Aristoxenus and Music Therapy. Fr_26_Wehr

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Archivio istituzionale della ricerca - Università di Palermo 4 Aristoxenus and Music Therapy Fr. 26 Wehrli within the Tradition on Music and Catharsis Antonietta Provenza 1. Introduction The importance of music for the ancient Pythagoreans,1 together with recognition of its therapeutic function, already attested at the * My heartfelt thanks to Professor Carl Huffman and all the participants in the Aristoxenus Conference for their interest in my paper and comments. I will always remember those days at DePauw University as wonderful and happy. I wish also to thank Professor Salvatore Nicosia, my research tutor, for having read and discussed with me this essay at different times. Translations are mine, unless otherwise indicated. 1 Still indispensable for a general overview of Early Pythagoreanism and the questions concerning it is Burkert (1972). Among Burkert’s main emphases are the Platonic contamination of sources on Pythagoreanism since the 4th century BCE and the representation of Pythagoras as a “wise man” with shamanistic features (although the unsuitability of the notion of shamanism for ancient Greek culture has been since highlighted in Bremmer [1983] 29–48 and [2002] 27–40; cf. also Minar [1971]), rather than as a “scientist,” since “scientific Pythagoreanism” is not clearly attested until Philolaus. Most important among the studies opposing Burkert’s “shamanistic” Pythagoras and giving prominence to the “scientific” side of early Pythagoreanism and to its relationship with Near-eastern science are Kahn (1974), van der Waerden (1979) and Zhmud (1997). Also see on Pythagoreanism and its sources: Centrone

dawn of Greek literature,2 favored the rise of a long tradition relating to the Pythagoreans and music therapy, which is most famously and richly attested in two Neoplatonic works, The Life of Pythagoras (Vita Pythagorae) by Porphyry of Tyre (ca. 234–305 CE)3 and On the Pythagorean Life (De vita Pythagorica) by Iamblichus of Chalcis (ca. 245–325 CE).4 Although the most ancient sources on Pythagoras tell us nothing on the subject,5 the tradition relating to the Pythagorean use of music therapy, at all events, dates back to long before the two Neoplatonists, as is shown by a brief and well-known fragment by Aristoxenus referring not only to medical healing of the body but also to musical (19992); Kahn (2001), useful for what concerns Pythagoreanism in the Renaissance and its influence on astronomy; Riedweg (2005); Huffman (1999); Huffman (2005a) and Huffman (2006). Among studies before Burkert’s Lore and Science, I limit my references here just to Philip (1966), who treats Aristotle as the most important and reliable source for early Pythagoreanism. 2 The oldest literary evidence for music therapy in ancient Greece is in book 1 of the Iliad (472–4, concerning paeans) and in book 19 of the Odyssey (457–8, concerning ἐπῳδή, the “sung charm”). 3 It is just a portion (incomplete, as it seems) of the first book of a very large work (attested with the title Φιλόσοφος Ἱστορία and lost, except for some short passages) on the history of philosophy as far as Plato (for both Porphyry’s Vita Pythagorae and the fragments of the Φιλόσοφος Ἱστορία see Des Places [20032]). On the sources and structure of Porphyry’s Vita Pythagorae see esp. Staab (2002) 109–34. Porphyry’s Vita Pythagorae is quoted in this essay according to Des Places’ edition (20032). 4 The title of Iamblichus’ work on Pythagoras (ca. 300 AD) as handed down in manuscripts is Περὶ τοῦ Πυθαγορείου (-ικοῦ) βίου. It is the largest work on Pythagoras and his sect that we have from late antiquity. It was originally part of a work in ten books, of which five have come down to us, devoted by the Neoplatonist philosopher to Pythagorean doctrines (see O’Meara [1989] esp. 30–105 and the introduction to Dillon-Hershbell [1991]). Regarding the sources of Iamblichus’ De vita Pythagorica, see Staab (2002). Iamblichus’ De vita Pythagorica is quoted in this essay according to Deubner and Klein’s edition (1975). 5 The oldest evidence concerning Pythagoras is Xenophanes 21B7 DK = D.L. 8.36 (on metempsychosis, see Huffman [2009] 34–8); Heraclitus 22B40 DK (= D.L. 9.1), B81, B129; Empedocles 31B129 (quoted through Nicomachus also in Porph. VP 30 and Iamb. VP 67); Herodotus 2.81, 4.95; Ion of Chios 36B2 DK (= D.L. 8.8), B4 (= D.L. 1.120) and Democritus 68A1 (= D.L. 9.38) and 68A33 (= D.L. 9.46). Evidence on Pythagoreanism can be roughly divided into three groups: reports of the same age as the Presocratics, handed down orally for the most part; the written sources of the Academy and the Peripatos; the “legend,” taking shape mainly in the Pythagorean works of the Neoplatonists Porphyry and Iamblichus, in Diogenes Laertius’ Vitae Philosophorum and in Photius’ Bibliotheca.

healing of the soul, defined as “catharsis.” In the fragment, which must have been part of Aristoxenus’ work On the Pythagorean Life (Περὶ τοῦ Πυθαγορικοῦ βίου) and was first published by Cramer in his collection of Greek anecdotes contained in the manuscripts of the Bibliothèque Royale in Paris,6 we read that “the Pythagoreans, as Aristoxenus said, used medicine for the purification of the body, and music for that of the soul” (οἱ Πυθαγορικοί, ὡς ἔφη Ἀριστόξενος, καθάρσει ἐχρῶντο τοῦ μὲν σώματος διὰ τῆς ἰατρικῆς, τῆς δὲ ψυχῆς διὰ τῆς μουσικῆς).7 The two fundamental aspects of this fragment, as identified by Wehrli in his brief comment,8 are on one side the tradition, i.e., that set of customs rooted in religious rites and in practical life, sanctioned by atavistic norms, on the basis of which it was necessary to keep contamination (μίασμα) as far as possible from the contexts of daily life, and, on the other, the distinction, in a human being, of both a physical and also a psychic sphere living in a profound and necessary relationship with one another.9 However, its importance consists not only in the explicit reference to a musical catharsis used by the ancient Pythagoreans and concerned with the healing of the soul but above all in the fact that, chronologically, it represents the first testimony in which music therapy — and in particular therapy specifically defined as “catharsis” — is associated with the Pythagoreans.10 Because of the authority of Aristoxenus and the success of the concept of musical catharsis, which emerges for instance in Iamblichus’ On the Pythagorean Life, the testimony of fr. 26 Wehrli seems, more than any other, to have determined the almost undisputed acceptance of the existence of a true theory of musical catharsis, including an ethical dimension,11 worked out by the ancient Pythagoreans, which served as a model for 6 J. A. Cramer, Anecdota Graeca e codd. man. Bibl. Reg. Paris., Oxford 1839–41. Aristox. fr. 26 Wehrli = Cramer, Anecd. Paris. 1.172. 8 Wehrli (19672) 54–5. See also Wehrli (1951) 60–1 (in his opinion, the Pythagoreans influenced Aristotle’s notion of catharsis). 9 Useful remarks on body and soul from Homer to Galen are made in Vegetti (1985). 10 For the identification of a peculiar “Pythagorean catharsis” see Olympiodorus, In Alc. 54.145–6 Westerink, where three kinds of catharsis are considered (τρεῖς εἰσὶ τρόποι καθάρσεως): the Pythagorean (Πυθαγορικός), the Socratic (Σωκρατικός) and the Peripatetic-Stoic (Στωϊκός). 11 This opinion seems to originate in late sources, especially in Iamblichus (see, for instance, VP 64 and 115).

Aristotle.12 The fragment has also been interpreted as ascribing to the early Pythagoreans the Platonic theory of musical ēthos, with which the fourth-century Pythagoreans must have been very familiar.13 The upshot of my discussion will be that both these interpretations are mistaken;14 our very short text refers instead to the religious notion 12 Among the many scholars who have asserted the existence of an early Pythagorean theory of musical catharsis with close connections to the ēthos theory, of particular note are Abert (1899) 5–7; Howald (1919) 203 and 206–7; Busse (1928) 37 and 49–50, who distinguished a Pythagorean catharsis, considered as ethic and allopathic, from an Aristotelian catharsis, considered as aesthetic and homeopathic and asserted that the former used music “völlig in der dienst der Ethik” (50); Vetter (1933) 839; Stefanini (1949); Moulinier (1952) 118–20; Koller (1954) 68–9, 98–119 and 132; Else (1958) 73, who explicitly mentions a “Pythagorean-Damonian doctrine” containing the “therapeutic (cathartic) and educational uses of music”; Lord (1982) 123; Rossi (2000) 65–6; Figari (2000), who mentions a Presocratic theory of catharsis, and Gibson (2005) 112–3, who asserts that the doctrine of ēthos had Pythagorean origin and passed on to Plato through Damon. Among studies that have been influential regarding the Aristotelian notion of catharsis and its relationship with Pythagoreanism, see especially Rostagni (1922), Croissant (1932) and Boyancé (1937). Rostagni (see esp. 55–65) seems to be the first to highlight the fundamental role of religion and its practices in the background of both Pythagorean and Aristotelian catharsis, in order to explain the influence of Pythagoreanism on Aristotelian catharsis as a consequence of this common cultural substratum (this opinion seems to emerge also in Hoessly [2001] 181–8). On the other hand, Croissant (see esp. 104–105), followed by Schadewaldt (1955) and Flashar (1956) asserted that Aristotle took the word “catharsis” from religion and gave it strong medical connotations but that the theory of catharsis is a late elaboration (cf. on this also Wehrli [1951] and Laín Entralgo [1970] 201–2, the latter emphasizing that medical catharsis and religious catharsis were initially not separate). According to Boyancé (1937) 103–4 and 115–7, the Pythagoreans reinterpreted the “traditional” magic-medical catharsis by giving it mystical and ethical connotations (also see Wehrli [1951] 59), while Aristotle, although taking the notion of catharsis from them, transformed it according to a scientific point of view (187–8; his view differs from both Busse [1928] and Croissant [1932], since they distinguish a Pythagorean catharsis from an Aristotelian one). 13 This is, for instance, the point of view expressed already in Wehrli (1951) 56; Wehrli (19672) 55; Burkert (1962) Vorwort, 7 (omitted in the English edition) and in more recent times in Wallace (1995), which usefully points out, on the other hand, that the early Pythagoreans did not elaborate either a theory of catharsis preceding Aristotle or a theory of musical ēthos which preceded Plato’s. 14 The attribution of a theory of catharsis to the early Pythagoreans is strongly rejected, for instance, by Dodds (1968) 79–80; Parker (1983) 279–80, who refers to Pohlenz (19542) 2.195–6 (He argues that the existence of such a theory would have been emphasized in Plato’s dialogue, where no trace of it can be found; see contra Hoessly [2001] 188) and Halliwell (2009) 182. Burkert (1972) 211–2 points out that

of catharsis, which is well attested in the tradition and had been deeply rooted in Greek culture since its origins. As a matter of fact, the very simple formula asserting that medicine heals the body and music heals the soul15 reflects common beliefs based on experience, which must have been very widespread and can be connected to other Presocratic texts and to Aristoxenus’ Pythagorean Precepts. The musical catharsis of the early Pythagoreans, then, was neither the consequence of a fully developed theory of catharsis, nor was it a fourth-century “invention,” influenced by both Plato and Aristotle; it was rather a manifestation of a very ancient practice, well attested in Greek culture, which resulted from the strong relationship between religion and medicine. Therefore, Aristoxenus may have meant to propose the early Pythagoreans as renowned representatives of this widespread practice in order to show them as influential forerunners of both Platonic musical ēthos and Aristotelian catharsis, rather than having interpreted their thought and way of life by means of those schemes. 2. Aristoxenus, Porphyry and Iamblichus The biographical links between Aristoxenus and Pythagoreanism are very important:16 in the first half of the fourth century, Tarentum, the native city of the musicologist, was the most significant Pythagorean center,17 governed for seven years running by the Pythagorean Archytas as the strategos.18 Some fragments of a biography of Archytas the Pythagorean applications of catharsis do not involve science, and Musti (2000) 44–9, esp. 48, maintains that though the importance of the therapeutic efficacy of music comes to Aristotle from Pythagoreanism, the theory of musical catharsis is Peripatetic. On the question of whether Pythagorean catharsis, in light of Aristotelian catharsis, is to be considered either homoeopathic or allopathic, I refer the reader to the exhaustive treatment of Belfiore (1992) 264–6 and 279–90. 15 The concept of soul in ancient Pythagoreanism has been recently investigated by Huffman (2009), who has reexamined his previous position on Philolaus’ notion of soul (see Huffman [1993] 328–32). 16 A very important and useful monograph on Aristoxenus that thoroughly considers the musicologist’s personality on the basis of the surviving fragments is Visconti (1999). See also Visconti (2000); Cordiano (2001) and Muccioli (2002) 373–89. 17 Especially since 379 BCE, when Croton was subjected by Dionysius I. On Pythagoreanism in Southern Italy, see Leszl (1988) and Musti (2005); on the Pythagoreans in Tarentum, see Centrone (1999) 49–52 and Gigante (1971). Archyt. Test. A1 Huffman = D.L. 8.79. Archytas was born between 435 and 410 BCE and died about 350. For his chronology, see Huffman (2005) 5–6.

