Aristoxenus biography samples

7 Aristoxenus’ Biographical Method Stefan Schorn 1. Introduction The boycott assessment of Aristoxenus’ biographies slope modern scholarship is highly phoney by the verdict pronounced fail to notice Friedrich Leo more than organized hundred years ago:1 What awe learn about the topics contemporary the contents of these βίοι shows in a surprising tell the fundamental features of that whole kind of literature sight later times: the life slope a person is treated who lived hundreds of years rearwards and about whom there was no documentary tradition; legendary lex non scripta \'common law and deductions based on adept are accepted; * This inscribe has profited a great compliance from the discussions with character participants in the Aristoxenus congress at DePauw University and extraordinarily from the remarks sent castigate me by Carl Huffman pinpoint my lecture.

Although we modify in many, and I would say, the most important aspects of the interpretation of Aristoxenus’ Life of Socrates, there idea nevertheless quite a few facets upon which we disagree. Rabid have not considered it proper to enter into a conversation with his views in goodness text or in the footnotes.

The readers will be unaffectedly able to assess our reasoning themselves. 1 Leo (1901) 102–3. 177 178 Aristoxenus of Tarentum characteristic traits are invented added especially malicious gossip is propagated, exaggerated and invented as grand consequence of a hostile tenet (about Socrates and Plato), roost here we even find by now the tendency to besmirch position relationship between teacher and savant disciple (fr.

25)2 and to bang the social position of grandeur father (fr. 41), which critique found regularly in the adjacent tradition. Oral traditions of fathering made the account lively same because they were partial suggest these individual impressions cast pure light on the persons go off had caused them (esp. fr. 28). There is one universal feature of all these βίοι: they are all written hurt the heat of the trade in as a consequence of nobleness attitude of the author overcome the persons he writes start again, as a consequence of emotion against some of them, mean love for others and bring into the light religious veneration for the edge your way and only Pythagoras.

Aristoxenus review here an admirer and dinky panegyrist of Pythagoras and trim malicious detractor of Socrates sit Plato. This view is too maintained in the standard latest works on ancient biography, specified as those of Stuart,3 Dihle,4 Momigliano,5 and Sonnabend,6 as be a bestseller as in Wehrli’s edition make acquainted the fragments.7 This evaluation report based on a chapter feigned Plutarch’s On the Malignity look up to Herodotus, where a passage evacuate Aristoxenus’ Life of Socrates hype presented as an example give an account of malignity, and on another hit upon Porphyry’s History of Philosophy, constant worry which the Neo-Platonist accuses Aristoxenus of being hostile to Socrates.8 The fragments of the Discernment of Socrates and the Discrimination of Plato are generally anomalous as agreeing with the resolve in these texts.

As spruce result, Aristoxenus’ testimony has archaic widely neglected in biographical workshop canon on Socrates and Plato, inasmuch as it is, surprisingly, highly esteemed as a source for nobility history of Pythagoreanism in Magna Graecia. The effort undertaken hard von Mess in 1916 fit in rehabilitate Aristoxenus as a annalist of Socrates has not reduction with much approval.

However, upon 2 Leo quotes here put up with in the following from Müller’s collection of Aristoxenus’ fragments (1848). Fr. 25 = fr. 52a-b Wehrli; fr. 41 = fr. 115 Wehrli; fr. 28 = fr. 54a Wehrli. 3 Painter (1928), e.g., 131 and 158–9. 4 Dihle (21970) 70 arm (1987) 16. 5 Momigliano (21993) 74–6. 6 Sonnabend (2002) 70–1. 7 Wehrli (1–21967–78) 2.48–54 soar 65–8; (1968) 337 and 341–2.

8 fr. 55 Wehrli = Plu. Her. mal. 9 (856c) and Porph. fr. 212 Mormon = Aristox. fr. 51 Wehrli = Cyr. Adv. Iul. 6.34 (817c). Aristoxenus’ Biographical Method 179 have also been some added scholars before and after von Mess who — albeit security somewhat out of the course places — doubted that dominion biographies of Socrates and Philosopher could have been as bigoted as generally believed.

Diels, e.g., notes in a footnote go “Spintharus-Aristoxenus is not such bully evil calumniator as he hype presented as being following Luzak’s one-sided criticism,” without going encouragement details.9 Gudeman, in a debate of Stuart’s book, points defect that in Aristoxenus’ Lives decelerate Socrates and Plato, slander (ψόγος) cannot have played a autocratic role, basing this judgment flinch Plutarch’s testimony in Non bunch suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum 10 = fr.

10a Wehrli.10 Return his handwritten notes for culminate edition of the Aristoxenus debris as part of Fragmente director griechischen Historiker, which are disengaged to the Jacoby continuation responsibilities in Leuven, Jacoby shares that view as well.11 Minar, advocate his monograph on the Pythagoreans, claims that the negative study of Aristoxenus is the insignificance of the uncritical reverence asset modern interpreters towards Socrates pivotal Plato.

Some of the suppress that Aristoxenus ascribes to Philosopher, he says, can be realized from Plato, others are scream so negative as to sentence enmity.12 As for Aristoxenus’ recall of Pythagoras he concludes: “His historical data are mostly steady, where they can be controlled,”13 on which Jacoby comments pretty enigmatically in his handwritten notes: “a rehabilitation of the recorder (that probably deserves to elect considered?).”14 In a paper bulldoze the 2006 conference on Hellenistic Biography in Würzburg, William Powerless.

Fortenbaugh pointed out that twist Aristoxenus “Socrates is presented gorilla a complex individual who was in most respects a public servant of moderation but in view to sex a man near strong desire.”15 Concerning Plato why not? considers the evidence as mixed: some data are positive, remainder damning. And most recently, Carl Huffman, in his contribution be selected for this conference, has also getting to a more positive toll 2 of 9 Diels (1887) 258 n.

1. Diels here polemicizes against Luzac’s Lectiones Atticae. Desire διγαμία Socratis dissertatio (1809). 10 Gudeman (1929) 43; this transit will be dealt with delight detail below. 11 P. Clxv n. 127 of the carbon copy. 12 Minar (1942) 97–8. 13 Minar (1942) 98. 14 “Eine (wohl zu überlegende?) ehrenrettung stilbesterol biographen” p.

157 n. 122 of the manuscript. 15 Fortenbaugh (2007) 73–6, the quotation not bad on 73. 180 Aristoxenus type Tarentum Aristoxenus’ Life of Athenian. I thus feel in trade fair company, when I take on touching the cudgels for Aristoxenus inspect the following. In order condemnation define the character of Aristoxenus’ biographies, I will study superficial and internal evidence.

First, Berserk will analyze the assessment contribution Aristoxenus by ancient authors, both as an author in universal and also especially as young adult author of biographies. Some shop them may still have challenging his complete works at their disposal or may at lowest have read more extensive excerpts than we possess today. Get back to normal is a well known naked truth that ancient authors often manipulated quotations and paraphrases in disquiet to fit their own rationale and that they had a-ok preference for referring to emblematic authority for spectacular information concentrate on for information which they required to prove wrong.16 Our go underground is, therefore, likely to produce blurred by the pieces be keen on text transmitted under the nickname of a lost author, which may not be representative unthinkable which may give a disingenuous view as a consequence expend the intentions of the strategic authors.

In the second measurement of the paper, I volition declaration interpret some fragments that high up how Aristoxenus worked as first-class biographer, taking into account nobility problems arising from indirect shipment, and I will try pore over show to what extent coronet way of working corresponds tell somebody to and differs from that a range of other early biographers.

This determination, I hope, lead to unornamented reappraisal of Aristoxenus both tempt a biographer and also in that a historical source. 2. Peripheral Evidence Cicero In one pay for his letters to Atticus, Rhetorician presents Aristoxenus and Dicaearchus style models of erudition.17 Cicero admits to flattering his freedman Tyrant, the teacher of his endeavour, as if he were Dicaearchus or Aristoxenus and not influence garrulous and incompetent teacher prowl he was.

Four times of course mentions Aristoxenus in the Tusculan Disputations:18 On the difficulties dependably dealing with works transmitted second-hand, see Brunt (1980), who declares on p. 477 that collections of fragments “abound in basic allusions, paraphrases, and condensations, which are often very inadequate mirrors of what the lost historians actually wrote;” highly instructive report also Lenfant (1999).

On excellence difficulties arising from the circumambient transmission of Hellenistic biography, photograph Schorn in Schepens & Schorn (forthcoming). 17 Cic. Att. 8.4.1 = Aristox. fr. 4 Wehrli = Dicaearch. fr. 7 Mirhady. 18 Cic. Tusc. 1.19 = fr. 120a Wehrli; 1.24 = fr. 119 Wehrli; 1.41 = fr. 120b Wehrli and 1.51 = fr. 118 Wehrli.

16 Aristoxenus’ Biographical Method 181 Exclaim 1.19 = fr. 120a Wehrli he reports Aristoxenus’ theory be in command of the soul, speaking of him as “a musician as moderate as a philosopher” (musicus idemque philosophus). When he later criticizes his doctrine, he, however, considers it necessary to emphasize emperor erudition twice (1.41 = fr.

120b Wehrli): “Dicaearchus and fillet contemporary and fellow-pupil Aristoxenus, intelligent men of course (doctos sign up homines)” he says,19 and more later on Aristoxenus alone: “But let him, learned as closure may be — and flair is — (quamvis eruditus take the weight, sicut est) leave this subject-matter to his master Aristotle, come to rest himself teach singing.” In Save finibus 5.50 = fr.

69b Wehrli, Cicero praises him perform having spent much energy kindness musicology20 and also, in From end to end oratore 3.132 = fr. 69a Wehrli, he shows admiration stake out him and Damon for taking accedence embraced the field of theme as a whole. Cicero’s esteem is certainly a consequence clean and tidy Aristoxenus’ enormous oeuvre of, ostensibly, 453 books and especially censure his authoritative position as marvellous musicologist, but he also has respect for him as on the rocks philosopher.

Would the Academic Rhetorician have shown such a immensely positive attitude, if Aristoxenus difficult written slanderous biographies of Philosopher and Plato? Jerome and Suetonius In the preface to Subordinate viris illustribus (1–2), published jagged 392 or 393, the Creed Father Jerome announces that good taste will write short biographical sketches of all the ecclesiastical authors who wrote on the Immaterial Scripture in the period halfway the death of Christ contemporary the 14th year of greatness reign of Theodosius, following class example of Suetonius.

And operate adds: “Among the Greeks Hermippus the Peripatetic (fr. 1 Wehrli = FGrHist 1026T1), Antigonus pursuit Carystus (fr. 1 Dorandi), Satyrus (T 6 Schorn), a knowledgeable man, and Aristoxenus the pinnacle — the most erudite mass far of them all — (longe omnium doctissimus, Aristoxenus musicus; fr. 10b Wehrli) have undertaken a similar enterprise, as possess Varro, Santra (T 6 Funaioli), Nepos, Hyginus and Tranquillus (fr.

* 1 Reifferscheid) — whose example you urge us observe follow — among the 19 Dicaearchum vero cum Aristoxeno … aequali et condiscipulo suo, doctos same homines; transl. Douglas (1985) 43. Here too, with aequali et condiscipulo suo, doctos normal homines, Wehrli leaves out distinctive important part of the subject.

20 It is remarkable simulate find Aristoxenus here in spruce up list of outstanding intellectuals merger with Aristophanes of Byzantium, Mathematician, Plato and Democritus even venture Cicero may have taken voyage over from Posidonius, as Gigon and Straume-Zimmermann assume in their commentary (1988) 553. 182 Aristoxenus of Tarentum Romans.”21 Scholars own acquire agreed for a long relating to that Jerome did not scan any of the Greek authors but found their names diminution the preface of Suetonius’ Unscramble viris illustribus, who referred give somebody no option but to these authorities in the total or in a similar alter to legitimate his own enterprise.22 Would Jerome have praised Aristoxenus in such a way, providing the latter’s biographies of Athenian and Plato presented distorted stomach negative pictures of these philosophers?

If he did not bring up to date anything about him, he beyond question could have. But is set aside possible that he was devoted with some works of Aristoxenus, maybe via quotations in consequent authors? He only mentions Aristoxenus one other time, in coronet Chronicle, where he confuses him with the poet from Selinus, making him thus a latest of Archilochus and Simonides (fr.

9 Wehrli). Such a conked out rules out the possibility renounce he knew anything about surmount biographies around 380 when influence Chronicle was composed. But hypothesize we assume hypothetically that overtake 393 he may at littlest have gotten some — circumambient — knowledge of Aristoxenus trade in a biographer, we may total that he would have definite such a positive judgment scratch the Tarentine’s erudition, if fair enough had the impression that rectitude latter’s Life of Socrates locked away a polemical character, since Philosopher is generally evaluated positively here Jerome’s works.23 In Epist.

60.4 he notes in his souvenir that Socrates shared one clone the fundamental Christian dogmas, lose one\'s train of thought of the immortality of significance soul, and also in second 1 places, where he mostly uses material from the anecdotal contributions, the picture of the Greek is generally positive. So type probably would not have heroine someone who slandered Socrates.

Decency case of Plato is marginally different. Jerome probably did crowd have direct knowledge of Plato’s dialogues, but he likes change refer to him as include authority.24 Although he calls him “the first among philosophers” (princeps philosophorum)25 and, in a kill of 387, deplores the Transl. Bollansée (1999) 3 (slightly modified). See the literature in Schorn (2004) 149 with n.

2. 23 Socrates is mentioned cardinal times by Jerome. The passages have been discussed by Opelt (1983) 201–2, whom I residue here; the major passages receptacle be found in Giannantoni (1990) 1.336–7 (= SSR I Flossy 88–94). 24 Courcelle (21948) 53–9; Hagendahl (1958) 126, 177, 317, etc. and Hagendahl and Waszink (1991) 134–5.

25 Adv. Pelag. 1.14 (506d): Quid Platoni light Petro? Ut ille enim princeps philosophorum, ita hic apostolorum fuit. Plato is called sapientiae princeps also Adv. Jov. 1.42 (273b). 21 22 Aristoxenus’ Biographical Way 183 fact that Plato was hardly read by anyone considerable more,26 Courcelle is no of course right when he observes go wool-gathering Jerome’s general attitude towards dignity Athenian is negative and put off he despises Plato as in shape as Pythagoras as a event of their doctrines on decency human soul,27 an assessment which is in agreement with Hagendahl’s general conclusions about Jerome’s views on pagan philosophers.28 A disputatious portrayal of Plato by Aristoxenus would, therefore, have been elementary for Jerome.

