Years Ago David E.

Rowe, Editor

f Leonhard Euler’s thirty thousand published pages,

Euler’s Musical O only a few hundred are devoted to music, but these
have special significance in his vast oeuvre, even

Mathematics though they are among his least-known works. Music was
among the first topics he addressed at length, and he
returned to it several times throughout his life. Moreover,
PETER PESIC musical questions led Euler to consider new mathematical
topics and devise new approaches that then characterized
several of his most important initiatives in mathematics and
Dedicated to Barry Mazur physics. Indeed, Euler’s individual mathematical discover-
ies, great as they are, need to be placed in context of his
larger role in the beginnings of modern number theory and
topology. As familiar as these mathematical disciplines
Years Ago features essays by historians and
have become, we cannot take them for granted but should
mathematicians that take us back in time. Whether try to understand how they came into being in Euler’s
hands. In this story, his musical writings open surprising
addressing special topics or general trends, individual perspectives.
Euler stands in a long line of musical mathematicians,
mathematicians or ‘‘schools’’ (as in schools of fish), the arguably reaching back to the Pythagoreans, who con-
nected consonant musical intervals with simple ratios, such
idea is always the same: to shed new light on the
as the octave (2:1) and the perfect fifth (3:2). From Plato
mathematics of the past. Submissions are welcome. until the seventeenth century, music was studied as part of
a ‘‘four-fold way’’ (quadrivium), alongside arithmetic,
geometry, and astronomy. For Johannes Kepler, music was
central to his search for planetary laws of motion in his
Harmonices mundi (1619).1 René Descartes’s first work
was a short Compendium musicae (1618); in subsequent
years, he continued to correspond with Marin Mersenne on
musical matters alongside questions in mathematics and
physics. Mersenne himself considered music the central
science, which he explored in his encyclopedic Harmonie
universelle (1637).2 Isaac Newton’s youthful notes show his
interest in musical ratios; he later tried to impose the
musical octave on the color spectrum (1675).3

Early Musical Writings

Euler also began his studies early in his life, in a milieu that
considered music a liberal art integrally connected with
mathematics, not separate from it. At age 13 (1720), Euler
matriculated at the University of Basel, which included
Submissions to be uploaded to musical studies in its curriculum and was an important
http://tmin.edmgr.com or send directly center of musical thought. His father, a Calvinist pastor,
to David E. Rowe, introduced him to Johann Bernoulli (1667–1748), whom
rowe@mathematik.uni-mainz.de Euler visited on Saturday afternoons to discuss mathematics.

1
See Peter Pesic, ‘‘Earthly Music and Cosmic Harmony: Johannes Kepler’s Interest in Practical Music, Especially Orlando Di Lasso,’’ Journal of Seventeenth-Century
Music 11(1), (2005), http://www.sscm-jscm.org/v11/no1/pesic.html.
2
For a fuller discussion of Descartes, Mersenne, Kepler, and Newton, as well as of Euler, Helmholtz, Riemann, and others, see Peter Pesic, Music and the Making of
Modern Science (MIT Press, forthcoming, 2014).
3
See ibid., chap. 8, and Peter Pesic, ‘‘Isaac Newton and the Mystery of the Major Sixth: A Transcription of His Manuscript ‘Of Musick’ with Commentary,’’
Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 31 (2006), 291–306.

 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York, Volume 35, Number 2, 2013 35
DOI 10.1007/s00283-013-9369-5
Johann noted his extraordinary talents and persuaded consider between music and mathematics should not be
Euler’s father to allow his son to follow his mathematical understood as ‘‘interdisciplinary,’’ because Euler’s early
interests; thereafter, Johann continued to correspond with studies considered music and mathematics as part of a
Euler about mathematical, scientific, and musical questions, single coordinated whole, as the quadrivium had long
as did his son Johann II (1710–1790). mandated.
Indeed, Euler was much occupied with music through- Indeed, in his early manuscripts, notes on musical the-
out his life. Nicholas Fuss, his student, son-in-law, and ory precede any material relating to his second printed
secretary, recorded that ‘‘Euler’s chief relaxation was music, work, ‘‘Physical Dissertation on Sound’’ (1726), indicating
but even here his mathematical spirit was active. Yielding the path that led him, already in his late teens, from music
to the pleasant sensation of consonance, he immersed to the mathematical physics of sound.6 Starting with the
himself in the search for its cause and during musical work of Newton and Johann Bernoulli the elder, Euler
performances would calculate the proportion of tones.’’4 extended the mechanics of sound waves to wind instru-
This quest for a new mathematics of music persisted ments, an application of particular interest to him. Although
throughout his productive life. beyond the scope of this article, Euler’s early work on
Euler’s earliest scientific notebooks include an outline sound laid the foundation for his advocacy of the contin-
he prepared at age 19 (1726) for a projected work he uum cosmology, for his seminal work on fluid mech-
entitled ‘‘Theoretical Systems of Music,’’ an ambitious sur- anics, as well as for his interest in the analogy between
vey for which he intended to include sections on sound and light that led him to argue for a wave theory of
composition in one and many voices, treating both melodic light.7
and harmonic writing.5 His outline also envisaged chapters During this same period, Euler was also working on a
on various dances, as well as larger musical forms. Clearly, more speculative, larger work, his Tentamen novae theorae
Euler’s interest in music encompassed many aspects of musicae ex certissimis harmoniae principiis dilucide
contemporary composition and practical music making, not expositae (Essay on a New Theory of Music Based on the
only its mathematical elements. The connections we will Most Certain Principles of Harmony Clearly Expounded).8