written by Aristoxenus are extant.19 Spintharus, his father20 and probably his first teacher, had close connections to the Pythagoreans of Tarentum, and personally knew the philosopher-governor.21 Afterwards, Aristoxenus was a disciple of the Pythagorean Xenophilus in Athens,22 and he himself maintains that he made acquaintance with the last Pythagoreans.23 We can infer from the surviving fragments of Aristoxenus’ Pythagorean works,24 which subsequently became a very important source for Neoplatonic biographies of Pythagoras,25 that the musicologist expressed admiration for the Pythagoreans. The evaluation of the musical aspects of Pythagoreanism by Aristoxenus must have been particularly precious, since he had had Pythagorean training before his Peripatetic training, even if his musicological reflections prove to be very much influenced by Aristotle.26 This influence, however, does not expressly concern only scientific matters but also seems to concern the potentialities of musical listening; in this connection, from the few anecdotes regarding Aristoxenus that have come down 19 See Archyt. Test. A1, A7 and A9 Huffman and Aristox. fr. 47–50 Wehrli. On the controversy concerning the name of the musicologist’s father — either Spintharus or Mnesias , see Visconti (1999) 36–63. 21 Spintharus is said to be the source of a story concerning Archytas that is told in Iamb. VP 197–8 = Aristox. fr. 30 [= 49] Wehrli = Archyt. Test. A7 Huffman. See further below. 22 See Aristox. fr. 1 Wehrli = Suda s.v. Ἀριστόξενος. 23 See Aristox. fr. 19 Wehrli = D.L. 8.46. 24 A work entitled either The Life of Pythagoras (Πυθαγόρου βίος) or On Pythagoras and his followers (Περὶ Πυθαγόρου καὶ τῶν γνωρίμων αὐτοῦ), a work On the Pythagorean Way of Life (Περὶ τοῦ πυθαγορικοῦ βίου) and the Pythagorean Precepts (Πυθαγορικαὶ ἀποφάσεις). The surviving fragments of these works are collected as Aristox. fr. 11–41 Wehrli. 25 Aristoxenus, who was hailed by Leo (1901) 102 as “the founder of literary biography,” is the founder of the biographic tradition for Pythagoras. On biography in Aristotle’s school, see Fortenbaugh (2007) 73–6; on Aristoxenus as a biographer, see Momigliano (1993) 74–7, 103 and 120. Aristoxenus’ admiration for the Pythagoreans and their politics is also indicated by the relationship he establishes between Pythagoras and the law-givers Charondas and Zaleucus (see Aristox. fr. 17, the source of Iamb. VP 33–4, and fr. 43 Wehrli = D.L. 8.15). Traces of Aristoxenus are also found in Iamb. VP 166, which asserts that the Pythagorean way of life spread throughout Italy giving birth to many philosophers, poets and law-givers and turning that country, which was previously obscure, into Magna Graecia. 26 On the relationship between Aristoxenus’ thought and Aristotelian science, see esp. Bélis (1986), Barker (1991) and Gibson (2005) 23–38.

to us — and that we are going to consider later on —,27 there emerges an interest in enthusiastic music and its effects on behavior, which can be set alongside Aristotle’s reflection on musical catharsis in book 8 of Politics, but also, at the same time, alongside the religious tradition of catharsis found, even earlier than Aristotle, in the widespread ritual practices through which endeavors were made to keep any form of contamination away from the community. Thus among ancient sources on Pythagoreanism, Aristoxenus is the most important together with Aristotle, who plays the major role as regards their scientific speculations.28 However, it is important to remember that, on the basis of what emerges from the most ancient testimonies, Pythagoreanism fundamentally appears as a lifestyle centering on a community29 and on specific precepts to be followed, the so-called akousmata, often referring to purificatory measures.30 Codification of true Pythagorean “scientific” thought seems to emerge starting from the fragments of Philolaus,31 although, for Pythagoras 27 See further below. Aristotle is considered the most valuable source for the early Pythagoreans by Philip (1966); he maintains that the philosopher was “almost alone in having no Pythagorean axe to grind” (19). Aristotle deals with the Pythagoreans (οἱ καλούμενοι Πυθαγόρειοι) in Metaph. 1.5–6 985b23–987a31 (on the Pythagorean theory of number, which, in his opinion, Plato followed) and 8 1090a20–1092b25. An interesting feature of Aristotle’s account is the general reference to “the Pythagoreans” as far as scientific thought is concerned. This was probably due to the “legend” that has already arisen concerning Pythagoras, which may have made him hesitant to assign specific notions to Pythagoras himself. Aristotle was also the author of a work Against the Pythagoreans and of a monograph On the Pythagoreans (also attested as On the Pythagoreans’ opinions), which are both lost. A comparison between Aristotle’s evidence on Pythagoreanism and the fragments of the Early Pythagoreans, especially the fragments of Philolaus, shows such important common features between them, as to suggest that Philolaus was Aristotle’s most important source for Pythagoreanism. This results in particular from the study of the fragments of Philolaus acknowledged as authentic (1–7 DK); see Huffman (1993) 28–34. 29 See for instance Plato, Rep. 600b (= Pythagoras 14A10 DK), referring to the Πυθαγόρειος τρόπος τοῦ βίου. 30 On the Pythagorean akousmata see, among others, Burkert (1972) 166–92, who defines them as “commonsense wisdom in abstruse form, ancient magical-ritual commandments” (176–7); Parker (1983) 294–7 and Berra (2006). 31 Philolaus is the first Pythagorean for whom one can fix almost certain dates (about 470–385 BCE), and probably the first who wrote something. According to Diogenes Laertius (8.84–5), he was the first Pythagorean who wrote a book; see also Iamb. VP 199. For his fragments, see Huffman (1993).

himself, one cannot categorically rule out knowledge of mathematical and cosmological doctrines.32 Mathematical and cosmological treatment of music first appears in Philolaus himself and in Hippasus, and, subsequently, in Archytas of Tarentum’s study of acoustics and symphoniai.33 However, the lack of any reference to the ethical potentialities of music or to musical catharsis in the fragments of these Pythagoreans does not allow us to maintain that such elements lay outside the interests of the early Pythagoreans and that they only spread among the fourth-century Pythagoreans under the influence of the theory of musical ēthos. As a matter of fact, an interest in the benefits of music and in its role in education appears in literary works on the Pythagoreans, which are independent of Plato, as for instance in Aristoxenus’ Pythagorean Precepts, which, as Huffman (2008) has recently pointed out, are very important evidence of genuine Pythagorean moral philosophy, and also in anecdotes whose origin appears to be independent of Plato and the theory of musical ēthos. 32 According to Kahn (1974) 169–70 and (2001) 16–8, followed by Riedweg (2005) 73, among others, Burkert’s argument (see Burkert [1972], esp. 155–65, 357) that Pythagoras was a “shaman” seems to overlook the well-known fragments of Heraclitus concerning his πολυμαθίη (Heracl. 22B40 DK) and ἱστορίη (22B129 DK). On the Heraclitean evidence as a conclusive argument on behalf of Pythagoras as a “man of science,” see Zhmud (1997) 30–9. Remarkable similarities between some aspects of Pythagorean mathematics and Babylonian mathematics, and moreover the short distance between Samos, Pythagoras’ homeland, and Miletus, the home of Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes (Pythagoras visited Thales and Anaximander in Miletus, according to Iamb. VP 11–13), whose cosmological researches are well attested, give further evidence for the “scientific” side of Pythagoras’ personality. Pythagoras seems to have travelled to Egypt (Isocr. [Bus. 28] says he learnt philosophy in Egypt and brought it to Greece; cf. Hecataeus of Abdera, FGrHist 264F25 and Iamb. VP 18–9 and 158–9; similarities between Egyptian and Pythagorean practices emerge also from Hdt. 2.81), and to have been in Babylonia. Aristoxenus (fr. 13 Wehrli = Hippol. Haer. 1.2.12 Wendland) says that Pythagoras learnt from the Chaldean Zaratas that everything is founded on the distinction between father and mother, so that male and female are the constituent categories of the world-order. This suits, in turn, musical harmony; cf. Iamb. VP 19. He also traveled to Phoenicia (Iamb. VP 14). Of course, all this is not enough to prove that Pythagoras himself, rather than his successors, formulated the scientific theories generally considered as Pythagorean, such as the Pythagorean ordering of the heavens, numbers as the constituent elements (στοιχεῖα) of everything and the heavenly harmony (Aristot. Metaph. 985b31–986a6 and 1090a21–5; cf. Stob. Ecl. 1, Prooem. 6 = Aristox. fr. 23 Wehrli and Plato, Rep. 617b-c). See Barker (1991a).

Later on, especially in the biographies of Pythagoras written by Porphyry and Iamblichus,34 who usually reinterpret their sources with the aim of reconstructing the thought and way of life of Pythagoras and his followers according to specific paraenetic and propagandistic goals,35 Platonism36 and a real mysticism come to pervade the personality of Pythagoras. He is characterized as a “philosopher” and “master of education” (ἡγεμὼν παιδείας),37 and most notably as a sage with mystical connotations suited to a “pagan holy-man,”38 on whom musical catharsis is supposed to confer a further thaumaturgic power.39 Aristoxenus’ works devoted to the Pythagoreans constituted, then, a privileged source for doxographers in the reconstruction of the role of Pythagoras and the way of life of the Pythagoreans.40 His work On the Pythagorenan Life (Περὶ πυθαγορικοῦ βίου) is expressly mentioned by Iamblichus (VP 233 = Aristox. fr. 31 Wehrli) as a source for the conception of friendship in Pythagoreanism. Moreover, various passages of the Pythagorean Precepts (Πυθαγορικαὶ Ἀποφάσεις) 34 Differences between these two works have been well illustrated by Edwards (1993) 159–72. Porphyry, as opposed to Iamblichus, usually quotes his sources, and the Vita Pythagorae has the typical features of biography, while Iamblichus’ De vita Pythagorica appears rather as a manifesto of the Neoplatonic βίος φιλοσοφικός. 35 On Porphyry’s and Iamblichus’ sources and the relationship between their works on Pythagoras, see Burkert (1972) 97–109; von Albrecht (2002) and Staab (2002) 12–8, 109–34 and 217–37. 36 For Iamblichus’ presentation of Pythagoreanism as the legitimate forerunner of Platonism, see O’Meara (1989) 9–29. 37 See Plat., Rep. 600a-b, where Homer and Pythagoras are considered as “masters of education.” Iamblichus (VP 119–20) portrays Pythagoras as the mythical discoverer of music, and, as a consequence of this, as a model educator (VP 121, οὕτω μὲν οὖν τὴν μουσικὴν εὑρεῖν λέγεται, καὶ συστησάμενος αὐτὴν παρέδωκε τοῖς ὑπηκόοις ἐπὶ πάντα τὰ κάλλιστα, “Pythagoras, according to tradition, discovered music in this way, and after he organized it within a system, he handed it over to disciples so that it could help them to achieve every noble aim”). 38 This felicitous formulation by Fowden (1982) seems to suit well the figure of Pythagoras, which emerges from Iamblichus’ De vita Pythagorica. In Burkert’s opinion (Burkert [1982] 13), Pythagoras’ “mythical” features show that Iamblichus wished to propose Pythagoreanism, considered on the same level as theurgy, as an “antidote” to the spread of Christianity (see also Clark [2000] 29–32). 39 As O’Meara (1989) 39 shows, Iamblichus accumulates evidence and signs in his De vita Pythagorica in order to demonstrate Pythagoras’ uniqueness. Staab (2002) 64–6. It is noteworthy that Porphyry appears more “biographical” and less “doxographical” than Iamblichus.

by the musicologist of Tarentum are recognizable in Iamblichus’ On the Pythagorean Life,41 confirming the interest of the philosopher from Chalcis in presenting the conservative ethics of the Pythagoreans as a guarantee of a correct way of living.42 Precisely these late sources, and in particular Iamblichus, who seems to corroborate what is briefly affirmed in Aristoxenus fr. 26 Wehrli,43 have led to the belief that the early Pythagoreans formulated a true theory of catharsis44 that constituted one of the canons of the βίος πυθαγορικός. On the other hand, several pieces of evidence independent of the Neoplatonic biographies and suggesting an interest of the early Pythagoreans in musical therapy have been overlooked. 41 Esp. ¶174–5, 183 and 205. However, Porphyry and Iamblichus were influenced by Aristoxenus not only directly (in Burkert [1972] 101 it is assumed that Iamblichus, as well as Stobaeus, may have personally read Aristoxenus’ Pythagorean Precepts), but, indeed above all, through Nicomachus of Gerasa, a neo-Pythagorean musicologist and mathematician who lived in the 1st century AD and was also the author of a Life of Pythagoras (nothing has survived of this work, but both Porphyry, who quotes Nicomachus in VP 20 and 59, and Iamblichus, see VP 251, must have used it extensively). Nicomachus may have been very congenial to Iamblichus because of his tendency to identify Pythagoreanism and Platonism. In particular, he connected mathematics with philosophy to such an extent that number theory influenced moral philosophy (see, e.g., Ar. 64–5 Hoche). For Nicomachus as a source for both Porphyry and Iamblichus, see Burkert (1972) 98–10 and Staab (2002) 81–91 and 224–8. 43 See Iamb. VP 110, εἰώθει γὰρ οὐ παρέργως τῇ τοιαύτῃ χρῆσθαι καθάρσει· τοῦτο γὰρ δὴ καὶ προσηγόρευε τὴν διὰ τῆς μουσικῆς ἰατρείαν, “Pythagoras was accustomed to use — and not occasionally — this type of catharsis; this indeed was the name he gave to musical healing.” Cf. Porph. VP 33, καὶ ὑγιαίνουσι μὲν αὐτοῖς ἀεὶ συνδιέτριβεν, κάμνοντας δὲ τὰ σώματα ἐθεράπευεν, καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς δὲ νοσοῦντας παρεμυθεῖτο, καθάπερ ἔφαμεν, τοὺς μὲν ἐπῳδαῖς καὶ μαγείαις τοὺς δὲ μουσικῇ. ἦν γὰρ αὐτῷ μέλη καὶ πρὸς νόσους σωμάτων παιώνια, ἃ ἐπᾴδων ἀνίστη τοὺς κάμνοντας. ἦν <δ›> ἃ καὶ λύπης λήθην εἰργάζετο καὶ ὀργὰς ἐπράυνε καὶ ἐπιθυμίας ἀτόπους ἐξῄρει, “and [Pythagoras] paid attention to his disciples’ health, he cured those who labored from physical diseases and comforted those suffering from diseases of the soul, just as we said, the former by means of sung charms and magic, the latter by means of music. Actually he had melodies that succeeded in healing the diseases of the body, and the sick got up as he sang them. He also had melodies that allowed people to forget pain, and he soothed wrath and removed wicked desires.” The distinction between the ἐπῳδαί, sung sung charms charms for for healhealing the body, a magic-medical remedy, and μουσική, which was used for healing the soul, is remarkable in this passage (in VP 30, Porphyry simply attributes the healing function of music to the incantatory power of rhythms and melodies). See above, n. 13.

