Avalecta Musicologten 33 (1007) THE JESUIT ACOUSTICIANS AND THE PROBLEM OF WIND INSTRUMENTS (c. 1580-1680) by Patrizio Barbieri (Rome) Well before the middle of the 17th century, the empirical formula concern- ing the fundamental frequency of the vibrating string had been correctly ob- tained. Thanks to Vincenzo Galilei (c. 1582-1589), Marin Mersenne (1635— 1636) and Galileo Galilei (1638), the role of the different parameters — length, diameter, material and tension ~ had been quantitatively described.’ The same, however, could not be said for the vibrations of air columns, an issue that concerned flutes, organs and the various reed instruments (both mechanical and labial). As we shall see below, their analogy with the mate- rial string was to be explicitly expressed — after an early intuition of Beeck- man (1618), which remained in manuscript — only in a publication of 1674 (De Chales); it was then approximately quantized in 1727 (Euler). In fact the analogy was by no means an evident one, given that the fun- damental frequency of tubes — unlike that of strings — was inversely propor- tional neither to length nor to diameter. This was because of the so-called vend correction and the often poorly defined boundary conditions, due (1) to the possible closure, either total or partial, of one of the extremities, and (2) to the disuniformity of the diameter along the bore (parameters that still today are not always quantifiable). Moreover, again unlike strings, the prob- lem was further complicated by two other issues: 1. The acoustic role played by the walls of the tube, given that — above all in Antiquity — great importance was attributed to the materials used to make them.” 2, The reasons for register leaps in wind instruments. Today we know that they are attributable to the overtones of the pipe, a phenomenon that — 1 On the subject, see: Sigalia Dostrovsky, Early Vibration Theory: Physics and Music in the Seventeenth Century, in: Archive for History of exact Sciences XIV (1975), pp. 169— 218: 183-190; Patrizio BARBIERI, »Galileo’s¢ coincidence theory of consonances, from Nicomachus to Sauveur, in: Recercare XIII (2001), pp. 201-232: 221-225 2 Patrizio BaReteRi, Alchemy, Symbolism and Aristotelian Acoustics in Medieval Organ- Pipe Technology, in: The Organ Yearbook XXX (2001), pp. 7-39.156 Patrizio Barbieri although already identified by Mersenne — remained unexplained and often incorrectly described throughout almost the whole 17th century. The present study will examine the different theories on the matter (as many as four) proposed in the course of the Scientific Revolution. We shall see that a leading role in this specific sector, one hitherto inexplicably over- looked by the historians of science, was played by the Jesuit acousticians. As we shall see: Giuseppe Biancani can be considered as the founder of geometrical acoustics (1620), a theory that — from the time of Athanasius Kircher until at least the end of the 18th century — was traditionally used to explain how speaking- and hearing-trumpets worked.’ Claude-Frangois Milliet De Chales was the first to point out the analogy with stringed instruments and hence introduce the concept of the »aerial string« (1674). Ignace-Gaston Pardies (c. 1672), basing himself on Torricelli’s then re- cent discovery, was the first to hypothesize that in the mechanism of emis- sion a decisive role was played by the elasticity given to the vibrating air co- lumn by atmospheric pressure. On account of his early death (1673), howe- ver, the hypothesis had no development. Only in 1687 did Newton adopt the same principle (though by an independent route), thereby laying the basis of the modern theory of sound tubes (to be developed mathematically in the following century, from Euler onwards). The discussion will also be extended to related themes, such as: the light- sound analogy (with the extension to sound of the phenomena of reflection and refraction); the birth of acoustics as a new branch of natural philosophy; and the developments in the concept of sound transmission through elastic media (such as air and water), 3. Patrizio Barsterr, The speaking trumpet: developments of Della Porta’s vear spectacles (1589-1967), in: Studi musicali XXXIII/1 (2004), pp. 205-247.The Jesuit acousticians 157 1. THEORY »OF VOLUMES« OR »OF VELOCITY« 1.1. Fundamental frequency of cylindrical windpipes — In his Dialogo of 1581, among other things Vincenzo Galilei discusses the emission of cylin- drical pipes of the same length but different diameters, and claims that he had »never found any essay« on the subject. From the cases he illustrates, one deduces that he believed the fundamental frequency f to be inversely proportional to the square root of the volume V (f « V~”). The length- diameter ratio, he specifies, has a bearing only on their »excellence and so- nority« (eccellenza e sonorita); in other words, as we would say today, on their timbre and volume.* He then moves on to pipes that differ in both di- ameter and length. From these new observations, which are a little confused, I think we can conclude that he now believes the frequency to be inversely proportional to the cubic root of the volume (f« V~"), He adds that two pipes made from a rectangular sheet with its sides in the ratio of 5:4 would sound in unison no matter whether they were rolled and soldered along the longer side or otherwise (a statement that is not only incorrect, but also con- tradicts his own rule, given that the two volumes would be different). In a manuscript that is undated, but in all likelihood attributable to the years 1582-1589, Galilei compares two pipes that differ in both volume and length-diameter ratio. From the context it turns out that the formula he uses is again fc V~'*. In his Discorso of 1589 he was to restate the same rule, though limiting it to the case of similar pipes (i. e. with the same length- diameter ratio), This time the rule is correct (though inexplicably D. P. Walker states it is erroneous). This confirms that in the years following the publication of the Dialogo Galilei must have examined the subject further. Among other things this led him to the correct conclusion that — in vibrating strings — the frequency is proportional to the square root of tension (and not to simple tension, as hith- 4 Vincenzo GaLwte1, Dialogo dela musica antica et della moderna, Firenze 1581, pp. 34 5 Daniel Pickering WALKER, Studies in Musical Science in the Late Renaissance, London 1978, p. 24. 6 Vincenzo GALILEI, Discorso intorno all’opere di messer Gioseffo Zarlino da Chioggia [..], Firenze 1589, p. 105; WALKER, Studies, p. 24.158 Patrizio Barbieri erto assumed).” According to Walker, his work on this issue was prompted by a desire to discover elements that would mitigate the rigidity of Zarlino’s harmonic ratios (in other words, for example, that the octave can correspond not only to the canonic ratio of 2:1, but also to 4:1 and 8:1).° During these speculations Galilei fails not only to mention the reasons that led him to these conclusions, but also to treat the mechanism of sound emission. Given the humanistic entourage in which he operated, however, he surely cannot have been immune from reminiscences of the theory ex- pressed in the pseudo-Aristotelian Problemata and De audibilibus, Accord- ing to this theory the pitch of the sound was proportionate to the speed of the air »expelled« from the pipe: if »the windpipe is short it must expel the breath again quickly, and the blow of the air must be stronger, and all such give a sharper sound because of the speed with which the breath travels.