.........................................................................................................................................................

PETER PESIC began his studies in mathematics and music at Harvard and Stanford, where he earned his
AUTHOR

doctorate in physics; today he is Tutor and Musician-in-Residence at St. John’s College in Santa Fe, New
Mexico. As a pianist, he has played at many places in the United States and in Europe. His books include Abel’s
Proof: An Essay on the Sources and Meaning of Mathematical Unsolvability (MIT Press, 2003), and annotated
editions of works by Max Planck, James Clerk Maxwell, Carl Friedrich Gauss, and Hermann Weyl. He also
edited the anthologies Beyond Geometry: Classic Papers from Riemann to Einstein (Dover, 2007) and
Hermann Weyl’s Levels of Infinity: Selected Writings on Mathematics and Philosophy (Dover, 2012). He has
just completed a new book on Music and the Making of Modern Science.

St. John’s College

Santa Fe, NM 87505
United States
e-mail: ppesic@sjcsf.edu

4
From Fuss’s ‘‘Eulogy in Memory of Leonhard Euler,’’ in A. P. Yushkevich, N. N. Bogolyubov, and G. K. Mikhaıˇlov (eds.), Euler and Modern Science, Mathematical
Association of America, Washington, D.C., 2007, 375.
5
See S. S. Tserlyuk-Askadskaya, ‘‘Euler’s Music-Theoretical Manuscripts and the Formation of His Conception of the Theory of Music,’’ in Euler and Modern Science,
349–360, Yushkevich et al., Euler and Modern Science, 75. For reproductions of Euler’s notebooks, see H. Bredekamp and W. Velminki (eds.), Mathesis & Graphé:
Leonhard Euler und die Entfaltung der Wissenssysteme, Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 2010, 39–64.
6
For the original text, see ‘‘Dissertatio physico de sono,’’ E2, III.1.183-196. The original text of this and other works by Euler may also be found in Leonhard Euler, Opera
Omnia, B. G. Teubner, Leipzig, 1911. For convenience, I will cite them by the standard Eneström number of each item, here E2, and its place in the Opera omnia by
series, volume, and pages, here III.1.183-296. These works (along with helpful listings of translations and secondary literature) can be found at the online Euler Archive
at http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/*euler/. Euler’s first published paper, ‘‘Constructio linearum isochronarum in medio quocunque resistente,’’ E1, II.6.1-3, con-
cerned the brachistochrone problem, finding a curve along which a particle falls in the shortest time. See C. Edward Sandifer, The Early Mathematics of Leonhard Euler,
Mathematical Association of America, Washington, D.C., 2007, 3–5.
7
See Leonhard Euler and C. Truesdell, Rational Fluid Mechanics, 1687–1765: Editor’s Introduction to Vol. II, 12 of Euler’s Works, Orell Füssli, Zürich, 1954; C. Truesdell,
The Rational Mechanics of Flexible or Elastic Bodies, 1638–1788: Introduction to Leonhardi Euleri Opera Omnia Vol X et XI Seriei Secundae, Orell Füssli, Zurich, 1960;
G. K. Mikhaı̌lov and L. I. Sedov, ‘‘The Foundations of Mechanics and Hydrodynamics in Euler’s Works,’’ Yushkevich et al., Euler and Modern Science, 167–181;
Lokenath Debnath, The Legacy of Leonhard Euler: A Tricentennial Tribute, Imperial College Press, London, 2010, 297–336. For an overview of Euler’s relation to
physics, see Dieter Suisky, Euler as Physicist, Springer, Berlin, 2009; for further discussion of Euler’s work on the theories of sound and light, see Pesic, Music and the
Making of Modern Science, chap. 10.
8
See Hermann Richard Busch, Leonhard Eulers Beitrag zur Musiktheorie, G. Bosse, Regensburg, 1970; E. V. Gertsman, ‘‘Euler and the History of a Certain Musical-
Mathematical Idea,’’ Yushkevich et al., Euler and Modern Science, 335–347.