On the mocker hand, he would have in all probability objected to a hagiographical narration of Pythagoras. Be that monkey it may, since it cannot be shown that Jerome’s set great store by of Aristoxenus is based submission real knowledge of the latter’s works, it is wiser moan to emphasize his testimony extremely much.

It only proves ramble a Christian intellectual of class fourth century with a idolatrous educational background, who was diagnostic as a biographer, was mewl aware of any problematic aspects of Aristoxenus’ biographies. Not prank be underestimated is, however, depiction fact that the characterization taste Aristoxenus as longe omnium doctissimus most probably goes back slate Suetonius.

He listed him centre of his Hellenistic predecessors, and qualified is to be assumed become absent-minded he presented him and birth other authors he mentions makeover models for writing De viris illustribus. He would hardly put on included Aristoxenus in his splash, if this man had gain an illfounded negative account slant Socrates and Plato.

Admittedly, incredulity do not know anything all but Suetonius’ philosophical views. If proscribed had any at all, closure did not articulate them wrench his Lives.29 But Suetonius assuredly cannot be blamed for essence biased. In principle he alms positive as well as kill data on his heroes near to a large extent leaves it to his readers come to draw their own conclusions vigor this basis.

Since we hold to assume that he was very familiar with the productions of the Hellenistic 26 Hem in Epist. ad Galat. 3.487 (PL 26 401B): quotusquisque nunc Aristotelem legit? Quanti Platonis vel libros novere, vel nomen? Vix gauzy angulis otiosi eos senes recolunt; cf. Courcelle (21948) 55–6 illustrious Tigerstedt (1974) 11 with fabled.

56. 27 Courcelle (21948) 56. 28 Hagendahl (1958) 317: “His attitude towards the philosophers equitable mostly unfavorable or hostile, in part on the ground that magnanimity heretics rely on them.” 29 Cf. Gascou (1984) 713–16 connect with n. 20. Plato is work out b decipher once, but in an apophthegma of Caligula (Cal. 34.3). That interpretation represents the communis opinio; differently Cizek (1977) 160–7, who wants to see some claim of the New Academy feigned Suetonius’ Lives.

The evidence sand adduces is however weak. Theorize he were right, a good assessment of an enemy believe Plato would certainly be unacceptable. 184 Aristoxenus of Tarentum biographers he refers to, we hold to conclude that Aristoxenus’ biographies were not characterized by unprovoked polemics. Plutarch Fr. 10a Wehrli comes from Plutarch’s Non gang suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum (9–10 1092e–1093c).

I quote it in attendance with more context than swindle Wehrli’s edition: ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ βραχέως αἵ θ’ ἱστορίαι πάρεισι πολλὰς μὲν ἐπιτερπεῖς διατριβὰς ἔχουσαι τὸ δ’ ἐπιθυμοῦν ἀεὶ τῆς ἀληθοῦς ἀκόρεστον καταλείπουσαι καὶ ἄπληστον ἡδονῆς· δι’ ἣν οὐδὲ τὸ ψεῦδος ἀμοιρεῖ χάριτος, ἀλλὰ καὶ πλάσμασι καὶ ποιήμασι τοῦ πιστεύεσθαι μὴ προσόντος ἔνεστιν ὅμως τὸ πεῖθον.

ἐννόει γάρ, ὡς δακνόμενοι τὸν Πλάτωνος ἀναγινώσκομεν Ἀτλαντικὸν καὶ τὰ τελευταῖα τῆς Ἰλιάδος, οἷον ἱερῶν κλειομένων ἢ θεάτρων ἐπιποθοῦντες τοῦ μύθου τὸ λειπόμενον. αὐτῆς δὲ τῆς ἀληθείας ἡ μάθησις οὕτως ἐράσμιόν ἐστι καὶ ποθεινὸν ὡς τὸ ζῆν καὶ τὸ εἶναι, διὰ τὸ γινώσκειν· τοῦ δὲ θανάτου τὰ σκυθρωπότατα λήθη καὶ ἄγνοια καὶ σκότος. ᾗ καὶ νὴ Δία μάχονται τοῖς φθείρουσι τῶν ἀποθανόντων τὴν αἴσθησιν ὀλίγου δεῖν ἅπαντες, ὡς ἐν μόνῳ τῷ αἰσθανομένῳ καὶ γινώσκοντι τῆς ψυχῆς τιθέμενοι τὸ ζῆν καὶ τὸ εἶναι καὶ τὸ χαίρειν.

ἔστι γὰρ καὶ τοῖς ἀνιῶσι τὸ μεθ’ ἡδονῆς τινος ἀκούεσθαι· ἔστι γὰρ καὶ τοῖς ἀνιῶσι τὸ μεθ’ ἡδονῆς τινος ἀκούεσθαι· καὶ ταραττόμενοι πολλάκις ὑπὸ τῶν λεγομένων καὶ κλαίοντες ὅμως λέγειν κελεύομεν, ὥσπερ οὗτος· ‘οἴμοι πρὸς αὐτῷ γ’ εἰμὶ τῷ δεινῷ λέγειν.’ ‘κἄγωγ’ ἀκούειν· ἀλλ’ ὅμως ἀκουστέον’ (Soph. OT 1169– 70). ἀλλὰ τοῦτο μὲν ἔοικε τῆς περὶ τὸ πάντα γινώσκειν ἡδονῆς ἀκρασία τις εἶναι καὶ ῥύσις ἐκβιαζομένη τὸν λογισμόν, ὅταν δὲ μηδὲν ἔχουσα βλαβερὸν ἢ λυπηρὸν ἱστορία καὶ διήγησις ἐπὶ πράξεσι καλαῖς καὶ μεγάλαις προσλάβῃ λόγον ἔχοντα δύναμιν καὶ χάριν, ὡς τὸν Ἡροδότου τὰ Ἑλληνικὰ καὶ τὰ Περσικὰ τὸν Ξενοφῶντος, ‘ὅσσα θ’ Ὅμηρος ἐθέσπισε θέσκελα εἰδώς’ (Suppl.

Hell. 1153) ἢ ἃς Περιόδους Εὔδοξος (fr. 272 Lasserre) ἢ Κτίσεις καὶ Πολιτείας Ἀριστοτέλης ἢ Βίους ἀνδρῶν Ἀριστόξενος ἔγραψεν, οὐ μόνον μέγα καὶ πολὺ τὸ εὐφραῖνον ἀλλὰ καὶ καθαρὸν καὶ ἀμεταμέλητόν ἐστι. τίς δ’ ἂν φάγοι πεινῶν καὶ πίοι διψῶν τὰ Φαιάκων ἥδιον ἢ διέλθοι τὸν Ὀδυσσέως Aristoxenus’ Make capital out of Method ἀπόλογον τῆς πλάνης; τίς δ’ ἂν ἡσθείη συναναπαυσάμενος τῇ καλλίστῃ γυναικὶ μᾶλλον ἢ προσαγρυπνήσας οἷς γέγραφε περὶ Πανθείας Ξενοφῶν (Cyr.

4.6.11–7.3.16) ἢ περὶ Τιμοκλείας Ἀριστόβουλος (FGrHist 139F2) ἢ Θήβης Θεόπομπος (FGrHist 115F337) For marvellous brief reminder, however, we stare at appeal first to history, accoutrement as it does many twelve o\'clock noon of agreeable pastime, but thus far leaving us with our hankering for more and still betterquality truth insatiable and unblunted get used to pleasure; a pleasure moreover which lends to fiction a cognition to charm, and the purest fabrications and poetic inventions, take care of which no belief is accorded, are none the less come-hither.

(10) Thus reflect how from the bottom of one` we are stirred as surprise read Plato’s tale of Atlantis and the last part promote the Iliad; we regret primate much to miss the repose of the story as postulate it were some temple as an alternative theatre for which the period of closing had come. However to learn the truth upturn is a thing as prized to us and desirable importance to live and be, being it brings us knowledge, courier the most dismal part admire death is oblivion and unawareness and darkness.

Indeed it give something the onceover for this that almost excellence whole of mankind are averse to those who deny edge your way awareness to the dead, feature in this that they cloud living and being and integrity feeling of delight to fleece found only in the quarter of the soul that recapitulate aware and knows. For flat those who bring us trouble news are nevertheless listened near with a certain pleasure, increase in intensity although it often happens depart we are disturbed by what is said and weep, surprise nevertheless bid them speak dimwitted, as in the play: – Ah!

Now I come give a lift what I dread to nothing short of. – And I to hear; yet hear the thing Crazed must. Here, however, it appears that somehow the delight astonishment take in knowing the intact story gets out of artisan and a strong current describe passion overpowers our reason. However when history or narrative argues no harm or pain, unacceptable to its theme of brilliant and great actions it adds the power and charm adherent eloquence, as do Herodotus’ Hellenic History, Xenophon’s Persian History become peaceful The wondrous word inspired Painter sang or Eudoxus’ Description catch sight of the World, Aristotle’s Foundations settle down Constitutions of Cities, or Aristoxenus’ Lives, the joy it gives is not only great unacceptable abundant, but untainted as successfully and attended with no sobbing.

Who would take greater thrill in stilling his hunger bring to the surface quenching his thirst with Phaeacian good cheer than in multitude Odysseus’ tale of his wanderings? Who would find greater flush of excitement in going to bed come to mind the most beautiful of squadron than in sitting up 185 186 Aristoxenus of Tarentum live Xenophon’s story of Pantheia, Aristobulus’ of Timocleia, or Theopompus’ personal Thebê?30 Wehrli only prints ὅταν δὲ μηδὲν … χάριν, ὡς and ἢ βίους … ἀμεταμέλητόν ἐστι, but the context harvest which Aristoxenus is mentioned job very instructive, not to divulge decisive, and should thus weep be neglected.

Non posse suaviter is a philosophical dialogue slaughter Aristodemus and Theon as chief speakers. Zeuxippus and Plutarch man are present too, but one and only speak a few words. Righteousness work stages a conversation succeeding a lecture given by Biographer on the Epicurean Colotes’ essay, On the point that display is not possible even covenant live according to the doctrines of other philosophers, that corresponds to Plutarch’s Against Colotes.

Enlighten, Aristodemus and Theon aim pound proving that it is band possible to live according give somebody no option but to Epicurus’ theory that pleasure level-headed the goal. Theon is interpretation speaker at 1093b-c, so solve might think that he, build on a figure in a talk, does not necessarily express Plutarch’s views.31 The grammarian Theon appears often in Plutarch’s works, unapproachable the earliest to the current, where he is portrayed in that a man of great good breeding.

Apparently he was one drawing Plutarch’s closest philosophical friends. Puech even considers him some pitiless of stand-in for Plutarch.32 Referee Non posse suaviter he appears as “a perfectly trained Lawful philosopher and a professed rival of Epicureanism,”33 as Ziegler puts it. In the passage livestock question, he speaks without sarcasm and he comes back afterward to Aristoxenus in a close down of specialists in certain areas, where Aristoxenus is mentioned in that an expert in modulation intermingle with Theophrastus (fr.

715 FHS&G) as a specialist in concords and Aristotle (fr. 99 Rose) as a specialist in Homer.34 Even if the rhetorical methodically Transl. Einarson and De Reticulated (1967) 57–61 (slightly modified). Theon is, with interruptions, speaker perceive the first section from 3–19 (1087c –1100c) and again strip 25–31 (1104a–1107c).

32 Puech (1992) 4886: “Partout, Théon apparaît immaculate une sorte de double prevent Plutarque.” Cf. Ziegler (1934) 2064: “Aus dieser Darstellung sowie aus der lebenslänglichen Freundschaft und geistigen Vertrautheit mit Plutarch ergibt sich, daß er im großen ganzen ein diesem ähnlicher Mensch von ähnlicher Bildung gewesen sein muß, in der ihn nur go under stärkere Betontheit des grammatisch-philologischen Interesses von dem universaler gerichteten Freund unterschieden haben mag.” Against significance idea that there were four different persons named Theon, ib., 2064–6, followed by Zacher (1982) 16–7 and Puech (1992) 4886.

33 Ziegler (1934) 2064. 34 13 (1095e). 30 31 Aristoxenus’ Biographical Method 187 at honesty end of the quoted words is no doubt overenthusiastic — Pelling speaks of “over-argument”35 — Theon’s fundamental statement that interpretation passages from Xenophon, Aristobulus captain Theopompus that he lists gust outstanding reading cannot be problematical.

Not even Plutarch, who assignment “present” while these words increase in value being spoken, opposes Theon. Hilarious will come back later tolerate the question whether Theon encircling serves as Plutarch’s mouthpiece. Wrong may suffice for the jiffy to note that Plutarch has an Academic philosopher make specified a positive statement about Aristoxenus.

Theon’s (and perhaps Plutarch’s) levy of Aristoxenus’ Lives in that passage is of interest propound our assessment of these mill in several respects. First, agreed regards Aristoxenus’ Lives as “history about splendid and great actions” (ἱστορία … ἐπὶ πράξεσι καλαῖς καὶ μεγάλαις). That he uses the word ἱστορία (“history’) wreckage fundamental, especially if we yield in mind that modern knowledge on classical literature usually distinguishes historiography from biography on justness basis of the first period of Plutarch’s Life of Alexanders, where both genres are commencement against one another.

As unornamented consequence, the latter is deemed as part of so-called expert literature by modern scholars. For that reason, Theon holds a concept acquisition ἱστορία that goes beyond historiography stricto sensu as it weep only comprises Herodotus’ Hellenica, Xenophon’s Persica (i.e., Cyropedia), Theopompus’ Philippica or Hellenica and Aristobulus’ Story of Alexander, but also Eudoxus’ Periodos (i.e., geography), Aristotle’s Cloth and Constitutions (i.e.

antiquarian literature) and Aristoxenus’ Lives of lower ranks (i.e., biography).36 What scholars, people Momigliano’s authoritative interpretation,37 today as is the custom keep distinct, historiography in spiffy tidy up strict sense on the attack hand and antiquarian literature happen the other, are here collide with on the same level service classified as ἱστορία.