For the use of music in healing, the link between the early Pythagoreans and medicine is fundamental.45 Medicine is expressly identified in Aristoxenus fr. 26 Wehrli as cathartic therapy of the body. It is identified as a central interest of the Pythagoreans, together with music and divination, in a passage from Iamblichus that can be traced back to the Pythagorean Precepts (Iamb. VP 163, τῶν δ’ ἐπιστημῶν οὐχ ἥκιστά φασι τοὺς Πυθαγορείους τιμᾶν μουσικήν τε καὶ ἰατρικὴν καὶ μαντικήν).46 The interest of the Pythagoreans in medicine and music is also attested by the akousmata, in which the former is defined as “the wisest thing” (VP 82, τί σοφώτατον τῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν; ἰατρική), and harmony is said to be “the most beautiful thing” (τί κάλλιστον; ἁρμονία). Their interest in dietetics, the most beneficial remedy,47 which provides a proper arrangement of physical exercise, food and rest (VP 163 = 244, συμμετρίας πόνων48 τε καὶ σίτων καὶ ἀναπαύσεως) is then a consequence of their focus on medicine. Furthermore, in a passage of Aelian (VH 4.17), which is very probably based on Aristotle’s monograph on the Pythagoreans, we are told that Pythagoras wandered around cities “not to teach, but to heal” (οὐ διδάξων ἀλλ’ ἰατρεύσων). As a matter of fact, precisely in the period of greatest success and liveliness of the Pythagorean sect, in Magna Graecia an important medical tradition developed, of which the most significant representative was Alcmaeon of Croton.49 Empedocles, an admirer of Pythagoras, must also have had contacts with the 45 Burkert (1972) 292–4. This passage, which is not included in Wehrli’s edition, was traced back to the Pythagorean Precepts by Burkert (1972) 262 n. 113. 47 Porphyry’s Vita Pythagorae (32, deriving from Antonius Diogenes) refers to physical exercise as part of a daily program suited to maintaining health and serenity: Pythagoras was accustomed to walk in the sacred woods, in the calmest and most beautiful places, never alone nor with a big company, but generally, in a group of two or three. As Riedweg stresses (2005) 31, these details are reminiscent of monastic life. 48 This is the reading of the Laurentianus, accepted by Burkert (1965) 25 instead of ποτῶν. 49 During Alcmaeon’s lifetime, between the 6th and the 5th centuries BCE, the Pythagoreans were the leading group ruling the city. Alcmaeon, who understood the human body in terms of a balance of opposites, is sometimes classified as a Pythagorean (D.L. 8.37 and 83 and Iamb. VP 104 and 267), but Aristotle separated Alcmaeon from the Pythagoreans (Metaph. 986a27-b3), and we do not have any evidence for his sharing in the Pythagorean way of life. On Pythagoreanism and medicine in Croton see Marasco (2008).

Pythagoreans, and is linked to the medical tradition.50 It is quite likely that Philolaus, also from Croton, in his youth came into contact with the doctrines of Alcmaeon, and that this gave an impulse to his interest in medicine.51 The importance of medicine for the ancient Pythagoreans cannot, however, be linked in any way to the formulation in the scientific sphere of a theory of catharsis. In actual fact, the first to have associated Pythagoras and his followers with the concept of purification through science is Iamblichus.52 We will now examine the presence of religious and ritual catharsis in ancient Pythagoreanism in order to show that the key elements in Aristoxenus fr. 26 Wehrli, i.e., the healing of the soul and body, are not derived either from Plato’s theory of musical ēthos or from Aristotle’s theory of catharsis. Our fragment, read against the background of the testimonies by Aristoxenus on ēthos53 and on music therapy, will appear then as an important confirmation of the interest of the musicologist of Tarentum in the effects of music on health and on behavior. 3. Pythagoreanism and Ritual Catharsis The numerous attestations of cultural practices, which were handed down for centuries and resulted from a desire for purification that was felt particularly at the religious and physical levels,54 show that the presence of “cathartic” practices among the ancient Pythagoreans does not necessarily imply that they elaborated a theory of catharsis. The fact is that catharsis is a fundamental part of the practices connected with worship of the gods. One need only think of the ritual lustrations and the intonation of paeans to Apollo by the Achaeans, when they were seeking liberation from plague in the first book of the Iliad (472– 4). Moreover, rites intended for liberation from states of restlessness 50 Empedocles is represented as a musical healer in Iamb. VP 113. See also Porph. VP 30 and Iamb. VP 67 = Emp. 31B129 DK. On the relationship between Empedocles and the Pythagoreans, see Burkert (1972) 289–98; Kingsley (1995) 335–47 on medicine and Trépanier (2004) 116–26. 51 See Philol. Test. A 27 and A 28 Huffman and Huffman’s comments on them ([2005] 289–306; also see 9–11). 52 Burkert (1972) 211–12. 53 Thoroughly studied by Eleonora Rocconi in her essay in this volume. Hoessly (2001) reviews a great amount of evidence concerning catharsis in different contexts.

and anxiety, particularly in the Dionysiac sphere, were widespread and rooted in the tradition. The presence of music in religious rites with a cathartic function is also stressed at a mythical level. In this connection, the attribution of mystical initiations (τελεταί) to the musician Orpheus is important.55 The link between music and catharsis is also well exemplified in Thaletas of Gortyn,56 the Cretan musician who, in accordance with an oracle, went to Sparta to free it from a plague. It is not by chance that both these musicians are connected to Pythagoras. Regarding Orpheus, the fundamental point of contact is represented precisely by initiations and purifications; regarding Thaletas, Porphyry instead (VP 32) refers to a Pythagorean custom involving the cathartic and apotropaic paean (well represented by Iamblichus in VP 110–1). Porphyry affirms that Pythagoras, starting in the morning, harmonized his voice with the sound of the lyre and sang ancient paeans by Thaletas (ἕωθεν … ἁρμοζόμενος πρὸς λύραν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φωνὴν καὶ ᾄδων παιᾶνας ἀρχαίους τινὰς τῶν Θάλητος).57 However, it is precisely the link between Orpheus and Pythagoras that calls for the greatest attention and highlights some fundamental elements of Pythagoreanism. Ion of Chios (ca. 490–22 BCE), who seems to have been the first to have seen an affinity between Pythagoras and the Orphics, stated in the Triagmoi that Pythagoras wrote some poetic compositions and attributed them to Orpheus.58 Sometimes incorrect 55 Aristoph. Ra. 1032–3 and ps.-eur. Rh. 941–9. An important source about rites handed down by Orpheus and their subdivision into τελεταί, μυστήρια, καθαρμοί and μαντεῖα is Pap. Berol. 44. col. 1.5–9 = 1B15a DK. As far as Orpheus is concerned, see West (1983) 1–38 and, for Orpheus and Orphism in general, Brisson (1995) and Tortorelli Ghidini (2000). 56 [Plut.], De mus. 9–10 1134b-e and 42 1146b-c = Pratinas, TGF 4F9; Phld., Mus. 4 = Diog. Bab. SVF 3.232; Arist., Pol. 1274a25–8 and Thiemer (1979) 124–6. 57 Antonius Diogenes is the source of Porph. VP 32–3. 58 D.L. 8.8 = Ion 36B2 DK. According to Riedweg (2005) 51, Pythagoras was so much influenced by Orphism that he may have written a religious didactic poem modeled on the Orphic hieroi logoi (he gives Hier. log. hex. 2 Thesleff as an example). He further emphasizes (75) the similarities between the Orphic cosmogony of the Derveni Papyrus and the Pythagorean doctrine of numbers as first principles of the world order. Nevertheless, it is doubtful that Pythagoras wrote anything (see Huffman [1999] 67). Porphyry (VP 57) says that “there wasn’t any writing by Pythagoras” (οὔτε γὰρ αὐτοῦ Πυθαγόρου σύγγραμμα ἦν), and that after the fire which destroyed the Pythagoreans’ house in Metapontum and caused the death of Pythagoras himself and of many among his disciples, two of them, Archippus and Lysippus, were

syncretism has been set up between Orphism and Pythagoreanism, the fallaciousness of which has convincingly been demonstrated by Burkert (1982), but an important feature common to Orpheus and Pythagoras is a connection with Apollo. While the former, like Apollo, combines the characters of lyre-player and prophet (mantis), to the point that he was said to be the son of Apollo,59 Pythagoras, instead, was often compared to Apollo Hyperboreus, and the belief also spread that he was a son of Apollo.60 Further, Apollo and the Delphic cult are present in the very name of Pythagoras (Iamb. VP 5–9), and Aristoxenus (fr. 15 Wehrli = D.L. 8.8) appears to have affirmed that the sage received most of his ethical teaching from a Delphic priestess named Themistocleia (“she that is famous for her pronuncements”). In the city of Croton the cult of Apollo played a fundamental role.61 Another fundamental aspect of Pythagoreanism is initiation,62 to which the cult able to preserve “just a few dim and hard to catch sparks of this philosophy” (ὀλίγα διέσῳσαν ζώπυρα τῆς φιλοσοφίας ἀμυδρά τε καὶ δυσθήρατα). Iamblichus (VP 198) maintained that authentic Pythagorean writings were very few (πάνυ γὰρ δή τινές εἰσιν ὀλίγοι, ὧν ἴδια γνωρίζεται ὑπομνήματα), since the Pythagoreans used to attribute every discovery to Pythagoras himself. 59 Pind. Pyth. 4.176–7, ἐξ Ἀπόλλωνος δὲ φορμιγκτὰς ἀοιδᾶν πατήρ / ἔμολεν, εὐαίνητος Ὀρφεύς, “from “from Apollo Apollo came came the the father father of of songs, songs, the the widely widely praised praised minminstrel Orpheus” (trans. Race [1997]), and Scholia in Pindari Pythias 4 313a. 60 Iamblichus (VP 7), however, rejects this opinion. 61 See esp. Giangiulio (1989) 79–92 and 134–60 and Giangiulio (1994). 62 See Burkert (1972) 176–80 for the connections between early Pythagoreanism and the mysteries. Riedweg (2005) preface, x, has highlighted the strong relationship between the secrecy of Pythagoras’ teachings and the rules (akousmata) concerning the way of life in the Pythagorean sect as well as the world of rites and initiations (see Iamb. VP 94 on the rule of silence concerning teachings, ἐχεμυθεῖν). Aristotle seems to bear witness to initiation within Pythagoreanism: see esp. fr. 159 Gigon (= Porph. VP 41): ἔλεγε δέ τινα καὶ μυστικῷ τρόπῳ συμβολικῶς, ἃ δὴ ἐπὶ πλέον Ἀριστοτέλης ἀνέγραψεν· οἷον ὅτι τὴν θάλατταν μὲν ἐκάλει εἶναι δάκρυον, τὰς δ› ἄρκτους Ῥέας χεῖρας, τὴν δὲ πλειάδα μουσῶν λύραν, τοὺς δὲ πλανήτας κύνας τῆς Φερσεφόνης. τὸν δ› ἐκ χαλκοῦ κρουομένου γινόμενον ἦχον φωνὴν εἶναί τινος τῶν δαιμόνων ἐναπειλημμένου τῷ χαλκῷ, “[Pythagoras] explained some doctrines also mystically through symbols, and Aristotle recorded a great number of them; for instance, he named the sea “a tear,” and the Big and Little Bear “Rhea’s hands,” and the Pleiades “the lyre of the Muses,” and the planets “Persephone’s dogs”; he stated that the sound from strucken bronze was the voice of one of the daemons enclosed within.” The importance of symbola is also attested by Aristoxenus (fr. 43 Wehrli = D.L. 8.15–6, […] εἴ τινα πύθοιτο τῶν συμβόλων αὐτοῦ κεκοινωνηκότα, εὐθύς τε προσηταιρίζετο καὶ φίλον κατεσκεύαζεν, “if

