78 Chapter 5
on the Gregorian chant, Kepler notes that its underlying melodic structure outlines a triad
as “ the skeleton of the octave. ” Kepler ’ s application of the term “ skeleton ” (used earlier
by Pietro Aron, Glarean, and Zarlino) shows his effort to understand the inner construction
of melody, not just its constituent intervals or temperament. He goes so far as to write
down this skeleton explicitly ( figure 5.1 , bottom; ♪ sound example 5.3), emphasizing its
triadic shape, while leaving the Gregorian melody far behind. Seeing it rewritten thus, the
reader is immediately reminded of the Turkish chant, written on the same page in the same
clef ( figure 5.1 , top), as if to suggest that, in skeletal form, the Turkish and Gregorian
chants have some relation. Still, Kepler ’ s text mainly points to what he considers their
differences: where the Turkish chant jumbles dissonance and consonance, Victimae pas-
chali carefully observes their skeletal relations.
Yet Kepler never disclaims the odd resemblance between them, at least at the skeletal
level. This implicit relation remains open because Kepler continues to discuss the melodic
structures of both the Turkish and the Christian chant simultaneously. Ancient musical
theorists gave the terms that Kepler takes up: agog ē (literally “ approach, ” passage from
one consonance directly to another), tom ē ( “ emphasis, ” dwelling on a consonance), petteia
( “ gaming, ” approach via playful “ tiny motions ” ), and plok ē ( “ twisting ” that “ wanders in
its passage around the agog ē , as a dog does around a passerby ” ).^39 In the absence of any
examples of ancient Greek music, Kepler interpreted these terms in light of the music he
knew. He applies the same vocabulary to the Gregorian chant as he does to the Turkish.^40
Throughout, he reinterprets the ancient terminology to fit the musical realities of his
examples.
Kepler emphasizes the polyphonic character of contemporary music as the model for
the polyphony of planetary music, in contrast to the ancients, whose “ music of the spheres ”
( musica mundana ) and “ instrumental music ” ( musica instrumentalis ) he considers to have
been restricted to a single melodic line.^41 Here, Kepler invokes no mathematical argument,
only his profound feeling for polyphonic music, specified in the musical examples he
instances, especially Lasso ’ s motet In me transierunt (1562).^42 This particular motet was
already famous as an example of the Phrygian mode, whose prominent semitone (E-F)
makes it “ sound plaintive, broken, and in a sense lamentable, ” as Kepler puts it.^43 Given
the scope of his reading in contemporary German theorists, Kepler may well have known
Joachim Burmeister ’ s analysis of the musical rhetoric of this motet (1606; ♪ sound example
5.4).^44 Probably citing its opening by heart, Kepler notes the “ rather rare ” rising minor
sixth that then descends by steps ( figure 5.2 , ♪ sound examples 5.5a,b).^45 He comments
on the melodic shape of this opening passage using terms he had applied to the Gregorian
and Turkish chants: “ a single ascending leap over a minor sixth [E – C], with a downward
agog ē [approach] following, expresses the magnitude of grief, and is suitable for wailing, ”
as the minor sixth sinks a semitone, down to a fifth.^46
Kepler does not go further into the details of the motet, recognizing ruefully that he is
not up to the task. He calls inquiry into the relation between sounds and affects “ various