The Diastaltic Ethos

In: Classical Philology, 76 - 1981 - p.93 - 100 SSS S - DSQLOMNan , |. VAR \ | P D Kasi S olemen 77 Lonoles ec ial N Soromon J., The diastaltie ethos : CPR LXXVI 1981 93-100. | Musicological and semantic research reveals a musicological-medical connection and resolves eeen eer == problematic passages in Cleonides, Aristides Suns Ptolemy and others. The hog must be Btaoraarixés and passages containing textual difficulties must be made to conform to the only conceivable musicological possibility. Uassycal Philgles17

Classical Philology, Vol. 76, No. 2. (Apr., 1981), pp. 93-100. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-837X%28198104%2976%3A2%3C93%3ATDE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C Classical Philology is currently published by The University of Chicago Press. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/ucpress.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. http://www.jstor.org Sat Jan 27 11:04:05 2007

RISTIDES Quintilianus, Manuel Bryennius, and Cleonides all discuss ethos in their musicological treatises,! and each of the three, along with Ptolemy,? mentions the “diastaltic” ethos.? Aristides (30. 13) describes it as the musical ethos “through which we arouse the spirit” (ray de dtacradrixhy, du’ fs röv Oupdv eeyelpouev). Cleonides (206. 4-8) describes it as the musical ethos “through which magnificence, the manly elevation of the soul, heroic deeds, and similar feelings are displayed; it is used in tragedy and genres of this character” (&orı de SuaoradriKdy uev jos pehoroutas, & où onuaiverat neyakomperea Kal diapua Wvxijs avipddes kal mpáters Hpwikai kai 740n robrois oixeta). Bryennius (362. 19-24) merely repeats the definition of Cleonides.* Ptolemy (106. 14-15) mentions the diastaltic ethos only in an astronomical-musicological context. Though the definitions that Greek musicologists (and Plato and Aristotle) give to the various ethe are 1. Modern editions of the Ilepi govoukîjs by Aristides Quintilianus (ca. A.D. 200?) are those by A. Jahn, Aristides Quintilianus “De musica” libri III (Berlin, 1882), and R. P. WinningtonIngram, Aristides Quintilianus “De musica” libri tres (Leipzig, 1963). Only one German translation exists, that by R. Schäfke, Aristides Quintilianus: “Von der Musik” (Berlin, 1937). No English translation has been published, though T. J. Mathiesen is preparing one for future publication. For the Eicaywyù âpuovikú of Cleonides (date unknown, also referred to as Euclid, Pappus, and Zosimus), see the still indispensable K. von Jan, Musici scriptores graeci (Leipzig 1895), pp. 167207, and H. Menge, Euclidis opera omnia, vol. 8: Euclidis “‘Phaenomena” et scripta musica (Leipzig, 1916), pp. xxxvii-liv, 186-223. An English translation can be found in O. Strunk, “Harmonic Introduction,” Source Readings in Music History (New York, 1950), pp. 34-46. I have prepared a new text and translation which soon will be submitted for publication. Presently it rests as a dissertation (Chapel Hill, 1980). For the Byzantine Bryennius (fourteenth century), see I. Wallis, Operum mathematicorum, vol. 3: Mavound Bpvevviov apyovrxa (Oxford, 1699), pp. 357-508, and G. H. Jonker, The “Harmonics” of Manuel Bryennius (Groningen, 1970); the latter includes an English translation. All references to Cleonides will specify the page and line numbers of Jan’s edition, those of Aristides will refer to Winnington-Ingram’s edition, and those of Bryennius to Jonker’s edition. For a general discussion of musical ethos, the reader is referred to Pl. Resp. 397-400; S. Michaelides, The Music of Ancient Greece: An Encyclopaedia (London, 1978), pp. 110-13; E. A. Lippmann, “The Sources and Development of the Ethical View of Music in Ancient Greece,” Musical Quarterly 49 (1963): 188-209; H. Abert, Die Lehre vom Ethos in der griechischen Musik (Leipzig, 1899); and W. D. Anderson, Ethos and Education in Greek Music (Cambridge, Mass., 1966). 