«? The statement that »pitch rises with a rise of the velocity of the expelled air« was then also expressed in the following equivalent form: »pitch rises with the decrease in the volume of the air contained in the pipe.«'° This approach to the problem was widespread in the Renaissance and was also accepted, for example, by Giorgio Anselmi (by 1434), Francis Ba- con (by 1626)'" and Fabio Colonna. In fact, to demonstrate that »the move- ment of the quantity of air is the cause of the gravity of the sound, in 1618 Colonna used the example of two organ pipes of equal length, but of differ- 7 Clande Vincent PALISCA, Scientific Empiricism in Musical Thought, in: Seventeenth Cen- tury Science and the Arts, ed. by Hedley Howell Rhys, Princeton 1961, pp. 91-137; re~ published — with an author’s introduction — in: Claude V. PALISCA, Studies in the history of Italian music and music theory, Oxford 1994, pp. 200-235. Also translated into Italian as Empirismo scientifico nel pensiero musicale, in: La musica nella Rivoluzione Scien- tifica del Seicento, ed. by Paolo Gozza, Bologna 1989, pp. 167-177. 8 WALKER, Studies, p. 24, 9 The audibilibus. On things heard, in: Aristotle, Minor works [...] with an English Trans- lation by W. S. Hett, London 1955, pp.47-79: 57. See also Morris R. ConEN, I.E, DRaBkm, A source book in Greek science, Cambridge Mass. 1958, p. 297 (similar theory by Theon of Smima, probably 2nd century A. D.). 10 H. B, GoTtscHaLK, The De audibilibus and peripatetic acoustics. Part I, in: Hermes XCVI (1968), pp. 435-460: 440; Barsiert, »Galileo's« coincidence theory (see note 1), p.226. 11 Giorgio ANSELM, De musica, ed. Giuseppe Massera, Firenze 1961, p. 140; Francis BACON, Sylva Sylvarum or A Naturall Historie in ten Centuries, in: The Works of Fran- cis Bacon [...], f, London 1765, pp. 178f.The Jesuit acousticians 159 ent diameter. He concludes: »that which contains the most air will make the lower sound,«'? This conclusion is correct but not the explanation. In the unpublished Journal of June 1619, Isaac Beeckman also makes this theory his starting point, though without explicitly saying so.’ He is also the first modern scholar to tackle the mechanics of emission, even though he also indirectly refers to the De audibilibus. Also according to Beeckman, the breath of the performer must »expel« (removere) the air con- tained in the windpipe: the bigger the tube, the more difficult the operation, and hence the lower the sound. Moreover, in the case of a stopped pipe, the difficulty is further increased, hence the »density and compression« (den- sitas et compressio) will generate an even lower sound. If the pipe is heated, »the air becomes less dense, hence it is lighter and less compressed, and hence more suited to being expelled (which is the first attempt to justify the rise in pitch with the increase in temperature, in physical terms).'* This emission mechanism, however, leads him to conclude that the frequency of a pipe is inversely proportional to its volume (fc V~'). By 1629, at the latest, Beeckman already was in correspondence with Mersenne, who — in the Harmonie Universelle (1636-1637) — questions the sule just mentioned, though without citing its author (he merely writes that »many believe that« fc V~').'° For the mechanism of emission, however, Mersenne reiterates Beeckman’s theory, again without citing him: the sound of a big pipe is lower because the »cylinder of air« that must be »driven out of the pipe« is greater. And if the pipe is stopped at the top end, the note 12. Fabio COLONNA, La Sambuca Lincea, overo dell istromento musico perfetto [...], Naples 1618, pp. 312: »Che la motione della quantita dell’aere sia causa della gravita del suono, si chiarisce ancora, con le canne di organo, che facendo due canne dell’istessa lunghezza, ‘ma una pitt grossa dell’altra, cioé pid larga di canna, fard pid grave suono quella che ca- pisce maggior quantita d’sere, che la pit sottile, ancorche siano eguali nella lunghezza.« Colonna belonged to the Neapolitan colony of the Accademia dei Lincei, hence also the title of his work. 13 Journal tenu par Isaac Beeckman de 1604 a 1634, 1, ed. by Comelis de Weard, La Haye 1939, pp. 305, 319. 14 Idem, p. 306: »Calore enim eer fit tenuior idedque levior minusque compressum atque ad dissipationem aptior.« 15 Marin Mersenne, Harmonie Universelle, Paris 1636-1637, »Traité des instrumens & chordesc, p. 331. The first known letter from Beckman to Mersenne dates to 1629: Cor- respondance du P. Merin Mersenne, ed by Paul Tannery, Comelis de Waard and Ar- mand Beaulieu, If, Paris 1937, p. 217.160 Patrizio Barbieri drops to the lower octave because the air, in order to escape, must make a return trip within the pipe; in this case, however, the timbre will be different because these »two contrary movements in the stopped pipe produce a third movement that makes the sound sweeter and more harmonious.«'® A few pages later, however, he confesses his inability to explain why the stopped pipe »produces two different sounds at the same time, which — together — give rise to a twelfth« (in observing which he was deceived by the fact that a stopped pipe emits only the odd harmonics, with the result that — com- pared to an open pipe — these harmonics are less subject to masking by the even ones).!” Already in La verité des sciences (1625) Mersenne had acknowledged Vincenzo Galilei’s precedence in discovering the laws governing the fre- quency of string and windpipes. In the Harmonie Universelle, however, the Florentine theorist is not mentioned. The above-cited rule of 1589 (foc V~"*, for similar pipes) is instead attributed to a certain »Mr. Cornu, a very skilled land-surveyor«, the author (he adds) of experiments on pipes of circular and square section (and whom he most likely consulted also for other informa- tion concerning the sections in question).'* To conclude, a final echo of such theories is still found in 1686, when the Jesuit Lana Terzi states that two pipes of the same length, but with di- ameters in the ratio of 1:4, produce an octave: which is the equivalent of saying that fc 7~*.° The phenomenon of »end correction« was still to be discovered. 1.2. Trumpet »jumps« — Regarding the register leaps on the trumpet, accord- ing to Mersenne »there is no doubt that, to produce the second sound, the wind is pushed and modified in a different manner from the first« and that it 16 Mrrsenne, Harmonie Universelle, p. 359: ples deux mouvemens contraires du tuyau bouché produisent un troisiesme mouvement qui rend le son plus dowx, et plus harmo- niewx.« 17 Idem, pp. 3958: »Rechercher pouquoy le tuyau bouché fait deux sons differens en mesme tems, qui font la Douziesme ensemble.« 18 Marin Mersenwe, La verité des sciences [..], Paris 1625, p.617; 1p., Harmonie Uni- verselle, p. 346: »le sieur Cornu trés-habile arpenteur«. 