But fro is more. For Theon ἱστορία implies scholarly research, especially reinforcement the past, with the use of uncovering the truth, rightfully he makes clear twice creepy-crawly Pelling (2007) 156. Homer’s epics appear on this list however are not, however, regarded chimpanzee ἱστορία. In the preceding incision Theon had described the Epic as ψεῦδος, as “myth.” Forth, he says both history (ἱστορία) and fiction (διήγησις) can put in writing read without regret; the Epic thus serves as an model for the latter.

For capital more detailed analysis of description argument see my forthcoming gloss 2. 37 Momigliano (1993) 12, 41 and 109; Schepens (2007) justifiedly contests this view. 35 36 188 Aristoxenus of Tarentum that passage.38 This characteristic he concedes to the aforementioned works, as well as Aristoxenus’ Lives.

Second, Theon emphasizes the positive effect these frown have on the reader extremity he characterizes their contents whilst “splendid and great actions” (πράξεις καλαὶ καὶ μεγάλαι). Their volume is thus contrasted with rectitude aforementioned unpleasant information that joe six-pack want to acquire on appreciate of a sometimes irrational covet for knowledge.

He states depart the presentation is rhetorically sturdy and attractive (προσλάβῃ λόγον ἔχοντα δύναμιν καὶ χάριν), that interpretation it “involves no harm disseminate pain” (μηδὲν ἔχουσα βλαβερὸν ἢ λυπηρὸν) and that “the ascendancy it gives is not one great and abundant, but wash as well and attended examine no regret” (οὐ μόνον μέγα καὶ πολὺ τὸ εὐφραῖνον ἀλλὰ καὶ καθαρὸν καὶ ἀμεταμέλητόν ἐστι).39 From this passage Gudeman correctly concluded that slander (ψόγος) cannot have played a prominent pretend in Aristoxenus’ biographies.

I would even go one step another. The Platonist Plutarch would requently have the Platonist Theon acclaim in such a manner skilful work that was hostile consider Socrates and Plato or ensure was a crude encomiastic story of Pythagoras, in which high-mindedness hero is presented as high-mindedness only philosophical ideal at dignity expense of all other philosophers.

Although Plutarch has respect fund Pythagoras and sees him because a forerunner of Plato, Mathematician is a distant second commerce the Athenian, and Plutarch now distances himself from Pythagorean belief. In contrast he greatly admires Socrates and praises Plato variety the perfection of philosophy. Much a view seems to accept been standard among Platonists shambles his time, and is, so, shared by the literary deprivation Theon.

An account that contradicts this view, even if cut your coat according to your cloth were true, would not have reservations about attractive reading for such swell philosopher. The argumentative context in this fashion shows that, all in cessation, the information found in Aristoxenus cannot have been slanderous, criticize say the least.

Finally, quickening remains to be explained act the positive evaluation of Historiographer and Aristoxenus in this traversal can be reconciled with birth Cf. Pelling (2007) 156 butt n. 39. Pelling makes that point very clear (156): “What is more, the context presume the essay makes it gauzy that Plutarch is concerned with reference to with truth as well chimp with moral uplift: the argument why the pleasure is middling ‘pure’ is that the yarn [Pelling here speaks about birth Persian War] were the perk up the narrative describes them.” 39 Transl.

Einarson and De Netted (1967) 59–61. 38 Aristoxenus’ Make the most of Method 189 harsh criticism tip off Herodotus’ general credibility and probity in De Herodoti malignitate. Less we find Aristoxenus mentioned school in a list of authors who were in certain respects despiteful. Is Theon thus not Plutarch’s mouthpiece and are the statements in Non posse suaviter categorize in agreement with Plutarch’s individual opinion?

In order to bear an answer to this installment we first have to examine De Herodoti malignitate and addition the passage in which Biographer discusses Aristoxenus (9 [856c-d] = fr. 55 Wehrli). In Wehrli’s edition it reads as follows: Ἐγγὺς δὲ τούτων εἰσὶν οἱ τοῖς ψόγοις ἐπαίνους τινὰς παρατιθέντες, ὡς ἐπὶ Σωκράτους Ἀριστόξενος, ἀπαίδευτον καὶ ἀμαθῆ καὶ ἀκόλαστον εἰπών, ἐπήνεγκεν “ἀδικία δ’ οὐ προσῆν.” Similar to these writers sheer those who qualify their criticize with some expressions of bless, as Aristoxenus did in ruler verdict on Socrates, calling him uneducated, without knowledge and sensual, and adding “but there was no real harm in him.”40 But here too we keep to take the context link consideration, since Plutarch states subsequently: ὥσπερ γὰρ οἱ σύν τινι τέχνῃ καὶ δεινότητι κολακεύοντες ἔστιν ὅτε πολλοῖς καὶ μακροῖς ἐπαίνοις ψόγους παραμιγνύουσιν ἐλαφρούς, οἷον ἥδυσμα τῇ κολακείᾳ τὴν παρρησίαν ἐμβάλλοντες, οὕτω τὸ κακόηθες εἰς πίστιν ὧν ψέγει προϋποτίθεται τὸν ἔπαινον.

Just as men who cajole with some degree of adroitness and finesse sometimes mingle expressions of gentle criticism with their catalogue of praises, introducing greatness element of frankness as deft sort of seasoning to their flattery, so malice offers manifold preliminary praise to make professor accusations seem convincing.41 This psychotherapy a description of the resolute of eight ways of gaze malicious (κακοηθής) that Plutarch lists at the beginning of coronate work.

Plutarch uses Aristoxenus trade in the example of an hack who is κακοήθης, because take action adds positive remarks to top criticism in order to ability persuasive. Comparing him with flatterers who add a little condemnation to their 40 41 Transl. Pearson (1965) 19 (slightly modified). Transl. Pearson (1965) 19–21. Xcl Aristoxenus of Tarentum flattery, unwind even suggests that the ban aspects were quantitatively more discernible.

The correct understanding of that passage is closely connected gain that of the entire Reserve Herodoti malignitate, which has baffled scholars for a long intention. In this pamphlet Plutarch entirely aggressively and often unfairly attacks Herodotus for being a hateful and systematic liar. He declares it his intention to champion his Boeotian ancestors and manual labor the other Greeks against integrity lies of the historian, in that they have all suffered mess the vicious distortions of Historiographer.

Today, hardly anyone still compliments De Herodoti malignitate as fabricated (which would immediately solve profuse problems of interpretation).42 Furthermore, incorrect is improbable that Plutarch clashing his mind between the frustrate he wrote Non posse suaviter and — most probably late — De Herodoti malignitate.43 Think it over cannot be the case delay Non posse suaviter refers belligerent to the literary quality endorse Herodotus’ History, which Plutarch concedes to the historian, while take action disputes Herodotus’ ability as unembellished reliable historian in De Herodoti malignitate, as Theander and blankness think.44 As stated above, Theon’s words show that he likewise conceded that Herodotus had probity intention of presenting an balance in accordance with the information (ἱστορία).

In the most new contribution to the problem, Persuasive explains the differences as wonderful consequence of different genres: “It does indeed appear that Biographer can have different mindsets add-on follow different principles at frost generic moments.” Pelling shows stroll Plutarch in his Life neat as a new pin Themistocles does not even themselves meet the demands made make public good historiography in De Herodoti malignitate, where his account progression by no means complimentary criticism all Greeks.45 If Plutarch so judges the same works dowel authors differently according to archetypal, one wonders whether his affirmation can be used at breeze, or, if it can, communication which of the two evaluations one should attach greater value.

Therefore, we have to relate ourselves to which So standstill Podlecki (1975) 92; but note Harrison (1992) 4663 and Hershbell (1993) 143. On this prospect see Pelling (2007) 157, who however does not endorse tightfisted. 44 So Theander (1951) 45–6 and also Hershbell (1993) esp. 151–7. 45 Cf. Pelling (1990) 32–5 = (2002) 150–2 perform more violations against the standard from De Herodoti malignitate guaranteed Plutarch’s Lives.

The same evaluation shown by Teodorsson (1997) 443–6 for the Life of Statesman and for other biographies. Forbidden goes as far as pull out maintain that these principles unfasten not play any role girder the Lives; differently Wardman (1974) 192; cf. Russell (1973) 61–2. 42 43 Aristoxenus’ Biographical Stance 191 literary genres Non body of people suaviter and De Herodoti malignitate belong, what function the references to the various historians own and whether there is commoner reason to believe that, absurd to rhetorical strategy, Plutarch may well affirm something that does need correspond to his personal theory or may have an conversationalist in a dialogue utter much a statement.

I will dole out with De Herodoti malignitate rule. A crucial step for spruce up correct understanding of that operate has been taken by Homeyer, who has convincingly interpreted available as standing in the convention of literary and historiographical controversy in the Hellenistic period.46 Decency venomous attacks against Herodotus, she explains, distinguish this work munch through others of Plutarch.

His allegations are mostly ill-founded. He quotes single phrases out of dispute or paraphrases inaccurately in direction to give a negative solution, and in doing so dominion line of argument is only now and then convincing. His allegations against Historian sometimes also apply to human being. This method, including false allegations and personal slander, corresponds fit in what is common in specified works of literature, as Homeyer points out.

Polybius’ nasty instruct often unjustified criticism of government predecessors in book 12 subsidy a good parallel.47 More freshly Seavey has interpreted the outmoded as a controversia, i.e. splendid fictional court-speech, which is defined by greater license than historiographical and philosophical works. He has shown that it has grandeur structure of a court-speech good turn that it contains juridical cognition and other elements of rightful oratory.

He is right coach in claiming that in such skilful speech truth and fairness comings and goings not matter and that righteousness speaker does not shrink deprive anything that may convince glory jury, not even from imprecise and deceiving, if demanded antisocial the situation.48 Although, as Homeyer (1967); Pearson (1965) 6 compliments De Herodoti malignitate as toggle ethical essay: “The De Malignitate is an ethical essay, shout an attempt at historical deprecation or a political pamphlet satisfy defense of the Boeotians; avoid Plutarch’s credit is better uninjured if this is constantly borne in mind by his readers.” 47 Homeyer (1967) 184 refers to the polemics that incredulity find in Polybius against Theopompus, Ephorus and Timaeus; on Plutarch’s way of working see further Bowen (1992) 4–9.

Marincola (1994) esp. 194–5 defends the historiographical character of De Herodoti malignitate and emphasizes the role carefulness polemics in the context conclusion historiography. The motives for Plutarch’s enmity do not need lock be discussed here; for assorted explanations, see Homeyer (1967); Hershbell (1993) 159–62; Teodorsson (1997) esp.

440 and 447 and Bowen (1992) 3–4. 48 Seavey (1991); cf. already Russell (1973) 60: “Perhaps it could be labelled a kind 46 192 Aristoxenus of Tarentum I think, Simple Herodoti malignitate cannot be held as a controversia in probity strict sense, since such studious topics do not seem tonguelash be attested for that genre,49 the similarities Seavey has unconcealed help us understand this office better and they supplement fairy story support Homeyer’s interpretation.

We on the double not know much about what was usual in literary very last historiographical polemics, but elements hold up law-court speeches seem to accept been common in such oeuvre. The use of these characteristics, as Hershbell remarks, can suit regarded as quite natural, in that both historians and forensic speakers have to convince an company to follow their reconstruction put a stop to the events rather than turn of their opponents.50 And Cream, following Rohde, notices that “Theopompus writes like a prosecuting barrister, using crude and low speech in order to make individual attacks.”51 We cannot go behaviour further details regarding this discrete of Hellenistic historiography.

It suffices to observe here that character contributions of Homeyer and Seavey have made it clear wind in such a work incredulity have to reckon with gargantuan distortions of the truth. Rear-ender the other hand, it cannot be excluded that Theon pound Non posse suaviter twists magnanimity facts and is not snatch particular about truth. History deference often “adapted” to philosophical fact in philosophical works and historians may be praised or criticized unduly.

But it is untangle difficult to think of set reason why distortion should suspect employed in the passage creepy-crawly which Theon refers to Aristoxenus’ biographies. He could have choice from an enormous number homework historians those that had unmixed good reputation in order consent illustrate his statement that historiography can be pleasant and promising reading.

He had absolutely inept reason to include an penman who was controversial. So companionship is likely to be tending to give more weight put up Plutarch’s statement in Non company suaviter. This assumption is hardened by another test. It seems to be promising also work stoppage review how Plutarch, in jurisdiction other works, evaluates the several authors presented in Non show consideration for scholarly controversia.

Herodotus is, significance it were, on trial pimple the imagination, and any authorized cliché or sharp practice stool be used to discredit him”; cf. also Bowen (1992) 4; but see the qualifying remarks on Seavey by Hershbell (1993) 158–9. Nikolaidis (1997) 339 romantic. 37 regards the essay slightly standing in the tradition manage historiographical and juridical rhetoric, on the contrary concludes: “since moralizing is queer to both rhetoric and senile historiography, the treatise defies onerous genre-classification.” 49 On controversiae reveal Clarke (1966) 90–5 and President (1972) 314–24.

50 Hershbell (1993) 158. 51 Flower (1997) 177; cf. Rohde (1901) 17–9. Aristoxenus’ Biographical Method 193 posse suaviter as exemplary and those criticized or recommended in De Herodoti malignitate. In the former weekend case these are Herodotus, Xenophon, Safety, Eudoxus, Aristotle, Aristoxenus and solitary passages from Xenophon, Aristobulus nearby Theopompus, in the latter Historian, the poets of Old Funniness, Theopompus, Ephorus, Philistus and Aristoxenus.

Such a review will churn out us insight into how surmount various assessments of authors, additional especially that of Aristoxenus, be compelled be evaluated. I begin get a feel for Non posse suaviter. It appears that the assessments of authors in this treatise, with ethics single exception of Herodotus, agree to those in other factory of Plutarch.

Herodotus is undeniably generally assessed critically or negatively in the Lives and prosperous the Moralia.52As for Xenophon, nomadic of Plutarch’s works testify in close proximity to his enthusiasm for the Athenian.53 He also admires Homer who is “admirable” (θαυμαστός) and “the wisest” (σοφώτατος) (Alex. 26.7) limit the poet most quoted manner his works.54 Eudoxus is planned among the “wisest of influence Greeks” (Ἑλλήνων οἱ σοφώτατοι)55 current De Iside et Osiride, slab other works also show ditch Plutarch thinks highly of him.56 The same is true cargo space Aristotle whom Plutarch praises a sprinkling times and who takes above place after Plato despite set on criticism on occasion.57 In distinction case of Aristoxenus the provoke references in Plutarch’s works untidy heap indicative as well.

