Talk:Abacus Harmonicus

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Musical InstrumentsWikipedia:WikiProject Musical InstrumentsTemplate:WikiProject Musical Instrumentsmusical instruments articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Music theory Low‑importance

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Abacus Harmonicus be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Why was this article created?

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

1) It appears to be a paraphrase of the Webster's dictionary definition.

2) It doesn't explain what the Abacus is, what it's for, who used it, what it looks like, or anything else of value.

3) It ignores other, apparently more common uses of the phrase.

4) The phrase "ancient diagram" (apparently taken from copyrighted sources, e.g., http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Abacus%20harmonicus?r=14), is of little use. Is the diagram no longer valid? And what does "ancient" mean?

This stub doesn't improve Wiki, or serve as a placeholder. It paraphrases something which the author (to all appearances) has no understanding of, serving to confuse the facts, more than anything else.

67.180.48.127 (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Looking at EB, Kircher

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The 1797 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica says under the article "Abacus" that "Abacus Harmonicus is used by Kircher for the structure and disposition of the keys of a musical instrument, whether to be touched with the hands or the feet."

However, looking at Kircher's Musurgia Vniversalis (1650; vol. 1, p. 362), this is not exactly correct. What he describes as Abacus Harmonicus is a table with the title "Tabula mirifica, omnia contrapunctisticae artis arcana revelans." My Latin is rusty (to say the least) but it seems to mean "Wonderful table that reveals all the secret art of counterpoint." So the "Abacus harmonicus" seems to be a table-based method (one element of the table is described as movable) to generate counterpoints.

Does this deserve a Wikipedia entry? Well, one may argue that if it was in the 1797 edition of EB, then it probably belongs in an encyclopedia. Should I correct a 215-year old encyclopedia definition based on my very limited comprehension of Rennaissance era Latin? I don't know. Any comments? vttoth (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Let's keep the article, but more research is needed.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic