonie- und Generalbaß-Lehre. Linz:
Verlag der k.k. Normal-Hauptschule.
Eitner, Robert. 1882. “Bernhard Klein.” In Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, 78–87. Leipzig:
Duncker and Humblot.
Fellerer, Carl Gustav. 1939. Der Partimentospieler. Übungen in Generalbass-Spiel und in gebundener
Improvisation. Leipzig: Breitkopf and Härtel.
Fenaroli, Fedele. 1978. Partimenti o sia Basso numerato di Fedele Fenaroli Per uso degli Alunni del R.°
Academia delle Belle Arte di Firenze, 2nd ed. Florence and Milan: Giovanni Canti. Reprint
ed., Sala Bolognese: Forni.
Fladt, Hartmut. 2005. “Modell und Topos im musiktheoretischen Diskurs.” Musiktheorie 4:
341–69.
———. 2007. “Satztechnische Topoi.” Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Musiktheorie 4: 189–96.
Florimo, Francesco. 1882/83. La scuola musicale di Napoli e i suoi Conservatorii. 3 vols. Naples:
Morano.

Förster, Emanuel Aloys. 1818. Emanuel Alois Förster’s Practische Beyspiele als Fortsetzung zu seiner
Anleitung des Generalbasses, in 3 parts. Vienna: Artaria.
Froebe, Folker. 2007. “Satzmodelle des ‘Contrapunto alla mente’ und ihre Bedeutung für
den Stilwandel um 1600.” Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Musiktheorie 4. http://www.gmth.de/
zeitschrift/artikel/0117/0117.html.
Fux, Johann Joseph. 1725. Gradus ad parnassum. Vienna: Ghelen.
Gasparini, Francesco. 1722. L’armonico pratico al cimbalo (1708). Bologna: Antonio Silvani.
Gingras, Bruno. 2008. “Partimento Fugue in Eighteenth-Century Germany: A Bridge between
Thoroughbass Lessons and Fugal Composition.” Eighteenth Century Music 5: 51–74.
Gjerdingen, Robert O. 2007. Music in the Galant Style. New York: Oxford University Press.
Grampp, Florian. 2004/2005. “Partimenti: Musik für Generalbass solo.” Concerto 193: 23–29
(Part 1: “Johann Matthesons ‘Große Generalbass-Schule’”); 194: 23–27 (Part 2:
“Römische Quellen zur Partimento-Praxis”); 196–98: 26–28 and 27ff. (Part 3: “Zur nea-
politanischen Partimento-Tradition”); 199: 32–36 (Part 4: “Solistischer Generalbaß in
Nord- und Mitteldeutschland”).
Grandjean, Wolfgang. 2006. Mozart als Theoretiker der Harmonielehre. Hildesheim: Olms.
Gugl, Matthäus. 1719. Fundamenta partiturae in compendio data. Das ist: Kurzer und gründlicher
Unterricht, den General-Bass, oder Partitur, nach denen Reglen recht und wohl schlagen zu lernen.
Salzburg: Mayr.
Händel, Georg Friedrich. 1978. Aufzeichnungen zur Kompositionslehre. Ed. Alfred Mann. Leipzig:
VEB.
Heimann, Walter. 1973. Der Generalbaß-Satz und seine Rolle in Bachs Choralsatz. Munich:
Katzbichler.
Heinichen, Johann David. 1711. Neu erfundene und Gründliche Anweisung zu vollkommener
Erlernung des General-Basses. Hamburg: Benjamin Schillers. Reprint. Kassel: Bärenreiter,
2000.
———. 1728. Der General-Bass in der Composition. Dresden: Selbstverlag.
Holtmeier, Ludwig. 2002. “Reconstructing Mozart.” Music Analysis 21: 307–25.
———. 2007. “Modulation,” “Chromatik,” “Generalbaß,” “Oktavregel,” “Satzmodelle,” “Teufel
smühle,” “Tonart/Tonalität,” “Förster,” “Albrechtsberger,” and “Vogler.” In Beethoven-
Lexikon, ed. Heinz von Loesch and Claus Raab. Laaber: Laaber.
———. 2008. “Emanuel Aloys Förster und das Wiener Partimento: Zum Prinzip der besten
Lage.” In “Im Schatten des Kunstwerks”: Komponisten als Theoretiker in Wien vom 17. Jahrhun
dert bis Anfang des 19. Jahrhunderts, ed. Dieter Torkewitz. Vienna: Universität für Musik
und Darstellende Kunst.
Holtmeier, Ludwig and Felix Diergarten. 2007. “Partimento.” Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart
2, Supplement: 653–59.
Holtmeier, Ludwig, Johannes Menke, and Felix Diergarten. 2008. Praxis und Theorie des Parti
mentospiels. Wilhelmshafen: Noetzel.
Horn, Wolfgang. 2000. Preface to Johann David Heinichen, Neu erfundene und Gründliche
Anweisung zu vollkommener Erlernung des General-Basses (1711), 5*–27*. Hamburg: Benja-
min Schiller. Reprint. Kassel: Bärenreiter.
———. 2001. “Generalbaßlehre als pragmatische Harmonielehre. Teil I: Bemerkungen zum
harmonischen Denken Johann David Heinichens.” In Jahrbuch 2001 der Ständigen Kon
ferenz Mitteldeutsche Barockmusik, 9–40. Beeskow: Ortus Musikverlag.
———. 2002. “Generalbaßlehre als pragmatische Harmonielehre. Teil II: Die Besprechung
der Cantata ‘Della mia bella Clori’ von Carlo Francesco Cesarini in Johann David Heini
chens Anweisung zum Generalbaß (1711).” In Jahrbuch 2002 der Ständigen Konferenz Mit
teldeutsche Barockmusik, 113–36. Beeskow: Ortus Musikverlag.
Irmen, Hans Josef. 1974. Engelbert Humperdinck als Kompositionsschüler Rheinbergers. 2 vols.
Cologne: Arno Volk-Verlag.
Jans, Markus. 1987. “Alle gegen Eine: Satzmodelle in Note-gegen-Note-Sätzen des 16. und 17.