19 Francesco LANA TERZI, Magisterium naturae et artis, I1, Brescia 1686, p. 397.The Jesuit acousticians 161 moves twice as fast.”” Kircher, who clearly bases his conclusions on the »Harmonie«, was to express a similar opinion in 1650.7! Again, these state- ments seem to agree with the theory expressed in the De audibilibus. On this point, however, Mersenne is very cautious and confesses his in- ability to explain why open pipes jump to the octave, while stopped pipes prise to the 5" or 12"«, Also concerning the flageolet, he observes that »it is not easy to find the reason« why it leaps to the upper mode.” 2. THE SOUND-LIGHT DUALITY AND THE BIRTH OF A NEW SCIENCE: THE »ECHOMETRIA«, LATER »ACOUSTICS« 2.1. The birth of »Acoustics« — Towards the end of the 16th century, with the rediscovery of the conic sections and burning glasses of Archimedes, the propagation of sound was associated — for the first time — with that of light rays. According to the Jesuit Giuseppe Biancani (1620), Ettore Ausonio, a doctor and mathematician working in Venice in the second half of the 16th century, was the first to hypothesize the existence — in burning glasses — of a dualism between light and sound.’ His work on these glasses is to be dated before 1572, being mentioned by Fioravanti in that very year." However, none of Ausonio’s writings on the subject have survived.”* He was immedi- 20 MERSENNE, Harmonie Universelle, p. 250: »Or il n’y a nul doute que le vent est autre- ment poussé et modifié pour faire le second ton, que pour faire le premier, et ainsi des autres, et que celuy qui fait le second a ses reflexions, ou ses retours deux fois aussi vistes que celui qui fait le premier.« 21 Kircuer, MU, p. $02. 22 MERSENNE, Harmonie Universelle, respectively p. 346 (»montent toujours & la Quinte, ou a la Douziesmes) and p. 236 (pil n’est pas aysé de trouver la raison) 23 Giuseppe BIANCANI, Sphaera mundi [...] in qua [...] accessere [...] echometria, id est geometrica traditio de echo, Bologna 1620, p. 441. 24 Leonardo FioravaNtt, Dello specchio di scientia universale (...], Venezia 1572, f. 62v: »Ettor Eusonio [sic] da Venetia, inventore delle pitt belle materie matematiche, che mai si sieno viste, né udite al mondo: percioche ha fatto certi specchi concavi di estimabil grandezza, nei quali si veggono cose maravigliose.« 25. Giovanni Antonio MAGINI, Breve instruttione sopra l'apparenze et mirabili effetti dello specchio concavo sferico, Bologna 1611, p. 24, mentions a printed work of his (now lost): »Messer Vettore Ausonio nella sua Theorica dello specchio concavo da noi altre volte data in luce.« On page 31 he adds: »Recita [...] I’ Ausonio nella sua Theorica dello specchio concavo, da noi alcuni anni sono fatta stampare, quattro operationi [...] le quali162 Patrizio Barbieri ately followed by Giambattista Della Porta, who — in the Magia naturalis (1589) — asserted that to hear a person speaking softly at a distance it was sufficient to place one’s ear at the point in which a concave mirror concen- trates the light rays by reflection.” These speculations on the sound-light dualism, however, lay forgotten until 1620, when they were taken up and amplified in the Echometria of Bi- ancani, who can therefore be considered as the founder of geometrical acoustics. In fact, it was this work that inspired the first applications founded on this schematization: applications that above all involved archi- tectural acoustics and (as we shall see in chapter 3.2) certain windpipes.”” Biancani himself defines his Echometria as a »new part of the mathematical sciences«; or more precisely, one could add, of the mathesis mixta, In fact this short treatise can be considered as the first to be entirely devoted to this new discipline.** Moreover, it was precisely from this schematization that this discipline subsequently developed until it assumed the name of »acous- tics«. As we shall see, many Jesuit theorists played a decisive part in the main stages of this process. 1605 — Concerning the term »Acoustique art« or »Acoustics«, as used in the modem sense, Francis Bacon already used it in the De dignitate et aug- mentis scientiarum (1605) to designate the vast programme of inquiry into sound that he was later to illustrate in the New Atlantis (1626) and the Sylva sylvarum (1626).° He used it, however, only sporadically and without par- sono state poi molto copiosamente distese dal Signor Gio, Battista dalla Porta nella sua Magia naturale.« 26 Giambattista DELLA PoRTA, Magiae naturalis libri XX, Napoli 1589, pp. 264f. 27 BIANCANI, Sphaera mundi (see note 23), pp. 415-443: »Echometria, sive de natura echus geomettica tractatio«. For the subsequent applications of this approach to the design of rooms, see Patrizio BARBIERI, The acoustics of Italian opera houses and auditoriums (ca. 1450-1900), in: Recercare X (1998), pp. 263-328: 271-280. 28 BIANCANI, Sphaera mundi, p. 413: »Nos etiam Echometriam, nova Matheseos partern, in fine dabimus, in qua sonum, et vocem per lineas, angulos, etc. iuris Geometici fecimus, ac plura de ijs nova demonstravimus.« 29 Penelope GouK, Music, Science and Natural magic in Seventeenth-Century England, Now Haven and London 1999, p. 157; ID., Acoustics, in: Encyclopedia of the Scientific Revolution from Copernicus to Newton, ed. by Wilbur Applebaum, New York NY and London 2000, pp. 11£; I., Gli strumenti e i loro effetti: l'acustica e la nascita della moderna scienza sperimentale / Instruments and their effects: music, acoustics and the emergence of early modern experimental science, in L'acustica e i suoi strumenti. La collezione dell Istituto Tecnico Toscano / Acoustics And Its Instruments. The CollectionThe Jesuit acousticians 163 ticular emphasis: for this reason no successive author made esplicit refer- ence to his work, 1620 — As already mentioned, Biancani proposed to found a new branch of mixed mathematics called »Echometria«. His proposal was adopted by the later Jesuit acousticians. 1642 — Mario Bettini — a pupil of Biancani and, from 1624 to 1629, his successor in the chair of »Mathematica« at the Jesuit College of S. Rocco, in Parma — treated the science of sound by subdividing it into »Musica« (the old discipline of the Quadrivium, limited to discrete quantities, that is to »harmonic numbers«) and »Sonimetrica« (extended to continuous quantities and based on sound rays), To this second branch he then applies the subdi- vision of optics into the classic three sections (direct, reflected and refracted rays), thereby obtaining:°” »Sonimetrica directa« »Sonimetrica reflexa, i. e. Echometria« »Sonimetrica refracta«. 1650 — Kircher subdivides »Sonimetrica reflexa« further into »Echo- meiria« (the theory of echo itself) and »Catoptrica phonocamptica«, which he also calls »Echotectonica« or »Acusticorum instrumentorum fabrica«. This second subsection is based on the dualisms: »photismus« —> »phonismus« »nervum opticum« —> »nervum acusticum« »optica instrumenta« (enlargement of objects) + »acustica instrumenta« (enlargement of sounds). It is further divided into »Acusticae fabricae« and hearing aids.”' Towards the middle of the century the term »acoustics« was therefore used only in this sense. Moreover, already in the English terminology of the time (1640- Of The Istitituto Tecnico Toscano, ed. by Anna Gistti and Mara Miniati, Firenze 2001, pp. 31-56: 45, 51. 30 Mario Berri, Apiaria universae philosophiae mathematicae [...], Bologna 1642, Apiarium X: »Musica et Sonimetticac, pp. 2, 3543. On his academic work, see Ugo BALDIN, 5. Rocco e la scuola scientifica della provincia veneta: il quadro storico (1600~ 1773), in: Gesuiti e universita in Europa (secoli XVI-XVIID, ed. by Gian Paolo Brizzi and Roberto Greci, Bologna 2002, pp. 283-323: 290, 297. 