Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:10:17.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SUNG POEMS AND POETIC SONGS: HELLENISTIC DEFINITIONS OF POETRY, MUSIC AND THE SPACES IN BETWEEN

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2020

Spencer A. Klavan
Spencer A. Klavan*
Affiliation:
Oxford
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Simply by formulating a question about the nature of ancient Greek poetry or music, any modern English speaker is already risking anachronism. In recent years especially, scholars have reminded one another that the words ‘music’ and ‘poetry’ denote concepts with no easy counterpart in Greek. μουσική in its broadest sense evokes not only innumerable kinds of structured movement and sound but also the political, psychological and cosmic order of which song, verse and dance are supposed to be perceptible manifestations. Likewise, ποίησις and the ποιητικὴ τέχνη can encompass all kinds of ‘making’, from the assembly of a table to the construction of a rhetorical argument. Of course, there were specifically artistic usages of these terms—according to Plato, ‘musical and metrical production’ was the default meaning of ποίησις in everyday speech. But even in discussions which restrict themselves to the sphere of human art, we find nothing like the neat compartmentalization of harmonized rhythmic melody on the one hand, and stylized verbal composition on the other, which is often casually implied or expressly formulated in modern comparisons of ‘music’ with ‘poetry’. For many ancient theorists the City Dionysia, a dithyrambic festival and a recitation of Homer all featured different versions of one and the same form of composition, a μουσική or ποιητική to which λόγοι, γράμματα and συλλαβαί were just as essential as ἁρμονία, φθόγγοι, ῥυθμός and χρόνοι.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 69 , Issue 2 , December 2019 , pp. 597 - 615
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See e.g. Murray, P. and Wilson, P., ‘Introduction’, in Murray, P. and Wilson, P. (edd.), Music and the Muses (Oxford, 2004), 1–8, at 1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Woodward, L., ‘Diogenes of Babylon reading Plato on music’, in Harte, V., McCabe, M.M., Sharples, R.W. and Sheppard, A. (edd.), Aristotle and the Stoics Reading Plato (London, 2010), 233–53, at 236, 244–5Google Scholar; Rotstein, A., ‘Mousikoi agones and the conception of genre in ancient Greece’, ClAnt 31 (2012), 92–127, at 94Google Scholar; Brüllmann, P., ‘Music builds character’, Apeiron 46 (2013), 345–73, at 349–50Google Scholar; D'Angour, A., ‘Sense and sensation in music’, in Destrée, P. and Murray, P. (edd.), A Companion to Ancient Aesthetics (Chichester, 2015), 188–203, at 188–90Google Scholar; cf. West, M.L., ‘The singing of Homer and the modes of early Greek music’, JHS 101 (1981), 113–29, at 113–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 See especially Pl. Soph. 219a8–c1, 265a10–268d5; Halliwell, S., The Aesthetics of Mimesis (Princeton, 2002), 62–5Google Scholar.

3 Pl. Symp. 205b8–c10; see further Brink, C.O., Horace on Poetry (Cambridge, 1963), 1.76–8Google Scholar.

4 See e.g. Maxwell, G., On Poems (London, 2012), 1–4Google Scholar.

5 See Pl. Resp. 398d1–3 (and cf. Grg. 501d7–502b8); Arist. Poet. 1447a13–23; Ps.-Plut. [De mus.] 1144A8–B2 with Barker, A.D., The Science of Harmonics in Classical Greece (Cambridge, 2007), 236–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 See especially Pl. Resp. 400d11–402a4 with Halliwell (n. 2), 131–2; Ti. 36e5–37b6; Petraki, Z., ‘The soul “dances”’, Apeiron 41 (2008), 147–70, at 162–3Google Scholar; Lynch, T., ‘The symphony of temperance in Republic 4’, GRMS 5 (2017), 18–34, at 22–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar and passim.

7 For one recent treatment, see Culler, J.D., Theory of the Lyric (Cambridge, Mass., 2015), 84, 134–7, 182–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar and passim with further bibliography.

8 See Arist. Top. 128b16–21; Barnes, J., ‘Property in Aristotle's Topics’, AGPh 52 (1970), 136–55, at 137–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar. One may predicate an ἴδιον of a larger group such as a γένος, but Aristotle is most interested in uniquely describing εἴδη and individuals: the former are the proper object of all definition, and the latter are the πρῶται οὐσίαι, the most real and fundamentally existent things: see Arist. Cat. 2a11–37; Top. 132a10–21 with Long, A.A. and Sedley, D.N., The Hellenistic Philosophers (Cambridge, 1987), 1.181Google Scholar; Reinhardt, T., ‘La propiedad en los “Tópicos” de Aristóteles’, AnFil 35 (2002), 341–64, at 344Google Scholar.