2. For an edition of Ptolemy’s ‘Apyovexa, see I. Düring, Die Har ielehre des Klaudios Ptolemaios (Göteborg, 1930). A German translation can be found in Düring, Ptolemaios und Porphyrios über die Musik (Göteborg, 1934). There is no English translation, though I have begun preparing one. All references to Ptolemy refer to the page and line number in Diiring’s edition. 3. There are four kinds of musical ethos discussed by the Greeks: (1) the three types of melodic ethos discussed in this paper—the diastaltic, systaltic, and hesychastic (or medium); (2) the more commonly known forms of “harmonic” ethos which correspond to the seven harmoniai—Dorian, Lydian, Phrygian, Hypodorian, Hypophrygian, Hypolydian, and Mixolydian; (3) the three types of generic ethos which correspond to the three genera—diatonic, chromatic, and enharmonic; (4) rhythmic ethos. Aristides Quintilianus (10. 13-14) mentions ethos as the fifth type of difference between notes, but this ethos does not correspond to an emotional state. 4. Bryennius actually discusses ethos two times, at 362. 19-20 and at 122. 2-3. The passages are identical; both repeat the exact words of Cleonides. [© 1981 by The University of Chicago] 0009-837X./81/7602-0001$01.00

vague,’ let us for the moment assume the definitions of Aristides and Cleonides (= Bryennius) to describe the same emotions (ethe). The most immediate problem then becomes the very term öiaorakrıkös. The manuscript traditions are quite confused and confusing in reporting this term. In the Aristides Quintilianus tradition, at 30. 13 all the important manuscripts offer the reading diacrarixyy,® with the exception of those Cleonides manuscripts which include interpolations from Aristides.’ These Aristides interpolations read öiasraArıxnv here at 30. 13, and Possevinus emended this d:acradrixjy to ôvaorarwmr. Winnington-Ingram includes these readings in his apparatus, and he adds Bryennius’ öaornuarırıv. Aristides again uses the term at 40. 15. There, however, all the manuscripts read ôaoradrikòs. Winnington-Ingram nonetheless prints d:acrarixos and suggests, in the apparatus criticus, that the reader compare 30. 13, the passage just discussed here.® The Cleonides manuscripts offer even less security.’ The word is mentioned at 206. 4 and 206. 6. At 206. 4 only one, relatively inferior, manuscript reads diacradrixod,” while the others read dcacrarixod, duacryrixod," and dtaornparxod.2 At 206. 6 Jan prints duacradrixoy but gives no source for his reading. All the manuscripts read taorngarikòv or dtacrarixdy,® and it is Meibom who reads öiaoraXrıröv; he cites Vulcanius, the scribe of another inferior manuscript. 5. See Pl. Resp. 397-99; Arist. Pol. 1340-41; Lucian Harm. 1. 10-12; and pseudo-Plutarch De mus. passim. See also n. 35. 6. These important manuscripts are Winnington-Ingram’s V, N, R, F, and d. 7. Jan failed to recognize this group (qua-group) of Cleonides manuscripts, though he does recognize the interpolations in Vulcanius’ manuscript—Lugdunensis Perizonianus F. 41 (olim Lugdunensis 135)—and in the manuscript—Vaticanus gr. 1341—which Antonius Possevinus used for his edition of the treatise (“Euclidis Musica,” Bibliotheca de Ratione Studiorum II (Venice, 1603), pp. 260-72). This group, here designated as q-group, consists of six manuscripts, three of which are attributed to Cleonides, three to “Anonymous.” They all include interpolations from Aristides Quintilianus at 185. 15 (= Aristides 8. 3-9. 12), 186. 21 (= Aristides 9. 15-10. 15), 190. 11 (= Aristides 12. 6-12. 8), and 207. 7 (= Aristides 28. 10-30. 17). These manuscripts also include several interpolations from Bryennius. The exact relation to and reflection of Aristides’ original text is hard to determine from these interpolations. 