of the Muses,63 which was of particular importance to the Pythagoreans, also seems to be connected. There are testimonies regarding the consecration of the house of Pythagoras at Croton, after his death, as a temple of Demeter, while the alley was consecrated to the Muses.64 According to another tradition,65 Pythagoras died at Metapontum after taking shelter in the sanctuary of the Muses and remaining there without provisions for forty days. Another connection to the Muses is apparent in the importance assigned by the Pythagoreans to memory (μνήμη). Iamblichus affirms (VP 164–6) that they exercised it with great attention and tried to preserve everything that they learned by means of it. An example of the exercise of memory and the benefits that derived from it is the custom of using selected verses (λέξεσι διειλεγμέναις) from Homer and Hesiod to correct the soul (πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν ψυχῆς),66 that [Pythagoras] learned that someone shared in his symbola [“passwords,” according to Burkert (1972) 176], he admitted him immediately to his sect, and made friends with him”). Isocrates (Bus. 28 = Pythag. 14A4 DK) reports that Pythagoras paid great attention to religious rites and sacrifices. 63 See, e.g., Porph. VP 31, τὰ δ› οὖν τῶν ἑπτὰ ἀστέρων φθέγματα καὶ τῆς τῶν ἀπλανῶν ἐπὶ ταύτης τε τῆς ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς λεγομένης δὲ κατ› αὐτοὺς ἀντίχθονος τὰς ἐννέα μούσας εἶναι διεβεβαιοῦτο. τὴν δὲ πασῶν ἅμα σύγκρασιν καὶ συμφωνίαν καὶ ὡσανεὶ σύνδεσμον, ἧσπερ ὡς ἀιδίου τε καὶ ἀγενήτου μέρος ἑκάστη καὶ ἀπόρροια, Μνημοσύνην ὠνόμαζεν, “[Pythagoras] maintained that the nine Muses were the sounds made by the seven planets, the sphere of the fixed stars, and besides by that which exceeds our comprehension and is called among them the “counter-earth.” He called “Mnemosyne” the composition, harmony and, as it were, bond of all of them, of which, since it is eternal and unbegotten, each Muse is a part and emanation.” On Muses, mysteries and the Pythagoreans, see Hardie (2004) 35. 64 Porph. VP 4, τὴν δ› οἰκίαν Δήμητρος ἱερὸν ποιῆσαι τοὺς Κροτωνιάτας, τὸν δὲ στενωπὸν καλεῖν μουσεῖον, cf. Iamb. VP 170 (the city is Metapontum). The source is Timaeus (FGrHist 566 F 131). In Burkert’s opinion (1972) 112 n. 18, either Porphyry or more probably his intermediate source replaces Metapontum, which was probably in Timaeus’ account, with Croton. 65 Dicaearchus fr. 35a-b Wehrli2 = Porph. VP 57 and D.L. 8.40. 66 Iamb. VP 164; cf. VP 111 and Porph. VP 32, where the soothing effect of both the Homeric and the Hesiodic verses is emphasized ([Pythagoras] ἐπῇδε τῶν Ὁμήρου καὶ Ἡσιόδου ὅσα καθημεροῦν τὴν ψυχὴν ἐδόξαζε). According to Delatte (1915) 109–12, these passages, together with Iamb. VP 113, prove the existence of Pythagorean anthologies of Homer and Hesiod, which had cathartic and moral aims, in the 5th and 4th centuries BCE. Aristoxenus is probably Iamblichus’ and Porphyry’s source here. According to Detienne (1962) 27, we have to suppose that Nicomachus was the intermediate source. He shares Bertermann’s opinion (Bertermann [1913] 13) on this matter and emphasizes (26–36) the educational aspect of this Pythagorean custom.

is to say, to heal it, since reference is made to the major contribution made to health by music (ὑπελάμβανον δὲ καὶ τὴν μουσικὴν μεγάλα συμβάλλεσθαι πρὸς ὑγείαν) and spells (ἐπῳδαί). The healing effects of epic verses and music are also attested in the story concerning Empedocles (Iamb. VP 113),67 which can be traced back to Aristoxenus, as we shall see later, and can also be seen in their presence in magic formulas for averting evil. The therapy by means of the epōdē, the “sung charm,” is first attested in the Odyssey (19.457), and we know that Homeric verses were used as magic formulas for several diseases.68 Memory also returns in Pythagorean onomastics: the father of the sage was called Mnesarchus according to Porphyry (VP 1) and Mnemarchus according to Iamblichus (VP 4), who also associates this name with a son of Pythagoras (VP 265).69 Music (Μουσική), which together with medicine (ἰατρική) constitutes an instrument of catharsis in Aristoxenus fr. 26 Wehrli, was also inevitably connected to the Muses. Music and medicine are all important also in the Apolline cult, in which the goal of purity is constantly present. The spread of the cult among the Pythagoreans appears to be connected with a fundamental cathartic rite of theirs, which took place in spring and involved listening to the paean for soothing and curative purposes. This rite is attested by Iamblichus (VP 110),70 who reports that a member of the community sat on the ground and played the lyre while others, seated in a circle around him, intoned some paeans, which allowed them to become “harmonious and orderly” (ἐμμελεῖς καὶ ἔνρυθμοι). This rite took place in spring, but in other periods of the year too, as Iamblichus makes clear, the Pythagoreans resorted to music therapy (χρῆσθαι 67 In this story, Empedocles uses a Homeric verse and the music of the lyre to sooth the murderous rage of a young man. 68 See, e.g., Lucian. Cont. 7.1–5. 69 In the Suda (s.v. Ἀριστόξενος = Aristox. fr. 1 Wehrli) Aristoxenus’ father is called both Mnesias — a clear reference to memory — and Spintharus. Three (Mnesarchos, Mnesagetes, Mnasagoras) out of the four possible names of Archytas’ father according to the same lexicon (s.v. Ἀρχύτας = Archyt. Test. A 2 Huffman) refer to memory. Interesting comments on these onomastic matters can be found in Visconti (1999) 44–9, which considers Mnesias as Spintharus’ nickname. Detienne (1962) 42 n. 2, in agreement with Delatte (1938) 24, considers Aristoxenus as the authority on this Pythagorean custom as well. Brisson and Segonds (1996) 183 are of the same opinion.

δ’ αὐτοὺς καὶ κατὰ τὸν ἄλλον χρόνον τῇ μουσικῇ ἐν ἰατρείας τάξει), explicitly calling it “catharsis” and also using it against physical infirmities. A scholion on the Iliad (Schol. Vet. in Il. 22.391), in which mention is made of this spring musical catharsis of the Pythagoreans, comments that “in ancient times, and down to the Pythagoreans, music was called, strangely, ‘catharsis’” (ἡ πάλαι μουσική […] μέχρι τῶν Πυθαγορ<ε>ίων ἐθαυμάζετο καλουμένη κάθαρσις), with evident reference to Aristoxenus fr. 26 Wehrli. The reference to spring is significant; the spring cathartic paean constituted a common custom, which connected the cycles of rebirth and renewal of nature, in spring, to the health of man and, from the religious point of view, to the god Apollo.71 In particular, regarding the ability of the paean to prevent illnesses, it seems that the spring was considered a season particularly favorable to the manifestation of disease.72 This passage from Iamblichus is closely connected to a testimony by the paradoxographer Apollonius (Hist. Mirab. 40 = Aristox. fr. 117 Wehrli),73 which asserts that, in the biography of Telestes74 written by Aristoxenus, a very strange story was told, relating to the women of Locri and Rhegium. They were in such a condition of agitation that, when they heard someone call them while they were having lunch, they suddenly jumped up and started frantically running outside the city walls. The people of Locri and Rhegium consulted an oracle about this unusual behavior and in response were told “to intone twelve spring paeans a day for sixty days” (παιᾶνας ἄιδειν ἐαρινοὺς † δωδεκατης † ἡμέρας ξʹ),75 and as a result many authors of paeans arose in these places afterwards. This episode thus appears to be an αἴτιον of the 71 Theognis (776–9), among others, bears witness to celebrations of Apollo in Megara in springtime. On those occasions paeans were sung. 72 For instance, in [Arist.] Probl. 1.9 860a12–34 and 1.27 862b11–15. 73 This fragment is thoroughly studied by Fortenbaugh, in his essay in this volume. 74 Probably the dithyrambic poet from Selinous, a leading exponent of the “new music” and active between the 5th and 4th cent. BCE. Aristoxenus’ hostility toward musical innovations, especially toward the “new music,” as we can see for instance in Aristox. fr. 124 Wehrli, does not preclude his interest in it. On this matter, see Visconti (1999) 153–6 and Power’s essay in this volume. 75 The text in the manuscripts is corrupt. I accept West’s conjecture (1990), which is accepted also by Käppel (1992) 352, test. 139, reading δώδεκα τῆς ἡμέρας <ἐπὶ ἡμέρας> ξʹ. West refers to Il. 1.472 as evidence for the custom of singing paeans for a prolonged time with a cathartic aim.

paean writing tradition of Magna Graecia. As Marie Delcourt76 has shown regarding this fragment, the Pythia usually prescribed sacrifices, not paeans, in reparation of offences to gods or heroes. Since, on the other hand, we know of the ritual cathartic function associated with music by the Pythagoreans, it is no accident that this form of expiation was prescribed for the inhabitants of Locri and Rhegium, where there were Pythagorean communities. The events narrated by Aristoxenus seem to be connected with the musical catharsis of which Iamblichus speaks in VP 110 both by the season and also by the kind of music employed, as well as by the soothing effect that is associated with music, which has the function of inspiring internal order and dignified behavior. Aristoxenus fr. 117 Wehrli, therefore, seems further to confirm the interest of the musicologist of Tarentum in the cathartic effects of music that appears in fr. 26 Wehrli, as well as his desire to highlight the devotion of the Pythagoreans to the ideal of a life characterized by measure and stability, in which catharsis was therapy for excesses. As we are going to see, this ideal is confirmed by the Pythagorean Precepts and can also be found in some fragments of the Presocratics, so that it does not have to be explained by reference to Plato’s paideia and his consideration of body and soul as distinct but also complementary to one another. 4. The Pythagoreans and Ethics It is primarily the distinction between body and soul in Aristoxenus fr. 26 Wehrli that has led scholars to regard the fragment as dependent on Plato.77 Of course, the Athenian philosopher often calls attention to the strong relationship between body and soul as far as education (paideia) is concerned.78 In the Republic (404e3–5), for instance, 76 Delcourt (19982) 234–5. See for instance Hoessly (2001) 183. 78 See for instance Rep. 376e2–4, τίς οὖν ἡ παιδεία; ἢ χαλεπὸν εὑρεῖν βελτίω τῆς ὑπὸ τοῦ πολλοῦ χρόνου ηὑρημένης; ἔστιν δέ που ἡ μὲν ἐπὶ σώμασι γυμναστική, ἡ δ› ἐπὶ ψυχῇ μουσική, “and so, which education? It is difficult to find one better than that found a long time ago: I mean gymnastic for the body and music for the soul.” Cf. Phdr. 270b4–9, where Socrates states that “as for medicine, it is necessary to determine the physis of the body, so for rhetoric it is necessary to determine the physis of the soul, if our aim is to obtain health and vigor by means of remedies and food as far as the body is concerned, and to transmit persuasion and virtue to the soul

the simplicity (ἁπλότης) of music is said to produce temperance (σωφροσύνη) in the soul, and that of gymnastics to produce health in the body, unlike variety (ποικιλία), which, instead, is a cause of disorder (ἀκολασία).79 In Charmides (156e), Socrates states that he learned from physicians of Thrace that it is not possible to take care of the body separately from the soul (156e1–2, οὐ δεῖ ἐπιχειρεῖν ἰᾶσθαι […] σῶμα ἄνευ ψυχῆς); otherwise serious errors are committed. Thus most Greek physicians do not succeed in getting the better of many diseases, because they only take an interest in single parts, considering a person like a fragmented reality and not realizing that the soul is the origin of all evil and good regarding the body.80 At all events, such a distinction between the healing of the soul and the healing of the body, together with a consideration of their complementarity, goes back long before Plato. Such a view was widespread in Greek culture and was one of the fundamental elements in medical thought. Body and soul are distinguished as regards therapy, for instance, in a fragment of Democritus (68B31 DK = Clem. Paed. 1.6 [1.93.15 Stählin]), which appears very close to the formulation in Aristoxenus fr. 26 Wehrli, although it is wisdom (σοφία) and not music that cures the soul: “medicine, according to Democritus, cures illnesses of the body, wisdom frees the soul from passions” (ἰατρικὴ μὲν γὰρ κατὰ Δημόκριτον σώματος νόσους ἀκέεται, σοφίη δὲ ψυχὴν παθῶν ἀφαιρεῖται).81 Gorgias too distinguishes body and soul, affirming, by means of discourses and occupations conformable to laws” (ἐν ἀμφοτέραις δεῖ διελέσθαι φύσιν, σώματος μὲν ἐν τῇ ἑτέρᾳ, ψυχῆς δὲ ἐν τῇ ἑτέρᾳ, εἰ μέλλεις, μὴ τριβῇ μόνον καὶ ἐμπειρίᾳ ἀλλὰ τέχνῃ, τῷ μὲν φάρμακα καὶ τροφὴν προσφέρων ὑγίειαν καὶ ῥώμην ἐμποιήσειν, τῇ δὲ λόγους τε καὶ ἐπιτηδεύσεις νομίμους πειθὼ ἣν ἂν βούλῃ καὶ ἀρετὴν παραδώσειν). 79 Cf. Rep. 411e–412a: the gods gave human beings music and gymnastic so that these would harmonize the one with the other and help them as far as courage and philosophy are concerned, and not for soul and body in themselves. Therefore, in Plato’s opinion, the best musician is not the one who can best tune a musical instrument, but the one who is able to blend skillfully gymnastic and music. Music is not useful in itself. It must have an aim, and is part of a process of education and improvement. 80 On this aspect of the dialogue, see Coolidge (1993). 81 Cf. Gorg. Hel. 1, κόσμος πόλει μὲν εὐανδρία, σώματι δὲ κάλλος, ψυχῇ δὲ σοφία, “abundance of good men adorns the city, while beauty adorns the body, and wisdom is the ornament of the soul […].” On the perfection of the soul as a source of advantages for the body, and not the other way round, see Democr. 68B187 DK, ἀνθρώποις ἁρμόδιον ψυχῆς μᾶλλον ἢ σώματος λόγον ποιεῖσθαι· ψυχῆς μὲν