36 THE MATHEMATICAL INTELLIGENCER

Unable to find a job in his native city, in 1727 Euler moved
from Basel to St. Petersburg, where he obtained the chair of
natural philosophy in 1730, the year he completed writing
his Tentamen. By devoting so much of his attention to this
work during the crucial period in which he needed to
establish himself in a permanent position, Euler showed
how integral he considered music to be to mathematics and
natural philosophy.
Euler began his Tentamen by reviewing his earlier work
on the physical basis of sound. Dissatisfied with the tradi-
tional Pythagorean lore that simple ratios such as 1:2
(octave) are more perfect than complex ones such as
243:256 (semitone), Euler argued that they were more
pleasurable and calculated the exact degrees of pleasure
involved.9 Euler’s calculus of sentiment pioneered a new
mathematics of aesthetics, a field that remains scarcely
explored.10 To connect perceived feeling with mathemati-
cal order, he stipulated that ‘‘two or more sounds are
pleasing when the ratio, which exists between the numbers
of vibrations produced at the same time, is understood; on
the other hand, dissatisfaction is present when either no
order is felt or that order which it seems to have is suddenly
confused.’’ To make this quantitative, ‘‘we graded this
perceptive ability in certain degrees, which are of the Figure 1. Euler’s diagram visualizing the relative agreeable-
greatest importance in music and also may be found to be ness of various simple ratios of sound pulsation, from his
of great value in other arts and sciences of which beauty is Tentamen (1739).
a part. Those degrees are arranged in accordance with the
ease of perceiving the ratios, and all those ratios that can be At the same time, though, this diagram represents the
perceived with equal facility are related to the same coincidences between the sound ‘‘pulses’’ and hence rep-
degree.’’ This he calls their degree of agreeableness (gradus resents geometrically the interrelation between the sound
suavitatis), which might be translated as sweetness, charm, waves. Implicitly, Euler’s two different meanings converge:
or tunefulness.11 agreeableness correlated with the relative congruity of the
The priority the ancients had given to the intervals and two wave forms, which Hermann von Helmholtz made
ratios themselves Euler now assigned to the perceiving explicit in his physical theory of consonance more than a
human subject.12 For the first degree of agreeableness he century later (with due acknowledgment to Euler).13 Still,
takes the unison, 1:1 (which some ancient sources refused in his Tentamen Euler worked mostly within the older
to consider an interval at all); for the second, the octave, temperaments based on whole-number ratios, rather than
1:2; the ratios 1:3 (twelfth) and 1:4 (double octave) both the newer equal temperament, which requires division of
occupy the third degree, because ‘‘which of these last two the octave into p 12ffiffiffi equal semitones, each given by the
is the more easily perceived is disputable.’’ Euler illustrates irrational factor 12 2: For instance, J. S. Bach’s Wohltempi-
his reasoning with a diagram (Fig. 1) showing ‘‘the pulses erte Klavier (1722) required a temperament capable of
in the air as dots placed in a straight line. The distances playing in all 24 major and minor keys.14 As we shall see,
between the dots correspond to the intervals of the pulses,’’ Euler returned to this issue in later life.
which he takes as visualizing their degree of understand- With his chosen limitations, Euler’s quest for a precise
ability and hence agreeableness. degree of agreeableness informed his mathematical

9
In his earliest writings, Euler seems unaware of Leibnitz’s 1712 comment that the beauty of music ‘‘consists only in the harmonies of numbers and in a calculation,
which we do not perceive but which the soul nevertheless carries out, a calculation concerning the beats or vibrations of sounding bodies, which are encountered at
certain intervals.’’ See Walter Bühler, ‘‘Musikalische Skalen und Intervalle bei Leibniz unter Einbeziehung bisher nicht veröfftentlichter Texte I,’’ Studia Leibnitiana 42
(2010), 129–161.
10
Among the very few other attempts, note George David Birkhoff, Aesthetic Measure, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1933. Birkhoff’s basic
equation, M ¼ O C (where M is the aesthetic measure, O the order, and C the complexity), is consistent with Euler’s approach.
11
C. S. (Charles Samuel) Smith, Leonhard Euler’s Tentamen Novae Theoriae Musicae: A Translation and Commentary, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, 1974, 27–28.
E33, III.1.197-427; Preface. All citations from this work will follow this translation, indicating also the chapter and section number.
12
The traditional hierarchy of musical intervals simply assumed that ‘‘multiple’’ ratios, such as 1:n, and ‘‘superparticular’’ ratios, of the form (n + 1):n, were superior to
other classes of ratios, without any further justification beyond their greater ‘‘simplicity.’’
13
Hermann von Helmholtz, On the Sensations of Tone as a Physiological Basis for the Theory of Music, Alexander John Ellis (ed. and trans.), 2d English, Dover
Publications, New York, 1954, 229–233.
14
I thank Walter Bühler for pointing out to me that Euler discusses equal temperament in his early ‘‘Adversaria mathematica’’ (1726, f. 45r) and briefly in Euler’s Tentamen,
204–205 (IX§17). Bach does not call for ‘‘equal’’ but ‘‘well’’ (presumably unequal) temperament, about whose detail there remains much controversy. For the continuing
mathematical effects of earlier controversies about tuning, see Peter Pesic, ‘‘Hearing the Irrational: Music and the Development of the Modern Concept of Number,’’ Isis 101
(2010), 501–530. See also Ross W. Duffin, How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony (and Why You Should Care), W. W. Norton, New York, 2007.