8. But no matter which form Wallis printed in his late seventeenth-century edition of Bryennius, the Bryennius manuscripts actually vary greatly at Bryennius 362. 19-24; six have ôcaorarur, eight have dtaornuartxhy, and Jonker prints ötacra(A)rırnv. The six reading diaorarınv are (Jonker’s abbreviations) R, Ma, Mb, Pc, La, and Lb. Those reading ötaornuarırnv are Va, H, Pa, Oa, Om, Mc, N, and Am. Comparing the two Aristides passages, one finds that even the Aristides manuscripts themselves cannot agree on the precise term, for in one passage (40. 15) they unanimously read òtaaraArukòs and in the other (30. 13) they unanimously—with the exception of the Cleonides manuscripts— read dtacrarikyy. Similarly, the Aristides tradition differs as to the term used to describe the “systaltic” ethos, VNM reading overaArcxqy and FR reading ovorarukijv; as all concur on btaoraXrırös at 40. 13, so do they concur with overaXrırös at 40. 15. 9. I follow Jan here, but he neglected to examine seven codices, including Vaticanus gr. 2338, which includes two superior versions of the treatise. 10. L (Lipsiensis gr. 25). 11. M (Venetus Marcianus VI/3, twelfth century), Jan’s most valuable manuscript. 12. This reading is found in a number of manuscripts, including significantly those manuscripts which alone contain the Aristides interpolations. 13. MLW read ötaornuarıröv, and NB read ôvaoraruxèr. Jan uses “B” for a codex which contains two different versions of the treatise, with pp. 311-18 attributed to Cleonides, pp. 300310 to Pappus. 14. Lugdunensis Perizonianus F. 41; cf. n. 7. Again there are textual difficulties with the “systaltic” ethos, BM3L reading ovorarukòr and M1W reading avorarıköv.

The evidence of the Bryennius manuscripts does not provide us with an entirely independent view; Bryennius used Cleonides as his source here, and so one would doubt that Bryennius’ manuscript tradition could offer an independent, let alone unanimous, report.!® The readings at both 362. 19-20 and 362. 19 vary from dtacrarixjy to dtacrnparixny to dtactradriKny. Wherever the term appears in Bryennius’ text, Jonker prints a hesitant “Scaora[A]rex-.”26 In Ptolemy only one manuscript, Vaticanus gr. 176 (Düring’s A), preserves diagradrixa; the rest and Düring read ôvacraruká. The manuscript traditions of Aristides, Cleonides, Ptolemy, and Bryennius have proved themselves hopelessly confused in their preservation of this term, and so paleographical research must now yield to musicological and semantic. While there is no evidence that a word òtaarnrukós (read by the valuable twelfth-century M in the Cleonides tradition) existed, the other three variants, ôvacradrukós, Ôtaornuarikós, and dacrarixds, are all attested in other authors. Araornuarırds is found elsewhere in Aristides as well (101. 4, 5. 26), but there it has no connection with a type of ethos; it is only an adjective referring to “intervals,” for ôtáornua is an extremely common, rudimentary musicological term meaning “interval.”!? The adjective ösaornuarırös can also be found in the musicological treatises of Ptolemy (100. 29) and Aristoxenus (13. 21 da Rios).!8 Archytas (1), Porphyry (Sent. 44), Apollonius Dyscolus (Pron. 57. 10), and Philo Mechanicus (Bel. 2. 184) also use the term in a nonmusicological sense. Atacradrixés is found only in the passages cited here (perhaps), and in Apollonius Dyscolus (Adv. 185. 10 and Pron. 24. 12). Avaorarixés is found in a musicological sense at Ptolemy 29. 2 and perhaps at 106. 14; Diiring reports the reading at 29. 2 as secure, but that at 106. 14 has a lectio varia. The term also has this meaning in Nicomachus (282. 6 Jan) as well as in Timaeus Locrus (100E) and Plutarch (Mor. 952B and Pomp. 53). The meaning of dvacrnuarixds is evident from its derivation. In each nuance discussed in LSJ, it refers to an “interval,” be it a musical interval, a distance of space, or a geometrical (radius) dimension. That a word with such musicological significance should find its way into the treatises of 15. To be sure, at 362. 