in the Encomium of Helen (14), that “the same relationship exists between the power of a discourse and the disposition of the soul, and between the action of medicines and the nature of the body” (τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ λόγον ἔχει ἥ τε τοῦ λόγου δύναμις πρὸς τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς τάξιν ἥ τε τῶν φαρμάκων τάξις πρὸς τὴν τῶν σωμάτων φύσιν). Therefore, medicine provides remedies for the body both in Aristoxenus fr. 26 Wehrli and in these two fragments, while the soul is healed by mousikē, sophia and logos respectively, so that the healing of the soul by means of philosophy is already attested to independently of Plato82 in the Presocratics. Furthermore, Aristoxenus’ testimony defines as catharsis both medicine’s treatment of the body and music’s care for the soul, suggesting some autonomy of the body from the soul, but at the same time highlighting their interdependence. Indeed, Pythagorean therapy is defined as catharsis on the basis of the close connection between them. Thus, in this sense it can be affirmed — analogously to what Huffman has shown for Pythagorean moral philosophy as it is found in the fragments of the Pythagorean Precepts — that the distinction between therapy of the body and therapy of the soul in fr. 26 Wehrli is not necessarily derived from Platonic presuppositions, but is connected with a way of seeing things that is widespread. Apart from the above mentioned fragments, this outlook is attested also in testimonies concerning the Pythagoreans that have connections to Aristoxenus. For instance, some words are attributed to Pythagoras both by Porphyry and also by Iamblichus, for which Porphyry (VP 22 = Iamb. VP 34 = Aristox. fr. 17 Wehrli) indicates Aristoxenus as his source. Pythagoras, who had succeeded in eliminating discords and rebellions in different cities in Magna Graecia,83 γὰρ τελεότης σκήνεος μοχθηρίην ὀρθοῖ, σκήνεος δὲ ἰσχὺς ἄνευ λογισμοῦ ψυχὴν οὐδέν τι ἀμείνω τίθησιν, “it better suits men to pay attention to the soul rather than the body. For, the perfection of the soul heals the bad condition of the body, while the strength of the body without reasoning does not improve the soul in anything.” The relationship between Democritus and Pythagoreanism has been dealt with, for example, by Boyancé (1937) 176–82; Wehrli (1951) 55–61 and Burkert (1972) 292. 82 See the famous passage in Phaedo in which φιλοσοφία is defined as “the highest music” (61a3–4, μεγίστη μουσική), and φρόνησις is considered as purification (69c2–3, καθαρμός). Some sources report that Pythagoras led the people of Croton from a disorderly and lascivious way of life to a moderate one (see, e.g., Giangiulio [1989] 305–8).

asserts the absolute need to eradicate by all means “illness from the body” (ἀπὸ μὲν σώματος νόσον), “ignorance from the soul” (ἀπὸ δὲ ψυχῆς ἀμαθίαν), “immoderation from the belly” (κοιλίας δὲ πολυτέλειαν), “rebellion from the city” (πόλεως δὲ στάσιν), “discord from the house” (οἴκου δὲ διχοφροσύνην) and “together the lack of measure from all things” (ὁμοῦ δὲ πάντων ἀμετρίαν).84 This passage expresses a disapproval of excess (ἀμετρία), which is analogous to that in Aristoxenus’ Pythagorean Precepts, in no uncertain terms. The lack of measure takes many shapes, revealing itself as illness (νόσος) in the body, as ignorance (ἀμαθία) in the soul, and also as sedition (στάσις) and discord (διχοφροσύνη) in the city and household. Even the mention of ignorance (ἀμαθία), which might seem to bring this Aristoxenian fragment near to Plato, and in particular to the Sophist,85 is rather Presocratic in its origin. We can think, for instance, of the strong relationship between ἀμαθία and ἁμαρτία, the “error” which also becomes “guilt,” in the fragments of Democritus and Gorgias.86 On the other hand, the mention of catharsis as a purge of noxious defilements in the Sophist is inspired by the old medical and religious notion of catharsis. However, of these two elements, ἀμαθία and ἀμετρία, the latter is more relevant to our topic. As a matter of fact, the disapproval of ἀμετρία, which is the 84 Cf. Democr. 68B285 DK, γινώσκειν χρεὼν ἀνθρωπίνην βιοτὴν ἀφαυρήν τε ἐοῦσαν καὶ ὀλιγοχρόνιον πολλῇσίν τε κηρσὶ συμπεφυρμένην καὶ ἀμηχανίῃσιν, ὅκως ἄν τις μετρίης τε κτήσιος ἐπιμέληται καὶ μετρῆται ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις ἡ ταλαιπωρίη, “it “it is is necessary necessary to to be be aware aware that that human human life life is is uncertain uncertain and and short, short, disdisfigured by disgrace and helplessness, to such a degree that one should aim at a moderate wealth and distress may be proportionate to the necessaries of life.” 85 See Sph. 226d–231c, in which ignorance (ἄγνοια), in the form of “lack of culture” (ἀμαθία, 229c-d), is considered the main source of harm to the soul. The stranger who is the protagonist of the dialogue proposes remedying it through ἔλεγξις (“refutation”), which he affirms to be “the greatest and the most powerful of purifications” (230d7–8, τὸν ἔλεγχον λεκτέον ὡς ἄρα μεγίστη καὶ κυριωτάτη τῶν καθάρσεών ἐστι). Cf. Ti. 86b2–4, in which the disease of the soul is folly (ἄνοια), characterized in turn as “madness” (μανία) and “ignorance” (ἀμαθία), and Procl. In Plat. Alc. I 280.12–8, in which ἔλεγξις and κάθαρσις follow one another for those who practice philosophy. 86 See Democr. 68B83 DK, ἁμαρτίης αἰτίη ἡ ἀμαθίη τοῦ κρέσσονος, “ignorance of what is better is responsible for guilt” and Gorg. Hel. 1, ἴση γὰρ ἁμαρτία καὶ ἀμαθία μέμφεσθαί τε τὰ ἐπαινετὰ καὶ ἐπαινεῖν τὰ μωμητά, “guilt and ignorance are actually the same thing, and also to blame what should be praised, and to praise what should be blamed.”

contrary of συμμετρία, reflects a widespread attitude. Democritus (68B70 DK) maintained that “immoderate desires are peculiar to children, and not to men” (παιδός, οὐκ ἀνδρὸς τὸ ἀμέτρως ἐπιθυμεῖν), and in the Pythagorean Precepts (Aristox. fr. 33 Wehrli = Iamb. VP 174), in which τάξις and συμμετρία are the basic principles inspiring good behavior both in public and in private life, human beings are to submit to a superior power inspiring them with moderation and order (δεῖσθαι οὖν τοιαύτης ὑπεροχῆς τε καὶ ἐπανατάσεως, ἀφ’ ἧς ἐστι σωφρονισμός τις καὶ τάξις), since their disposition is naturally insolent (ὑβριστικὸν γὰρ δὴ φύσει τὸ ζῷον ἔφασαν εἶναι) and unstable because of the influence of impulses, desires and other passions (ποικίλον κατά τε τὰς ὁρμὰς καὶ κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας καὶ κατὰ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν παθῶν). In another fragment of the Pythagorean Precepts (fr. 35 Wehrli = Stob. 4.1.49), education of individuals of all ages (ἐπιμελητέον δὲ πάσης ἡλικίας ἡγοῦντο)87 is then proposed as a remedy for the natural inclination toward passions, and, therefore, as something that inspires moderation and order. An orderly rearing beginning with early childhood (δεῖν δὲ ἔφασκον εὐθὺς ἐκ παίδων καὶ τὴν τροφὴν τεταγμένως προσφέρεσθαι) provides further help, since the Pythagoreans taught that “order and proportion are beautiful and useful, while disorder and disproportion are base and harmful” (διδάσκοντες ὡς ἡ μὲν τάξις καὶ συμμετρία καλὰ καὶ σύμφορα, ἡ δ’ ἀταξία καὶ ἀσυμμετρία αἰσχρά τε καὶ ἀσύμφορα).88 The same ideas are also expressed in Aristoxenus’ fragments concerning Pythagoreanism through musical language, as a consequence of the interest of the Pythagoreans in music as a model of the harmony that should always inspire men. For instance, they regarded a reproach (νουθετεῖν) as a “retuning” of passions (πεδαρτᾶν),89 87 According to the Pythagorean educational program in Aristox. fr. 35 Wehrli, children must be trained in letters and other studies (τοὺς μὲν παῖδας ἐν γράμμασι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις μαθήμασιν ἀσκεῖσθαι), while the young men must be exercised in the customs of the city and to its laws (τοὺς δὲ νεανίσκους τοῖς τῆς πόλεως ἔθεσί τε καὶ νόμοις γυμνάζεσθαι), adult men must attend to business and public service (τοὺς δὲ ἄνδρας ταῖς πράξεσί τε καὶ δημοσίαις λειτουργίαις προσέχειν) and old men must turn back to reflection, serving as judges and giving advice with the aid of all their knowledge (τοὺς δὲ πρεσβύτας ἐνθυμήσεσι καὶ κριτηρίοις καὶ συμβουλίαις δεῖν ἐναναστρέφεσθαι μετὰ πάσης ἐπιστήμης). 88 Aristox. fr. 35 Wehrli (= Stob. 4.1.49). Also see Iamb. VP 210–3. See Iamb. VP 197–8 = Aristox. fr. 30 [= 49] Wehrli = Archyt. Test. A7 Huffman (discussed below).

while concord (συμφωνία) and good proportion (εὐρυθμία) are central concepts in precepts concerning the generation of healthy children. Pythagoras said that “men should not associate with women for reproduction when full of food and drink,” for “he does not think that well proportioned and beautiful things arise from intercourse that is base, discordant and disordered, but things that are not at all good” (ἔλεγε δὲ καὶ μήτε τροφῆς μήτε μέθης πλήρη ταῖς γυναιξὶν εἰς τὸ γεννᾶν ὁμιλεῖν, οὐ γὰρ οἴεται ἐκ φαύλης καὶ ἀσυμφώνου καὶ ταραχώδους κράσεως εὔρυθμα καὶ καλά, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ ἀγαθὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν γίγνεσθαι).90 Concord (συμφωνία is also mentioned in Corpus Hippocraticum in connection with generation, as we can see in De victu 1.8.2 (6.482 Littré = CMG 1.2.4. 132.4–11 Joly [20032]), in which the Pythagorean harmonic intervals are the model for the embryo’s development, and also in De alimento 37 (9.110 L. = 145 Joly [1972]), which discusses the “periods generally concordant for the embryo and its nourishment” (περίοδοι ἐς πολλὰ σύμφωνοι, ἐς ἔμβρυον καὶ ἐς τὴν τούτου τροφήν). The use of musical language in these Aristoxenian fragments seems then to illustrate the akousma according to which harmony is “the most beautiful thing” (Iamb. VP 82, τί κάλλιστον; ἁρμονία), showing that harmony is also apparent in moderate attitudes and behavior. It is clear then from these references that Aristoxenus fr. 26 Wehrli did not borrow the distinction between soul and body from Plato and that it should be regarded in the same light as the other Aristoxenian fragments dealing with Pythagoreanism, rather than being interpreted through the Neoplatonic sources. Furthermore, the beneficial effects of music and the use of musical remedies are attested well before the Pythagoreans in the Homeric Poems,91 which are surely closer to the Aristoxenian fragment than Plato and his clear cut distinction, in the context of education (paideia), between musical modes allowed within the city and modes to be banished from it. Actually Plato, except for the case of music- and dance-therapy within the Corybantic rites 90 Aristox. fr. 39 Wehrli (= Stob. 4.37.4); transl. in Huffman (2008) 111. Cf. Iamb. VP 211, ᾤοντο γὰρ ἐκ φαύλης τε καὶ ἀσυμφώνου καὶ ταραχώδους κράσεως μοχθηρὰ γίνεσθαι τὰ σπέρματα, and Ocellus Lucanus, 52–7. 91 See Il. 1.472–4 (the singing of paeans to soothe Apollo’s wrath and thus to stop the plague) and Od. 19.456–8 (the “sung charm” — ἐπῳδή — — as as aa remedy remedy for for OdysOdysseus’ bleeding wound). Also see Il. 9.186–8 (Achilles soothes his own wrath with his phorminx after Agamemnon’s affront).