 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York, Volume 35, Number 2, 2013 37
rankings. From his decision to assign the degree 1 to 1:1
and 2 to 1:2, Euler notes that ‘‘by the simple operation of
halving or doubling, the degree of agreeableness is chan-
ged by unity.’’ Accordingly, to ratios of the form 1:2n he
assigns the degree (n + 1), because ‘‘the degrees progress
equally in ease of perception. Thus, the fifth degree is
perceived with more difficulty than the fourth,’’ and so on.
In light of this, he chooses the degree n always to be
integral, never fractional ‘‘since in this case the ratio would
be irrational and impossible to recognize,’’ implying an
underlying rationality to the felt quality of agreeableness.
For ratios of the form 1:p, where p is prime, he assigns the
degree p, ‘‘by induction’’ (as he puts it), assigning both 1:3
and 1:4 to the same degree, namely 3. He then argues that
1:pq (where both p and q are prime) has degree p + q – 1.
A few more steps lead him to the general conclusion that Figure 2. Euler’s table of the first ten degrees of agreeable-
for any composite number m composed of n prime factors
ness of musical intervals.
whose sum is s, the ratio 1:m has the degree of agree-
ableness s – n + 1. He concludes that the degree of a series
of proportions such as p:q or p:q:r (where p, q, r are primes)
is the same as of 1:pq or 1:pqr, respectively, where Euler things which have a simpler, more easily perceptible order,
calls the least common multiple of these primes the expo- and sadness is conveyed by those things whose order is
nent of the ratio.15 Hence, he assigns to 1:pqr or 1:p:q:r the more complex and more difficult to perceive.’’16 Euler
degree p + q + r – 2. Thus, the fifth (2:3) has degree 5 – presented his species in compendious tables that visually
2 + 1 = 4, the same as 1:6. He sets out the result in a table juxtapose musical and mathematical notations (Fig. 3),
that goes far beyond the traditional set of musical ratios showing how important he considered both and how he
(Fig. 2). sought to bring them together.
Euler’s mathematical schema leads him to include ratios Still, Euler’s scheme has some disturbing features. As
that have no precedent in traditional music theory; the most noted earlier, his approach assigns the same degree to an
important sixteenth-century theorist, Gioseffo Zarlino, had interval between two notes (in the example above, 1:pqr) as
argued that only numbers up to 6 (the senario, as he called to a triad (here, p:q:r), which seems in conflict with the
them) are allowable in musical ratios, but Euler makes a more fundamental status of triads in the musical framework
case for going beyond this limit. In so doing, and in the of conventional harmony. More troubling, Euler’s scheme
whole layout of his table of intervals, Euler makes conso- assigns the same degree to the most familiar (and ‘‘conso-
nance and dissonance really a matter of degree, as opposed nant’’) triadic harmony C–E–G as well as to a number of
to the traditional tendency to distinguish sharply between strong dissonances (such as 3:7 or 4:7), according to the
them. He is led to this notably innovative step by his older, qualitative listings of intervals. He later returned to
mathematics, which phrases both in the same general the issue of including the previously proscribed number 7.
language of ratios, as well as by his awareness of the But he never really addressed the fundamental problem
expressive power of dissonance. that his system assigns the same degree to the dissonant
Euler thus found a new numerical index that, to some major seventh chord C–E–G–B as it does to the consonant
extent, correlates with traditional (and aural) judgments of triad C–E–G.17
relative consonance but is far more precise. Consider, for
instance, a major triad formed in the ratios 4:5:6. As noted Music and Number Theory
above, its degree will be the same as that of 1:456 = 1:120, To simplify calculations in his Tentamen, Euler was one of
determined by the prime factors of its exponent, the first to apply logarithms to musical ratios.18 This fairly
60 = 22 9 3 9 5, in which s = 12 and n = 4, so that the obvious musical application then induces Euler to take a
degree in both cases is s – n + 1 = 9. Euler’s arguments new mathematical step, because expressing a logarithm’s
explain, for example, why a major triad (such as C-E-G, magnitude calls for the use of irrational numbers in general.
with ratios 4:5:6) sounds ‘‘happier’’ than a minor triad (E-G- For example, Euler notes that ‘‘since the measure of the
B, in ratio 5:6:7). In his scheme, the major triad is in the octave is log 2, which is 0.3010300 according to the table,
ninth, the minor in the fourteenth degree; the minor triad is and since the fifth is log 3 – log 2, or 0.1760913, the ratio of
therefore more ‘‘sad’’ because ‘‘joy is conveyed by those the octave to the fifth will be approximately 0.3010300/

