Talk:Quadrivium

Order of Trivium

Why not list the elements of the trivium in this logical order: grammar, logic, rhetoric? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.239.141 (talk) 2005-08-19, 17:30:38

Okay... can you explain that order, tho? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.116.200.186 (talk) 2005-08-22, 15:54:41

The trivium was studied before anything else to ensure students from a plethora of backgrounds and languages had common ground to debate on - you should recall that for much of the period, the only University was that of Paris, which organised itself into linguistically and culturally distinct colleges called Nations, such as that of Navarre, representing francophonia. This derived from Crusader and Templar practices, as is evinced in Malta. Grammar came first to ensure there was no semantic confusion, then logic to ensure the ground to be debated was debated in an orderly manner, and finally rhetoric to enable students to be persuasive, as a first step towards propaganda. Be careful, though, not to apply the same taxonomic method to the quadrivium, which considered its subjects in a more eidetic manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.36.4 (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Study of number

Is there any sort of source for identification of the Quadrivium as a study of number? It feels OR to me. 71.146.143.145 06:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It is quite common. A short search [1] turns up examples such as [2] [3] [4] as examples --Henrygb 11:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Article quality

Doesn't this article seem only semi-literate? 24.186.214.2 02:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, get to work, then! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.66.213 (talk) 2006-08-08, 11:04:32

Astronomy and the Music of the Spheres

This sentence:

"It also lead to ideas combining the various subjects, such as the music of the spheres."

doesn't strike me as exactly correct. The "music of the spheres" was not the combination of disciplines but rather a description, within Astronomy, of the proportions between the magnitudes, distances, or periods of heavenly bodies. While it is true that such a discipline is numerical (like arithmetic), spatial (like geometry), and temporal (like harmonics (aka "music")), this deflects from the fact that it is essentially an attempt to rationally describe observed natural phenomena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.66.213 (talk) 2006-08-08, 11:04:32

I was trying to point out that it was an idea (description if you prefer) which stemmed from the multifaceted elements of the quadrivium.--Henrygb 11:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Both Plato and Cicero discuss the music of the spheres. This is the actual belief that the movement of the planets make noise as they move, but that man cannot hear it because they tune it out. (Cicero compares this to people living near a noisy waterfall who after a while don't notice its sound.) At any rate, this concept predates the quadrivium, which is commonly attributed to Boetheus, by several hundred years. Therefore I am removing the sentence all together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.33.173.164 (talk) 2006-10-28, 13:57:26

You need something about it included, as Pierre d'Ailly's work on cosmological eschatology in this domain was a chief inspiration of Columbus and, through Cusanus, of Kepler and Copernicus, a disproof through reductio ad absurdum establishing that elliptical orbits meant there was space between the shells and therefore the idea was wrong, the first step in supplanting the subject of this meme, the Quadrivium, as an academic norm with scientific method. Though it probably predates the general definition of the quadrivium, our lack of accurate knowledge of the historical derivation of the concept means we can't exclude it. I'm not editing as this verges on OR, however: I intend publishing a detailed examination as a Doctoral thesis in 2014. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.36.4 (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The Golden Ratio

I have deleted the unhinged quasi-mystical diatribe on the golden ratio that was previously taking up space in this article. It was scientifically, mathematically and factually invalid, not to mention confusing and misleading. - Saulglasman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saulglasman (talk • contribs) 07:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, because your criteria are wrong: you approach the subject from the taxonomic angle of modern scientific method, whereas the quadrivium included the mystical study of cosmological eschatology, imprecisely termed astrology. In his mid 20th Century studies of Palladio's work, Rudolf Wittkower demonstrated the use of mathematical/musical harmony in classical proportion in architecture, which depended on the use of the Golden Ratio (answering the Who? tag, in other words). The first sentence of your deletion is therefore justified and should be reverted. The naturological extension of the second sentence is more debatable in this context and can be omitted as long as there is a link to the Golden Ratio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.36.4 (talk) 2010-10-08T19:45:15

Eidetic vs. eclectic?

The Medieval usage section had said "The study was eidetic, [...]" with a wiki-link to a non-page that got redirected to the "Eidetic memory" page. I don't believe the word "eidetic" was intended; I suspect "eclectic" is closer to what was meant, based on the context, and if desired can be linked to Wiktionary: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eclectic . However, if the OE can clarify the intent or the particular usage, I'm happy to see the original restored or a more accurate word used. Memetics (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Original order

According to a British journalist and scientific author Ivor Bulmer-Thomas, the original order of the Quadrivium liberal arts was different and was the following: 1. arithmetic; 2. music; 3. geoemtry; 4. astronomy. Subsequently, the position taken by music and geometry would have been inverted by Martianus Capella. The article affirms "both order were attributed to the Pythagoreans, the ultimate source" (doi:10.1017/S0009840X00107462).

The above mentioned source was published by The Classical Association and the related abstract is freely available. It seems to be citable in the WP article.

Good find. The article seems quite highly cited for a classics paper (112 GScholhits). I'll look at what the 2ary literature says: one way or another I think this can be cited; it's just a matter of framing what we say. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)