31 Kircuer, MUI, pp. 237-241, 271-278, 283; see also 1., Phonurgia nova, sive conjugi- um mechanico-physicum artis & naturae paranympha phonosophia concinnatum, Kemp- ten 1673, pp. 5-9.164 Patrizio Barbieri 1680) the ear trampet was commonly called »otacousticon«.” This was be- cause the channel connecting the auricular pavilion to the timpanum was also called »condotto acustico« (acoustic conduit).*> However, this term of Greek derivation seems to have been favoured by the natural philosophers only, for the anatomical treatise literature of the 16th and 17th centuries generally used the Latin equivalent: »meatus auditorius« (along with »ner- ‘vus auditorius«).** 1657 — The Jesuit Caspar Schott (1608-1666) divides his Magia univer- salis into four parts (1657-1658): that concerning sound (1657) was enti- tled, for the first time in a general treatise, »Acustica«.*> From his examina- tion, however, one deduces that he used this term in the same sense as his 32 On the use of this term, see: Penelope GOUK, The Role of Acoustics and Music Theory in the Scientific Work of Robert Hooke, in: Annals of Science XXXVII (1980), pp. 573— 605; 580; ID., Music in Francis Bacon's natural philosophy, in: Francis Bacon: Termi nologia e fortuna nel XVIII secolo, ed. by Marta Fattori, Roma 1984, pp. 139-154: 150; Leta MILLER, Albert COHEN, Music in the Royal Society of London 1660-1806, Detroit MI 1987, index; BARBIERI, The speaking trumpet (see note 3), pp. 208f. 33, That at least is what it is called by (among the natural philosophers) Daniello BARTOLI, Del suono de’ tremori armonici e dell udito, Roma 1679, p. 296 (»quel foro, che chia- mano il condotto Acustico, cio’ Uditore«). 34 See for example André VESALE, De humani corporis fabrica libri septem, Basel, 1555, p.66; Bartolomeo EUSTACHI, Opuscula anatomica, Venezia 1563, p. 161; Johann VESLING, Syntagma anatomicum, Padova 1647, pp. 219 and 222; Antonio MoLINETTO, Dissertationes anatomicae, et pathologicae de sensibus, et eorum organis, Padova 1669, pp. 46ff; Thomas BARTHOLIN, Anatomie quartum renovata, Lyon 1677, pp. 526f. The Greek term n5pos éxodatiKoG is mentioned, though merely to display erudition, by: Gabriele FALLOPPIA, Observationes anatomicae, Venezia 1561, f. 23v; Girolamo FABRIZI (ab Aquapendente), De visione, voce, auditu, Venezia 1600, p. 3 of the »De aure auditus organo« (>ndpoo axobctiKos, idest meatus ad auditum pertinens [...] seu auditorius vocatur, per quem audimus«); Giulio CASseRIO, De vocis auditusque organis historia anatomica, Ferrara 1600-1601, p. 41 of the »Tractatus secundus« (1601); ID., Pentaes- theseion hoc est de quingue sensibus liber, Venezia 1609, p. 181, 35 The other three were »Opticac, »Mathematica« and »Physica«. The treatise is already mentioned, in this connection, by GOUK, Strumenti (see note 29), p. $1. The dualism be- tween light and sound is made explicit in the title itself: Caspar SCHOTT, Magiae univer- salis naturae et artis, Pars I. Acoustica, in VII libros digesta, quibus ea quae ad audi- tum, et auditus objectum spectant, methodicé, ac summé varietate pertractantu; univer saque auditus, soni, vocis humanae, harmoniae, musicaeque, tam theoricae quam pract cae economia, per analogiam feré ad oeconomiam visus ac visionis, coloris, luminis, specierumque illorum, explicatur; ac variis, raris, minusque obvits praxibus et experi- mentis stabilitur, Winrzburg 1657.The Jesuit acousticians 165 teacher Kircher. As Bettini had proposed earlier, the entire discipline was divided by Schott into »directa«, »reflexa« and »refracta«.*® 1670 — Honoré Fabri — another Jesuit — makes use of the expression »ars acoustica«, but again only to illustrate the dualism between the binocular and the ear trumpet (which he calls »tubus, vel conus acousticus«).°” This expression can therefore be translated as »acoustic artifice, the equivalent of what today would be understood as »applied acoustics«. Unlike the fel- low Jesuits who had preceded him, Fabri did not, however, extend this dual- ism to refraction, since — as we shall see in chapter 2.2 — he did not admit refraction in the case of sound. 1684 — Narcissus Marsh, on the other hand, in a report presented to the Dublin Society the previous year, adopts the dualism proposed by Bettini (without mentioning him, however). Moreover, he uses the term »acoustics« already in the general sense:** Opticks — Acousticks (direct rays) Dioptricks +-» Diacousticks (refracted rays) Catoptricks —> Catacousticks (reflected rays). For hearing aids he retains the traditional term »otacousticks«. 1686 — Like his fellow Jesuits, Francesco Lana Terzi uses the word »acustica« only to designate the dualism between binoculars and ear trum- pets. And such must have still been the meaning of the term in common language, given that he desginated ear trumpets as »tubos, quos Acusticos vocant.«? 1694 — The speaking trumpet is also called — for the first time, in the German translation of Picinelli’s Mundus symbolicus — »tubus acusticus«."° 36 Idem, I, pp. 1438. 37 Honoré Fapri, Physica, id est, scientia rerum corporearum in decem tractatus distributa, Il, Lyon 1670, p. 182. 38 Narcissus [MARSH] (Lord Bishop of Ferns and Leighlin), An introductory Essay to the doctrine of Sounds, containing some proposals for the improvement of Acousticks; As it was presented to the Dublin Society Nov. 12, 1683, in: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society XIV (1684), pp. 472-488: 473. Memoir already mentioned in GOUK, Mu- sic (see note 32), pp. 153f. 39 LANA TERZI, Magisterium naturae (see note 19), Il, p. 482. 40 Filippo PICINELLI, Mundus symbolicus (...] auctus et in latinum traduetus @ R.D. Au- ‘gustino Erath, 11, Coln 1694, p. 201.166 Patrizio Barbieri 1701 — Sauveur proposes to call »Acoustique« the »science [...] that has for its object sound in general«, and of which »Music« constitutes a part. He adds that this science is »closely related to optics." As one sees, the ap- proach is the same as that of Bettini. 2.2. More on the reflection, refraction and diffraction of sound — From the 3rd century B.C. right up until Ausonio and Biancani, sound was associated with a spherical wave propagating by a mechanism similar to that of the cir- cular wave produced by a stone thrown into a reservoir.” Light, though again within a continuum theory, was instead schematized by the peripatetic school as a beam of rays issuing from the source.” In chapter 2.1 we saw that the new geometrical acoustics favoured the extension of the laws of re- flection and refraction, already familiar in the optical field, to sound. Specifically regarding reflection, in Biancani we read that also the opti- cal principle of equal angles of incidence and reflection (a concept already found in the pseudo-Aristotelian Problemata) applied to sound rays.** Still fifty years later, however, this claim was not shared by all. For example, ac- cording to the Jesuit Francesco Eschinardi (1672) the correspondence was only approximately valid, owing to a supposed certain resistence »encoun- tered by sound in its propagation.