Jahrhunderts.” Basler Jahrbuch für historische Musikpraxis 11: 101–20.
———. 1993. “Modale ‘Harmonik.’ Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Logik der Klangverbind-
ungen im 16. und frühen 17. Jahrhunderts.” Basler Jahrbuch für historische Musikpraxis
17: 67–88.
———. 2007. “Towards a History of the Origin and Development of the Rule of the Octave.”
In Towards Tonality: Aspects of Baroque Music Theory, 119–43. Leuven: Leuven University
Press.
Kaiser, Ulrich. 2000. Gehörbildung: Satzlehre—Improvisation—Höranalyse. 2 vols. Kassel: Bären-
reiter.
———. 2007a. Die Notenbücher der Mozarts als Grundlage der Analyse von W. A. Mozarts Komposi
tionen 1761–1767. Kassel: Bärenreiter.
———. 2007b. “Was ist ein musikalisches Modell?” Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Musiktheorie 4/3.
http://www.gmth.de/zeitschrift/artikel/0134/0134.html.
Kantsteiner, Armin. 1974/75. “Der ‘Musiktheoretiker’ Max von Droste Hülshoff und seine
Schülerin Annette. Ein Beitrag zur Grundlage des kompositorischen Schaffens der
Dichterin.” In Kleine Beiträge zur Droste-Forschung 3, ed. Winfried Woesler, 107–23. Dül-
men: Laumann.
Keller, Godfrey. 1707. A Compleat Method for Attaining to Play a Thorough Bass upon Either Organ
or Harpsichord or Theorbo Lute. London: Cullen.
Kellner, David. 1732. Treulicher Unterricht im General-Bass. Hamburg: Kißner.
Kühn, Clemens. 1994. “Akkord.” In Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart 2, vol. 1, 356–66. Kassel:
Bärenreiter.
Lamott, Bruce A. 1980. “Keyboard Improvisation According to ‘Nova instructio pro pulsandis
organis (1670–ca. 1675)’ by Spiridion à Monte Carmelo.” Ph.D. diss., Stanford University.
Ledbetter, David. 1990. Continuo Playing According to Handel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Louis, Rudolf and Ludwig Thuille. 1907. Harmonielehre. Stuttgart: Klett.
Marpurg, Friedrich Wilhelm. 1760. Kritische Briefe über die Tonkunst, vol. 1. Berlin: Birnstiel.
Marx, Adolf Bernhard. 1830. “Johann Bernhard Logiers ‘System der Musikwissenschaften.’” Allge
meine musikalische Zeitung 32: 413–14.
———.1841. Die alte Musiklehre im Streit mit unserer Zeit. Leipzig: Breitkopf and Härtel.
Mason, Kevin. 1981. “François Campion’s Secret of Accompaniment for the Theorbo, Guitar,
and Lute.” Journal of the Lute Society of America 11: 69–87.
Mattei, Padre Stanislao. 1850. Bassi numerati per accompagnare. Ridotti ad Intavolatura. A Due
Violini e viola. Mailand: F. Lucca. Reprint. Bologna: Forni, 1969.
Mattheson, Johann. 1739. Der vollkommene Capellmeister. Hamburg: Christian Herold. Reprint.
Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1999.
Menke, Johannes. 2008. “Historisch-systematische Überlegungen zur Sequenz seit 1600.” In
Musik.theorien der gegenwart 3, ed. Clemens Gadenstätter and Christian Utz (forthcoming).
Momigny, Jérôme-Joseph de. 1803/1806. Cours complet d’harmonie et de composition. Paris: Chez
l’Auteur.
Monachus, Guilielmus. 1965. De preceptis artis musicae et practicae compendiosus libellus [1480]. Ed.
Albert Seay. Rome: American Institute of Musicology.
Muffat, Georg. 1699. Regulae concentuum Partiturae. Ed. Bettina Hoffmann and Stefano Loren-
zetti. Rome: Bardi, 1998.
Niedt, Friederich Erhardt. 1721. Handleitung zur Variation. Vol. 2 of Musicalische Handleitung.
Hamburg: Benjamin Schiller. Reprint. Hildesheim: Olms, 2003.
Nottebohm, Gustav. 1873. Beethoven’s Studien. Leipzig: Rieter-Biedermann.
Paisiello, Giovanni. 1782. Regole con ben accompagnare il Partimento, o sia il Basso Fondamentale
sopra il Cembalo. St. Petersburg. New annotated edition in Praxis und Theorie des Partimen
tospiels, vol. 1. Wilhelmshaven: Noetzel, 2008.