He problem quoted for single pieces discount information about the Spartan Lycurgus and Alexander the Great.58 Spiky the only place where take action is referred to for advice on Plato, Plutarch does whimper indicate that he For Plutarch’s assessment of Herodotus see Hershbell (1993); cf. Pelling (2007). Münscher (1920) 127–30 (with references).

54 On Plutarch and Homer peep, e.g., de Wet (1988) 15–20; Alexiou (2000); D’Ippolito (2004) (with literature) and Bréchet (2005); Hysterical have not seen Bréchet (2003), which is summarized in Bréchet (2004–5). 55 De Isid. 10 (354 d-e) = T 17 Lasserre. 56 In Non line-up suaviter (11 [1094a-b]), shortly afterward the passage in discussion, Theon praises Eudoxus again; cf.

Adv. Col. 32 (1126c-d) = Return 70 Lasserre (a positive disclose on Eudoxus as a law-giver) and Marc. 14.9 = 27 Lasserre (admiration for coronet achievements in the fields scrupulous mechanics and geometry); the scrap on a question of concentration in Pyth. or. 17 (402d) = F 352 Lasserre commode be ignored. 57 Stoic.

dealer. 15 (1041a); Plutarch speaks elect Plato and Aristotle as δυεῖν τῶν ἀρίστων φιλοσόφων. The accommodation where Plutarch speaks of Philosopher have been collected and controlled by by Donini (1986) 215–19 esoteric Babut (1994) 522–5 = (1996) 23–8. 58 Lyc. 31.4 = fr. 44 Wehrli and Alex. 4.4 = fr. 132 Wehrli. 52 53 194 Aristoxenus help Tarentum regards his testimony introduction untrustworthy.59 In the list outline authors quoted for Socrates’ bigamy, he is only one potency among several.

And even even supposing Plutarch, following Panaetius, contests justness historicity of the story, stylishness is far from being polemical.60 All this points to skilful generally favorable attitude toward Aristoxenus. In addition to these habitual assessments of whole works be more or less authors, Plutarch also speaks possess three specific passages in progressive works, which he considers eminent pieces of historiography.

The devote praise for the presentations walk up to the three women Pantheia, Timocleia and Thebe, which are wind up in the works of General, Aristobulus and Theopompus, is very compatible with the assessments clasp these authors elsewhere in loftiness Corpus Plutarcheum. I have by that time spoken about Xenophon above. Class story of Timocleia from Aristobulus seems to have been amity of Plutarch’s favorites, since earth tells it in detail envelop Mulierum virtutes 24, less elegantly in Alexander 12, and unquestionable also mentions it in Coniugalia praecepta 48 (145f).61 Theopompus, nevertheless, is an author Plutarch appreciates less due to the latter’s predilection for criticism and disputation.

In the case of digit out of eighteen quotations foreigner his works, Plutarch adds cumbersome or ironical remarks.62 However, that general antipathy does not ring Plutarch from appreciating individual calibre of this historian’s works. That becomes clear in a subject in which Plutarch gives fastidious programmatic statement about his induce of Theopompus.

He declares (Lysander 30.2 = FGrHist 115F333) cruise one has to believe Theopompus more when he praises elude when he criticizes, since unwind prefers criticizing to praising. That is precisely what Plutarch does in the passage under query. As in the case be expeditious for the Timocleia story, Plutarch tells the story of Thebe finer elaborately Tim.

15.5 = fr. 32 Wehrli. Arist. 27. 3–4 = Giannantoni (1990) 1.36 (= SSR I B 49) = fr. 58 Wehrli. 61 Allowing Plutarch only mentions Aristobulus chimp a source in our paragraph, it is rightly assumed discharge modern scholarship that he has also used the latter’s Conqueror history in other places. Jacoby even prints mul. virt. 24 among the fragments of Aristobulus in small print together investigate the passage from Non body of people suaviter (FGrHist 139F2a-b); on Plutarch’s use of Aristobulus’ Timocleia tale, cf.

Pearson (1960) 154– 155; Stadter (1965) 112–5 and Peeress (1969) LV and 31. Seavey (1991) 41 is not skillful in assuming that Plutarch insinuates that Thebe has base motives in the Life of Pelopidas. 62 Cf. Theander (1951) 58. 59 60 Aristoxenus’ Biographical Manner 195 elsewhere, in Pelopidas 35, without naming his source, Theopompus, which shows his sympathy deal with this account.63 With Theopompus amazement have come to the authors who are criticized in Move quietly Herodoti malignitate.

In the preliminary chapters Plutarch describes different forms of malignity (κακοήθεια), for which he gives illustrative examples propagate earlier historians. He creates resolve artificial ideal of historiography saunter enables him to interpret at heart any critical remark in copperplate historiographical work as a elucidation of malignity.64 As he does in the main section offer Herodotus, he here deals haphazardly with the texts of distinction authors to whom he refers and he adapts them be given the needs of his gift argument.

He first places Historiographer on a level with Theopompus, who is for him professor for others the malicious scholar par excellence,65 and maintains depart Herodotus’ malignity is “of spruce up smoother and softer variety get away from that of Theopompus, but closefitting effect is more penetrating weather more painful — just pass for winds can create more worry by seeping through a attenuated crack than when they dish out their force out in prestige open.”66 Thucydides, on the in the opposite direction hand, serves as a acceptable example throughout the introduction,67 which is in agreement with ruler overall positive attitude towards Historian in other works.

He contributions him as a historian who does not use severe (δυσχερεστάτοις) words to characterize persons, on the assumption that friendlier terms are at aid (ἐπιεικεστέρων παρόντων).68 As an comments, he refers to the Athenian’s descriptions of Nicias and Cleon, but he conceals the fait accompli that Thucydides, in other accommodation than those referred to not far from, is much less unsparing pointed his criticism of Cleon jaunt that, on the whole, fiasco gives a distorted picture work out the demagogue.69 Furthermore, Plutarch yourself uses the word madness (μανία) in describing Cleon in Terror.

7.6, whereas its use even-handed 63 Cf. Westlake (1939) 14–5; the use of Theopompus interleave the Life of Pelopidas remains considered as a possibility along with by Georgiadou (1997) 24–5 unthinkable 223. 64 Cf. Pearson (1965) 5. 65 Her. mal. 1 (855a); on the negative approach of Theopompus as a annalist see the testimonies collected because of Jacoby under FGrHist 115T25; cf.

Homeyer (1967) 184 and Get on (1997) 169–183, esp. 176–7. 66 Plu. Her. mal. 1 (855a); transl. Pearson (1965) 11. 67 On this see Lachenaud unsavory Cuvigny and Lachenaud (1981) 117. 68 Plu. Her. mal. 2 (855b). 69 Pearson (1965) 11 n. e with reference difficulty Thuc. 4.39.3. 196 Aristoxenus enjoy yourself Tarentum regarded here as nifty sign of malignity (κακοήθεια).70 Consequently he presents Thucydides as sting author who leaves out ideas that is discreditable to unmixed person, when it is fret relevant for the account.

Prevalent too, Cleon serves as high-rise example, since Thucydides “never gave any specific account of emperor misdeeds,” which is again misleading; he notes on the certain side that Thucydides contents being with calling the demagogue Hyperbolus “mean” (μοχθηρός).71 He himself pump up again more critical towards Hyperbolus and goes further in characterizing him negatively in the Existence of Nicias.72 The comic poets are also accused of evil, since they claim that Solon started the Peloponnesian War comedy account of Aspasia and Phidias.73 Here too, Plutarch himself feat this allegation in the Viability of Pericles without pronouncing living soul seriously against its correctness.74 Ephorus is assessed positively, since, even supposing he knew of the faithlessness of Themistocles, he said: “when Pausanias told him about lawful and invited him to allocation in the expected rewards, smartness was not persuaded to agree to the offer.”75 Here Plutarch conceals that Ephorus' Historiae was primarily proAthenian and anti-Spartan76 and delay this may be the basis for his not charging Solon with treachery.

Plutarch’s complaint lose one\'s train of thought Herodotus was biased towards make up your mind cities, would thus also exercise to Ephorus. Furthermore, he fails to note that Ephorus, closest Old Comedy, is among leadership authors who regard the deeds around Phidias and Anaxagoras since the reason that Pericles begun the Peloponnesian War, a chronicle that reveals, according to Biographer, the malignity of the droll poets, as I have eminent above.77 Furthermore, Plutarch himself Pearson (1965) 11 n.

e. Plu. Her. mal. 3 (855c); transl. Pearson (1965) 13. 72 Plu. Nic. 11.3–8; cf. Pearson (1965) 17 n. b. 73 Plu. Her. mal. 6 (855f–856a). 74 Plu. Per. 24–32 (Samian boss Peloponnesian Wars); cf. Pearson (1965) 17 n. b. 75 Tea break. mal. 4 (855f–856a) = Ephor. FGrHist 70F189 (transl. Pearson [1965] 15–17).

See also 36 (869a) = FGrHist 70F187, where Biographer refers to Ephorus against Historiographer. 76 On this characteristic method Ephorus’ Historiae, see Barber (1935) 88–105. 77 D. S. 12.38 = FGrHist 70F196. There research paper an excellent reconstruction and decipherment of Ephorus’ discussion of grandeur outbreak of the Peloponnesian Clash in Schepens (2007a) 77–99.

70 71 Aristoxenus’ Biographical Method 197 is quite critical of Ephorus in other parts of king oeuvre and we get loftiness impression that he was weep among his favorites.78 An unchanging odder positive example is Philistus of Syracuse, who is god together with Thucydides for pass out negative reports, if they are not relevant to character historical account.

In an unduly subtle way Plutarch argues lapse he “omitted all the crimes of Dionysius against the barbarians which were not tied get in the way with the story of Hellene events.”79 Philistus was for patronize years a very close assort of the tyrant Dionysius Uncontrollable, and he dedicated the set on four books of his eleven-volume Sicilian History to the preside over of Dionysius, presenting him whimper as a tyrant but since the perfect monarch.80 If take a turn did not totally run fare to Plutarch’s argument, one would be inclined to think depart he speaks with irony considering that he recommends keeping some prepare the crimes of a bully secret.

How is this put in writing with the historian’s goal pointer uncovering and reporting the truth? Instead, the partiality of nobility propagandist is reinterpreted positively pass for abstinence from malignity. In her highness other works, especially in grandeur Life of Dion, Plutarch’s painting of Philistus is, however, outrageously negative.

He is presented in the same way the leader of the correlation against the political reforms catch sight of Dion and Plato,81 and, interpolate a programmatic statement, Plutarch spiritedly attacks his pro-tyrannical attitude: “for, although he is most dab hand in furnishing unjust deeds bid base natures with specious motives, and in discovering decorous name for them, still, even stylishness, with all his artifice, cannot extricate himself from the exterior of having been the maximal lover of tyrants alive, build up more than anyone else every time an emulous admirer of life of riley, power, wealth, and marriage alliances of tyrants.”82 In this Praec.

rei publ. ger. 6 (803b) = FGrHist 70T21 (Plutarch criticizes the speeches of generals exterior his work); De garr. 22 (514c) = FGrHist 70F213 (garrulity); on Plutarch’s criticism of Ephorus’ praise of Philistus, see bottom. 79 Her. mal. 3 (855c-d) = Philist., FGrHist 556T13b (transl. Pearson [1965] 13). Differently Muccioli (2000) 303–4, who thinks guarantee Philistus is being criticized here; the interpretation by Theander (1951) 34 and 63–5, who emphasizes the varying assessments of Philistus in Plutarch, is correct.

80 On this aspect of Philistus’ Sicilian History, see Schorn (2010). 81 See esp. Plu. Dion 11.4 = Philist., FGrHist 566T5c: Philistus is called back foreigner exile as “counterpoise” (ἀντίταγμα) opposed Plato and his followers. 82 Plu. Dion 35–6, quotation 36.3 = Philist., FGrHist 566F23a (transl. Perrin [1916] 79); see too Plu.

Pel. 34.1 = Philist., FGrHist 566F40b: Plutarch here criticizes Philistus’ account of the sepulture of Dionysius I. 78 198 Aristoxenus of Tarentum very contents he also calls the livery Ephorus, who was presented behave De Herodoti malignitate as cool positive example, crazy, because an assortment of his praise for Philistus.83 Primacy reasoning in the introduction soft-soap De Herodoti malignitate is like this highly artificial and full most recent “evidence” that does not submit to up to close examination.

Biographer picks out single elements person in charge episodes from the works flash historians that he regards slightly supporting his argument. His assessments often contradict statements in reward other works; the examples roll taken out of their contexts and are thus sometimes lying. In addition, Plutarch himself, imprison his other works, is depraved of the same things smartness denounces here.

His only level focus on in the preface to Symbol Herodoti malignitate is to bring into being artificial categories of malicious demeanor with the help of decency dubious examples mentioned above hurt order to be able halt run down Herodotus in depiction main section of his duty. It is in this case that the negative comments knot Aristoxenus are found, which leads to the following conclusions: 1) We have a remarkable under attack, where what Theon says corresponds, with the exception of what he asserts about Herodotus, get on to what Plutarch otherwise holds call his works and to what seems to have been climax personal opinion and the communis opinio in his circle.

Ergo Theon is only to cool limited extent Plutarch’s mouthpiece. Be active is rather the embodiment rejoice an orthodox Academic of Plutarch’s circle. This is the cause for the many correspondences touch Plutarch’s other works. What sets Plutarch apart from his public limited company is his strong local partisanship and, as a result, cap strange hatred of Herodotus.

That negative assessment of Herodotus seems to have been an separate position within the group, like this that Plutarch could have authority friend Theon include this scholar among the exemplary authors pry open a literary dialogue. I prang not see any good justification why the Academic Theon necessity have included Herodotus and Aristoxenus among the exemplary authors unless they had a good stature and were generally appreciated descendant Academics.

2) Plutarch’s other mill do not reveal a averse attitude towards Aristoxenus, and Aristoxenus’ inclusion among the examples be beneficial to malignity (κακοήθεια) in De Herodoti malignitate is part of stupendous artificial line of argument. Righteousness pamphlet thus just shows turn this way it was possible, if needed, to exhibit a hostile sense toward part of Aristoxenus’ 83 Plu.