9 Arist. Top. 128b34–129a5.

10 Arist. Top. 101b19–39. See Reinhardt (n. 8), 349–55; Chiba, K., ‘Aristotle on essence and defining phrase in his dialectic’, in Charles, D. (ed.), Definition in Greek Philosophy (Oxford, 2010), 203–51, at 214–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Crivelli, P., ‘The Stoics on definitions’, in Charles, D. (ed.), Definition in Greek Philosophy (Oxford, 2010), 359–423, at 402 with n. 141CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ferejohn, M., Formal Causes (Oxford, 2013), 118–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 See Barnes (n. 8), 141–2 on Top. 155a3–10; Brunschwig, J., ‘Sur le système des prédicables dans les Topiques d'Aristote’, in Energeia (Paris, 1986), 145–57, at 146–7, 153–5Google Scholar. A special case is when Aristotle defines a class of things by predicating of a term such as ‘triangle’ a coextensive ἴδιον such as ‘shape whose angles add up to 180 degrees’. Such an ἴδιον naturally articulates τὸ τί ἐστιν. See further Reinhardt (n. 8), 360–2 on Arist. An. post. 91a15–18.

12 The question is controversial but has been persuasively answered in the affirmative: see Robinson, H.M., ‘Prime matter in Aristotle’, Phronesis 19 (1974), 168–88, at 169–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bostock, D., ‘Aristotle's theory of matter’, in Space, Time, Matter, and Form (Oxford, 2006), 30–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar (reprinted from Sphendonē-Mentzou, D., Hattiangadi, J.N. and Johnson, D.M. [edd.], Aristotle and Contemporary Science [Oxford, 2001], 3–22), at 31–44Google Scholar; Charles, D., ‘Simple genesis and prime matter’, in de Haas, F. and Mansfeld, J. (edd.), Aristotle: On Generation and Corruption, Book 1 (Oxford, 2004), 151–69, at 158–65Google Scholar; Lewis, F.A., ‘“What's the matter with prime matter?”’, OSAPh 34 (2008), 123–46, at 136–45Google Scholar with Arist. Metaph. 1029a7–26; Gen. corr. 329a24–b5, 334a16–24 against e.g. Charlton, W., Aristotle: Physics, Books I and II (Oxford, 1970), 129–45Google Scholar; Furth, M., Substance, Form, and Psyche (Cambridge, 1988), 87–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gill, M.L., Aristotle on Substance (Princeton, 1989), 42–6, 243–52Google Scholar.

13 See Arist. Cat. 4a10–b19; Metaph. 1028a20–31; Ph. 190a33–191a21; Charlton (n. 12), 73–4; Furth (n. 12), 58–65.

14 Baker, S.H., ‘The concept of ergon’, OSAPh 48 (2015), 227–66, at 229–41, 248–54Google Scholar.

15 See Eth. Nic. 1097b28–34. Cf. Joachim, H.H., Aristotle: The Nicomachean Ethics (Oxford, 1951), 48–50Google Scholar; S. Broadie (commentary) and Rowe, C. (translation), Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics (Oxford, 2002), 276CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Baker (n. 14), 229–30 n. 10.

16 Cf. Arist. Gen. corr. 319b24–6; Metaph. 983b8–17, 1049b24–32, 1081a1–11; Ph. 189b30–190a13; Eth. Nic. 1097b25–8. In this example, for someone learning to perform, the ἔργον produced would naturally be a real-time performance. But, mutatis mutandis, someone learning to compose might be said to produce as his ἔργον the sequence of notes and words constituting the composition itself, to be performed and re-performed at will on numerous occasions.

17 E.g. Arist. Poet. 1449b16–17, 1452b17–27, 1452b32–3, 1459b22–6. This may perhaps suggest that poetry is a γένος for Aristotle of which tragedy, aulody, etc. are the εἴδη (see n. 8 above), though of course in the Poetics the word εἶδος takes on a specific usage to mean a ‘part’ or ‘feature’ of tragic composition (see nn. 41, 43 below).