«** As regards refraction, on the other hand, according to Francis Bacon (1561-1626), »unlike light, it does not appear that there is refraction in sounds« (even though he personally favoured the opposite thesis, since he accepts the idea that sound can even pass through media different from 41 Joseph SAUVEUR, Systéme général des intervalles des sons, et son application é tous les systémes et d tous les instruments de musique, in: Histoire de V Académie Royale des Sciences, avec les Mémoires de Mathématique et de Physique 1701 (ed. Paris 1743), pp. 299-366: 299 (of the Mémoires). 42. Frederick Vinton Hunt, Origins in Acoustics. The Science of Sound from Antiquity to the Age of Newton, New Haven CT 1978 (repr. Woodbury 1992), pp. 23f (this analogy is attributed to the Stoic philosopher Chrysippus, c. 280-207 B. C.). 43 Alan E. SHAPIRO, Kinematic Optics: A Study of the Wave Theory of Light in the Seven- teenth Century, in: Archive for History of Exact Sciences XI (1973), pp. 134-266: 139. 44 BIANCANI, Sphaera mundi (see note 23), p. 441; Hunt, Origins in Acoustics (see note 42), p. 21 (for the Problemata). 45 Francesco ESCHINARDI, De sono pneumatico, Roma 1672, p. 4: »fere acqualis, quia ut supra indicavi, aér ex sua aliquali resistentia non sequitur perfecte huiusmodi (= of the light] leges.«The Jesuit acousticians 167 air). Mersenne (1635-1636), on his part, states that it was not known if re- fraction could be extended to sound, adding his strong doubts that a prism of glass was capable of modifying the direction of propagation.” In 1670 it was still not accepted by the peripatetic scholars: according to their school, sound could in fact be propagated only through air.** In chapter 2.1, on the other hand, we saw that it was admitted by Bettini already in 1642; and Kircher also had no difficulty in accepting it for sound.” Around the mid 17th century it also began to be conjectured that a sound Tay, propagated in the atmosphere (a non-uniform medium), could undergo a progressive deflection on account of so-called »continuous refraction«. In fact: 1. According to Edmund Chilmead (early 1640s), »in certain cases the motion of sound might be affected by a difference in the thickness of the air according to its proximity to the earth.«° 2. Also according to Narcissus Marsh (1684), the fact that on a »still e- vening or the dead of the night« sound could cover greater distances »may be ascrib’d to its refraction also« (as well as to the lack of wind).”’ 3. Guido Grandi (1708) calculates the curvature of a sound ray due to »continua refractio« (this precise term appears here perhaps for the first time), in the cases in which — with a rise in altitude — the density of the air decreases according to a logarithmic law. 46 Francis BACON, Historia soni et auditus, in: Id., The Works, VII, ed. by James Spedding, Robert Leslie Ellis, Douglas Denon Heath, Boston MA 1863 (facsimile repr. Michigan MI 1976), pp. 187-222: 216 (»Non constat esse refractionem in sonis, ut in radiis. Atta- mea [...}4) 47 MERSENNE, Harmonie Universelle (see note 20), »Traitez de la nature des sons, pp. 66f. 48 Sec e.g. FABRI, Physica (see note 37), Il, p. 155: »Sonus non refringitur. Patet experien- tia; ratio est, quia refractio fit, quando radius qualitatis diffusae absolutae, propter muta- tionem medij, refringitur; sed sonus non est qualitas absoluta: praeterea cum propagetur simul cum corpore, id est cum aére, alia corpora subire, ac penetrare non potest « Athanasius KIRCHER, Ars magna lucis et umbrae, Roma 1646, p. 140; 1D., MU I, pp. 239ff;; 1., Phonurgia nova (see note 31), p. 9. 30 Mordechai FEINGOLD, Penelope M. Goux, An Early Critique of Bacon's Sylva Sylvarum: Edmund Chilmead's Treatise on Sound, in: Annals of Science XL (1983), pp. 139-157: ISL. 51 [MaRsu], Introductory Essay (see note 38), p. 477. $2 Guido Granpt, Epistola [...] De Natura et Proprietatibus Soni, in: Philosophical Trans- actions of the Royal Society XXVI (1708-1709), pp. 270-288: 278, 28Sif. (continua re- fractiog). In a manuscript, today lost, the author had also shown an interest in the vibra- 4 S168 Patrizio Barbieri In their observations both Chilmead and Grandi forget to take into consi- deration the temperature of the air, on which the speed of sound (and hence refraction) actually depend. This factor was to be introduced only in the fol- lowing century. Nonetheless Chilmead and Marsh had correctly identified refraction as one of the reasons for the different intensity of sound when at- mospheric conditions change. This observation was to remain strangely neglected for about two centuries. Only John Tyndall — who was unaware of these authors’ hypotheses — was to arrive at the same conclusions in 1867, after careful experiments conducted on behalf of the British Royal Navy.® As we notice, none of these authors mentions diffraction. The phenome- non had been discovered — only in the field of optics — by the Jesuit Fran- cesco Maria Grimaldi (by 1663), but at that time it was still not accepted by many physico-mathematicians.** Later it would allow scientists to answer certain questions that had already been formulated by that time: 1. Why can sound »rays« go round obstacles, thereby also propagating in curved lines? 2. Why, as Cavalieri points out in 1632, must the burning glasses used for sound be bigger than those used for light?*> 3. Why can a high-pitched voice be heared at a greater distance than a low-pitched voice (a point already mentioned in the pseudo-Aristotelian Problemata)?°° tion of strings: Guido GRANDI, Jacob HERMANN, Carteggio (1708-1714), ed. by Silvia Mazzone and Clara Silvia Roero, Firenze 1992, pp. 46, 50. 53 John TYNDALL, Sound, London 1867, pp. 18f. 54 Francesco Maria GRIMALDI, Physico-mathesis de lumine, coloribus, et iride [...J, Bolo- gna 1665, p. 2. The physicists who entertained doubts on this new phenomenon include Huygens, Mariotte and La Hire: SHAPIRO, Kinematic Optics (sce note 43), p. 224. 55 Bonaventura CAVALIERI, Lo specchio ustorio overo trattato delle settioni coniche, ¢ di aleuni loro mirabili effetti intorno al lume, caldo, freddo, suono e moto, Bologna 1632, p. 13. [Pseudo-|Aristorte, Problems, I, with an English translation by W. S. Hett, Cambridge, MA 1961, p. 265; Problemata Aristotelis ac philosophorum medicorumque complurium cum expositione Petri Aponi [= Petrus de Abano), Venice 1501, prop. VI. st &The Jesuit acousticians 169 3. THE THEORY »OF REFLECTIONS« 3.1. Acoustical mirrors — Let us now pass on to the earliest of the »acustica instrumenta« mentioned in the previous section. The interest of mathematicians in burning mirrors — limited merely to their uses in optics — dates to the first decades of the 17th century, with the printed editions of Witelo’s treatise on perspective (13th century). At the start of the following century these devices aroused considerable curiosity also in fashionable circles: for sovereigns, nobles and cardinals they became almost a status symbol, comparable to that of the freshly invented »speak- ing trumpet« (i. e. the megaphone) in the years 1672-1675.” The mirrors originally built were those of spherical or parabolic curva- ture. Already from at least the mid 16th century it was known that spherical mirrors concentrated the (practically parallel) rays of the sun at a focal seg- ment, a segment that was reduced to a single point in the parabolical mir- rors.