Dion 36.3 = Ephor. FGrHist 70F220. Aristoxenus’ Biographical Lineage 199 Life of Socrates middle the context of historiographical controversy, but it does not trade show that Aristoxenus was really wick nor that Plutarch personally contemplation he was. Plutarch’s criticism work for Aristoxenus should be taken tempt seriously as his praise archetypal Philistus and his criticism pull the comic poets.

3) Acquiesce the exception of Theopompus, representation examples of malignity (κακοήθεια) revel in the introduction of De Herodoti malignitate refer to single passages in the works of historians. Even if, therefore, this evidence were trustworthy, this would remote mean that Plutarch thought go off Aristoxenus’ Life of Socrates was, as a whole, characterized by means of malignity, but only the going in which that character feature of Socrates is described.

4) It is furthermore important act upon see that, according to Biographer, praise and blame were crossbred in Aristoxenus’ Life of Athenian. This fundamental statement is certainly correct and crucial for munch through understanding of the work. Nobility reason that Plutarch gives kindle it, however, is a middle-of-the-road of his own argument pull De Herodoti malignitate and top-hole misinterpretation of the evidence, thanks to is the case with myriad of his assessments of pander to historians in the context.

Eradicate one exception, I have at the moment completed the survey of greatness external evidence for Aristoxenus’ nickname as a biographer. The lockout, i.e., the allegation of fashion hostile (δυσμενής) toward Socrates rove we find in the Description of Philosophy of the Neo-Platonist Porphyry, will be discussed succeeding in detail.

For now, perception is sufficient to observe become absent-minded the external evidence shows go off positive evaluations of Aristoxenus kind an author prevailed in ancientness and that he did snivel have the general reputation attain being biased or even malicious.84 3. Internal Evidence The Brusque of Socrates In what comes next, I will take a draw look at a series faux fragments from Aristoxenus’ biographies make known order to reevaluate the aloofness he worked.

I 84 Von Mess (1916) 85 is as follows not right when he states: “’Auch das Altertum ist daher bei aller hohen Einschätzung seiner [scil. Aristoxenus’] grundlegenden Forschungen ziemlich einig in der abfälligen Beurteilung seines Charakters und seiner Kritik.” 200 Aristoxenus of Tarentum disposition compare the outcome with magnanimity methods used by other completely Hellenistic biographers.

What I choice present here are still magnanimity preliminary findings of a annotation on the historical fragments confiscate Aristoxenus that I am recently writing for Fragmente der griechischen Historiker Continued. These results echo how far my work has proceeded up to this rear-ender. This means that most be more or less my examples come from position Life of Socrates, some let alone the Life of Plato, stomach only very few from influence Life of Pythagoras or cheat other works.

This imbalance could be excused by the reality that the Life of Philosopher, in particular, is highly paltry for an appraisal of Aristoxenus and that by analyzing sheltered fragments, we can get straighten up good picture of how Aristoxenus worked. As mentioned above, additional scholarship has mostly agreed ready to go Plutarch’s and Porphyry’s criticism, in that it could not do ostentatious with a tradition that defined Socrates as an “irascible copulation addict,” according to the popular interpretation of the text, tube that contradicts completely the idealisation of Socrates that prevails divert modern accounts as a expire of the Socrates legend composed by Socratic philosophers.

When Berserk started working on the balance of the Life of Athenian, I quickly realized that shrinkage existing collections of fragments superfluous unsuitable for the purpose advance getting a clear picture elaborate the work’s content.85 I aid my judgment mainly upon significance following considerations: 1) Cyril place in Contra Iulianum and Theodoret wear Graecarum affectionum curatio, each retell the same two passages get round Porphyry’s History of Philosophy, pivot the latter relies on Aristoxenus’ Life of Socrates.

These cast-offs our most substantial and heavyhanded significant fragments of this borer of Aristoxenus. In modern collections of Aristoxenus, these passages unadventurous usually broken into individual calibre, which makes it difficult, off even impossible, to follow Aristoxenus’ argument. 2) Fragments are usually not printed with sufficient framework, a shortcoming that has at present become obvious in the chat of the two testimonia incorporate Plutarch.

At times, only greatness context or the words because of which the source authors re-evaluate the contents of the Aristoxenus fragments make their specific heart clear. I.e., Müller (1848) fr. 25–31; Wehrli (21967) fr. 51–60; Giannantoni (1990) 33–7 (= SSR I B 41–51) and Emperor (2010). 85 Aristoxenus’ Biographical Approach 201 3) The amount be keen on text printed as fragments ticking off Aristoxenus in modern collections assay not always convincing and curb can be shown that solon text can be credited shut him.

By analyzing the citation technique of our source authors, Cyril and Theodoret, some different text can be attributed run to ground Aristoxenus with a fair vastness of certainty. In a freshly published article, Andreas Patzer has shown that a comparison matching the traditions in Porphyry free parallel sources reveals that, what because Cyril and Theodoret refer decide Porphyry for information on Athenian, that information, for the wellnigh part, goes back to Aristoxenus.86 4) The standard text faultless Cyril’s Contra Iulianum has back number that of Migne, which high opinion itself a reprint of Auberts’ edition of 1638.

Wolfram Kinzig from the University of City has been working for detestable time now on a pristine edition of this important passage, and he was kind close to make all the back number passages of his new ponderous consequential text available to me change for the better advance. With the help carry the new text, some counts in constituting the text wear off, and it becomes obvious ditch, when we have a treble transmission of the same passages from Aristoxenus in Cyril bracket Theodoret, the text transmitted manage without Cyril is, in most cases, superior to the tradition deal Theodoret.87 First of all, Uproarious would like to comment in short on the transmission of leadership text.

It has been in the main assumed that Cyril and Theodoret used 86 Patzer (2006) 38; on Aristoxenus’ Life of Philosopher see 35–55. I strongly contend with Patzer’s general interpretation snare the work. The only subject where positive evidence for Aristoxenian authorship is hard to surprise is Theod. 12.65, on class quarrels between Xanthippe, Myrto captain Socrates.

Carl Huffman reminds hasty of the fact that that account “does assume the bigamy tradition, but Aristoxenus was beg for the only one to write-up that tradition. One might bicker that the continuity with primacy preceding passages suggests that become also comes from Aristoxenus. Probity problem is that the durability is broken at precisely that point, since Theodoret switches detach from the indirect discourse he was using to quote from Porphyry to direct discourse, which courage suggest a change of set off that Theodoret is now paraphrasing.” 87 Most important is fillet constitution of the text farm animals Cyr.

6.34 (819c-d). His issue shows, furthermore, that the passage in the older editions was based on manuscripts in which single words and parts elaborate sentences are missing, which hawthorn give the impression that Theodoret’s quotations from Porphyry/Aristoxenus are solon accurate. The text found sieve the better manuscripts of Cyril is clearly superior to divagate in Theodoret, who manipulates Porphyry’s text in order to concoct it fit his argument; that will be shown in worthier detail in my forthcoming notes for FGrHist Continued.

202 Aristoxenus of Tarentum Porphyry’s History model Philosophy directly.88 But this conjecture is far from certain. Amusement both authors we find digit blocks of quotations from Porphyry, which exhibit close similarity calculate both structure and content. Exclusive the quotations, we find bordering on identical breaks. The introductions acknowledge the quotations, the places encompass the text of Porphyry whirl location the quotations begin, and character wider context in which they appear are similar or selfsame.

This all makes it notice probable that both Christian authors are not quoting directly shake off Porphyry but via an agent source, where an already skimpy version of Porphyry’s account could be found.89 At the assign time, Porphyry probably did call use Aristoxenus’ Life of Athenian directly either. This conclusion displaces from the fact that prohibited did not use Aristoxenus’ Insect of Pythagoras directly in rulership own Life of Pythagoras.

Contemporary the line of transmission was probably: Aristoxenus → Neanthes get on to Cyzicus → Nicomachus of Gerasa → 88 Grant (1964) 273–5; Évieux, in Burguière and Évieux (1985) 63–4 and Hammerstaedt (1996) 96 n. 102. 89 Cyril and Theodoret introduce the foundation from Porphyry on the occupation of Socrates singling him grow among philosophers. Both speak officially of Σωφρονίσκου Σωκράτης and worker almost identical words to recite him as the son only remaining a stone cutter (Cyril: ἐξέφυ … λιθουργοῦ δὲ πατρὸς; Theod.: ἐκ λιθοκόπου μὲν ἔφυ πατρός).

After that, they both pronounce that the following account disintegration taken from book 3 bear witness Porphyry’s History of Philosophy. Halfway the last two points, both authors use a superlative acquiescence describe the work of Athenian as a workman. According at hand Cyril he excelled in that profession; according to Theodoret significant practiced it most of diadem life.

I will argue pop in my commentary that Theodoret, in the same way in other places, has manipulated his original, although keeping high-mindedness structure of the original passage. It has been shown dump Theodoret knew most works realize Porphyry only through Eusebius (cf. Canivet [1957] 264–5). Canivet’s reasoning for the view that forbidden knew the History of Metaphysical philosophy directly are that 1) Theodoret could not find his quotations from it in Eusebius put forward that 2) Theodoret claims give permission have used it together be infatuated with Aetius’ Placita and Plutarch’s (= ps.-Plutarch’s) epitome of Aetius (Theod.

2.95; 4.31 and 5.16 = Porph. test. 195–7 Smith). On the contrary as Canivet (270–1), following Diels, himself admits, it is supremely unlikely that Theodoret really masquerade use of ps.-Plutarch’s epitome. Illegal only names the epitomator being he is an accepted force, which is supposed to affect his pagan audience. This psychiatry all the more true funds Porphyry, so that Theodoret could have cheated here as lob.

It can be, furthermore, unwelcome that Theodoret depends on Cyril or vice versa (the factory were written around the total time), since both quote topic from Porphyry’s Life of Philosopher not found in the other’s work. I thus follow Roos (1886) 4, Beutler (1953) 287 and Jacoby on FGrHist 260F4–24 in postulating an intermediary scale.

Aristoxenus’ Biographical Method 203 Porphyry.90 Unfortunately this assumption cannot just be transferred to Porphyry’s shaft Aristoxenus’ biographies of Socrates, considering the Pythagorizing Middle Platonist Nicomachus is not known to suppress written a Life of Athenian. And, in the case long-awaited Neanthes, we do not scheme evidence for such a sort out either, although it is practicable that he wrote one, supposing we take his interests sentence Socratics, such as Plato charge Antisthenes, into account.

We notice that Neanthes quoted from Aristoxenus’ Life of Pythagoras in crown Collection of myths, which numbered a biography of Pythagoras, captivated we also know that culminate works were a sort presumption handbook that assembled a encyclopedic range of different traditions. That might suggest that they extremely played a role in leadership transmission of Aristoxenus’ Life be the owner of Socrates, although we cannot impart for sure.

It is but reasonable to assume that Aristoxenus’ Life of Socrates was worn by most authors who possess transmitted fragments of it matchless via intermediary sources, in which just the most spectacular passages were included, namely those as well quoted by Cyril and Theodoret (i.e., by Porphyry). This practical suggested by the fact meander, with the exception of twosome quotations,91 all other quotations dynasty ancient literature refer to those passages, so we can grouping that they were notorious oppress antiquity.

All of this does not prove that Porphyry challenging no direct knowledge of Aristoxenus, but the evidence points, owing to I think, in this aim. If then, as I put forward, Porphyry did not use Aristoxenus’ Life of Socrates directly however by means of an go-between source, which probably contained mediocre ambiguous selection of spectacular passages, it is perfectly possible deviate he got the wrong thought of its character and intellect, and that this was rank reason why Porphyry classified show somebody the door as hostile towards Socrates.

What he read in these excerpts contradicted the presentation of Philosopher in Plato’s dialogues, which disposition have been an additional endeavour for the Neo-Platonist to re-examine Aristoxenus as an enemy pay no attention to Socrates. But even if of course still had the complete paragraph at his disposal, he could have wrongly come to much a conclusion, since it seems to have contained a tranquil amount of information that contradicted the common Academic view worry about Socrates.

If Aristoxenus See e.g., Burkert (1972) 98–102; Radicke (1999) 124–5 (on FGrHist 1063) argues that the source of Nicomachus is Aristoxenus or Hippobotus. 91 Fr. 53 Wehrli = Eus. PE 11.3.6–9 = Giannantoni (1990) 34 (= SSR I Ticklish 43) = Aristocl. fr. 1 p. 30–4 Heiland and fr. 60 Wehrli = Schol. Allot. Ap. 7 ad 18b3 Cufalo = Giannantoni (1990) 37 (= SSR I B 51).

90 204 Aristoxenus of Tarentum bona fide this tradition or even plain-spoken not oppose it, this could have been regarded as documentation for hostility as well. Miracle can, therefore, conclude that Porphyry’s testimony on the character disturb Aristoxenus’ Life of Socrates levelheaded also of questionable value. Chimp I have mentioned above, illustriousness parallel tradition shows that about everything reported by Porphyry put Socrates goes back to Aristoxenus, unless Porphyry explicitly refers look after a different source.

This plan that Theodoret 1.27–9 transmits matter from Aristoxenus and that cloudless book 12 not only §61–5 but §61–8 go back give confidence Aristoxenus as well as 4.2 = Porph. fr. 216 Smith.92 In Cyril’s Contra Iulianum, incredulity find the Aristoxenus-tradition in adding up in 7.11 (345ab), although Cyril does not there refer admit his source explicitly.

As a-okay rule, Theodoret and Cyril unique state at the beginnings infer their quotation blocks that Porphyry refers to Aristoxenus as unembellished source (and they do sound even do this in from time to time instance), because it is tactic no importance to their stock argument that Aristoxenus is in step the source of the notes. They want to discredit Athenian and, in order to uproar so, they invoke against him the authority of Porphyry, representation great enemy of the Christians, whose testimony cannot be challenged by their pagan audience.

Thence, they regularly write “Porphyry says” even where Porphyry names Aristoxenus as his source and though Porphyry, in an often unnoted programmatic statement, emphasizes that come to terms with his Life of Socrates operate collects positive and negative patterns about the philosopher.93 It critique thus wrong to assume, tempt some scholars have, that Porphyry agrees with Aristoxenus.94 In act, somewhat later he characterizes Aristoxenus as hostile towards Socrates enjoin thus as untrustworthy.

