Page:Philosophical Review Volume 1.djvu/186

170 it, Yu comes to fall upon Huang-chung. The key of Tche, which the heading goes on to specify, is then a key referring to a primitive scale in which not Koung but Kong coincides with the primal Lu. If this surmise is correct, the Chinese system of modulation has a complication not existing in our own, and which may be expressed in European terms by the supposition that our musical notation should represent alternative intonations a minor third apart, so that the same pitch could be called either A or C. The relation of pitch between scales embodying the same key in the two systems is that between the scales of reference themselves, and is expressed in the following scheme:

Mediæval: Y pK K CH Ki pT T Y Ancient: K CH Ki pT T Y pK K

It is such a relation between two Koungs that is illustrated in the transposition from Man-nen-fon to Long-how-sa; and we may infer that in the scales of these two compositions we have the same key given in each of the two systems of modulation, the ancient or major system of Koung, and the mediæval or minor system of Kong. If we assume that the chromatic note in the scale of the Gie-erh and the Kuantzu was introduced to make this transposition possible, the construction of these two instruments becomes evidence that the distinction of major and minor in Chinese music is not a matter of pure theory, but a factor in existing musical practice.

Let us suppose a flute or horn incorporating within a range of ten or twelve notes one of the keys of the mediæval system; for example, Koung = g, as is common in our songs. If it were desired to perform in the same key in the ancient system the notes which it would be of principal importance to add would be g# and c#, as is shown in the following scheme:

Mediæval: T Y pK K CH Ki pT T Y pK K d' e' f# g' (g'#) a' b' c" (c"#) d" e" f"# g" Ancient: pK K CH Ki pT T Y pK K CH