** One famous builder of burning mirrors was the Bolognese astronomer Giovanni Antonio Magini, who opted for those of spherical curvature, for though providing less focalizing power, they had the advantage of being easier to build than parabolic ones. Following Ausonio’s recommendations, he chose — as the area of maximum concentration for the sun’s rays — a dis- tance from the reflecting surface equal to a quarter of the diameter.” Mag- 57 For example, much in demand, even from the princes, were those designed and made — as we shall sce below — by Giovanni Antonio Magini: Antonio FAVARO, Carteggio in- edito di Ticone Brahe, Giovanni Keplero e di altri celebri astronomi e matematici dei se- coli XVI. e XVII. con Giovanni Antonio Magini (...], Bologna 1886, pp. 163-174. A parabolic mirror was for example owned by the duke Giovanni Angelo Altemps, and kept in the library of his Roman palace; after his death, an inventory of 1620 lists: »Uno specchio parabolico con il suo piede di ferro tutto lavorato con il vaso d’ottone con suo padiglione di taffeta rosso, scudi 40« (Rome, Archivio di Stato, 30 not. cap., uff. 9, vol. 141, f. 546, 15 October 1620). For other famous burning mirrors, see BARBIERI, Speaking trumpet (see note 3), footnote 44. 58 WITELO, (...) de natura, ratione, et proiectione radiorum visus, quam vulgo Perspecti- vam vocant Libri X, Norimberga 1535, ff. 228v-229r (»A speculis sphaericis concavis soli oppositis ignem possibile est accendi«). On mirrors of parabolic section, see: Oronce Fink, De speculo ustorio, ignem ad propositam distantiam generante, Paris 1551; [WitEL0,] Vitelfonis Thuringo-Poloni opticae libri decem, ed. Friedrich Risner, Basel 1572, pp. 401. 59 MAGINI, Breve instruitione (see note 25), p. 13.170 Patrizio Barbieri ini’s choice was discussed by Iohann Kepler and Johann Georg Brengger, one of Kepler’s scientific correspondents (1608). Brengger’s conclusion was that if the angular aperture of the mirror is less than 60°, the point indi- cated by Magini was the optimal one (Fig. 1). Fig. 1: From Johannes KEPLER, Gesammelte Werke, XVI, ed. Max Caspar, Miinchen 1954. Spherical mirror of radius AH, with an aperture of 120°. Brengger’s construction (1608) shows that the parallel rays incident to it within the central 90° are reflected prevalently a- round AH/2, i. e. a quarter of the diameter. Another well-known builder of burning mirrors was the Jesuit Christoph Grienberger (1561-1636), successor of Christoph Clavius (1537-1612) in the chair of mathematics at the Collegio Romano.” In 1613 he published, 60 Johannes KepLer, Gesammelte Werke, XVI, ed. Max Caspar, Miinchen 1954, p. 119 (Jo- hann Georg Brengger to Kepler: Kaufbeuren, 7 March 1608), p. 145 (Kepler to Breng- ger: Prag, 5 April 1608), pp. 1676. (Brengger to Kepler: Kaufbeuren, 25 May 1608, from which Fig. 1 is drawn). On the subject, sec also FAVARO, Carteggio inedito (see note 57), pp. 171-174, 61 One of his mirrors was preserved in Milan, in the Museo Settala: Paolo Maria TERZAGO, Museo 6 galleria adunata dal sapere, e dallo studio del Sig. canonico Manfredo Settala nobile milanese, Tortona 1666, pp. 4-11. On Grienberger’s work, see: Ugo BALDINt, »Legem impone subactis«. Studi su filosofia e scienza dei gesuiti in Italia 1540-1632, Roma 1992, passim (in particular pp. 567£.); Michael John GORMAN, Mathematics and modesty in the Society of Jesus. The Problems of Christoph Grienberger (1564-1636),The Jesuit acousticians 171 under a pupil’s name, a booklet on ellipsoidal mirrors. As an expert in this field he was subsequently chosen by the Jesuits to examine Biancani’s Echometria before it went into print: his censura was fully favourable. We have seen that Biancani, in turn, was the first to experiment these devices also on sound »rays«. For this test, conducted with the assistance of a certain Cesare Caravaggio, he made use of a spherical mirror. By placing the ear at the point indicated by Magini (an author he fails to mention, how- ever) he could hear distinctly, and amplified, the words whispered at a dis- tance.* The curiosity of mathematicians for such devices, however, began to de- cline in those very years, when their interests shifted to the development of the first refracting telescopes and — later — reflecting telescopes. But it is worth mentioning that in 1650 Kircher was to suggest positioning two para- bolic reflectors facing one another at a distance: one transmitting (with the sound source at the focus) and the other receiving (with the ear of the lis- tener also placed at the focus). It corresponded, therefore, to the type of de- vice today used in radio links. 3.2. Windpipes — In 1632 Bonaventura Cavalieri — a father of the order of the »Gesuiati« destined to acquire fame with his Geometria indivisibilibus continuorum — published a treatise on the theory of burning glasses, perhaps the most exhaustive ever written on the subject from a mathematical point in: The New Science and Jesuit Science: Seventeenth Century Perspectives, ed. Mor- dechai Feingold, Dordrecht 2003 (Archimedes 6), pp. 1-120. 62. Francisco Dz GUEVARA (GHEVARA), Speculum ustorium verae ac primigeniae suae for- mae restitutum, Roma 1613, (Grienberger’s name is mentioned in the preface). 63 Christophorus GRiENBERGER, Nofae ad Echometriam P. Iosephi Biancani: Roma, Ar- chivium Romanum Societatis Iesu, Ms. F.G.655, ff. 107r-108v (»censeo urgendam [edi- tionem], ut citius in philoscphorum mathematicorumque conspectum procedat«), This manuscript has already been mentioned in BALDINI, »Legem impone subactis, p. 224. 64 BIaNcant, Sphaera mundi (see note 23), pp. 432, 441£. Most likely Caravaggio, about whom nothing is known, merely helped him in the practical part of the experiment, given that he is cited as »D. Cacsarem Caravagium, virum non minus ingenio, quam manu in- dustriume. 65 Kincuer, MUL, p. 298. Kircher actually had parabolic reflectors made for him: ScHorr, Magiae universalis (see note 36), II, p. 147. Towards the middle of the century this type of mirror was also briefly discussed by another Jesuit mathematician: GREGORIUS A SANCTO VINCENTIO, Opus geometricum quadratura cireuli et sectionum coni, Antwerp 1647, p. 415.172 Patrizio Barbieri of view. He shows a knowledge of Biancani’s Echometria and also extends the applications of such devices to acoustics. Indeed he is the first to pro- pose using them in the reverse way, stating that »whoever should make an elliptical, parabolical or hyperbolic trumpet that has its focus where voice is given to it, would perhaps do better than the customary ones.« In this way he anticipates the concept of the megaphone, an instrument that was in- vented only fifty years later and for which many different shapes were to be proposed, including those mentioned here.“ In 1642 Mario Bettini developed Cavalieri’s ideas by proposing certain acoustic applications of mirrors of elliptical section: they concern both rooms for music and windpipes.” Bettini, in turn, is mentioned by Kircher, who in 1646 applies these concepts to the mythical »trumpet of Alexander the Great« and to hearing aids. For the latter he proposes a shape inspired by the cochlea of the human ear, though (legitimate) doubts about the utility of this shape were to be expressed from Eschinardi (1673) and Lana Terzi (1686) onwards." For ear trumpets a shape that was to enjoy more success was that of parabolic section, with the ear placed at the focus. First proposed by the Jesuit Nicola Cabeo (1646), and later by Edme Mariotte, it became widespread in the following century. 