19-20 one finds in Jonker’s apparatus dvagrarixi and dvacrnpariKhy. The same manuscripts also consistently read the same variants at 362. 23 and 362. 24 with a few exceptions. 16. At 362. 19 he shows his frustration by announcing in his apparatus, “scripsi dubitans utrum codd. meliores (et A.Q. W.-I.) sequar an Wallisii atque Jani auctoritatem (cf. supra ad. p. 122.2sq).” At 122. 2 (and 122. 3) Bryennius again quotes Cleonides and all the Bryennius manuscripts have Ötaornuarırod, but Jonker follows Wallis and Jan in writing duacradreKod (-kòv); he questions Winnington-Ingram’s (30. 13) Öraoraruiv. “AQ. W.-J. [sic] p. 30. 13 scr.—oraruwr (= disintegrating(?) cf. L.S.J. s.v.).” 17. Auäormua (“interval”) is essentially the difference between two notes (#86yyo). The Aristoxenians recognized intervals smaller than the whole tone—diesis (quarter tone and third tone) and hemitone—and larger—trihemitone, ditone, dia tessaron (two and one-half tones), dia pente (three and one-half tones), tetratone, pentatone, and the dia pason (six tones), and so on. For major discussions of ëtáornua, see Aristides Quintilianus 10. 16-12. 14; Bryennius 98. 9-102. 22; Cleonides 187. 3-189. 8; Aristoxenus 21. 17-22. 3 da Rios; Theon of Smyrna 3; Martianus Capella 948-53; Anonymous Bellermann 22, 58; Nicomachus 12; and Gaudentius 3. 18. For Aristoxenus, see R. da Rios, Aristoxeni “Elementa harmonica” (Rome, 1954). No doubt Aristoxenus had discussed these ethical matters, whence their appearance in Cleonides and Aristides (and Ptolemy), but most of his musicological works are lost.

Aristides, Cleonides, and Bryennius is not at all surprising. It is certainly a lectio facilior; any scribe with a reasonable amount of musicological knowledge could have written it absentmindedly, while a scribe with no musicological background could have inserted it since it was a more familiar term, that is, dáornua, which he had seen earlier in his copying.!° In addition to this common method of paleographical reasoning, one can also point out that a musical ethos cannot be “intervallic.” The names of the ethe refer to feelings, not musical constructions; in Cleonides, Bryennius, and Aristides, avoradrixov (“depressing’’) and jovxacrixéy (“soothing”) are the types of names given to ethe If nonemotional names are given, they are geographical—Dorian, Lydian, Phrygian, Aeolian, Ionian—or at least generic— diatonic, chromatic, enharmonic—but not constructional. Jonker questioned the meaning of ôtaorarwés, “disintegrating,” given in LSJ, which states that the adjective derives from &äoraois and pertains only to “discord”; in Plutarch Pompey 53 its connection with Aöyoı necessitates the meaning “causing discord,” and the same meaning is found in Nicomachus 282. 6 Jan. The ethos which causes “magnificence and heroic deeds” can certainly not be the same one which “causes discord.” In the 1968 Supplement to LSJ, however, there is a new offering, “exciting, exalting,” found in Ptolemy 1. 12, 3. 11, and in Cleonides 13 (= 206. 4-5) 2 This definition is incorrect. LSJ has supplied it only because WinningtonIngram’s 1963 edition of Aristides Quintilianus reads öuaorarırös at 40. 15 and 30. 13 (= 1. 19 and 1. 12); the translations, “excited, exalted,” which will be discussed presently, were used in the earlier LSJ for ÖraoraArukós. That is, the editors found dacradrixés to be nothing other than a lectio varia, and so they merely transferred the definition of ôtacrarukós from the earlier edition to the definition of d:ac7arixés in the Supplement. With 8taorngaruwkós belonging clearly to the realm of paleographical error and d:acrarixés having a meaning not at all appropriate to Cleonides’ and Aristides’ definitions of the word, there is only one alternative remaining, btacradrixés. Atacradzixds has the basic meaning of “serving to distin19. This type of error is common in technical treatises, e.g., at Cleonides 190. 