Piel, Peter. 1887. Harmonie-Lehre unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Anforderungen für das kirch
liche Orgelspiel zunächst für Lehrer-Seminare. Düsseldorf: Schwann.
Rameau, Jean-Philippe. 1722. Traité de l’Harmonie. Paris: Ballard.
———. 1726. Nouveau système de musique théorique. Paris: Ballard.
———. 1737. A Treatise of Music. London: J. French.
Rameau, Jean-Philippe and Michel-Pignolet Montéclair. 1729/30. Confèrence, Mercure de France
June 1729, 1281–89, 2369–77; February 1730, 253–63; June 1730, 880–92, 1337–44.
Reber, Henri. 1862. Traité d’harmonie. Paris: Colombier.
Rheinberger, Josef Gabriel. 2001. Bassübungen für die Harmonielehre. Ed. István P. Korody. Vaduz:
Verlag des Josef Rheinberger Archivs.
Riemann, Hugo. 1889. Katechismus zum Generalbaß-Spiels. Leipzig: Hesse.
Riepel, Joseph. 1757. Gründliche Erklärung der Tonordnung. Frankfurt.
———. 1996. Sechstes Capitel. Vom Contrapunkt. In Joseph Riepel: Sämtliche Schriften zur Musiktheo
rie. Ed. Thomas Emmerig. Vienna: Böhlau.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1768. S. v. Règle de l’octave. In Dictionnaire de musique, vol. 2, 221–24.
Paris: Veuve Duchesne.
Saint Lambert, Michel de. 1707. Nouveau traité de l’accompagnement du clavecin, de l’orgue, et des
autres instruments. Paris: Ballard.
Samber, Johann Baptist. 1704. Manuductio ad organum. . . . Salzburg: Johann Baptist Mayr.
———. 1707. Continuatio ad Manuductionem ad organicam. Salzburg: Johann Baptist Mayr.
Sancta Maria, Fray Tomás de. 1565. Libro llamado arte de taner la fantasia. Valladolid.
Sanguinetti, Giorgio. 1999. “I travagli del ‘celeste impero’: La teoria della composizione a
Napoli nell’Ottocento fra tradizione e innovazione.” In Giorgio Sanguinetti, Intersezioni.
Quattro studi di teoria e analisi musicale, 137–83. Cosenza: Università della Calabria.
———. 2005. “Decline and Fall of the ‘Celeste Impero’: The Theory of Composition in Naples
during the Ottocento.” Studi musicali 34: 451–502.
Scaletta, Oratio. 1595. Scala di musica molto necessaria per principianti. Como. Reprint ed. Venice,
1626; Bologna: Forni, 1976.
Schenker, Heinrich. 1930. “Rameau oder Beethoven? Erstarrung oder geistiges Leben in der
Musik?” In Das Meisterwerk in der Musik, vol. 3. Munich: Drei Masken Verlag.
Schulz, Johann Abraham [ J. P. Kirnberger]. 1773. Die wahren Grundsätze zum Gebrauch der Har
monie. Berlin/Königsberg: Decker and Hartung.
Schwab-Felisch, Oliver. 2007. “Umriss eines allgemeinen Begriffs des musikalischen Satz-
modells.” Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Musiktheorie 4/3. http://www.gmth.de/zeitschrift/
artikel/0135/0135.html.
Schwenkreis, Markus. 2008. “‘Von dem Fantasieren’: Methodik der stilgebundenen Improvisa-
tion nach Jacob Adlung.” Dutch Journal of Music Theory 13: 98–108.
Sechter, Simon. 1830. Practische Generalbass-Schule. Leipzig: Leuckart.
———. 1852/54. Die Grundsätze der musikalischen Komposition, 3 vols. Leipzig: Breitkopf and
Härtel.
Seidel, Ernst. 1969. “Ein chromatisches Harmonisierungsmodell in Schuberts ‘Winterreise.’”
Archiv für Musikwissenschaft 26: 285–96.
Simms, Brian Randolph. 1975. “Choron, Fétis and the Theory of Tonality.” Journal of Music
Theory 19: 112–38.
Spiridionis a Monte Carmelo. 1670/71/75. Nova instructio pro pulsandis organis, spinettis, Manu
chordiis, 4 vols. No. 1, Bamberg: J. J. Immel, 1670; no. 2, Bamberg: J. G. Seyffert, 1671;
Reprint ed. Edoardo Bellotti, Colledara: Andromeda, 2003. Nos. 3 and 4, Würzburg:
J. Sallver, 1675.
Sulzer, Johann Georg. 1771/74. Allgemeine Theorie der schönen Künste. Leipzig: Wiedmann.
Vidal, Paul and Boulanger, Nadia. 2006. A Collection of Given Basses and Melodies. Ed. Narcis
Bonet. Barcelona: Dinsic.