(Laws 790–1), does not separate the benefits of music from education, for which just two musical modes, the Dorian and the Phrygian, are allowed in the ideal polis (Rep. 399a-c). On the contrary, Aristoxenus fr. 26 Wehrli is completely free of the basic assumptions of Plato’s musical paideia, since there is no hint in it of specific musical modes that are considered to be beneficial. Therefore, the musical catharsis of the soul in Aristoxenus fr. 26 Wehrli seems to refer to the mere experience of the benefits of music, rather than to musical ēthos. It results in moral balance and generally in a better condition of the soul, as can be seen, for instance, in an anecdote relating to Clinias, a Pythagorean, who was a contemporary of Plato.92 The Peripatetic Chamaeleon (fr. 4 Wehrli = fr. 6 Giordano = Athen. 623f–624a) affirms that Clinias distinguished himself by his way of living, and that “if he happened to become irritated because of anger, he took the lyre and played it. When people asked him the reason, he answered ‘I am calming down’” (Κλεινίας γοῦν ὁ Πυθαγόρειος, ὡς Χαμαιλέων ὁ Ποντικὸς ἱστορεῖ, καὶ τῷ βίῳ καὶ τοῖς ἤθεσιν διαφέρων, εἴ ποτε συνέβαινεν χαλεπαίνειν αὐτὸν δι’ ὀργήν, ἀναλαμβάνων τὴν λύραν ἐκιθάριζεν. πρὸς δὲ τοὺς ἐπιζητοῦντας τὴν αἰτίαν ἔλεγεν· “πραΰνομαι”). Both Athenaeus and Aelian (VH 14.23), the other source of the anecdote, connect the attitude of Clinias with that of Achilles, who in the Iliad (9.186–8) tries to appease his anger at Agamemnon by playing the φόρμιγξ, while sitting in his tent (τὸν δ’ εὗρον φρένα τερπόμενον φόρμιγγι λιγείῃ, 186).93 These two episodes do not show self-control over passions arising as a consequence of musical ēthos and paideia,94 but rather 92 According to a tendentious anecdote (D.L. 9.40 = Aristox. fr. 131 Wehrli), Clinias prevented Plato from burning Democritus’ writings. 93 Clinias and Achilles are also linked together in the scholia (see Eustath. Comm. ad Hom. Il. 2.694 and 3.906–7 van der Valk). Achilles’ case is also mentioned in [Plut.] De mus. 40 1145d-e to illustrate the usefulness of music (ἡ μουσικὴ πολλαχοῦ χρησίμη). In Detienne’s opinion (Detienne [1962] 38–46), this episode in the Iliad played a major role in the Pythagorean exegesis of the Homeric Poems. This exegesis is attested at least since Chamaeleon, the source of the comparison between Clinias and Achilles, to whom Eustathius refers with the words τῶν τις δὲ παλαιῶν. According to Detienne (1962) 41, the comparison with Clinias makes it clear that the Pythagoreans “voyaient en Achille un parfait exemple de la purification musicale,” so that “les héros homérique ne différait pas d’un ‘philosophe pythagoricien’” (43). Comparing this testimony by Chamaeleon to Aristox. fr. 26 Wehrli, which is contemporaneous, Wallace (1995) 18–26, so far as ēthos is concerned, instead identifies

illustrate the mere experience of the soothing power of music itself. In the Homeric verses the effect of music is enjoyment (τέρπειν), without any reference to ēthos,95 and Clinias just maintained that music had a soothing influence on him, without any reference to a particular mode. On the other hand, the testimony concerning Clinias clearly illustrates the Pythagorean precept concerning the need to act only when one is master of oneself, and not under the control of the passions, which can be also be found in a fragment of Aristoxenus’ biography of Archytas (Aristox. fr. 30 [= 49] Wehrli = Iamb. VP 197–8 = Archyt. Test. A7 Huffman),96 the source of which is Spintharus, the father of the musician himself. Aristoxenus in that passage affirms that the Pythagoreans never punished anybody when they were angry, but waited until they calmed down and returned to rationality (τὴν τῆς διανοίας ἀποκατάστασιν) before so doing. An example of this is Archytas, who, returning from a military campaign, grew angry on realizing that the overseer and the slaves on his farm had not worked in his absence, and told them to consider themselves lucky that he was angry, since, if he had been calm, they would never have been able to avoid punishment (… εὐτυχοῦσιν, ὅτι αὐτοῖς ὤργισται· εἰ γὰρ μὴ τοῦτο συμβεβηκὸς ἦν, οὐκ ἄν ποτε αὐτοὺς ἀθῴους γενέσθαι τηλικαῦτα ἡμαρτηκότας). It is said that Spintharus also reported a similar episode regarding Clinias, who refused to punish someone until he had calmed down. The mention of Clinias in this fragment is most important, since it helps to show that the anecdote in Aelian and Athenaeus is the result not of borrowing from Plato’s theory of musical ethos, but rather of Pythagorean interest in moral philosophy and in self-restraint. Its relationship with the anecdote concerning Archytas and the mention of Spintharus as the source of them both highlights indeed the representation of Clinias, a true Pythagorean model of self-control over passions. This anecdote from Aristoxenus’ Life of Archytas, which has its origin in Tarentine Pythagoreanism, rather than Platonic ethos and in them the moment when the Pythagoreans first notice a connection between ēthos and music, and considers fr. 26 Wehrli of Aristoxenus as proof of the rapidity with which the theory of musical ēthos spread among fourth-century Pythagoreans (22–3). 95 It seems worth noting that the episode of Achilles has nothing to do with paideia, which is not attested at the time of the Homeric Poems. Also see Wehrli (19672) 56 and Huffman (2005) 287–92.

paideia, is, therefore, likely to be the source of the passages on Clinias in Aelian and Atheneus. As we are going to see, the influence of Aristotle, whose opinions on the music of the aulos and enthusiastic music seem to originate from deep-rooted experience of the benefits of music therapy, may have further strenghtened Aristoxenus’ interest in the psychagogic effects of music. As a consequence of this, Aristoxenus may have tried to establish a relationship between his two masters, the Pythagoreans and Aristotle, by showing the former as the most authoritative and influential representatives of the empirical use of music therapy and as forerunners of Aristotelian catharsis, which was founded as well on the observation of facts. Although this is just speculation, since Aristoxenus fr. 26 Wehrli is too brief for us to have any confidence in our understanding of what Aristoxenus intended, nonetheless the crucial role of actual experience of the beneficial effects of music both for the Pythagoreans and for Aristotle may at least suggest that our fragment is closer to traditional uses of music than to the theory of musical ēthos. Morevoer, as we are going to see, the interest of the musicologist of Tarentum in the effects of music, and in particular of enthusiastic music and the music of the aulos, significantly helps in the interpretation of the fragment. 5. Aristoxenus and the Therapeutic Effects of the Aulos and Enthusiastic Music In book 8 of the Politics, Aristotle distinguishes different melodies (μέλη), characterising them as “ethical” (ἠθικά), “practical” (πρακτικά) and “enthusiastic” (ἐνθουσιαστικά), and he considers their effects on human character and behavior, as well as dealing with the benefits of enthusiastic music and the aulos, its indispensable instrument.97 Regarding the latter, in Pol. 1340a8–12 Aristotle 97 According to Aristotle (Pol. 1342b1–3), “The Phrygian has the same power among the harmonies as the aulos among the instruments; both are characteristically frenzied and passionate” (ἔχει γὰρ τὴν αὐτὴν δύναμιν ἡ φρυγιστὶ τῶν ἁρμονιῶν ἥνπερ αὐλὸς ἐν τοῖς ὀργάνοις· ἄμφω γὰρ ὀργιαστικὰ καὶ παθητικά). Therefore, Philoxenus was unable to compose the dithyramb entitled The Mysians in the Dorian mode, “but because of its very nature he fell back on Phrygian again, the harmony appropriate to it” (1342b10–2, ὑπὸ τῆς φύσεως αὐτῆς ἐξέπεσεν εἰς τὴν φρυγιστὶ

particularly makes reference to the melodies of Olympus as testimony to the fact that music influences the character (“but that we do become of a certain quality is evident through many things, and not least through the tunes of Olympus,” ἀλλὰ μὴν ὅτι γιγνόμεθα ποιοί τινες, φανερὸν διὰ πολλῶν μὲν καὶ ἑτέρων, οὐχ ἥκιστα δὲ καὶ διὰ τῶν Ὀλύμπου μελῶν), and affirms that “it is agreed that these make souls inspired, and inspiration is a passion of the character connected with the soul” (ταῦτα γὰρ ὁμολογουμένως ποιεῖ τὰς ψυχὰς ἐνθουσιαστικάς, ὁ δ’ ἐνθουσιασμὸς τοῦ περὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ἤθους πάθος ἐστίν). Subsequently (Pol. 1341a21–4), speaking of the need to banish from the education of young people all “professional” instruments (τεχνικὰ ὄργανα), the philosopher affirms that “the aulos98 is an instrument involving not character but rather frenzy, and so is to be used with a view to those occasions when attendance has the power of [effecting] purification rather than learning” (ἔτι δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ αὐλὸς ἠθικὸν ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ὀργιαστικόν, ὥστε πρὸς τοὺς τοιούτους αὐτῷ καιροὺς χρηστέον ἐν οἷς ἡ θεωρία κάθαρσιν μᾶλλον δύναται ἢ μάθησιν), recognizing that this instrument has a cathartic function. Shortly after, Aristotle adds that all men, though with differing intensity, are subject to emotions (πάθη) like pity (ἔλεος), fear (φόβος) and “enthusiasm” (ἐνθουσιασμός), and that those who are particularly inclined to possession (κατοκώχιμοι) in turn get from “tunes that put the soul into frenzy” (ἐξοργιάζοντα μέλη) a “cure” (ἰατρεία) and “purification” (κάθαρσις), becoming calm. The same also happens to other kinds of victims of emotion (παθητικοί), who get relief through music (Pol. 1342a5–15). These observations are closely linked to reports about Aristoxenus and enthusiastic music that appear both in the pseudo-Plutarchian treatise De musica, and in an interesting anecdote having as its protagonist the musicologist of Tarentum (Apollon. Hist. Mir. 49 = Aristox. fr. 6 Wehrli). Indeed in De musica Aristoxenus is quoted twice as a source in relation to Olympus. In the first case Aristoxenus ascribes the invention of the enharmonic genus to the musician (11 1134f). In the second, in which the title of a treatise by Aristoxenus (Περὶ Μουσικῆς) is cited, Olympus is said to have been the first to use τὴν προσήκουσαν ἁρμονίαν πάλιν). Translations from Aristotle’s Politics are by Lord (1984). I prefer to use aulos instead of “flute,” which is Lord’s translation.

the Lydian mode, when he was composing a funeral song in honor of Python, the snake killed by Apollo at Delphi (15 1136c). The prominence that Aristoxenus conferred on Olympus in works on music that have not come down to us is also very clear from paragraph 29 (1141b), which attributes to Olympus not only the invention of nomoi but also the true beginning of Greek music (αὐτὸν δὲ τὸν Ὄλυμπον ἐκεῖνον, ᾧ δὴ τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς τε καὶ νομικῆς μούσης ἀποδιδόασι), and from the end of paragraph 11 of De musica, which affirms that “Olympus made music progress by introducing into it something new and unknown to his predecessors, and in this way became the founder of noble Greek music” (1135b-c = Aristox. fr. 83 Wehrli, φαίνεται δ’ Ὄλυμπος αὐξήσας μουσικὴν τῷ ἀγένητόν τι καὶ ἀγνοούμενον ὑπὸ τῶν ἔμπροσθεν εἰσαγαγεῖν, καὶ ἀρχηγὸς γενέσθαι τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς καὶ καλῆς μουσικῆς).99 Thus Aristoxenus appears to have made Olympus the guarantor of the nobility of ancient melodies and their ethical value, connecting these things closely with the use of a limited number of strings (ὀλιγοχορδία) and with simplicity (ἁπλότης) and dignity (σεμνότης), considered as their peculiar characteristics ([Plut.] De mus. 12 1135d).100 These characteristics, which in Plato, for example in the third book of Republic, are considered the exclusive prerogative of string instruments, are also associated by Aristoxenus with the aulos, the instrument to which, according to the tradition, Olympus is linked.101 It, therefore, seems that Aristoxenus upheld the ethical and educational dignity of the ancient musical 99 For Aristoxenus as the source of these passages of the pseudo-Plutarchian treatise De musica, see Meriani (2003) 78–9. Meriani follows Visconti (1999) 135–9 in attributing to Aristoxenus chs. 12 and 28–30 of the treatise. As asserted by Wehrli (19672) 74–5, “dass Olympos mit seiner Schöpfung die edle griechische Musik begründet habe, ist Antwort auf Platons Ablehnung alles dessen, was seinem strengen ethischen Maßstab nicht entspricht.” The text of the pseudo-Plutarchian De musica is quoted according to Ziegler and Pohlenz’s edition (1966); translations are from Barker (1984). 100 As Visconti (1999) 137–9, followed by Meriani (2003) 78, has shown, this chapter of the pseudo-Plutarchian treatise can be connected to Aristox. fr. 70 and 124 Wehrli. 101 In [Plut.] De mus. 5 1132f it is reported that Alexander Polyhistor in his Collection of Information about Phrygia (Συναγωγῇ τῶν περὶ Φρυγίας, FGrHist 273F77) “said that Olympus was the first to introduce instrumental music to the Greeks” (Ἀλέξανδρος δ› ἐν τῇ Συναγωγῇ τῶν περὶ Φρυγίας κρούματα Ὄλυμπον ἔφη πρῶτον εἰς τοὺς Ἕλληνας κομίσαι). For κρούματα as synonym of αὐλήματα, see Plut. Quaest. Conv. 2 638c and Barker (1984) 209–10 n. 30.