2, M reads ôtárovov (diatonic) for öirovov (ditone). 20. The avorarıkös found in the manuscripts of Cleonides and Aristides in all likelihood results, because of their proximity in the texts, from the attraction to Öuacrarırös. ‘Hovxacrixds is absolutely secure. Cleonides (206. 10-14) says the systaltic is the ethos “through which the soul is led toward humility and an unmanly condition” (svoraArıröv ôè, bv’ où cuvayerar n Yuxn eis Tamewórnra kal &vavdpov ÖLddenıv). It is harmonious with ‘‘amorous feelings, lamentations, wailings and the like” (äpuôe 68 rù rovodrov karäornna Tots épwrixoîs mádeor Kal Opjvors Kai oïkrous Kai Tots mapamdnoiots). Aristides Quintilianus agrees; for him (30. 12-13) the systaltic ethos is that “through which we move distressing feelings” (òt’ is m&ôn Avanpa Kuvodper). The hesychastic ethos of Cleonides (206. 14-15) is the ethos which accompanies “tranquillity of the soul and a free and peaceful condition” (hovxaorikòv dt 706s &orı neAomorlas G mapérera Hpeuórns Wvxis kal xaraornua &Nevdepıöv re Kal eipmvıröv). Hymns, paeans, encomia and the like are used here. Aristides (30. 14-15) calls this third type of ethos the medium (uéomr), and it is through this ethos that “we lead the soul to quietude” (rip òë uéonv du’ js eis npepiav THY Wvxiv Tepıäyoner). 21. LSJ does not acknowledge variant readings here (Stacrartkés) as it does in its supplemental material to öuaoraATıKös.

guish.’”? As many words in Greek (and English) which originally have the meaning “separate” tend also to have the meaning “superior”? öuaorakrıkös can also take on this meaning. It does so, however, only in the area of musicology; LSJ then offers this second meaning and cites Aristides Quintilianus 1. 12 (= 30. 13) and Cleonides 13 (= 206. 4-5) for the meaning “exciting, exalting.”# Unfortunately, there is no other citation for this technical meaning of ô&aoraNruwxés in either LSJ or Stephanus. Stephanus, in fact, merely quotes the passages in Cleonides (attributed at the time to Euclid) under scrutiny here and does not attempt to translate the poorly attested term. LSJ does make this rather bold attempt and hypothesizes “exalting, exciting” from the information given by Aristides and Cleonides, for these two authors say that the diastaltic ethos ‘arouses the soul” and/or “shows magnificence, manly elevation of the soul, heroic deeds and the like.” Reading Cleonides’ definition, one would have to reject LSJ’s “exciting” as a definition for &taorahrwés, for noble and heroic qualities are moved by this ethos; Cleonides’ diastaltic ethos does not “excite” the human spirit to perform heroic deeds. ‘“Exalting” is more acceptable, for the exalted soul can indeed achieve a feeling of magnificence. But this definition of &aoraNruwos nonetheless still falls short of the ideal. The exalted soul does not necessarily perform heroic deeds or become “manly” (àvôp@ôes) just because of its “elevation” (Siapua).2> A technical term is best left untranslated when there is little evidence for its precise meaning,? but I propose “distinguishing, uplifting” as an English translation which covers Aristides’ “arousing,” Cleonides’ “showing magnificence, manly elevation and heroic deeds,” and the etymological “separate, distinguished.” Further suggestions for understanding the full implications of the meaning of dvacradrixés arise from investigating the uses and legacy of the verb from which diacradriés is derived. AuaoréAAw, of course, means “to put asunder, expand, separate” (LSJ, I. 1), and many verbs meaning “to separate” again mean “to be superior, excel.’”” Avacré\dw has this meaning 22. This is the basic meaning of the adjective in Apollon. Dysc. Adv. 185. 