Vincent, Heinrich Josef. 1830. Kein Generalbass mehr. Vienna: Wallishauser.
Weber, Gottfried. 1824. Versuch einer geordneten Theorie der Tonsetzkunst zum Selbstunterricht, 2nd
ed. Mainz: Schott.
———. 1826. “‘Recension’ der ‘Pratica d’accompagnamento sopra Bassi numerati e contrap-
punti . . . . dal Padre Maestro Stanislao Mattei.’” Caecilia 4/14: 135–40.
Yellin, Victor Fell. 1998. The Omnibus Idea. Detroit Monographs in Musicology, Studies in Music
22. Detroit: Harmonie Park.
Ludwig Holtmeier teaches music theory at the Hochschule für Musik in Freiburg and historische
Satzlehre at the Schola Cantorum in Basel. He is the editor of Musik & Ästhetik and has published
widely on the history of music theory, the Second Viennese School, and Richard Wagner.

Heinichen, Rameau, and The Italian Thoroughbass Tradition - Concepts of Tonality and Chord in The Rule of The Octave

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heinichen, Rameau, and The Italian Thoroughbass Tradition - Concepts of Tonality and Chord in The Rule of The Octave

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/journal-of-music-theory/article-pdf/51/1/5/436645/03-JMT51.1_HoltmeierFpp.

pdf by UNIV CA BERKELEY PERIODICALS user on 30 November 2021

A blind spot in the history of music theory

Journal of Music Theory 51:1, Spring 2007

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/journal-of-music-theory/article-pdf/51/1/5/436645/03-JMT51.1_HoltmeierFpp.pdf by UNIV CA BERKELEY PERIODICALS user on 30 November 2021

A digression on partimento reception

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/journal-of-music-theory/article-pdf/51/1/5/436645/03-JMT51.1_HoltmeierFpp.pdf by UNIV CA BERKELEY PERIODICALS user on 30 November 2021

From thoroughbass to Harmonielehre

The purely performance-practice term thoroughbass (Ger.: Generalbass, It.:

schaften (1827), Adolf Bernhard Marx speaks of the “anti-

method on the categorical distinction between Accompagnisten and Componis­

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/journal-of-music-theory/article-pdf/51/1/5/436645/03-JMT51.1_HoltmeierFpp.pdf by UNIV CA BERKELEY PERIODICALS user on 30 November 2021

chords, understood them almost exclusively vertically, built “stacks” of thirds

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/journal-of-music-theory/article-pdf/51/1/5/436645/03-JMT51.1_HoltmeierFpp.pdf by UNIV CA BERKELEY PERIODICALS user on 30 November 2021

A digression on Corelli reception

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/journal-of-music-theory/article-pdf/51/1/5/436645/03-JMT51.1_HoltmeierFpp.pdf by UNIV CA BERKELEY PERIODICALS user on 30 November 2021

The single voice of the thoroughbass stood as representative of an essen-

Ludwig Holtmeier Heinichen, Rameau, and Italian Thoroughbass 11

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/journal-of-music-theory/article-pdf/51/1/5/436645/03-JMT51.1_HoltmeierFpp.pdf by UNIV CA BERKELEY PERIODICALS user on 30 November 2021

