DISCORD, in general, signifies disagreement or opposition between different persons or things.

Discord, in Music, is every sound which, joined with another, forms an assemblage disagreeable to the ear; or rather, every interval whose extremes do not coalesce. Now, as there are no other concords or consonances, excepting those which form amongst themselves, and with their fundamental sound, perfect chords, it follows that every interval must be a real dissonance or discord; even the third and sixth were reckoned such among the ancients, who excluded them from the number of consonant chords.

The term dissonaìice, which is synonymous with discord, is compounded of two words, namely, the inseparable preposition r‰ and the verb sonare ; which, both in a literal and metaphorical sense, signifies disagreement or disunion. In reality, that which renders dissonances grating, is, that the sounds which form them, so far from uniting in the ear, seem to repel ea^h other, and are heard each by itself as two distinct sounds, though produced at the same time.

This repulsion or violent oscillation of sounds is heard more or less, as the vibrations which produce it are more or less frequently coincident. When two vocal strings are gradually tuned till they approach a consonant interval, the pulsations become slower as the chord grows more just, till at last they are scarcely heard, if heard at all; and hence it appears certain, that the pleasure produced in us by harmony results from the more or less exact and frequent coincidence or vibration; though the reason why this coincidence should afford pleasure, more than any other modification or combination of sounds, appears to us inscrutable. The agreeable effects of dissonance in harmony are no objection to this theory; since it is allowed that the sensations excited by discord are not in themselves immediately and necessarily pleasing, but only please by auricular deception. The ear is surprised with the shock it receives, without being able to imagine how it should have happened; and in proportion as it is harsh and grating, we feel the pleasure of returning harmony enhanced, and the disappointment of being artfully and insensibly extricated more agreeable.

The name of dissonance is given sometimes to the interval, and sometimes also to each of the two sounds which form it. But though two sounds equally form a dissonance between themselves, this term is most frequently applied to that sound in particular which is most extraneous to the chord.

The number of possible dissonances is indefinite; but as in music we exclude all intervals which are not found in the system received, the number of dissonances is reduced to a very few; besides, in practice we can only select from those few such as are agreeable to the species, and the mode in which we compose; and,from this last number we must exclude such as cannot be used consistently with the rules prescribed. But what, it may be asked, are these rules? Have they any foundation in nature, or are they merely arbitrary? This is what Rousseau, whom in this article we have followed or abandoned as his observations appeared useful or frivolous, purposes to investigate as its principal object.

But where does his scrutiny terminate? Not in the abolition of the rules prescribed. These have still subsisted, and will continue to subsist, while the frame of man, and the nature of music, remain what they are. If, then, the rules be permanent and universal, the principle upon which they are founded may be latent or ambiguous; but the rules themselves can never be purely arbitrary. How else could it happen that Rameau, D’Alembert, and Rousseau should admit the force and effect of these rules, whilst each of these masters exerted his whole genius to give a different account of their cause and origin? Rousseau himself, as we have seen in a former article, inculcates the necessity of dissonances for the completion of harmony. (See Chord.) Now, if this be true, the easiest methods of introducing and dismissing these discords must be the most eligible, and of consequence the rules for using them must be established. It is not then upon the subsistence or demolition of any particular theory that they depend. Were we to attend to the particular objections which may be uιged against any system whatever, where is the theory which will be found proof against the efforts of scepticism? After all, the objections of Rousseau to Rameau’s theory, as applied by D’Alembert to the origin of consonances, appear to be much more frivolous than the analogies from which he pretends that this origin was deduced. It appears from D’Alembert’s exposition of this theory, that, if not for all, it affords a solution for the most material and essential phenomena in harmony, which is sufficient for its establishment, until another can be found which will give a rational and consistent account of the whole; a discovery which has not yet been made. But whilst we acknowledge the futility of Rousseau’s objections against D’Alembert’s explication of dissonances, we must at the same time admire the ingenuity with which he has deduced them from principles purely mechanical, without departing from the system of Rameau. This mechanical explication will be found in his Musical Dictionary, under the article Dissonance. Discord, the goddess of, in Pagan theology. She is represented by Aristides with fiery eyes, a pale countenance, livid lips, and wearing a dagger in her bosom. It was she who at the marriage of Peleus and Thetis threw in the golden apple, on which was written “To the fairest,” and which occasioned a contention between the goddesses Juno, Minerva, and Venus, each pretending a title to the apple. She was likewise called Ate and Eris.