tradition irrespective of the instruments used, since at that time all musical performances, in their simple style devoid of decorative virtuosities, were to mirror the decorum of states of mind. As we have just seen, Aristotle (Pol. 1340a9–12) also emphasizes, as a fundamental characteristic of the ancient melodies of Olympus, their ability to communicate enthusiasm to the soul and thus produce a catharsis as the result of listening to enthusiastic melodies. Thus the similarities between Aristoxenus and Aristotle regarding enthusiastic melodies are evident, on the one hand, from the importance Aristoxenus attaches to Olympus and his melodies, and on the other, from Aristoxenus’ marked interest in the manifold aspects of understanding of the musical phenomenon, in relation to which, as the pseudo-Plutarchian treatise De musica testifies, the “perfect” musician (τέλεος μουσικός, [Plut.] De mus. 36 1144c)102 has to exercise his own “capacity for judgment” (κριτικὴ δύναμις). In light of this, it is necessary for the music scholar to go beyond specialized knowledge of the elements that together constitute the object of his investigation, when exercising his critical capacity in order to judge the different musical compositions.103 He must realize that their specific ēthos is given “by a synthesis or by a mixture or by both” (τούτου [sc.τοῦ ἤθου] δέ φαμεν αἰτίαν εἶναι σύνθεσίν τινα ἢ μῖξιν ἢ ἀμφότερα, [Plut.] De mus. 33 1143b1),104 and not by consideration of single elements. The fact is that the ēthos of the composition varies with variation in even 102 That the musicologist should not limit himself to the study of harmonics is clear from the Elementa Harmonica (1.1–2, 5.7–6.6 Da Rios [1954], “[harmonics] is the study of first principles, which include whatever is relevant to an understanding of systēmata and tonoi. The man who is proficient in this science should not consider anything beyond these as falling within his province; for that is the end of this branch of study. Matters investigated at a higher level, where the science of composition makes use of systēmata and tonoi, no longer belong to this science, but to the one which includes both this and the others through which all musical matters are investigated: and that is the science whose possession makes a man a musical expert,” translation in Barker [1989]). 103 [Plut.] De mus. 36 1144c4–6, οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε τέλεον γενέσθαι μουσικόν τε καὶ κριτικὸν ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν δοκούντων εἶναι μερῶν τῆς ὅλης μουσικῆς, “one cannot become a complete musician and critic just on the basis of what we treat as the departments of music as a whole.” On Aristoxenus and ēthos in the pseudo-Plutarchian treatise, see Eleonora Rocconi’s essay in this volume and Rocconi (2005).

a single element of the mixture producing it.105 Hence for Aristoxenus it is necessary for the musician to be a philosopher too, since “only philosophy knows how to appraise the measure that is suited to music and its utility” ([Plut.] De mus. 32 1142d1–2, αὕτη γὰρ ἱκανὴ κρῖναι τὸ μουσικῇ πρέπον μέτρον καὶ τὸ χρήσιμον).106 The Pythagoreans, who practiced philosophy and music at the same time, combining the theoretical study of music with a practical interest in its efficaciousness as a remedy, seem to provide a paradigm for this approach. These affirmations appear very close to what Aristotle says in the Politics (1341b36–1342a4) regarding the need to practice music not for a single benefit but for many (φαμὲν δ’ οὐ μιᾶς ἕνεκεν ὠφελείας τῇ μουσικῇ χρῆσθαι δεῖν ἀλλὰ καὶ πλειόνων χάριν), since in addition to being useful for ēthos, which makes it useful for the education of young people, music is useful for catharsis (καὶ γὰρ παιδείας ἕνεκεν καὶ καθάρσεως) and also for relaxation (πρὸς διαγωγήν), relief (πρὸς ἄνεσιν) and rest from efforts (πρὸς τὴν τῆς συντονίας ἀνάπαυσιν). Aristotle and Aristoxenus, therefore, seem to share an interest in the manifold expressive possibilities and effects of the different melodies,107 with particular attention, as has been seen, to the Phrygian mode. Aristoxenus’ attitude to enthusiastic music and the aulos is also evident in a testimony in which the musicologist himself resorts to music therapy, using precisely the aulos. This anecdote is part of a work by Theophrastus Περὶ ἐνθουσιασμῶν (On Enthusiasms),108 105 The treatise refers to the beginning of the Nomos of Athena ([Plut.] De mus. 33 1143b-d). The musician must have full knowledge of music also according to [Plut.] De mus. 34 1143e-f, δηλονότι <ὁ> παρακολουθῶν ταῖς τε κατὰ μέρος ἐπιστήμαις καὶ τῷ συνόλῳ σώματι τῆς μουσικῆς καὶ ταῖς τῶν μερῶν μίξεσί τε καὶ συνθέσεσιν. ὁ γὰρ μόνον ἁρμονικὸς περιγέγραπται τρόπῳ τινί, “such a grasp [the overall grasp of matters related to the science of Harmonics] belongs rather to the man who pursues both the sciences dealing with particular elements and the whole unified body of music, together with the mixtures and combinations of the elements. Anyone who is only a ‘harmonicist’ is in a way circumscribed.” 106 As Meriani (2003) 60–6 has pointed out, Aristoxenus is the source of this passage. 107 See also Wehrli (19672) 69–75. 108 This title could refer to a work on the origins and therapeutic effects of enthousiasmos and on its relationship to aulodic music and the Phrygian mode. There are two further pieces of evidence for this work of Theophrastus (Theophr. fr. 726B-C FHS&G, namely Athen. 624a-b and Aul. Gell. Noct. Att. 4.13). They are later than

which has not come down to us, and is reported by the paradoxographer Apollonius (2nd cent. BCE).109 In the anecdote, Aristoxenus heals a man in Thebes, who became upset at the sound of the trumpet (τὸν ἐξιστάμενον ἐν Θήβαις ὑπὸ τὴν τῆς σάλπιγγος φωνήν). As he listened to the trumpet, the man “let out such cries that he behaved in an indecorous way,” (ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον γὰρ ἐβόησεν ἀκούων, ὥστε ἀσχημονεῖν). Indeed, it is explained that “if one played on the trumpet an incitement to war, his sufferings became much worse and he went mad” (εἰ δέ ποτε καὶ πολεμικὸν σαλπίσειέ τις, πολὺ χεῖρον πάσχειν μαινόμενον). The treatment to which Aristoxenus submits the man who has gone mad because of the trumpet (σάλπιγξ) comes about through the aulos. The musician “gradually reconciles him to the sound of the aulos and, as one might say, he gradually also made him able to bear the sound of the trumpet” (τοῦτον οὖν κατὰ μικρὸν τῷ αὐλῷ προσάγειν, καὶ ὡς ἄν τις εἴποι ἐκ προσαγωγῆς ἐποίησεν καὶ τῆς σάλπιγγος φωνὴν ὑπομένειν).110 Hence the trumpet (σάλπιγξ) would have devastating effects on the psychê and behavior of those people that are beside themselves, increasing their sufferings and disorderliness beyond all measure.111 From the title of Apollonius, and focus on just one disease cured with the aulos, sciatica. Athenaeus, but not Apollonius, also adds that the therapeutic mode was the Phrygian. See also Plin. NH 28.21 (whom Gellius seems to follow); Mart. Cap. 9.926 and Eustath. Comm. ad Hom. Il. 3.907.4–6 van der Valk. For the Theophrastan evidence concerning music therapy and enthousiasmos, see Matelli (2004) 160–173. 109 Aristox. fr. 6 Wehrli = Theophr. fr. 726A FHS&G = Apollon. Hist. mirab. 49.1–3 (Parad. Gr. 140.262–142.275 Giannini [1966]); see also Athen. 726a. Just before the anecdote concerning Aristoxenus, quoting Theophrastus as his source, Apollonius said that precisely in the work Περὶ ἐνθουσιασμῶν Theophrastus himself affirmed that “music cures many of the ills that affect the soul and the body, such as fainting, fright and prolonged disturbances of mind. For the playing of the aulos, he says, cures both sciatica and epilepsy” (Θεόφραστος ἐν τῷ περὶ ἐνθουσιασμῶν … φησὶ … τὴν μουσικὴν πολλὰ τῶν ἐπὶ ψυχὴν καὶ τὸ σῶμα γιγνομένων παθῶν ἰατρεύειν καθάπερ λιποθυμίαν φόβους καὶ τὰς ἐπὶ μακρὸν γιγνομένας τῆς διανοίας ἐκστάσεις. Ἰᾶται γὰρ, φησὶν, ἡ καταύλησις καὶ ἰσχιάδα καὶ ἐπιληψίαν, trans. in FHS&G). The whole passage from Apollonius has been studied in detail by Fortenbaugh in his essay in this volume. 110 On the meaning of this text, which is partially corrupt, and its interpretation, especially with regard to Aristoxenus’ presence in Thebes, see Visconti (1999) 21–5. The trumpet was generally considered an upsetting instrument, as is also attested by Seneca as far as the Pythagoreans are concerned (De ira 3.9.2, Pythagoras perturbationes animi lyra componebat […] quis autem ignorat lituos et tubas concitamenta

Theophrastus’ work, it appears evident that the healing of the man, who had gone mad because of the trumpet, is produced by the enthusiastic character of the music112 and comes about allopathically thanks to the aulos, which, unusually, has a soothing effect. Aristoxenus, moreover, soothing his patient with the sound of the aulos, also appears to have made him tolerant toward the sound of the trumpet (σάλπιγξ), gradually administering enthusiastic music to him and “immunizing” him against the upsetting effects that the trumpet (σάλπιγξ) produces, it seems, in those people who have never been exposed to its effect under the control of an expert on musical therapy, who “educates” people to listen. Aristoxenus then seems to ascribe to the aulos the same therapeutic efficacy it has according to Aristotle; while on the other hand, as we can infer from the above quoted testimonies, he goes even further, since he seems to ascribe also to the aulos — and not just to stringed instruments — both psychagogical and ethical effects that play an educational role.113 As a consequence, it seems that, according to Aristoxenus, the aulos can also inspire moderation and restraint, as can be seen both in the story told by Apollonius,114 and also in a passage from esse, sicut quosdam cantus blandimenta quibus mens resolvatur? “Pythagoras soothed the perturbations of the soul with the lyre […] who does not know that the clarion and the trumpets are upsetting, just as some songs are soothing so that the mind gets a relaxation thanks to them?”). 112 Theophrastus was the author of a work On Music (Περὶ μουσικῆς). Porphyry preserves a long passage from its second book. That passage (In Ptolem. Harm. 1.3 61.16–65.15 Düring = Theophr. fr. 716 FHS&G), beginning with the definition of the nature of music, is our main evidence on Theophrastus’ musical thought. 113 See Aristox. fr. 123 Wehrli = Strab. 1.2.3, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ τοὺς παῖδας αἱ τῶν Ἑλλήνων πόλεις πρώτιστα διὰ τῆς ποιητικῆς παιδεύουσιν, οὐ ψυχαγωγίας χάριν δήπουθεν ψιλῆς, ἀλλὰ σωφρονισμοῦ. ὅπου γε καὶ οἱ μουσικοὶ ψάλλειν καὶ λυρίζειν καὶ αὐλεῖν διδάσκοντες μεταποιοῦνται τῆς ἀρετῆς ταύτης. παιδευτικοὶ γὰρ εἶναί φασι καὶ ἐπανορθωτικοὶ τῶν ἠθῶν. ταῦτα δ› οὐ μόνον παρὰ τῶν Πυθαγορείων ἀκούειν ἐστὶ λεγόντων, ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἀριστόξενος οὕτως ἀποφαίνεται, “for this reason, Greek cities bring the young people up first through poetry not indeed just for winning their soul, but for inducing moderation. For musicians also lay claim to this virtue as they teach how to play harps, lyres and the aulos. They maintain, in fact, that these studies discipline and correct the character. You may hear such arguments not just from the Pythagoreans, but Aristoxenus also declares the same thing.” Fortenbaugh in his essay in this volume compares this text with Pol. Hist. 4.20–1 (on the military education of the Arcadians; this passage is also taken into account by