10, Pron. 24. 12 and 49. 24, the scholiast to Eur. Med. 334(8), and Eust. 73. 31 and 1610. 3. 23. Derivatives of duiornm, e.g., Stagrarixds and Òtaornpartkós, can also (etymologically) refer to ‘distinguishing, separate”; cf. Diog. Laert. 4. 33. Greek, like English, is wont to stretch this “distinguishing” into “superior, elevated.” The usages of dtadepw (LSJ, III. 4) are a good example, as are dvarpéw (LSJ, III. 1) and dvaxpivw (LSJ, I. 3 and II. 1). It is conceivable that “superior, elevated” could be used as the meaning for dvaornuarixés; cf. SyKos kal òráornpa [Longin.] 40. 2 (= LSJ, II) with dyxos Kai diapya in Plut. Mor. 853C or [Arist.] Aud. 800435 é toddof &tacruaros. But this is not an attested meaning for this word. See also W. Rhys Roberts (ed.), [Longinus]: “On the Sublime” (Cambridge, 1899), s.v. Suatpety (pp. 196-97). 24. The LSJ 1968 Supplement incorrectly tries to eliminate the word—on account of Winnington- Ingram’s 1963 edition of Aristides Quintilianus—as a varia lectio in both Cleonides and Aristides Quintilianus. Moreover, LSJ should have added Aristides 1. 19 in addition to, not instead of, 1. 12 and Cleonides 1. 13. 25. Cf. Plut. Mor. 853C; [Longin.] 12. 1; and Diog. Laert. 9. 7. 26. Of the translators of Cleonides, Strunk (1950) has “diastaltic,” Paul (1872) “diastaltische,” Menge (1916) “diastalticus,” and Ruelle (1884) ‘“diastaltique.” Meibom (1652) and Gregorius (1703) have “distendens,” while Pena (1557), Dasypodius (1571), Herigone (1634), and Possevinus (1603) have “Intervallaris,” and Forcadel (1566) “intervalaire.” 27. Cf. n. 23.

in Apollonius Dyscolus (Pron. 39. 1) where it is opposed to &réAuror era, but this is the only citation given in LSJ for this meaning.’ Another derivative of or&AAw, karaaréN\w, is known to have had “ethical” musicological applications, for example, Sextus Empiricus Adversus mathematicos 6. 19 Tv eN@y TA uev elvar dreyeprixa THs Wuxijs Ta de karacraArıka and Iamblichus De vita Pythagorica 25. 113. In both examples xaragradrexés refers to a relaxed and sedate (ethical) quality of music. Obviously the idea behind the use of the root -oreAXw gives the musical compound movement; the preposition gives this movement a direction. Kara-, as seen in the above two examples, is “down,”?® and éca- in composition has a variety of meanings, that used here necessarily meaning “thoroughly” (cf. LSJ, D. IV, V). Perhaps even more to the point is the ubiquitous use of compounds of o7é\\w in ancient Greek (and modern English) medical terminology. Avacré\Xkw is used to mean the dilation of the lungs ([Arist.] Aud. 800a35), of the heart (Gal. 2. 597), and of the pulse (Gal. 8. 736).% It is not at all rare for writers in one technical discipline to adopt the vocabulary of another technical discipline for their own use; this is especially true in the peripatetic tradition. The term otornua, for instance, is used by musicologists, metricians, and physicians; and weraßoAn is a musicological, military, literary, and political term. Nor is musicological interest in medicine restricted to terminology alone. Aristides (89. 10 and 113. 27) describes the relationship of body and soul by referring to tarpôv matöes,®! and his entire description of rhythm at 82. 25-26 is filled with medical terminology.” Ultimately, it seems that Aristides Quintilianus and Cleonides are describing these musical ethe not in musical terms as much as they are in musicalmedical terms, the result of which is not an intellectual musicological experience, but an emotional-physical (or “musical’’-physical) experience. This is why neither Cleonides nor Aristides Quintilianus tries to equate these ethe with those “harmonic” ethe discussed by Plato and Aristotle; the former refer to physical effects, the latter to musicological constructs.?3 Once this peripatetic musicological-medical connection is manifest, and with the actual meanings of dvacrarixés, dtagradrixés, and ÖLaornuarıkös 28. Its second-century A.D. date could postdate either Ptolemy or Cleonides, although the date of neither is secure. 