|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many of Aristotle's pupils and associates subscribed to similar theories.94 They were developed further by the Stoic Diogenes of Seleucia (c. 240-152 BC) in a substantial work in which he praised music and its manifold potencies and uses; what we know of the book derives entirely from Philodemus' extended critique in his On Music, itself fragmentary.95 Diogenes again spoke of music containing 'likenesses' of ethical qualities, every possible one, though he held that they did not arise from imitation, and would not affect every hearer in an identical way. He referred to specific songs and hymns that would be much less impressive as bare texts without their melodies. We do not know whether he went into individual modes and rhythms, but he does seem to have endorsed the evaluation of the genera according to which the enharmonic was noble, dignified, simple, and pure, while the chromatic was unmanly and vulgar.96 We have seen this view already being attacked in the early fourth century, and Diogenes must be echoing earlier authorities, since the enharmonic genus was largely obsolete in his time. Philodemus mentions an alternative view upheld by advocates of chromatic: they dismissed enharmonic as austere and uncompromising, whereas chromatic was gentle and yielding.97 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
94 Cf. Heraclid. Pont. frs. 162-3 W., Aristox. frs. 80-3, 122-3, Theophr. fr. 91 W. and ap. Philod. Mus. 3 p. 37 K. = 84 Kr., ps.-Arist. Pr. 19. 27, 29, 30, 48; Neubecker 135-7. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
95 The passages relevant to Diogenes are collected in J. von Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta iii (Leipzig, 1903), 221-35; improved texts in the more recent editions of Philodemus by D. A. van Krevelen (1939), G. M. Rispoli (bk. 1, c. 1969), and A. J. Neubecker (bk. 4, 1986). See also A. J. Neubecker, Die Bewertung der Musik bei Stoikern und Epikureern (Berlin, 1956); W. D. Anderson, Ethos and Education in Greek Music, 153-76; G. M. Rispoli, Cronache Ercolanesi 4 (1974), 57-87, esp. 77ff. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96 Philod. Mus. 4 pp. 40, 49f., 39 Neub. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
97 Plut. Non posse suaviter vivi sec. Epicurum 1096 b cites as a typical problem of Aristotle's school 'why is it that the chromatic genus relaxes us, while the enharmonic pulls us together?' In later authors' assessments the diatonic genus is included, and each genus on the whole is assigned positive qualities. With the decline of enharmonic and the increased importance of diatonic, the qualities originally assigned to the former in antithesis to chromatic tend to be transferred to diatonic. (i) Theon Smyrn. pp. 54.12-56.5 (from Adrastus?): diatonic is strong, dignified, muscular, noble; chromatic is more plaintive and emotional; enharmonic is difficult and not often used. (ii) Sext. Emp. Math. 6.50: diatonic is rugged, a little lacking in elegance; chromatic is clear-toned (ligyron) and lamentatory; enharmonic is austere and dignified. (iii) Interpolation in Aristid. Quint. p. 92.19ff.: diatonic is masculine and rather austere, chromatic is plaintive and most pleasant, enharmonic is rousing and gentle (? text probably corrupt). Cf. Anon. Bellerm. 26: diatonic is rather manly and austere, chromatic is plaintive and most pleasant. (iv) Procl. In Ti. ii. 169. 1ff. D.: diatonic is full-bodied, simple, noble, chromatic is slack and ignoble, enharmonic is educational. |
|
|
|
|
|