15
Note that both the sum and number of terms of 1:p:q:r are increased by 1 compared to p:q:r, so that the degrees s – n + 1 of both ratios are the same.
16
Smith, Euler’s Tentamen, 72 (II§14). For further discussion of the context and implications of the status of the minor mode, see Pesic, Music and the Making of
Modern Science, chap. 9.
17
As pointed out by James Jeans, Science & Music, Dover Publications, New York, 1968, 155–156, who uses the ratios 8:10:12:15 for the major seventh chord.
18
Smith, Euler’s Tentamen, 119–122 (IV§35–39). Euler seems unaware that he was anticipated in this by Bishop Juan Caramuel de Lobkowitz in 1670 and Christiaan
Huygens in 1724, as well as by Leibniz; see Bühler, ‘‘Musikalische Skalen und Intervalle bei Leibniz,’’ 159–161.

38 THE MATHEMATICAL INTELLIGENCER

Figure 3. Euler’s musical illustration of the first ten species of harmony, according to his degrees of agreeableness.

0.1760913.’’ The advantage of using these musical loga- continued fractions, as they emerged in his musical treat-
rithms challenged Euler to find workable approximations ment, provided an ideal means for expressing irrational
to their infinite decimal expressions: ‘‘In order to reduce numbers. In this paper, Euler presented the first proof that e
this to smaller numbers, this ratio is changed into the fol- is irrational by writing it as a continued fraction,
lowing fraction:

From this we can derive the simple ratios 2:1, 3:2, 5:3, 7:4,
12:7, 17:10, 29:17, 41:24, 53:31, of which the last is the
closest to the true ratio.’’19 These successive approxima-
tions come from truncating the fraction at successive points
downward in the denominator of this continued fraction, a
name John Wallis had coined only a few years previously
(1695). Euler seems to have been the first to apply con-
tinued fractions to music, thereby reducing the irrational Euler often returned to continued fractions throughout his
expressions of logarithms to a sequence of ‘‘simple ratios,’’ later work; although he applied them widely, he was first
in accordance with his musical starting point.20 drawn to use them in addressing musical problems.22
In the years following the writing of the Tentamen (and Nor were the mathematical effects of his musical work
as he prepared for its publication in 1739), Euler wrote ‘‘On restricted to this one particular technique. Though Euler’s
continued fractions’’ (1737), the first sustained treatment of name later became so closely associated with number
this new kind of mathematical object.21 He realized that theory, his interest in this field began after his earliest work

19
Smith, Euler’s Tentamen, 121 (IV§38).
20
Ibid., 16.
21
Leonhard Euler, ‘‘An Essay on Continued Fractions,’’ Myra F. Wyman and Bostwick F. Wyman (trans.), Theory of Computing Systems 18 (1985), 302–305. Original
text E71, I.14.187-216.
22
For his proof of the irrationality of e, see Euler, ‘‘An Essay on Continued Fractions.’’ See also the discussion in Sandifer, The Early Mathematics of Leonhard Euler,
234–248; C. Edward Sandifer, How Euler Did It, Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC, 2007, 185–190.