66 CAVALIERI, Specchio ustorio (see note 55), p. 131, Cap. XXXIV: »Come per il contrario potiamo invigorire il suono, si che sia sentito pitt gagliardo, che non si sentirebbe« (»chi facesse una tromba elittica, parabolica, o” iperbolica, che havesse il foco, dove se li da la voce, forsi faria meglio delle usitate«). See also BARBIERI, Speaking trumpet (see note 3), pp. 237 (parabolic shape proposed for speaking trumpets by a certain Regnault in 1672). 67 BETHINI, Apiaria (see note 30), »Apiarium X«, pp. 41. For his proposals of rooms of el- liptical section, see BARBIERI, Acoustics (see note 27), pp. 2736. In this regard, however, he was anticipated by CAVALIERI, Specchio ustorio (see note 55), p. 132: »Cap. XKXV. Come si possa fabricare una stanza talmente, che chi stara in un’angolo di quella, senta il suono fatto nell’altro angolo diametralmente opposto, non sentendo quelli, che saranno nel mezzo.« On this very versatile character, see also Denise ARICO, Scienza, teatro e spiritualita barocca, It gesuita Mario Bettini, Bologna 1996. 68 BARBIERI, Speaking trumpet (sce note 3), p. 228. Even certain anatomists of the period, however, claimed that the cochlea of the human ear amplified the sounds because of the repeated reflections of the sound rays within it: see, for example, in 1669, MOLINETTO, Dissertationes (see note 34), p. 54, 69 Nicola CaBEO, Jn quatuor libros meteorologicorum Aristotelis commentaria, et quaestio- nes, I, Roma 1646, p. 69. Cabeo (1586-1650) was first a pupil of Biancani (1605-1610) and then, in 1619-1621, his colleague at the college of S. Rocco in Parma, as professor‘The Jesuit acousticians 173 All these different devices — which were reproposed, often with modifi- cations, by a number of authors — were based on the repeated reflections of sound rays, hence it was often required that the surfaces should be smooth and hard (a requisite that aimed to ensure a regular and rapid outflow of air from the pipe, as already prescribed for wind instruments in the De audi- bilibus).”° Any roughness of the surface, the theorists claimed (at least until the end of the 17th century), would have generated a harsh sound, like that made by a file. Such a naive concept of instrumental timbre is found in Mersenne, for example:” Quant 4 I'aspreté et 4 l'aigreur des sons, elle vient de Vinegalisté de la surface des corps qui frappent ou qui divisent Pair, comme il arrive au bruit qu’on fait en li- mant du fer, ou quelque autre metal; car la lime rompt l’air en autant de parties, comme elle a des grains et d’eminences; et lors que lair divisé et rompu frappe les esprits du nerf de V’ouye, il leur imprime son mouvement, qui leur donne autant de mescontentement, comme les sauveurs aspres a la langue, et comme les surfaces ‘tudes, brates et mal polies au toucher. As for the harshness and sourness of the sounds, it comes from the irregularity of the surface of the bodies that strike or divide the air, as happens for the noise one makes when filing iron or some o- ther metal, For the file breaks the air into as many parts, given that it has grains and projections, and when the air is divi- ded and broken it strikes the spirits of the hearing nerve and imposes its mo- vement on them, giving the same distur- bance as harsh flavours to the tongue and rough, coarse and poorly polished surfa- ces to the touch. According to the passage from the De audibilibus, the regular outflow of air— and therefore the stability and clarity of sound — was also favoured by the instruments that had no bends in their bores. Again this is a concept that of »Physica« and »Metaphysica«: BALDINI, S. Rocco (see note 30), pp. 290, 296. On Mariotte, see BARBIERI, Speaking trumpet, § 4.2. 10 De audibilibus (see note 9), p. 65: »the hom should be dry and evenly strong, and straight and smooth; GoTTSCHALK, The De audibilibus (see note 10), p. 439. 71 MERSENNE, Harmonie Universelle (see note 20), »Traitez de la nature des sons«, p. 29; see also Giulio CASSERIO, De vocis auditusque organis historia anatomica, Ferrara 1601, p. 175 (referring to the inner walls of the flute). The parallel with the file — of peripatetic origin — is found in many other authors, such as Ludovico SETTALA, Commentariorum in Aristotelis Problemata, I, [Erancofurti] 1602, p. 162; Thomas Hoses (1588-1677), The English works, 1, ed. by William Molesworth, London 1839, p. 490; FABRI, Physica (see note 37), II, p. 268.174 Patrizio Barbieri we also encounter in the natural philosophers of the New Science. Francis Bacon says: »All instruments that have either returns, as trumpets; or flex- ions, as cornets; or are drawn up, and put from, as sackbuts; have a purling sound: but the recorder, or flute, that has none of these inequalities, gives a clear sound.«” Until the 19th century many theorists also held that the vibration of the instrument’s walls made a significant contribution to the sound.” In this re- gard, Francesco Eschinardi — one of Kircher’s colleagues at the Collegio Romano — introduced in 1672 a differentiation between (1) ambient air, considered as a simple means for transmitting sound (aria propagante) and (2) pressured air, within the bore, schematized as a complex of microscopic compressed springs (aria sonante). Again according to this theory, the pres- sured air of sound rays would give rise to »new sound« at each impact on the brass walls of the trumpets and megaphones (since »compacted air is equivalent to a solid«), thus progressively reinforcing the sound produced by the preceding impacts.” What the theory of reflections could not in any way justify, however, was (1) the variations in frequency with the length of the tube, and (2) reso- nance (hence also register leaps). This is perhaps the very reason why its application was mainly limited to megaphones. In fact it is singular to note that — until well into the 19th century, with few exceptions — speaking- and military-trumpets were regarded as two instruments responding to totally different theories.” Already in 1680, however, Claude Perrault had made an attempt, albeit not a convincing one, to unite the two theories. Discussing bells, he held 72. Bacon, Sylva sylvarum (see note 11), p. 177. 73. BARBIERI, Speaking trumpet (see note 3), pp. 233f. 74 Francesco ESCHINARDI, De sono pneumatico (see note 45) 1672, p. 6: »in nuper exposito casu [in aére libero], intendi sonum per meram congregationem, sine nova productione: quando quidem sit in aére libero: At si fiat reflexio in aére constipato, v.g. intra tubum aeneum, ad singulas incidentias sit novus sonus saltem virtualiter; nec mere refleetitur sonus antecedens; sed sit alius de novo, ut dixi: Ratio est, quia aér constipatus aequivalet solido: adeoque ex allisione ad solidum, facit novum sonume; Ib., Ragguagli dati ad un’amico in Parigi; sopra alcuni pensieri sperimentabili proposti nell'Accademia Fisi- comatematica di Roma, Rome 1680, pp. 46ff. (varia propagante«, and naria sonante«). 