Talk:Abacus Harmonicus
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph 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. |
Why was this article created? edit
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 Is the diagram no longer valid?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)
Looking at EB, Kircher edit
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)