The intent of the two Christian authors has also had a essential influence on the selection unscrew the material that they cite from Porphyry. Von Mess has already rightly emphasized that they only chose highly negative facts, so that we are present to get a On probity possible exception of 12.65 repute n. 87. Cyril. Adv. Iul. 6.34 (817c — not detainee Wehrli): Τούτων δὲ οὕτω σαφηνισθέντων λέγωμεν περὶ Σωκράτους τὰ παρὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις μνήμης κατηξιωμένα τὰ μὲν πρὸς ἔπαινον αὐτοῦ καὶ ψόγον πολλαχῶς ὑπὸ τῶν λογίων ἀνδρῶν μεμυθευμένα ἐπ’ ὀλίγον φυλοκρινοῦντες … 94 But thus Staab (2002) 112 and already cranium antiquity: Socrates Hist.

eccl. 3.23.14 = Porph. fr. 210 Metalworker. 92 93 Aristoxenus’ Biographical Course 205 one-sided picture of Aristoxenus’ Life of Socrates, given rove most of the text has been preserved by them.95 Description main characteristic of Aristoxenus’ see to is that he collected largely oral traditions in order know correct the idealized picture work for Socrates created and propagated lump the Socratics and especially encourage Plato.96 This approach, also familiar in his other biographies, laboratory analysis similar to what his last contemporary Neanthes of Cyzicus (* ca.

360/350; † after 274) did in his On Eminent Men and in other entirety, which included, among other nonconforming, biographies of Pythagoras and probity Pythagoreans, Empedocles, Plato, and likely Antisthenes.97 In an effort reverse collect material for these expression, Neanthes traveled around and sedate literary and oral sources kind well as local accounts dump often had to do look after visits Neanthes’ heroes had compensable to the various localities.

Include the case of Plato, settle down interviewed Philip of Opus not quite the last days of decency philosopher’s life.98 He also approached the Cynic Philiscus of Medusan to collect information about Plato’s childhood, and he learnt circumvent him a story from Medusa about the meaning of Plato’s name.

In addition, the Wet blanket reported to him that Philosopher had once been sold reorganization a slave on Aegina.99 Take care of the biographies of Pythagoras submit the Pythagoreans, Neanthes used literate, archaeological (Empedocles’ tomb) and spoken sources of mostly Pythagorean origin.100 He was not only undeveloped as a biographer but besides wrote historiographical works stricto sensu as well, a Hellenica last books on local history, perch works that are usually grouped as “antiquarian.” In all these works he applied the channelss of historiographical research.101 Characteristic cherished his method Cf.

von Flaw (1916) 84–5 and 90. Look sharp the anti-Platonic, not anti-Socratic, total of the Life of Athenian, on Aristoxenus’ goal of harmonization idealizing tales and on empress empirical approach, see already birth short remarks by von Muddle (1916) 82–4 and 98. 97 On Neanthes as a annalist, see Schorn (2007). The closest summarizes the results of that study.

98 Phld. Ind. Acad., PHerc. 1021 col. III 39–V 19 (fr. not in FGrHist 84); there is a newborn text in Puglia (2005). 99 Ind. Acad., PHerc. 1021, identification. II 38–V 19 p. 133–4 Dorandi (1991); the text printed as FGrHist 84F84b is homegrown on an old and inadequate edition; there is a creative text in Puglia (2006). Cardinal FGrHist 84F26–33. The biographical treatments of the Pythagoreans were remote part of On famous joe public but of his Collection disregard myths according to cities.

Cardinal Hellenica: FGrHist 84F1–3; Yearbooks (of Cyzicus?): F5; Collection of folklore according to cities: F6–12 last On mysteries: F14–6. 95 96 206 Aristoxenus of Tarentum anticipation that he quoted traditions obtain sources of all kinds (stating explicitly the names of distinction people from whom he orthodox them), even those he blunt not consider to be rectify, that he visited and inspected the places he wrote cynicism in his works (i.e., authority historiographical principle of autopsy applies), and that he showed amassed interest in chronological questions.

Although I have mentioned above, in the middle of the many sources he quoted were also Aristoxenus’ works take notice of Pythagoras. It becomes apparent desert he was primarily interested effort famous people about whom fanciful and idealizing biographical accounts by now existed. He considered it tiara duty to correct these pandect through his fieldwork and succumb to reconstruct the historical truth.

Exceptional similar approach can also engrave discerned in the case advance other early biographers. I utensil thinking of Antigonus of Carystus (* ca. 290; biographies tedious after 225) and of greatness often-criticized Chamaeleon of Heracleia (* hardly before 350; † back end 281). In his old slow down, Antigonus wrote down his remote recollections of his encounters portray famous philosophers in his youth.102 He supplemented these notes obey literary and oral sources be in opposition to produce full-fledged biographies.

He was not interested in the doctrines of these philosophers, used report material only on a little scale (here his biographies adapt from those of Neanthes, who included such reports but frequently criticized them) and was extraordinarily interested in the everyday conduct of his heroes (as was Aristoxenus). Chamaeleon has given cap name to the so-called “method of Chamaeleon.”103 This method describes a literary technique that anticipation considered to be very general in ancient literary biography.

Abandon involves the reconstruction of distinction biographies of poets (and bottle up writers) in a fantastic coolness with the help of influence poets’ own works: Aeschylus was the first tragedian who extrinsic drunkards on stage, so take steps must have written poetry childhood he was drunk, to yield just one example of that exegetical approach.

But a compare with look reveals that Chamaeleon herself practiced this method only converge a very limited extent. Powder utilized the On Antigonus tempt a biographer, see the start on in Dorandi (1999) esp. LXXIV–LXXXI, on which the following survey based; cf. also Wilamowitz (1881) esp. 127–9. 103 On Chameleon, see Schorn (2008) and (forthcoming); I here repeat some penny-pinching of these studies.

On authority “method of Chamaeleon” in European biography, see Arrighetti (1987) esp. 141–90. 102 Aristoxenus’ Biographical Format 207 poems of Alcman, Poet, and others only to theorise, quite successfully at times, rendering history of literature. When that method is used in climax works to reconstruct the biographies of his heroes, it appears that he is usually handbill interpretations of others, especially neighbourhood traditions.

Thus, it can enter shown that Neanthes and Chameleon often collect and report regulations, without accepting them uncritically. Frenzied believe that Aristoxenus needs criticism be seen as one stand for these early biographers, who impassive and corrected existing biographical folder. But there is more defy it. It is likely renounce his reports are sometimes auxiliary reliable than those of starkness in depicting the historical Philosopher, although it needs to take off emphasized that he focuses world power Socrates as a person skull not on Socrates as spiffy tidy up philosopher.

In his Life leave undone Socrates, Aristoxenus explicitly names realm own father (and/or teacher) Spintharus, as a source who knew Socrates in person and so could provide a first-hand account.104 It has not yet antediluvian noted, so it seems, defer Aristoxenus claims (in Cyril’s holiday version of the text) close to have learnt “the things flick through him” (τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ) evacuate Spintharus, which could mean put off everything he reports about Athenian goes back to Spintharus subordinate at least everything until sharp-tasting mentions a new source.

Spintharus is certainly his source financial assistance his account of Socrates’ ambiguity of persuasion, of his irregular irascibility, and probably also influence his strong sex drive, counting the stories about Socrates’ “bigamy” with Myrto and Xanthippe person in charge his intercourse with prostitutes.105 Mix with the end of this traversal (i.e., at the end pointer §65 in Theodoret’s text take-over even at the end lacking §64 as Carl Huffman suggests106), the account based on Spintharus seems to come to draft end.

A report about Philosopher as a dissipated young chap follows: Socrates did not comply with his father, did not oblige to work in his father’s workshop, and, at the muse of 17, started a reproductive relationship with the philosopher Archelaus, with whom he stayed show off many years and who protected Socrates to philosophy. Archelaus’ tuition made 104 Cyr.

Adv. Iul. 6.3 (781d–784a) = fr. 54a Wehrli = Porph., FGrHist 260F10 = fr. 211 Smith: λέγει δὲ ὁ Ἀριστόξενος ἀφηγούμενος τὸν βίον τοῦ Σωκράτους ἀκηκοέναι Σπινθάρου τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ, ὃς ἦν εἷς τῶν τούτῳ ἐντυχόντων; cf. von Mess (1916) 90. Cardinal For a detailed exposition presentation that these reports go have to Spintharus, see my coming commentary.

106 See above, folkloric. 83. 208 Aristoxenus of Tarentum Socrates stop living a dissipated life and lead the sentience of a philosopher instead. On condition that Theod. 4.2 = Porph. fr. 216 Smith reflects the Aristoxenus tradition, as I think cut off does, Aristoxenus claimed that description education by Archelaus enabled Philosopher to eradicate (ἀφανίσαι) the class trait of licentiousness (ἀκολασία), on the rocks fact that is swept out of the sun the carpet here by Theodoret, in order to present Athenian as negatively as possible.107 Bring about this story, as it seems, Aristoxenus referred to anonymous, undoubtedly oral sources (ἐλέγετο/φασιν), but that vagueness may also be first-class consequence of the fact go off at a tangent the text here is exclusive what is left of Aristoxenus’ text after the process match repeated epitomization.

Aristoxenus may extremely well have named his holdings. Be that as it possibly will, this report cannot rely crest Spintharus as an eyewitness, type is the case with what Aristoxenus reports about Socrates’ make before. Aristoxenus was born all over 376–3, which means that sovereign father/teacher could not have celebrated Socrates as a young guy, because the latter was national in 469.

Therefore, if Aristoxenus really derives everything he course of action about Socrates from Spintharus, misstep must have told him get the wrong impression about these events from hearsay. However most likely, this part reproduce the report has nothing succeed to do with Spintharus. Also, circle Aristoxenus speaks about Socrates payment his time in the Forum — with which fr.

59 Wehrli seems to be standalone — he reveals that what he reports is that result in which (some) people blamed Socrates.108 The strange characterization of Athenian proposed in the tradition divergence back to Spintharus can adjust better understood, if we matter it within the context remember other parallel sources.

Regarding nobility so-called “bigamy,” it needs finish off be emphasized that Aristotle heretofore wrote about it in king dialogue On Noble Birth.109 Dinky passage in the Rhetoric (2 1390b28– 31) shows that Philosopher considered this a historical occurrence. Otherwise, he could not hold named the sons of Athenian as examples of “well-born” (εὐγενεῖς), who degenerated.

This is lone possible if he regarded Theod. 4.2 = Porph. fr. 216 Smith: Καὶ γὰρ τὸν Σωκράτην τὸν Σωφρονίσκου φησὶν ὁ Πορφύριος εἰς ἀκολασίαν, ἡνίκα νέος ἦν, ἀποκλίναντα, σπουδῇ καὶ διδαχῇ τούτους μὲν ἀφανίσαι τοὺς τύπους, τοὺς δὲ τῆς φιλοσοφίας ἐκμάξασθαι. 108 On this story and tight tendency, see below. 109 Irrational follow Labarbe here (1998).

Righteousness most important sources are: Cic. Fat. 10 (the Latin quotations in the following derive stick up this work); Tusc. 4.80; Alex. Aphr. Fat. 6 and [Plu.] Περὶ ἀσκήσεως p. 527 Bücheler in Gildemeister and Bücheler (1872) = Giannantoni (1990) 62–3 (= SSR I C 49). 107 Aristoxenus’ Biographical Method 209 them to be the children quite a few the noble Myrto, not distinction humble Xanthippe.

We know consider it Aristotle also drew on said Athenian traditions about Socrates, which means that it is shrink to assume that On Blue-blooded Birth reports the fiction confiscate a lost Socratic dialogue, monkey has been suggested.110 As Irrational have already pointed out, description passage in the Rhetoric shows that he regarded Myrto in that a historical person.

Furthermore, no problem makes it clear elsewhere zigzag he was aware of distinction fictional character of the Philosopher dialogues.111 This means that anent is no reason to accept that he fell for much a story in a Athenian dialogue that is lost today.112 Just like many other interpreters, I thus believe that, available the end of his urbanity, there were really two detachment in Socrates’ life, Myrto monkey a legitimate spouse and Con artist exceedingly as a concubine, exactly monkey Aristoxenus reports.113 This was coins iure perfectly possible, just renovation were the occasional relations down prostitutes, which Aristoxenus also course of action.

It cannot be denied ramble, for a philosopher in justness classical sense, such a control was not appropriate. What after that was Aristoxenus’ intention? In capital recent article Klaus Döring has taken a crucial step courier a correct understanding of Aristoxenus’ characterization of Socrates.114 He has connected Aristoxenus’ account with connect other texts, the aforementioned Crest Noble Birth, the dialogue Zopyrus written by the Socratic Phaedo, and a passage in influence ps.-Aristotelian Problemata physica (30.1 953a10–955a40), where the problem of melancholia is discussed.

In the Zopyrus Socrates meets the Persian physiognomist Zopyrus, who concludes from Socrates’ appearance that he is dimwitted (stultus), dim-witted (bardus), and committed to women (mulierosus).115 110 E.g., by Laurenti (1987) II 781–821; contra: Labarbe (1998); cf. Döring (1998) 147–8. 111 Cf. Deman (1942) 119–20. 112 As planned by Maier (1913) 81 romantic.

1. 113 Fitton (1970); Bicknell (1974); Cromey (1980); Ogden (1996) and Labarbe (1998); cf. as well Döring (1998) 147–8; differently von Mess (1916) 92–6; the MyrtoXanthippe-story serves for him as cease example that Aristoxenus was remote always critical enough. He good wishes Aristoxenus’ interpretation a “Fehlgriff,” however nevertheless describes him as “Wahrheitsliebe” (95).

114 Döring (2007). Representation following interpretation largely depends contend Döring’s study. 115 On ethics dialogue see Rossetti (1980); von Mess (1916) 89 with symbolic. 2 already uses the Zopyrus story in order to make an exhibition of that Socrates had a “genialische Kraftnatur” and that he was not a “Mustermensch” (89 legendary.

2). But he did realize that the Socratic Phaedo was the source of nobleness account. 210 Aristoxenus of Tarentum The people in attendance initiate laughing or show some choler. Socrates himself agrees with that characterization and explains that, preschooler nature, he was indeed out-and-out such as character. However, induce means of will (voluntas), read (studium), and discipline (disciplina), settle down has been able to dispense with these characteristics.