75 See, for example, Claude-Frangois MILLIET DE CHALES, Cursus seu mundus mathemati- cus, Ill, Lyon 1674, pp. 23ff. (theory of the aerial string«, for common trumpets) and pp. 488. (theory »of reflections«, for megaphones).The Jesuit acousticians 175 that the various »partial sounds« (sons partiaux) that make up the »total sound« emitted (son total) correspond to the vibration of as many annular lines: he therefore follows a path that was to lead to the modern concept of »mode of vibration« (Fig. 2). He then observes that the sound produced by a bell diminishes when a hand is laid on it, which does not happen on wind instruments: he therefore conjectures that even wind instruments vibrate by annular lines, though only on the inner surface of the bore. Both in trompet- tes de guerre and in trompettes parlantes the bore widens in a continuous way, hence he concludes that there will always be an annular line in tune with the note to be amplified (i. e. the note emitted by the lips of the player at the mouthpiece).”° Fig. 2: Claude PERRAULT, Essais de physique ow recueil de plusieurs traitez touchant les choses naturelles, Il, Paris 1680. Hypothesis to justify the »partial sounds« emitted by a bell. If the bell is struck at O, the circle NO ovalizes and begins to vibrate, emitting the fundamen- tal note; simultancously the circle ST emits the fifth, VX the octave, PQ the twelfth, and so on. All of these sounds give rise, therefore, to the »total sound, 76 Claude PERRAULT, Essais de physique ou recueil de plusieurs traitec touchant les choses naturelles, Ul, Paris 1680, pp. 97-100, 138f. Lana TeRzi, Magisterium naturae (see note 19), Il, p.403, criticizes this theory (1686), though without explicitly mentioning the name of Perrault. In fact he states that all the annular lines of Fig. 2, regardless of their diameter, vibrate at the same frequency (and his criticism is reasonable, given that Per- rault makes no mention of nodal lines that delimit the various modes of vibration).176 Patrizio Barbieri Though working as late as the end of the 17th century, even Perrault, however, shows — in at least two points of his discussion — that he is still not completely free of the influence of the De audibilibus (though he never mentions it). In fact: 1. In that very period the »Hotteterre-type« flutes had been recently introduced. Unlike the Renaissance flutes, they had bores that tapered like truncated cone away from the mouthpiece. Perrault claims that ~ compared to cylindrical flutes of equal length — these could have a lower pitch precise- ly because the shape of the bore would create a greater obstacle to the out- low of air.” 2. To an (erroneous) theory expounded in the De audibilibus he also re- fers to justify the production of high harmonies by a vibrating string.”* In 1686 the vibration of the walls of an organ pipe was also maintained by Lana Terzi.” According to his hypothesis, the upper lip is set in vibration by the outflow of air from the flue, in a similar way to the vibration of a string excited by a bow or to that of a ditch reed lapped by the current of a river. Although this is certainly not the contribution that established the fun- damental frequency of the pipe, the most recent research has demonstrated that the vibration of the upper lip can make a contribution of some impor- tance to timbre during the attack transient.*° 77 Idem, Il, p. 169. On the problem, see Patrizio BarBIeR!, Gli strumenti a flato, in: Acus- tica musicale ¢ architettonica, ed. by Sergio Cingolani and Renato Spagnolo, Torino 2004, pp. 271-350, 924-929: 346f. 78 BARBIERI, )Galileo's¢ coincidence theory (see note 1), p. 225. 79 Lana Ten“, Magisterium naturae (see note 19), Il, p. 397. 80 Malte Kos, Influence of Wal! Vibrations on the Transient Sound of a Flue Organ Pipe, in: Acustica — acta acustica LXXXVI (2000), pp. 642-648. Andras MIKLOs, Judit ANGSTER, Properties of the Sound of Flue Organ Pipes, in: idem, pp. 611-622; Patrizio BARBIERI, L ‘organo, in: Acustica musicale (see note 77), pp. 351-383, 929-932: 376.The Jesuit acousticians 177 4, THEORY OF THE »WHIRLPOOL« Fig. 3: From Honoré FABRI, Physica, id est, scientia rerum corporearim in decem tractatus distributa, IL, Lyon 1670. Figs. 66, 67 and 69: path of the aerial whirlpools in an organ pipe; Fig, 68: flute. In chapter 1 we examined the theories -»of volumes« or »of velocity« — used by Anselmi, Vincenzo Galilei, Colonna, Bacon, Beeckman and Mersenne to explain the acoustic emission of a windpipe. In 1670 the Jesuit Honoré Fabri was the first to attempt to explain the phenomenon by refer- ring to the frequency of the »impulses of air« (aéris appulsus) flowing out the pipe.’ In Fig. 3 the following happens: 1, the air that enters from the mouth M runs along the pipe with a spiral path (which he compares to the whirlpool created by water going down a drain); 81 Paper, Physica (see note 37), Il, pp. 242-250. 82 A similar spiral path hed already been hypothesized by Saff al-Din, Arab musical theorist who flourished in the mid 13th century (HUNT, Origins in Acoustics [see note 42], p. 71)178 Patrizio Barbieri 2. between the impulse of air that flows out of the mouth M and that which comes out of the top K there is therefore a »delay« (morula) proporti- onal to the length of the tube MK: hence the greater MK, the lower the pitch emitted; 3. if the wind pressure increases, the winding pitch of the spiral increases and hence the frequency of the sound also increases; 4, if the diameter of the tube is doubled, on the other hand, the sound drops by an octave, given that the length of the spiral also doubles. It is above all on this last point that his theory comes unstuck, given that Mersenne had shown that, doubling the diameter, the note drops by only a minor third on average (though Fabri obviously expresses doubts on the re- liability of his findings). This theory, therefore, had no following, though we find it still cited in 1696, in a treatise by the fellow-Jesuit Giovanni Bat- tista Tolomei.* Fabri also attempted an explanation of the harmonics emitted by a flute (Fig. 2: 68). He claimed they were produced by the simultaneous excitation of the possible individual sections in which it can be imagined to be subdi- vided (for example BE, EF, FD, ..., where F indicates the mouth-hole). He confesses, however, to being unable to explain the register leaps (saltus tubae), and indeed states that »with difficulty one could find two tibicines that play all the leaps indicated« by Mersenne.** Unlike Mersenne, however, he not only admits the existence of the seventh harmonic, but is also the first author to claim that it is capable of generating consonances, also explain- ing — correctly — why this sound was excluded from our musical scale. 83 MERSENNE, Harmonie Universelle (see note 20), »Traité des instrumens 4 chordes«, pp. 331f. 84 Giovanni Battista ToLoMEl, Philosophia mentis et sensuum secundum utramque Aristo- telis methodum pertractata metaphysice et empirice, Roma 1696, p. 616. On this author, who was a professor at the Collegio Romano in 1692-1695, see BALDINI, Boscovich e la tradizione gesuitica in filosofia naturale: continuita e cambiamento, in: R. J. Boscovich. Vita ¢ attivita scientifica, ed. by Piers Bursill-Hall, Roma 1993, pp. 81-132: 91 ff. See also Honoré FAaRi, Ad P, Jgnatium Pardesium ejusdem Societatis Jesu Epistolae tres de sua hypothesi philosophica, Mainz. 1674, p. 32, in which the author mentions the theory in question to Pardies. FABRI, Phyisica (see note 37), II, pp. 2476: »vix duos tibicines invenias qui praedictos [from Mersenne] omnes saltus faciant« 86 BARBIERI, »Galileo'se coincidence theory (see note 1), pp. 2136. 8