 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York, Volume 35, Number 2, 2013 39
on music. In fact, the period of his greatest activity in number-theoretical work. The Pythagoreans had already
number theory took place while he was preparing the investigated perfect numbers (each equal to the sum of its
Tentamen, so it was well after his arrival in St. Petersburg in proper divisors, such as 6 = 1 + 2 + 3) and pairs of ami-
1727 and his subsequent correspondence with Christian cable numbers, for which each is the sum of the other’s
Goldbach (who moved to Moscow shortly after Euler’s proper divisors, such as 220 and 284. Both types of num-
arrival). Thus, in December 1729, Goldbach wrote Euler to bers became important to Euler, but he had already laid the
ask him whether ‘‘Fermat’s observation [is] known to you, groundwork for their study in his Tentamen. For any
n
that all numbers 22 þ 1 are prime? He [Fermat] said he number m, Euler’s s(m) is the sum of its proper divisors. In
could not prove it; nor has anyone else done so to my a 1747 article, Euler further defined r(m) as the sum
knowledge.’’23 Euler’s rather indifferent response indicates of all the divisors of m, including m itself, so that
that, even by that date, he was not greatly interested in this r(m) = s(m) + m. Then two numbers j and m are amica-
fundamental question. Only after Goldbach prodded him ble if r(m) = m + j = r(j), a simple symmetric condition.26
in a subsequent letter did Euler catch fire; he then dis- Euler also discovered 30 new pairs of amicable numbers,
proved Fermat’s conjecture by showing that the fifth Fermat compared to the four known previously. His 1747 paper
5
number, 22 þ 1 ¼ 4; 294; 967; 297; is divisible by 641. lists them in a format that is strikingly similar to his diagrams
After that, Euler read Fermat ever more closely and took up ranking musical intervals in the Tentamen.
number theory with particular passion. His first result already
underlines his phenomenal abilities as a calculator; such a Music and the Birth of the Topological Approach
factorization, without any mechanical aids, required great skill The influence of Euler’s musical work is also discernible in
combined with mathematical acumen.24 The same fascination a very different arena of his activity, the new realm of
with the pure manipulation and calculation of numbers also mathematics that emerged with his famous solution to the
pervades his musical Tentamen, of which the tables shown problem of whether one could make a complete circuit of
previously are only a small sample of the many pages he the Königsberg bridges (Fig. 4), returning to the starting
devotes to lists of numbers connected with his musical point by crossing each of the seven bridges only once.
scheme. Indeed, given Euler’s ability to execute lightning As late as 1736, Euler wrote that he considered this problem
mental computations of great complexity, one can readily to be ‘‘banal,’’ because its solution ‘‘bears little relationship to
imagine that he may have been able to compute degrees of mathematics, and I do not understand why you expect a
agreeableness for what he was hearing, perhaps even in ‘‘real mathematician to produce it, rather than anyone else, for the
time.’’ At the least, his Tentamen contains his retrospective solution is based on reason alone, and its discovery does not
account of musical awareness in terms of explicit arithmetic. depend on any mathematical principle.’’27 Later that same
Even before he began his correspondence with Goldbach, year, however, Euler must have changed his mind, for he now
Euler’s absorption in the intricate arithmetic of his music theory took what later would be called a ‘‘topological’’ approach to
provided fertile ground on which his ensuing interest in num- this problem as an example of a branch of geometry ‘‘that has
ber theory could grow. The modern concept of ‘‘pure been almost unknown up to now; Leibniz spoke of it first,
mathematics’’ should not blind us to the many ways in which, in calling it the ‘geometry of position’ [geometria situs]. This
Euler’s time, no hard barrier separated it from the ‘‘applied’’
branches of what we now call physics, engineering, or music
theory, all disciplinary names that he would not have known,
much less separated absolutely. It was natural for Euler to fol-
low his intricate musical arithmetic into the further studies of the
properties of numbers that came to be called ‘‘number theory.’’
According to André Weil, Euler’s 1729 work was the ‘‘rebirth’’ of
number theory, as Euler’s work on the harmonic series and its
generalizations marked ‘‘the birth of analytic number theory.’’25
Looking back to the Tentamen, many of Euler’s musical
arguments directly imply arithmetical problems that lead
straight to the more general questions he later addressed
about the properties of numbers. His definition s – n + 1
for the gradus suavitatis of a musical interval involves Figure 4. Euler’s diagram of the city of Königsberg, the
counting the n prime factors of the interval’s exponent and Kneiphof island (A), and the seven bridges over the River
their sum s; these became central topics in his ensuing Pregel, a, b, …, g.

23
Mark McKinzie, ‘‘Euler’s Observations on Harmonic Progressions,’’ in Euler at 300: An Appreciation, Robert E Bradley, Lawrence A. D’Antonio, and C. Edward
Sandifer (eds.), Mathematical Association of America, Washington, D.C., 2007, 131–141. See also M. Bullynck, ‘‘Leonhard Eulers Wege zur Zahlentheorie,’’ in
Bredekamp and Velminski, Mathesis & Graphé, 157–175.
24
I thank Noam Elkies for pointing out to me that 641 is the smallest natural candidate divisor of F5; even so, demonstrating that it is indeed a divisor requires lengthy
calculation.
25
André Weil, Number Theory: An Approach Through History from Hammurapi to Legendre, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1984, 267, 3.
26
William Dunham, Euler: The Master of Us All, Mathematical Association of America, Washington, D.C., 1999, 7–12. See E152, I.2.86-162, and also Sandifer, How
Euler Did It, 49–62.
27
Casper Hakfoort, Optics in the Age of Euler: Conceptions of the Nature of Light, 1700-1795, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995, 60–65, at 61.