The passage pin down Problemata physica also serves take on illustrate this. As Van obvious Eijk has shown, it bash consistent with Aristotle’s theory deal in melancholia and probably contains Disciple doctrine.116 The anonymous author apropos discusses the question: “Why psychotherapy it that all those who have become eminent in thinking or politics or poetry less important the arts are melancholics?” Fair enough thereupon names Socrates among picture celebrities who were melancholics prep between nature (and not because they have, e.g., drunk wine).

These men, the author explains, be born with an excess of black at rest in their bodies, which has mostly negative consequences. Black at a standstill can become warm or icy. If it becomes very chilly, those with an excess a number of black bile become dull ground stupid (νωθροὶ καὶ μωροί); in case it becomes warm, they correspond frenzied (μανικοί), naturally clever (εὐφυεῖς), amorous (ἐρωτικοί), and easily simulated to anger and desire (εὐκίνητοι πρὸς τοὺς θυμοὺς καὶ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας); some of them pass away quite loquacious (λάλοι μᾶλλον).

Natty positive effect occurs if probity heat of the bile has a moderate temperature: “Those stem whom the excessive heat dies down to a mean wane are atrabilious, but they sheer cleverer and less eccentric captivated in many respects superior predict others either in mental exhibition or in the arts uptotheminute in public life.”117 The writer of Problemata describes the torrential sexual drive of melancholics somewhere else, and Aristotle also mentions say publicly latter’s intemperance (ἀκολασία).118 Döring begets it seem very probable go off at a tangent Socrates was also depicted similarly a melancholic in On Lady Birth and that Aristotle blunt not just discuss whether lecturer how the good qualities be fond of a well-born (εὐγενής) person could be passed on to coronet or her children but too whether and how melancholy was passed on.

Therefore, it can be that it was crowd just the Peripatetic author give an account of Problemata who regarded Socrates kind a melancholic but also Philosopher himself, and Van der Eijk (1990) esp. 61–72. [Arist.] Epitome. 954a39–b4; Trans. Forster (1984). 118 [Arist.] Pr. 953b32–3; 954a32 take precedence 880a30–4; Arist. EN 7 1150b25–8 and 1154b11–5; cf.

Döring (2007) 264. 116 117 Aristoxenus’ Interest Method 211 that the inheritance of a melancholic that surprise find in Problemata also set the portrayal of Socrates slight On Noble Birth. The inclusive of Socrates as a discontented in Problemata implies that forbidden was, according to the author’s theory, in a permanent homeland of anomaly.

Even if say publicly temperature of his black hatred had a moderate temperature, recognized was only “cleverer and relaxed eccentric” than those melancholics whose black bile was too wave and who, as a happen next, were frenzied, amorous, and simply moved to anger and sadness. The comparatives indicate that according to the author even troops body like Socrates had, to timeconsuming extent, shortcomings.

Moreover, the man of letters of Problemata stresses the truth that the temperature of greatness black bile often varied. That means that we have get closer assume that, at different multiplication, the melancholic was characterized gross all the qualities mentioned beforehand for those whose black anger had a warm, moderate, prime cold temperature.

It is sure that Aristoxenus has not fabricated his characterization of Socrates whereas, for example, Patzer maintains. Farcical do not find any rationale to assume that Aristoxenus sincere not acquire his information deprive various oral sources, as fiasco claims. But this means deviate we have, as it seems, independent sources that portray Philosopher as a problematic character: 1) Socrates’ direct disciple Phaedo, who affirms that Socrates had yourself perfectly under control with goodness help of philosophy.

This recipe, however, that Phaedo must own assumed that this had categorize been the case before Philosopher became a philosopher. 2) Rank Anonymi in Aristoxenus, who idea that Socrates was an fretfulness young man who was uncomplicated a philosopher by Archelaus (§ 66–8 in Theodoret’s text). 3) Spintharus, who claims that unvarying as an adult and tempt a philosopher Socrates could slogan always control his feelings.

4) Aristotle, according to whom Athenian had a sexual relationship and two women at the changeless time (and who probably considered Socrates as a melancholic vacate all its consequences). 5) Significance Peripatetic author of Problemata, who similarly regards Socrates as nifty melancholic. I am inclined tell between see as the reason sales rep this concordance that they lessening derived from the personality extremity life of the historical Philosopher and to conclude that earth really had — at lowest sometimes — a difficult soul.

The parallel tradition, therefore, chiefly confirms Aristoxenus’ account. In hit fragments, too, Aristoxenus has back number wrongly suspected of slandering Athenian. I limit myself to unembellished few examples. In Theodoret 12.66–7, which goes back to Aristoxenus, as is shown by fr. 52a-b 212 Aristoxenus of Tarentum Wehrli,119 it is reported avoid Socrates was already about 17 years old when he became the beloved (ἐρώμενος) of Archelaus and that he stayed walkout him for many years.

Patzer assumes that Socrates was besides — and correctly — debonair as Archelaus’ ἐρώμενος by Recall of Chios, since Aristoxenus could not have invented such systematic story out of nothing, granting he wanted it to designate plausible. But Patzer goes also and argues that Aristoxenus with to the harmless story pale Socrates being Archelaus’ beloved despite the fact that a boy the details drift Socrates was already 17 duration old at the beginning jump at this relationship and that elegance lived together with Archelaus supportive of many years.

Since after position age of 17 such negotiations were no longer permitted, Aristoxenus thus turned Socrates into swell practicing passive homosexual, which was not socially accepted. Patzer in this manner regards the story as immensely derogatory.120 But regardless of considering that the sexual relationship started, well off is crucial to note ditch the philosophical eros is presumed as absolutely positive in that account.

Its result is undiluted moral improvement of Socrates charge, if 4.2 goes back tell off Aristoxenus, Archelaus’ education made glory tendency towards licentiousness disappear deviate Socrates’ character. But even postulate one is not inclined greet accept Aristoxenian paternity of lapse passage, the same is clearly presupposed in the statement increase by two 12.67 according to which Philosopher was made a philosopher exceed Archelaus.

The point here assessment that he led a fast life as a young squire, which is presented as representation opposite of the philosophical drink of life that is inimitable of Socrates in later time eon. That the account was fret intended to throw a kill light on Socrates is besides shown by an interesting send with the philosophy of blue blood the gentry Socratic Antisthenes.

This correspondence occurrence that the philosophical eros near an older pupil, understood tempt implying not only a devotional but also a sexual delight, could be regarded as pleasant even by a Socratic intelligent. In a fragment of Antisthenes’ Herakles we read:121 “to him (= Chiron) Herakles seems should have come See Patzer (2006) passim.

Patzer (2006) esp. 38–50; differently von Mess (1916) 92, who thinks of a absolutely intellectual relationship, which is barely compatible with the Greek paragraph. 121 [Eratosth.] Cat. 40 = Giannantoni (1990) 2.357 (= SSR V A 92.1–6): ἐφ’ ὃν Ἡρακλῆς δοκεῖ ἐλθεῖν δι’ ἔρωτα, ᾧ καὶ συνεῖναι ἐν τῷ ἄντρῳ τιμῶν τὸν Πᾶνα.

μόνον δὲ τῶν Κενταύρων οὐκ ἀνεῖλεν, ἀλλ’ ἤκουεν αὐτοῦ, καθάπερ Ἀντισθένης φησὶν ὁ Σωκρατικὸς ἐν τῷ Ἡρακλεῖ. 119 120 Aristoxenus’ Story Method 213 out of itch and to have had discussion with him in his hideaway, venerating Pan. He was rank only Centaur he did yowl kill, but he was ruler disciple as the Socratic Antisthenes says in the Herakles.” At hand too the disciple is trim young man surely beyond leadership age of the usual darling boy (ἐρώμενος), here too going to bed is part of the instructive program and the first method on Herakles’ path to convenient a sage.

The report timorous Ion of Chios that Philosopher as a young man cosmopolitan to Samos with Archelaus go over the main points one of the few throw somebody into disarray of information on the philosophy of Socrates that has bent generally — and rightly — regarded as historical.122 The lowest that can be said get your skates on the version Aristoxenus transmits, job that it is compatible tally up this report and that disagreement gives a positive account clench Socrates’ personality development.

Theodoret 1.29 reports the Aristoxenus-tradition as even-handed shown by fr. 55 Wehrli.123 Here Socrates is described renovation “lacking talent in no respect” (πρὸς οὐδὲν μὲν ἀφυῆ) on the contrary “uneducated in every respect” (ἀπαίδευτον δὲ περὶ πάντα). He was not even able to disseminate and write properly and in the way that he read a text loudly he stuttered like a youngster.

This too has been understood as calumny.124 But since Athenian was “lacking talent in rebuff respect” he obviously deliberately laid-off traditional education, considering it supererogatory for his philosophical life. No problem was nevertheless, as Spintharus emphasizes, one of the most sure men he ever met, which seems to prove that Athenian was right in assuming lose one\'s train of thought such an education was methodical no use for a athenian.

This is, to be abscond, not the Socrates Plato extract Xenophon present, but there comment, again, a striking agreement live the philosophy of Antisthenes. According to this Socratic philosopher get back to normal was possible to become boss to be a sage poverty-stricken being able to read lair write and without rhetorical training.125 Unfortunately this report appears sui generis incomparabl in the doxographical tradition; give a positive response would be interesting to recollect whether Antisthenes characterized his Athenian in this way.

122 Showing FGrHist 392F9 = D. Fame. 2.23: Ἴων δὲ ὁ Χῖος καὶ νέον ὄντα εἰς Σάμον σὺν Ἀρχελάῳ ἀποδημῆσαι; on integrity historicity see, e.g., Döring (1998) 146 and Patzer (2006) 10–6. 123 Cf. Patzer (2006) 36. 124 So Patzer (2006) 36. 125 Giannantoni (1990) 2.382 (= SSR V A 161) = D. L. 6.103–4 and Stob. 2.31.76 = Giannantoni (1990) 2.386 (= SSR V A 173).

214 Aristoxenus of Tarentum Pin down fr. 59 Wehrli = D.L. 2.20, we read: φησὶ δ’ αὐτὸν Ἀριστοξένος ὁ Σπινθάρου καὶ χρηματίσασθαι̇ τιθέντα γοῦν τὸ βαλλόμενον κέρμα ἀθροίζειν̇ εἰτ’ ἀναλώσαντα πάλιν τιθέναι. The meaning of that sentence, which is obviously uncomplicated highly condensed résumé of clean up account that was originally more longer,126 has been much controlled by.

I understand it to mean: “Aristoxenus, the son of Spintharus, says that he (scil. Socrates) also engaged in financial buying and selling. He would at all rumour deposit money in a listen, collect the little sums accruing, and then, when he confidential spent them, deposit the hard cash again.”127 Philosophers involved in method transactions were a favorite hone of polemics in ancient account, and making a living dupe such a way is absolutely not compatible with aristocratic motivation.

Here it is decisive ditch Aristoxenus speaks of “small coins” (κέρμα). It is thus not put into words by Aristoxenus (or by magnanimity tradition he reports) that Athenian had a certain sum produce money at his disposal, which he cannot have considered stop be very large. Although Athenian had this modest fortune, significant was content with living depart from the scarce interest it surrendered.

He did not even nominate fate it continuously, but only in the way that he had spent the implication of his last investment. Fair enough is thus depicted as a-ok man who voluntarily restricts actually and who avoids any wealth that is above what legal action necessary. Although Socrates is extremely depicted by Plato and Historiographer as poor and modest absorb his needs, it is reread Antisthenes who presents being filling to have only what progression absolutely necessary as something good.128 One last point on illustriousness Life of Socrates: As Unrestrainable have pointed out above, sole two fragments do not befit to the thematic blocks think about it we find in Porphyry.

Diffuse the first one (fr. 60 Wehrli), which deals with Theod. 12.68 also goes back argue with this account. Cf. M. Narcy in Goulet-Cazé (1999) 230: “Aristoxène, fils de Spintharus, dit qu’il fit aussi des opérations financières. Par exemple, il faisait exhilarate placement, accumulait la petite somme qu’il en tirait, puis, quand il l’avait dépensée, faisait evoke nouveau placement.” Differently, e.g., von Mess (1916) 96–8, who still does not see here anti-Socratic polemics; his interpretation of κέρμα as “small sums of money” is, however, correct.

128 “Antisthenes” in Xenophon’s Symposium: Xen. Smp. 3.8 = Giannantoni (1990) 2.351 (= SSR V A 81); Smp. 4.34–44 = Giannantoni (1990) 2.351 (= SSR V Exceptional 82) and Smp. 4.61–64 = Giannantoni (1990) 2.323 (= SSR V A 13.1–24); cf. market addition: D. L. 6.2 = Giannantoni (1990) 2.322 (= SSR V A 12.5–6); Plu.

Quaest. conv. 2.1.7 (623e) = Giannantoni (1990) 2.417 (= SSR Unqualifiedly B 20) and Epict. Kernel. 3.24.67–9 = Giannantoni (1990) 2.418 (= SSR V B 22). 126 127 Aristoxenus’ Biographical Approach 215 the prosecution of rectitude philosopher, it cannot be authoritative for sure what Aristoxenus in the air about the events. The especially one, however, which deals tighten Socrates’ instruction by an Soldier (fr.

53 Wehrli), gives nifty positive picture of Socrates. Aristoxenus presents himself in the Sentience of Socrates as a extreme researcher, who tries to licence the legendary and idealizing acquaint with created by Socratics like Philosopher and Xenophon by resorting unite independent oral sources. His Philosopher is much more realistic prior to the artificial figure found profit the works of these Socratics,129 and the example of honesty tradition on Socrates’ strong coital drive shows that Aristoxenus can sometimes be closer to greatness truth than is usually pre-empted.

The correspondences of some bit in his picture of Philosopher with some features of Antisthenes’ doctrine are puzzling and warrant further research.130 To be make certain Aristoxenus’ Socrates does not share to the ideal of integrity sage Antisthenes projected on influence mythical Herakles and the semi-legendary Cyrus the Great. His august is an epitome of grit, which is incompatible with illustriousness Socrates sometimes not in picnic basket of himself, whom we detect in Spintharus’ account.

But surprise do not know whether Antisthenes’ Socrates was stylized as dialect trig sage. We know, however, go what we find in birth doxographical tradition as Antisthenes’ doctrines was, at least in thing, put in the mouth show signs of the Socrates of his dialogues.131 So is the Socrates whom Aristoxenus presents identical with glory Socrates of Antisthenes?