Iamblichus’ On the Pythagorean Life (112)115 of which the source may be Aristoxenus himself.116 In that passage, Pythagoras successfully uses music to calm the fury of a drunken youth, who wanted to set on fire the door of the house of a rival in love. The young man was incited in his violent intentions not only by the effects of wine but also by a Phrygian melody played by an aulos player (ἐξήπτετο γὰρ καὶ ἀνεζωπυρεῖτο ὑπὸ τοῦ Φρυγίου αὐλήματος), and Pythagoras, who was there observing the stars, succeeded in appeasing this violent behavior by ordering the aulos player to change to a spondaic melody117 (τὴν εἰς τὸν σπονδειακὸν μεταβολὴν ὑπέθετο τῷ αὐλητῇ). These same soothing and balancing effects of music on drunkenness are also found at the end of the pseudo-Plutarchian treatise De musica, where the utility of music at banquets is affirmed118 and a verse from the Odyssey is quoted (1.152), which asserts that “song and Rocconi in her essay in this volume). For Aristotle, however, the aulos does not have any share in education (Pol. 1341a21–4, οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ αὐλὸς ἠθικὸν ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ὀργιαστικόν, ὥστε πρὸς τοὺς τοιούτους αὐτῷ καιροὺς χρηστέον ἐν οἷς ἡ θεωρία κάθαρσιν μᾶλλον δύναται ἢ μάθησιν, “the aulos is an instrument involving not character but rather frenzy, and so is to be used with a view to those occasions when looking on has the power of [effecting] purification rather than learning”). 115 See also VP 195. Fortenbaugh also refers to this anecdote in his essay in this volume. 116 Pythagoras is often the protagonist (Cic. De suis consiliis fr. 2 Orelli [4.992] apud Augustin., Contra Iulianum Pelag. 5.5.23; Philodem. De mus. 3 (?), pap. Herc. 1576 fr. 1, 57–8 Kemke, rr. 16 ss.; Quint. Inst. Or. 1.10. 32; Sext. Emp. Adv. Math. 6.8; Boeth. De mus. 1.1 185.11–17 Friedlein), while in a different version it is Damon (Galen. De plac. Hipp. et Plat. 5.6.21 [CMG 5.453.2–6 Mueller] and Mart. Cap. 9.926). Galen, in contrast to other sources, ascribes the soothing effects of the music of the aulos to the mode, the Dorian, and not to the kind of song, the spondeion (actually this word refers to the rhythm, not to the mode). 117 In [Plut.] De mus. 11 1134f–1135c, following Aristoxenus, the invention of the enharmonic genus is ascribed to Olympus. The spondeion scale (see WinningtonIngram [1928] and Barker [1984] 216 n. 81 and 255–6), which was used for the σπονδεῖον (a μέλος ἐπιβώμιον, “libation “libation tune” tune” according according to to Pollux Pollux 4.79), 4.79), is is prepresented as an ancestral form of this genus. The spondeion is a tune for solo aulos (but see also Athen. 14 638a = Menaechmus, FGrHist 131F6, concerning Dio of Chios [according to Jan (1903) 877, the correct reading is Ion] as the inventor of spondeion for kithara). For the σπονδειακός (or σπονδειάζων) τρόπος, the “spondaic melody,” accompanying a song, see [Plut.] De mus. 18–19 1137b-d and Barker (1984) 256–7. On these passages, see also Barker (2007) 100–1. [Plut.] De mus. 43 1146e6, εἰ γάρ που [καὶ] χρησίμη, καὶ παρὰ πότον, “if music is useful anywhere, it is so when we are drinking.”

dance are the ornaments of the banquet” (μολπή τ’ ὀρχηστύς τε· τὰ γάρ τ’ ἀναθήματα δαιτός). This concept is corroborated by quoting Aristoxenus, who is said to have stressed that music heals the damage done by wine not only in the body but also in the soul.119 This passage from De musica and the anecdote in Iamblichus’ VP 112 seem to be connected not only by the reference to the exciting effects of wine, but also by their recourse to the moderating function of music. Moreover, the reference to the spondeion recalls [Plut.] De mus. 17 1137a2–3, in which, together with the melodies in honor of Ares and those in honor of Athena, spondeia are said to be “suited to fortifying the soul of a wise man” (ἐπιρρῶσαι γὰρ ταῦτα ἱκανὰ ἀνδρὸς σώφρονος ψυχήν). Furthermore, the anecdote concerning the drunken young man seems to exemplify, within the frame of the cathartic effects of the aulos, the well-known interest of the Pythagoreans in the restraint of passions, which is represented in Aristoxenus’ Pythagorean Precepts. If Aristoxenus is the source of this anecdote,120 he may have introduced the aulos121 into the story because of its cathartic function in religious ritual.122 This anecdote and the Aristoxenian passage in De musica 43 on the use of music in symposia thus exemplify the same notion of moderation insofar as they refer to the need to purify those under the influence of drunkenness and its effects. Iamblichus’ On the Pythagorean Life later (113) gives another anecdote on the soothing effect of music against violence and its 119 [Plut.] De mus. 43 1146f7–1147a3 = Aristox. fr. 122 Wehrli, ἐκεῖνος γὰρ ἔλεγεν εἰσάγεσθαι μουσικήν, παρ› ὅσον ὁ μὲν οἶνος σφάλλειν πέφυκε τῶν ἅδην αὐτῷ χρησαμένων τά τε σώματα καὶ τὰς δια|νοίας, ἡ δὲ μουσικὴ τῇ περὶ αὑτὴν τάξει τε καὶ συμμετρίᾳ εἰς τὴν ἐναντίαν κατάστασιν ἄγει τε καὶ πραΰνει, “[Aristox“[Aristoxenus] said that music was introduced because, while it is of the nature of wine to send reeling the bodies and minds of those who indulge in it to the full, music, through its own order and proportion, calms them and leads them into the contrary condition.” 120 See further below. 121 Pythagoras’ supposed rejection of this instrument elsewhere in Iamblichus’ De vita Pythagorica (111) seems to arise from Platonic influence (see, e.g., Rep. 399d). 122 These passages, together with Aristox. fr. 6 Wehrli, can be compared, although the contexts are different, to Plato, Laws 790c–791b, in which the Corybantic frenzy is ritually healed by means of enthusiastic music and dances (790e1–2, mothers and nurses ἀτεχνῶς οἷον καταυλοῦσι τῶν παιδίων, just as the women performing the Corybantic rites “charm” those people taking part in them). As pointed out by Fortenbaugh in his essay in this volume, both in this passage in the Laws (esp. 790e8–791b1) and in Aristox. fr. 6 Wehrli, fear is the emotion to be healed.

ability to instill rationality and self-control. The protagonist, this time, is Empedocles. One day he had a guest at home and succeeded in calming the murderous rage of a young man, whose father had been previously condemned to death by this guest, singing to the accompaniment of the lyre the following verse from the Odyssey where a drug is described as “dispelling sorrow and anger, and making all evil forgotten” (νηπενθές τ᾿ ἄχολόν τε, κακῶν ἐπίληθον ἁπάντων, Odyssey, 4.221). Empedocles succeeds in this way both in saving his guest from being murdered and in restraining the man from doing an action that would have had a dreadful outcome for himself as well. Iamblichus stresses that, as the young man burst into Empedocles’ home, the latter was already playing the lyre to amuse his guest and just needed to change to a calming melody in order to achieve the soothing effects he wished. In Empedocles’ hands the lyre changes from a source of pleasure (τέρψις), merely aimed at entertaining, into a “therapeutic” instrument that proves effective against a psychophysical disorder appearing as a fierce fit of anger (θυμός). Therefore Empedocles keeps the young man from committing a crime by “healing” his fury, which is depicted as a disease (πάθος). Control over the passions, particularly anger, appears to be a wholly Pythagorean motif, further reinforced in Iamblichus’ work by a testimony drawn from Aristoxenus’ Life of Archytas, which has Spintharus as its source (Aristox. fr. 30 [= 49] Wehrli = Iamb. VP 197–8 and Archyt. Test. A7 Huffman).123 Aristoxenus’ authorship of this anecdote concerning Archytas suggests that Iamb. VP 112 and 113 may also derive in some way from him.124 Indeed, they are clearly connected to his interest in ethics and his emphatic point that the Pythagoreans rejected every form of ἀμετρία.125 Moreover, it is very significant that, in the passage of the Life of Archytas, Aristoxenus uses the verb πεδαρτᾶν, a compound of πεδά, Doric for μετά, and 123 I have discussed this passage above. The presence of Aristoxenus in the background of Iamb. VP 111 and 112 has been asserted by Bertermann ([1913] 6ff., quoted in Detienne [1962] 41 n. 2), whose work however has not been available to me. Although Bertermann often reads too much into the text of Iamblichus, as many scholars, for instance, Burkert (1972) 97 n. 1 and Staab (2002) 220 n. 541, have shown, in my opinion he may be right as far as these two testimonies are concerned. 125 It is clear for instance in Porph. VP 21 = Aristox. fr. 17 Wehrli (see also Iamb.

ἀρτάω. As Huffman observes, this verb, which means “to change condition,” is the Doric equivalent for μεθαρμόζω, which in its musical sense, means “to change the mode” and, therefore, in a generic sense, “to make a change.”126 In the same passage it is also stated that the Pythagoreans “called correction ‘retuning’” (ἐκάλουν δὲ τὸ νουθετεῖν πεδαρτᾶν),127 and the noun πεδαρτάσεις, “corrections,” also appears in two identical passages in VP 101 and 231. In these passages, speaking of friendship, Iamblichus is drawing on the Pythagorean Precepts of Aristoxenus.128 After affirming that, according to the Pythagoreans, it was necessary to control anger in relations of friendship, he recommends that the elderly should address to young people “those corrections and reproaches that they called ‘retunings’” (τὰς ἐπανορθώσεις τε καὶ νουθετήσεις, ἃς δὴ πεδαρτάσεις ἐκάλουν ἐκεῖνοι), but without in any way wounding their sensibility, so that they would learn from the reproach.129 Hence musical terminology is also part of the technical language of correction, once again exemplifying the akousma that says that harmony is the most beautiful thing (Iamb. VP 82, τί κάλλιστον; ἁρμονία). The same thing can be also be seen in the anecdote concerning Empedocles in Iamb. VP 113.130 Indeed, in this passage, the participle μεθαρμοσάμενος, with which Empedocles indicates the change of melody on the lyre, clearly foreshadows the change that will correspondingly take place in the mind of the young man, who will put aside his violent desire for revenge. The affinity between Aristoxenus and those aspects of the thought of Theophrastus that appear in Aristoxenus fr. 6 Wehrli, in turn, further confirms the importance of the reflection on the effects of music among Aristotle’s students, while, on the other hand, the fact that Aristoxenus is the protagonist of a case of musical healing, just as Pythagoras is in Iamb. VP 112, seems further to show his adherence to the tradition of music therapy among the Pythagoreans. 126 Huffman (2005) 290–1. Iamb. VP 197, translation in Huffman (2005) 283. 128 Huffman (2008) 105. For this attribution, Huffman agrees with Rohde (1901) 143, while Staab (2002) 331 disagrees, and Wehrli does not include this Iamblichean passage in his collection of Aristoxenus’ fragments. 129 Both in Porphyry and Iamblichus, the relationship between Pythagoras and his disciples seems to follow closely this “didactic” relationship between the old and the young. This anecdote is referred to also in Huffman (2005) 290.

6. Conclusion: Aristoxenus and the “Ethical” Interpretation of Ancient Pythagoreanism The configuration of ancient Pythagoreanism as a way of life, rigidly regulated on the basis of the precepts found in the akousmata, is interestingly echoed in the testimonies concerning Pythagorean ethics in the Aristoxenian Pythagorean Precepts and is further highlighted by the reference to catharsis in Aristoxenus fr. 26 Wehrli, which has a close relationship with widespread religious and medical practices. Therefore, besides the Precepts, Aristoxenus’ interest in the ethics of the Pythagoreans clearly appears also in the few words that constitute our fr. 26 Wehrli, in which musical catharsis is defined as the therapy of the soul. We have seen that catharsis in the religious-ritual tradition represents an element that is operative in ancient Pythagoreanism, and that, in this respect, it is not at all necessary to suppose the formulation of a theory of catharsis in this sphere. On the one hand, the deep bond between Aristoxenus and the Pythagoreans, his first teachers, and his interest in music therapy indeed allow an interpretation of the fragment which does not presuppose any borrowing either from Plato’s theory of musical ēthos or from Aristotle’s theory of catharsis. On the other hand, Aristoxenus’ admiration for the Pythagoreans and his interest in musical ēthos accounts for his emphasis on the value of the ancient musical tradition in contrast to “modern” degenerations. Aristoxenus, in his Life of Pythagoras, may have intended to propose the Pythagoreans’ educational and therapeutic use of music as a “philosophical” model to oppose to the refinement and virtuosities of the “new music,” which must have appeared to him like an end in themselves, or manifestations of pure hedonism, such as could be observed in the degenerate musical customs of the inhabitants of Poseidonia.131 Hence Aristoxenus fr. 26 Wehrli represents, on the one hand, precious testimony for the Pythagorean therapeutic use of music and its ritual connotations, and, on the other, at a time when the theory of 131 Athen. 14 632a = Aristox. fr. 124 Wehrli. Aristoxenus’ attitude in this fragment seems to reflect Plato’s censure of “theatrocracy” (Leg. 700a–701b). The fragment has been carefully studied by Meriani (2003) 15–48; see also Visconti (1999) 144–51. For Aristoxenus and the “new music” cf. Them. Or. 33.1 364b-c = Aristox. fr. 70 Wehrli and [Plut.] De mus. 31 1142b-c = Aristox. fr. 76 Wehrli (on which see Visconti [1999]

musical ēthos was prominent, it traces back to the Pythagoreans, as influential and authoritative representatives of the traditional use of music therapy based on experience, the conception of therapy of the soul as complementary to that of the body.