40 THE MATHEMATICAL INTELLIGENCER

Figure 5. Euler’s illustrations of polyhedra in his ‘‘Elements of the doctrines of solids’’ (1752).

branch of geometry deals with relations dependent on posi- Euler’s crucial innovation here was to introduce the
tion alone, and investigates the properties of position; it does concept of the edge (acies) of a polyhedron, which, curi-
not take magnitudes into consideration, nor does it involve ously enough, had never before been explicitly defined.
calculation with quantities.’’28 Euler drew from Euclid the concept of a polyhedron’s faces
At that point, Euler generalized the Königsberg prob- (facies) and its angulus solidus, here meaning not ‘‘solid
lem to ‘‘any configuration of the river and the branches angle’’ (in its present sense) but the point from which such
into which it may divide, as well as any number of bridges, an angle emerges, later called a ‘‘vertex’’ by Legendre
to determine whether or not it is possible to cross each (about 1794). If a solid polyhedron is bounded by plane
bridge exactly once.’’ Although Euler’s 1736 paper is faces, Euler concluded that ‘‘the sum of the number of solid
generally regarded as the origin of graph theory, that term angles plus the number of faces exceeds the number of
was only introduced by J. J. Sylvester in 1878 and its ter- edges by 2,’’ or V + F – E = 2, ‘‘Euler’s polyhedral for-
minology codified by George Pólya and others about mula.’’ Here the requirement of closure for the polyhedron
1936.29 Euler reduced topography to alphabetic symbol- corresponds to the connectedness of an Euler walk in the
ism and derived simple rules, though without defining a Königsberg problem.31 By identifying V, F, and E, Euler
numerical index that would ‘‘involve calculation with now could define the index V + F – E = 2.
quantities,’’ as he put it. The structure of this relation is strikingly similar to the
Euler later devised such an index when he returned to degree of agreeableness of musical intervals. Both V + F –
the ‘‘geometry of position’’ in his ‘‘Elements of the doctrines E = 2 and s – n + 1 = d provide a general categorization
of solids’’ (1752), the first of two papers on the relations of polyhedra and musical intervals, respectively, subsum-
between the number of vertices (V), edges (E), and faces ing their individual differences under a larger genus,
(F) of polyhedra (Fig. 5).30 although Euler’s musical degree was more general than his

28
‘‘The Seven Bridges of Königsberg,’’ in J. R. Newman (ed.), World of Mathematics, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1956, 1:573–580 (emphasis added). Original text
E53, I.7.1–10. See also B. Mahr and W. Velminski, ‘‘Denken in Modellen: Zur Lösung des Königsberger Brückenproblems,’’ in Bredekamp and Velminski, Mathesis &
Graphé, 85–100.
29
See Norman Biggs, E. Keith Lloyd, and Robin J. Wilson, Graph Theory, 1736–1936, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1986. See also W. Velminski (ed.), Leonhard Euler, die
Geburt der Graphentheorie: Ausgewählte Schriften von der Topologie zum Sodoku, Kulturverlag Kadmos, Berlin, 2009.
30
Elementa doctrina solida,’’ E230, I.26.71–93; ‘‘Demonstratio nonnullarum insignium proprietatum, quibus solida hedris planis inclusa sunt praedita’’ E231, I.26.94–
109. For commentary, see Sandifer, How Euler Did It, 9–18.
31
Note that Euler states his conclusion verbally, rather than algebraically. For an excellent presentation of the details of both arguments and their connections, see David
S. Richeson, Euler’s Gem: The Polyhedron Formula and the Birth of Topology, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 2008. See also Debnath, The Legacy
of Leonhard Euler, 153–173.