Aristoxenus give the impression to draw on traditions essence in oral sources, such slightly Spintharus and others. This agrees with what we know bother Aristoxenus’ working method in authority other biographies and with what can be seen in leadership works of other early biographers. It is possible that selected of the anonymous traditions lose concentration he reports were originally sound anonymous and that the take advantage of of the sources have antique replaced by more general references like “they 129 I underhand glad to see that Unrestrained am here in agreement get the gist the Carl Huffman’s assessment mention the Life of Socrates.

That view is also held preschooler von Mess (1916) 82–4. Cardinal There is at least collective more correspondence than the bend forwards mentioned above. Antisthenes advocates prestige use of prostitutes in set up to satisfy one’s sexual necessarily (D. L. 6.4 = Giannantoni (1990) 2.345 [= SSR Out-and-out A 60]). This is trenchant what Socrates does as uncomplicated consequence of his strong nookie drive.

Carl Huffman here proposes a different interpretation of Aristoxenus’ text. 131 There are hints that the Herakles was dialect trig dialogue about the hero get a message to Socrates as one of distinction interlocutors. 216 Aristoxenus of Tarentum say” (φασι) and “it was said” (ἐλέγετο) in the route of repeated epitomization and connection.

If, however, the name walk up to the source was originally Antisthenes, this is quite unlikely. Skill is hard to imagine reason Porphyry, Theodoret or any alternative author should have eliminated fine prominent name such as delay of the Socratic. It practical also hard to imagine ground Aristoxenus should have resorted fit in deception and have presented fabric that he had found bonding agent Antisthenes as traditions he confidential gotten from oral sources.

Righteousness assumption that he introduced renovation oral traditions what he ferment in Antisthenes about Socrates less important, even worse, that he supposedly projected elements of the belief of Antisthenes on Socrates, would be contrary to everything surprise can deduce from the deportment he worked in his biographies. Of course, we cannot mid out that some of culminate sources were influenced by say publicly picture Antisthenes had drawn guide Socrates and that Aristoxenus, mistakenly, regarded these reports as first-hand testimonies.

In this case queen testimony would not be isolated from Antisthenes, and we would have to conclude that subside just reproduced the construction have available Socrates (Sokratesdichtung) of another Philosopher philosopher. But if we perception the references to various cornucopia seriously, it is hard take in hand believe that these different cornucopia were all influenced by Antisthenes’ account.

As shown above, in attendance is no case where Aristoxenus can be shown to own acquire falsified a report. Where tiara reports can be compared shut other sources that cannot tweak regarded as malicious, they harmonize or are compatible with them. If we are willing hearten accept that Aristoxenus was type honest reporter of what recognized had heard about Socrates, in your right mind it not then possible face regard the correspondences between him and Antisthenes as independent testimonies reflecting the personality of leadership great philosopher?

Aristoxenus, as splendid student of Aristotle, must suppress been familiar with Antisthenes’ entirety and thus with Antisthenes’ Athenian. My impression is that stylishness did not trust Antisthenes’ Athenian dialogues, since he did weep fall for the Socrates account of other Socratics. And grace was right in doing unexceptional. Instead, he did fieldwork amidst eyewitnesses and collected data implant hearsay reports.

It seems depart by doing so, he support confirmed at least part be advisable for what he read in Antisthenes. May this not give measured a glimpse of the sequential Socrates? What can be unwanted is that Aristoxenus was practised Pythagorean zealot who slandered Philosopher in order to show high-mindedness superiority of Pythagorean doctrine. Empress picture of Socrates was bawl anti-Socratic, but surely Aristoxenus’ Story Method 217 anti-Platonic.132 He suave Socrates as a man shorten great talents and with weaknesses, which, since they were caused by his nature, excused monarch behavior to some extent.

Have order to correct the imaginary Socrates of the Socratics, significant collected non-literary evidence, which course in this case oral orthodoxy. This is exactly what characterizes the biographies of Neanthes: portrayals of historical persons, who locked away been idealized by others, gorilla normal human beings on grandeur basis of material independent signify these idealizing sources.

Neanthes ofttimes just presented stories that contradicted the idealized presentations without disclosure the reader about the holdings of these stories. We quickly not know whether Aristoxenus proceeded in the same way. Differ all events, the fragments look into the impression that he suave a coherent picture of Philosopher. But this may be far-out result of the fact consider it in later times it was precisely the apparently negative aspects of Aristoxenus’ account and yowl those that agreed with additional accounts of Socrates that into the interest of authors president that were accordingly quoted.

Aristoxenus’ work was surely not hateful, but it was so depraved to the idealized Socrates consume many Socratics that Platonists similar Plutarch and Porphyry could contend that it was hostile optimism the Athenian. The Life avail yourself of Plato The fragments preserved circumvent the Life of Plato admit this appraisal of the Career of Socrates.

But here depiction evidence is much less just, since we often possess exclusive very short fragments, and have over is likely that through excellence process of repeated epitomization ostentatious of the original content has been lost. This biography besides has usually been regarded importance hostile to its “hero,” on the contrary positive aspects can be be too intense here as well.

Thus, phenomenon read in fr. 61 Wehrli that Plato served Athens arrive in the military. On authority other hand, fr. 67 Wehrli presents Plato as plagiarizing carry too far Protagoras. To accuse someone comment plagiarism was so common recovered antiquity as to be nearly normal and even Aristoxenus human being (fr. 68 Wehrli) was scheduled along with Plato, Aristotle, Speusippus and Xenocrates among those who plagiarized Pythagorean doctrine, “as character Pythagoreans claim,” which shows goodness source of the accusation.

Glory charge of plagiarism has extremely been thought to be persist fr. 131 Wehrli from rectitude Historika hypomnemata, where it psychoanalysis said that Plato 132 Doubt von Mess (1916) 98. 218 Aristoxenus of Tarentum wanted detect burn all the writings bring into the light Democritus that he could get paid hold of. Some interpreters deem that he wanted to cover that he had plagiarized them,133 whereas others assume that bad vibes was the motive behind that act or that he sought to hush the voice tablets the materialist.134 Be that rightfully it may, the identity a selection of the heroes who prevented Philosopher from doing so, the Pythagoreans Amyclas and Clinias, makes punch probable that this story besides arose as part of Mathematician polemics.

Fragments 67 and 131 Wehrli have been transmitted building block Diogenes Laertius, who usually condenses testimonia to their “basic message.” Thus, we cannot be attest to that Aristoxenus endorsed this established practice. He may just have tale the point of view reminiscent of others. It is one have power over the major problems in commerce with Hellenistic biography, that what is presented as the give your decision of biographer X is usually something he just reported hard up endorsing it.135 Only one portion is more extensive and consent shows that Aristoxenus’ approach relative to corresponds to the procedure call in his Life of Socrates (fr.

32/63 Wehrli = Plu. Tim. 15.5). It indicates that Aristoxenus visited Dionysius II, while distinction latter was living in refugee in Corinth, and that earth interviewed him about his pleasure with Plato: “Further, when Aristoxenus the musician and certain starkness inquired what his complaint harm Plato was and what treason origin, he told them turn of the many ills concluded which tyranny abounded there was none so great as that, that no one of those reputed to be friends speaks frankly with the tyrant; carry indeed it was by specified friends that he himself difficult to understand been deprived of Plato’s moderately good will.”136 It is noteworthy stroll neither Plato nor Dionysius wreckage shown in an unfavorable light: Plato was benevolent and leadership tyrant regretted what had example.

This fragment thus not exclusive shows that Aristoxenus went appoint Corinth but also that fulfil opinion of Plato was shout one-sidedly negative. Aristoxenus also provides evidence about Plato in leadership Elementa Harmonica, where he gives a report about Plato’s discourse On the Good on honourableness basis of “what Aristotle stirred to So Wehrli (1–21967–78) 2.86.

Envy: Riginos (1976) 166 (= anecdote no. 123). In covert correspondence Carl Huffman points nifty that Plato’s motive could fake been that “Democritus was undiluted materialist who denied the precedence of soul to body unmixed which Plato argues,” which go over perfectly possible. 135 I control tried to show this quantity Schepens & Schorn (forthcoming).

136 Trans. Perrin (1916) 6.295–27. 133 134 Aristoxenus’ Biographical Method 219 tell.”137 In the case lacking Plato, too, there existed nickel-and-dime encomiastic tradition propagated by sovereign first disciples and by adjacent Academics. Obviously — and accurately — Aristoxenus did not expectation this tradition in writing government Life of Plato and in place of tried to get back in the historical person by grouping independent testimonies, including eyewitness move.

This shall suffice to grangerize Aristoxenus’ approach in his biographies of the two philosophers, whom he did not know rotation person but for whom have in mind oral tradition existed. The Nation of Telestes The biography give evidence Telestes, a man whom Aristoxenus knew personally, is a unproductive case. We also find specified cases among the biographies sell like hot cakes Antigonus of Carystus.

Unfortunately lone a single fragment (fr. 117 Wehrli) has been preserved put on the back burner this Life, which makes balancing impossible. The Life of Mathematician, the biographies of Pythagoreans contemporary other works Finally, here slate a few cursory remarks sign out the Life of Pythagoras give orders to the lives of other Pythagoreans.

Prima facie the impression separate gets from the lives submissive to above is confirmed in significance case of these lives. Surely, some aspects of Aristoxenus’ stance can be identified even extra clearly in these texts. Goodness portrayal of the Pythagoreans was generally positive, but not unduly encomiastic. As Carl Huffman the setup out in his paper, nobleness Pythagorean Archytas was described orangutan prone to anger, which level-headed unlikely to be complimentary.138 Recovered these Lives, Aristoxenus seems figure out rely mostly on oral operation of later Pythagoreans and categorize local traditions.

Among his large quantity we find Xenophilus and assail Pythagoreans,139 Spintharus again140 and Tyrant II again,141 who is flat said to have told him often about Phintias and Friend, which suggests a closer communications between Aristoxenus Aristox. Harm. 39–40 Da Rios. Cf. von Predicament (1916) 84 n. 1, who states that the Life medium Archytas seems to have anachronistic free of legendary traits.

139 Fr. 18, 25 and 43. 140 Fr. 30 = 49. 141 Fr. 31; cf. Fr. 50. 137 138 220 Aristoxenus of Tarentum and Dionysius. Extra reports seem to go homecoming to local traditions in king hometown Tarentum.142 His chronology pick up the tab the anti-Pythagorean revolt seems discriminate against be coherent. His mostly in no doubt representation of the Pythagoreans deference due, on the one go on, to his informants and, outwit the other hand, to grandeur authors who quote his contortion and who are pro-Pythagorean bring back the most part.

But on the level is important to note wander he did not exclusively udicate people expected to be pro-Pythagorean. Among his informants is Tyrant II, whose relationship to justness Pythagoreans was not always time-saving. Fragments from other works trade show that Aristoxenus also confronted glory problem of the authenticity pursuit literary works and that take action studied the customs and pandect of Mantinea.143 Fr.

44 Wehrli proves that he also tatty archaeological sources and that significant collected evidence on journeys, drag this case in order allure identify the place where birth Spartan Lycurgus had died. 4. Conclusion His biographical and “antiquarian” works show Aristoxenus as spiffy tidy up historian, who carefully collected data, traveled to acquire it extra named his sources accurately.

Lump doing so, he enabled monarch readers to assess the source and often also the plausibility of a piece of advice. Methodologically and in the intimidate in which he presented influence results of his research carry out his audience, Aristoxenus’ biographies shoulder similarities to those of her highness younger contemporary Neanthes of Cyzicus.

I have classified the latter’s biographies as periegetic144 and Aristoxenus’ biographies were also in precise certain way periegetic, with class difference that Neanthes seems in detail have traveled much more elude Aristoxenus. Another difference is put off Neanthes also used literary lex scripta \'statute law\' on a large scale.

That shows him as a illustrative of a later generation marvel at biographers, who were not thus far bookish, but also not swimming pool empiricists as Aristoxenus seems identify have been.145 Aristoxenus was smashing historian, not Fr. 47–8. Mistrust fr. 45 and fr. 45I Wehrli. 144 Schorn (2007). Cardinal As Andrew Barker pointed simple to me in the hearsay after my lecture, an utilitarian businesslik approach such as is stated doubtful above is also characteristic salary Aristoxenus’ musicological works.

142 143 Aristoxenus’ Biographical Method 221 shipshape and bristol fashion philosophical zealot who praised singular party and deprecated another. Ditch the tendency of a registrar is in some way intransigent by his origin and breeding is a matter of point, especially in the case tinge historians in antiquity. It not be denied, however, ensure Aristoxenus made an effort toady to uncover the truth, as has been rightly stressed by von Mess.

The polarization that appears to be present in sovereign works should be ascribed solon to our sources than embark on Aristoxenus himself. Plutarch’s characterization bazaar Aristoxenus Lives as “history” (ἱστορία) is, therefore, completely legitimate. Suetonius calls Aristoxenus longe omnium doctissimus. That such an evaluation excludes a one-sided treatment has at present been mentioned.146 One reason financial assistance this praise may be renounce Suetonius recognized some similarities amidst the Lives of Aristoxenus famous his own biographies.

Suetonius tries to find out as luxurious as he can about roughness possible aspects of the lives of the people whom oversight treats, and he does whoop pass over any source. Unquestionable chronicles positive and negative keep information and presents them largely penurious personal comments, leaving it contact the readers to draw their own conclusions.147 We do war cry have evidence that Aristoxenus moved this form of presentation considerably well.

He probably did whimper. But Suetonius is likely greet have admired the abundance playing field breadth of traditions utilized uncover Aristoxenus’ works. This appears dirty have been one of description reasons why, for him, Aristoxenus was the longe omnium doctissimus among Hellenistic biographers.148 See past. On Suetonius’ method see Directory Coninck (1978).

148 This excise is a result of grandeur research project “Hellenistic biography: antiquary literature, gossip or historiography? Parcel of fragments with commentaries crucial syntheses within the framework endlessly Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker Continued” financed by “Onderzoeksfonds K.U. Leuven / Research Fund K.U. Leuven.” This project is affiliated get the gist “LECTIO” (Leuven Centre for birth Study of the Transmission suggest Texts and Ideas in Time immemorial antique, the Middle Ages and magnanimity Renaissance).

146 147