29. The äva- in &vaoradors does not signify “up,” but “backwards,” e.g., Gal. 12. 664. 30. Cf. cvaré\Aw in Hippoc. VM 22 and karaoreAXw in Diosc. Med. 2. 1. See also B. Meinecke, “Music and Medicine in Classical Antiquity,” in Music and Medicine, ed. M. Schullian and M. Schoen (New York, 1948), pp. 76-77. For pointing out this vital connection between musical and medical terminology I am extremely grateful and entirely indebted to the anonymous referee for CP. 31. Aristides (83. 21) also relates different rhythms to kırnaeıs trav àprnpiür. 32. Touyépro kav rats Tov opuyu®r Kujoeow où did TovobTwv Xpóvwv Tas ovoro/ /\às Tats StacroNats dvramroddévres byıewörarot. 33. We can, despite the lack of detailed information, at least attempt to equate Cleonides’ description of the diastaltic ethos with Heracleides Ponticus’ (ap. Ath. 624D) description of the ethos effected by the Dorian harmonia (“scale”). Heracleides describes this ethos as dvöp@öes and ueyahomperés, Cleonides as peyadorperea... ôlapua Wuvxijs dvôp@des. The resemblance is obvious. Heracleides then continues to describe the Dorian with other adjectives such as oxvOpwadv kal opoôpóv (“sober and vehement”). For this meaning of okvôpwrés, which normally means “sullen, gloomy,” cf. Dem. 45. 68. Arist. Pol. 134054 describes the Dorian similarly, calling it “the most steadfast and manly” (wepi ris ôwpuori...oraouuwrärns obons Kal pakor’ dos éxobons dvépetov). [Plut.] De mus. 1136D-F labels the same harmonia as àEiwuaruéy and oeuvór.

fully understood, the problematic passages in Cleonides, Aristides, Bryennius, and Ptolemy at once become resolved. The ethos must be the diastaltic, and passages which once contained textual difficulties now must conform to the only conceivable musicological possibility. The major Aristides manuscripts at Aristides 30. 13 must yield their draorarukòs to the ôvaora)rikòs of the Aristides-interpolated Cleonides manuscripts. Winnington-Ingram’s emendation of dtagrarixds for (all) the manuscripts’ ôtaoraruwès should be rejected. Bryennius’ text should read ôtaorariwkoû (-kòv) at 122. 2(3) and 362. 23(24) instead of Ötaora[X]ruoû (-kòv), and Jonker’s lengthy apparatus notes can be ignored. Jan’s text should remain unchanged even though the dtacradrixod at 206. 4 is found in only one somewhat inferior manuscript and even though that at 206. 6 is found only in Vulcanius and thus Meibom (and Jan). Ptolemy’s text at 106. 14 should read d:acradrixd as well, especially in conjunction with ovoraArıra at 106. 13.3 We must next briefly investigate the diastaltic ethos as defined by Cleonides and Aristides Quintilianus to see if they do indeed define the same ethos. This investigation is necessary on account of the general inconsistency in the Greek descriptions of ethe.% Aristides’ definition seems to apply to the medical terminology more closely than does Cleonides’ definition, but this does not rule out a close connection between the two authors. Moreover, one should compare the definitions of the systaltic and hesychastic ethe in Aristides and Cleonides.% As one might expect from the very name, the systaltic ethos is intended as the polar opposite of the diastaltic ethos in both authors. The hesychastic or medium ethos also seems to be paralleled in both authors despite the variation in terminology. If Aristides’ definitions of the systaltic and hesychastic (“medium”) so closely resemble those of Cleonides, then it would seem that Aristides intended his rather simple definition of the diastaltic ethos to mean the same as Cleonides’ more elaborate definition. Nonetheless, one still must use caution here. Cleonides and Aristides apparently used the same source, but there is still some difficulty in explaining away the difference in phrasing and emphasis. It still seems that the three ethe of Aristides and Cleonides (and Bryennius) are not in any way intended to correspond to any specific three of the seven basic harmoniai.