mathematical genesis, as seen in its D being a *comma higher* than that of the minor. This gravity and buoyancy of the modes is a striking feature of them. In the Thirds it is different from the Fifths; the larger hemisphere of each third seems gravitating toward the center of the tonic chord. The area of the scale has then the aspect of a planet with its north and south poles, and pervaded by a tendency towards the center; the center itself being neutral as to motion.

It will be observed that this plate represents intervals by its areas, that is, the distances between the notes; and the notes themselves appear as points. But it must be remembered that these distances or intervals represent the vibrations of these notes in the ratios they bear to each other. So it is the vibration-ratios which constitute the intervals here pictorially represented as areas. The area, as space, is nothing; the note itself is everything.

When Leonhard Euler, the distinguished mathematician of the eighteenth century, wrote his essay on a *New Theory of Music*, Fuss remarks - "It has no great success, as it contained too much geometry for musicians, and too much music for geometers." There was a reason which Fuss was not seemingly able to observe, namely, that while it had hold of some very precious musical truth it also put forth some error, and error is always a hindrance to true progress. Euler did good service, however. In his letters to a German Princess on his theory of music he showed the true use of the mathematical primes 2, 3, and 5, but debarred the use of 7, saying, "Were we to introduce the number 7, the tones of an octave would be increased." It was wise in the great mathematician to hold his hand from adding other notes. It is always dangerous to offer strange fire on the altar. He very clearly set forth that while 2 has an unlimited use in producing *Octaves*, 3 must be limited to its use 3 *times* in producing *Fifths*. This was right, for in producing a fourth Fifth it is not a Fifth for the scale. But Euler erred in attempting to generate the *semitonic scale* of 12 notes by the use of the power of 5 a second time on *the original materials*. It produces F# right enough; for D27 by 5 gives 135, which is the number for F#. D27 is the note by which F# is produced, because D is right for this process in its *unaltered* condition. But when Euler proceeds further to use the prime 5 on the middles, A, E, and B, and F#, in their original and unaltered state, he quite errs, and produces all the sharpened notes *too low*. C# for the key of D is not got by applying 5 to A40, as it is in its birthplace; A40 has already been altered for the key of G by a *comma*, and is A40 1/2 before it is used for producing its third; it is A40 1/2 that, multiplied by 5, gives C#202 1/2, not C200, as Euler makes C#. Things are in the same condition with E before G# is wanted for the key of A. G# is found by 5 applied to E; not E in its original and unaltered state, E30; but as already *raised a comma* for the key of D, E30 3/8; so G# is not 300, as Euler has it, but 303 3/4. Euler next, by the same erroneous methods, proceeds to generate D# from B45, its birthplace number; but before D# is wanted for the key of E, B has been raised a comma, and is no longer B45, but B45 9/16, and this multiplied by 5 gives D#227 13/16, not D225, as Euler gives it. The last semitone which he generates to complete his 12 semitones is B?; that is A#, properly speaking, for this series, and he generates it from F#135; but this already altered note, before A# is wanted for the key of B, has been again raised a comma