Toward a history and theory of the Rule of the Octave

At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the splitting of thoroughbass into

No one more clearly recognized the verticalization of harmonic dis-

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/journal-of-music-theory/article-pdf/51/1/5/436645/03-JMT51.1_HoltmeierFpp.pdf by UNIV CA BERKELEY PERIODICALS user on 30 November 2021

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/journal-of-music-theory/article-pdf/51/1/5/436645/03-JMT51.1_HoltmeierFpp.pdf by UNIV CA BERKELEY PERIODICALS user on 30 November 2021

A digression on Rameau reception

14 J our n a l o f M usi c T h e ory

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/journal-of-music-theory/article-pdf/51/1/5/436645/03-JMT51.1_HoltmeierFpp.pdf by UNIV CA BERKELEY PERIODICALS user on 30 November 2021

In the early eighteenth century, contemporary writers clearly recognized

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/journal-of-music-theory/article-pdf/51/1/5/436645/03-JMT51.1_HoltmeierFpp.pdf by UNIV CA BERKELEY PERIODICALS user on 30 November 2021

A digression on the “false” fifth

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/journal-of-music-theory/article-pdf/51/1/5/436645/03-JMT51.1_HoltmeierFpp.pdf by UNIV CA BERKELEY PERIODICALS user on 30 November 2021

It is not difficult to discern the derivation of the harmonic formula for

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/journal-of-music-theory/article-pdf/51/1/5/436645/03-JMT51.1_HoltmeierFpp.pdf by UNIV CA BERKELEY PERIODICALS user on 30 November 2021

Example 3. The cadenza doppia as a model of triple counterpoint

JMT 51:1 149-3 Holtmeier ex. 5a

Example 4. The Rule of the Octave in the style of Corelli

“tonality” of the Corelli-style trio-sonata format if one makes a “reduction” of

20 In the early eighteenth century, this kind of dissonance

18 J our n a l o f M usi c T h e ory

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/journal-of-music-theory/article-pdf/51/1/5/436645/03-JMT51.1_HoltmeierFpp.pdf by UNIV CA BERKELEY PERIODICALS user on 30 November 2021

JMT 51:1 149-3 Holtmeier ex. 7

Example 6. The classical Rule of the Octave: reduction of Example 4a

now—retaining this organizing principle—also begins the descending scale

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/journal-of-music-theory/article-pdf/51/1/5/436645/03-JMT51.1_HoltmeierFpp.pdf by UNIV CA BERKELEY PERIODICALS user on 30 November 2021

22 Or the connection of two consonances by a chain of dis-

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/journal-of-music-theory/article-pdf/51/1/5/436645/03-JMT51.1_HoltmeierFpp.pdf by UNIV CA BERKELEY PERIODICALS user on 30 November 2021

Example 8. Rameau’s interpretation of the Rule of the Octave

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/journal-of-music-theory/article-pdf/51/1/5/436645/03-JMT51.1_HoltmeierFpp.pdf by UNIV CA BERKELEY PERIODICALS user on 30 November 2021

Example 9. “Implicit” harmonic structure of Rameau’s

23 The much discussed problem area of the double emploi

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/journal-of-music-theory/article-pdf/51/1/5/436645/03-JMT51.1_HoltmeierFpp.pdf by UNIV CA BERKELEY PERIODICALS user on 30 November 2021

Toward an “Italian” concept of chord

No music-theoretical theorem of the eighteenth century did more to imple-

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/journal-of-music-theory/article-pdf/51/1/5/436645/03-JMT51.1_HoltmeierFpp.pdf by UNIV CA BERKELEY PERIODICALS user on 30 November 2021

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/journal-of-music-theory/article-pdf/51/1/5/436645/03-JMT51.1_HoltmeierFpp.pdf by UNIV CA BERKELEY PERIODICALS user on 30 November 2021

(a) (b) (c)

Š ððð ððð ððð ðð

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/journal-of-music-theory/article-pdf/51/1/5/436645/03-JMT51.1_HoltmeierFpp.pdf by UNIV CA BERKELEY PERIODICALS user on 30 November 2021

Example 11. The multifunctionality of the sixth chord on the third

585) (Example 11b). Moreover, it is also frequently part of a dominant prepa-

Johann David Heinichen and the

method on the categorical distinction between Accompagnisten and Componis

“inseparable characteristic of all modes” (“das unzertrennliche Kennzeichen

35 “Von der Sextenkette, die zur Oktave strebt unterscheidet