*® The imprecision of definition and the plurality of 34. Also, Ptolemy’s third ethos, the middle (röv ueratù .. .) relates to Aristides’ uéonv. 35. Heracleides (ap. Ath. 625B), for example, describes the Hypophrygian as “harsh and rough” (ok\npòv kai abornpér) while Lucian (Harm. 1. 10-11) labels it “subtle” or “elegant” (yAapupér). In a rather infamous discrepancy, Plato (Resp. 398E) labels the Lydian harmonia as “soft” and “convivial” (uadaxédv, ovumorukór), while his Stagirite pupil (Pol. 1342532) maintained that it was the ideal, orderly harmonia with which to educate a young lad (6a rd ölvaodaı kbopov 7’ exe kai matdelay). Apparently the “mood” of a harmonia was a matter for subjective interpretation. 36. Given supra, n. 20. 37. It corresponds to the ethos evoked either by Plato’s Mixolydian harmonia (Resp. 398E Opnvpdns [“lamenting”]) or his Lydian (uadaxév [“soft”]). 38. They correspond most closely to the “soft” Lydian of Plato. 39. Cleonides does not acknowledge the existence of the karmoniai; for him the Dorian, Lydian, and Phrygian are tones (róvot or rpórrot). Aristides is more interested in antiquarian matters.

opinions about the ethos of many harmoniai make such a correspondence impracticable. The ethe described in Plato’s Republic, Aristotle’s Politics, Heraclides, pseudo-Plutarch, and Lucian are categorically specific ethe (however vague their description) to be attached to specific harmoniai, that is, scales, melodic phrases, and cadences. They are technical musicological constructs which produce vague, emotive responses. The three ethe described by Cleonides, Aristides, and Bryennius are in contrast physicalmusical descriptions, general descriptions of physiological and therefore emotional states caused by vague types of melodies. In the harmonic ethe the reactions are vague, the music specific; in the melodic ethe, the music is vague and the reaction specific.” That Cleonides tells us that the diastaltic ethos was suitable for the lyrics of tragedy does not delineate more finely the musical range of this ethos, for pseudo-Plutarch (1136C-1137 A) reminds us that the Mixolydian (lamenting) was suitable for tragedy as were the Dorian, Lydian, and Ionian. If pseudo-Plutarch is offering us reliable information here, then Cleonides was much too vague in assigning the diastaltic ethos to tragedy. Tragedy contains more than “magnificence” ; it contains lamentations as well, and in this instance the systaltic ethos should have corresponded to tragedy as well according to Cleonides’ (and Bryennius’) definition. Cleonides did not make it correspond, however, and once again an ancient Greek musicologist has shown modern scholarship that his reliability so far as music of “classical” Greece is concerned is suspect. University of Minnesota 40. Even so, if the systaltic ethos is appropriate for love, lamentations, wailing, and the like, then only the Mixolydian harmonia described by Plutarch (De mus. 1136D), Aristotle (Pol. 13405), and Plato (Resp. 398E) could evoke this melodic ethos. The plaintive and lamenting Mixolydian might also be used to evoke the hesychastic of middle ethos, though the soft Lydian of Plato seems more “middle” of the road and peaceful than the emotional Mixolydian. The diastaltic ethos, however, with its ueyahorpérea could correspond to either the Dorian of Heracleides, pseudoPlutarch, and Aristotle, or to the majestic Hypodorian of pseudo-Aristotle, or possibly, following Aristides’ definition, to the rousing Phrygian of Aristotle, and perhaps even to the exciting, bacchic Hypolydian.