 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York, Volume 35, Number 2, 2013 41
polyhedral formula, which only later was generalized to the
‘‘Euler characteristic’’ v = V + F – E. Indeed, there was
scarcely any precedent before Euler for defining such an
index where it did not obviously present itself. The degree
of a polynomial equation is far more manifest in its alge-
braic expression than would be the putative definition of
the ‘‘degree’’ of a polyhedron, much less of a musical
interval, where it had no previous meaning. In his musical
work, Euler first devised the general classificatory strategy
he then applied to the polyhedron problem by defining a
numerical index that would establish a clear taxonomy
unifying all convex polyhedra.
Euler thus discovered not just the first important insights
that later grew into the field of combinatorial topology, but,
more deeply, discovered indexing as a crucial (and novel) tool
of what became the topological approach itself. Music was a
peculiarly appropriate first venue for this new topological
thinking, because musical intervals do not have the kind of
spatial structure that seems to govern elementary geometry.
The lack of visible evidence—and his judgment of the insuf-
ficiency of the traditional criterion of ‘‘simplicity’’ of ratio—
opened the door to his definition of degree, which he ulti-
mately tied to his auditory criteria of suavitas. After Euler took Figure 6. (A) Euler’s example of a dominant seventh chord
this initial step away from the traditional givens of mathemat- built on the note C (identified by the C clef on the bottom line
ics, such as pure ratios, it was much easier to think in essentially of the staff): C, E, G, B[, as dominant seventh in the key of F.
the same way when he came to the Königsberg problem and (B) A progression cited by Euler outlining the key of C
then to polyhedra. For each, Euler devised a degree that would especially through the penultimate dominant seventh chord
have an invariant significance, bringing together particular 7
(marked ). Note the parallel octaves between the lower
cases previously considered quite distinct.32 3
voices, from the second to the third (D–E) and fourth to the
fifth (F–G) chord. From ‘‘On the True Character of Modern
Later Musical Writings Music’’ (1764).
During the remainder of his long life, Euler returned to
musical questions several times, reaffirming and reconsidering
his youthful work in the Tentamen, especially the issue of
intervals involving the number 7. In a series of papers
beginning in 1760, Euler was among the first to argue that irrational proportion,’’ because it can be approximated by
the number 7 was essential to the chord he and his con- whole-number ratios.34 Thus he remained in this sense faithful
temporaries were beginning to call the dominant seventh to the Pythagorean vision of whole numbers as the true basis
(Fig. 6).33 of music. Nonetheless, Euler praises ‘‘modern’’ music as
Euler rightly notes the importance of this dissonant chord in ‘‘sublime, because its character consists in a higher degree of
the heightened expressivity of what he calls ‘‘modern,’’ as harmony,’’ compared to ancient music as ‘‘common [com-
opposed to ‘‘ancient,’’ music. This continues and complements mune],’’ in the sense of adhering to common harmonic
his account of musical ‘‘sadness,’’ mentioned earlier. Euler also practice.35 Yet he never cites a single musical example that
addressed the issue of equal temperament, showing that he would give specific insight into his compositional tastes; the
had become aware of its prevalence and musical importance, only composer he ever mentions is Rameau, but then only as
although he argued that ‘‘the ear is not bothered by this a theorist. Disconcertingly, his sole extended musical

32
Modern music theorists have followed Euler’s lead in exploring the geometry and topology of music. Martin Vogel, On the Relations of Tone, V. Kisselbach (trans.),
Verlag für Systematische Musikwissenschaft, Bonn, 1993, 108, argues that Euler’s 1773 work was a precursor of Arthur von Oettingen’s 1866 concept of the Tonnetz,
the generalized tonal pitch space (‘‘tone net’’) taken up by the theorist Hugo Riemann, but already present in Euler’s Tentamen according to Michael Kevin Mooney,
‘‘The ‘Table of Relations’ and Music Psychology in Hugo Riemann’s Harmonic Theory’’ (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, New York, 1996), 29–30. For a stimulating
presentation of musical theory in relation to topology, see Dmitri Tymoczko, A Geometry of Music: Harmony and Counterpoint in the Extended Common Practice,
Oxford University Press, New York, 2011.
33
See his ‘‘Conjecture on the reason for some dissonances generally heard in music’’ (1760), E314, III.1.508–515; ‘‘On the True Character of Modern Music’’ (1764),
E315, III.1.516–539; ‘‘On the True Principles of Harmony Represented in the Mirror of Music’’ (1773), E457, III.1.568–587, discussed further in Pesic, Music and the
Making of Modern Science, chap. 10. Euler’s priority in his analysis of the dominant seventh was noted in 1840 by François-Joseph Fétis, History of Harmony, Mary I.
Arlin (trans.) Pendragon Press, 1994, 97, although in general Fétis is very critical of Euler’s approach (see 69–84). See also Benjamin Downs, ‘‘Sensible Pleasure, Rational
Perfection: Leonhard Euler and the German Rationalist Tradition,’’ Mosaic: Journal of Music Research 2 (2012), http://mosaicjournal.org/index.php/mosaic/article/
view/41/45.
34
See his ‘‘Conjecture’’ (1760), E314, }}7–16.
35
See ‘‘On the True Character of Modern Music’’ (1764), E315.

42 THE MATHEMATICAL INTELLIGENCER

example is a formulaic cadence that violates elementary rules went on during his musical evenings. In any case, con-
of voice leading by allowing parallel octaves (Fig. 6B). Were templating his musical preoccupations augments our sense
these solecisms just typos, or did the great mathematician of his humanity. Euler’s serious and long-sustained
finally have a tin ear?36 Or was he quoting crude hymnody he engagement with music significantly affected his work and
remembered from the Calvinist services of his childhood? helped him open doors into new mathematical realms.
Perhaps our awe at Euler’s seemingly superhuman
abilities would have been tempered by hearing what really

36
I thank Noam Elkies for pointing out to me these problems in Euler’s voice leading. Also thanks to Walter Bühler, Alexei Pesic, and Paul Espinosa (Curator, George
Peabody Library Rare Books, Johns Hopkins University) for their generous help. Figures 4 and 5 appear courtesy of the George Peabody Library, The Sheridan
Libraries, The Johns Hopkins University.

 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York, Volume 35, Number 2, 2013 43