18 In Phld. Po. 4.civ.13–16, 17–21 Janko; see Janko, R., Philodemus: On Poems, Books 3–4, with the Fragments of Aristotle, On Poets (Oxford, 2011), 219Google Scholar with n. 2. Unless otherwise specified, all readings of Philodemus’ On Poems Books 3 and 4 cited in this paper are from this edition. For Book 1 I cite Janko, R., Philodemus: On Poems Book 1 (Oxford, 2000)Google Scholar; for sections of Book 2 from P.Herc. 1676, 1074b, 1081b and 994, Sbordone, F., Sui papiri della Poetica di Filodemo (Naples, 1983)Google Scholar; for Book 5, Mangoni, C., Filodemo: Il quinto libro della Poetica (Naples, 1993)Google Scholar; for On Music, Delattre, D., Philodème de Gadara: Sur la musique, livre IV (Paris, 2007)Google Scholar.

19 Arist. Poet. 1447b13–24, 1451b27–9.

20 On aspectuality and conceptual ‘separation’ (χωρισμός) as characteristic features of Aristotelian thought and poetics, see Porter, J., ‘Content and form in Philodemus’, in Obbink, D. (ed.), Philodemus and Poetry (Oxford, 1995), 97–147, at 118–22Google Scholar.

21 Arist. Poet. 1460b13–22. Ford, A., ‘The purpose of Aristotle's Poetics’, CPh 110 (2015), 1–21, at 7–14Google Scholar similarly argues that Aristotle specifies which errors count as poetic because he wants his treatise to articulate the precise nature of poetry and the particular kind of criticism to which it should be subjected.

22 Arist. Poet. 1452a29–b3; Rh. 1408a9–10.

23 The idea that tragedians are in the business of transforming commonly available narrative material into poetry by presenting it in some particular poetic way was to become a commonplace trope: see Wright, M., ‘Poets and poetry in later Greek comedy’, CQ 63 (2013), 603–22, at 606–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar on Antiphon, Poiesis fr. 189 and Xenarchus, Porphyra fr. 7.1–3.

24 See Poll. Onom. 4.84; Strabo 9.3.10; cf. Pind. Pyth. 12.18–21.

25 Alex. Aphrod. in Arist. Top. 101b39 (= fr. 628 FDS); Diog. Laert. 7.60 (= fr. 621.1–3 FDS); Σ Dion. Thrax p. 107 Hilgaro (= fr. 627.2–4 FDS).

26 See Reesor, M., ‘The Stoic ἴδιον and Prodicus’ near-synonyms’, AJPh 104 (1983), 124–33, at 124–9Google Scholar; Long and Sedley (n. 8), 1.194; Crivelli (n. 10), 396–404.

27 Similarly, Menn, S., ‘The Stoic theory of categories’, OSAPh 17 (1999), 215–47, at 216 n. 6Google Scholar.

28 See esp. Diog. Laert. 7.150 (= fr. 742 FDS).

29 Dexippus in Arist. Cat. 23.25–24.9 Busse (= fr. 835 FDS); Plotinus, Enn. 6.1.25.1–33 Henry and Schwyzer (= fr. 827 FDS). Cf. Simplicius in Arist. De an. 429a10 (= fr. 846 FDS); Syrianus in Arist. Metaph. 28.15–19 Kroll (= fr. 849 FDS); Diog. Laert. 7.58 (= fr. 536 FDS). On the system of progressively individuated material change into which these terms fit (misleadingly termed the Stoic ‘categories’), see further de Lacy, P., ‘The Stoic categories as methodological principles’, TAPhA 76 (1945), 246–63Google Scholar, especially 250–1, 255, 262; Reesor, M., ‘The Stoic categories’, AJPh 78 (1957), 63–82Google Scholar and ‘Poion and poiotes in Stoic philosophy’, Phronesis 17 (1972), 279–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Long, A.A., Hellenistic Philosophy (London, 1986), 161Google Scholar; Long and Sedley (n. 8), 1.165–6; Menn (n. 27), 215–23; Armato, G., ‘Stoics on bodies, identity and ἰδίως ποιός’, C&M 56 (2005), 129–54, at 146–8Google Scholar; Gourinat, J.-B., La dialectique des Stoïciens (Paris, 2000), 132–6Google Scholar and ‘The Stoics on matter and prime matter’, in Salles, R. (ed.), God and Cosmos in Stoicism (Oxford, 2009), 46–69, at 48CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the peculiar Chrysippan paradox, which need not concern us here, about unique qualification, see Philo, De aeternitate mundi 48.1–49.6 Cohn and Reiter (= fr. 845 FDS); Plut. Comm. not. 1077D (= SVF 2 fr. 396) with Reesor, M., ‘The Stoic concept of quality’, AJPh 75 (1954), 40–58, at 46–7Google Scholar; Rist, J.M., ‘Categories and their uses’, in Long, A.A. (ed.), Problems in Stoicism (New York, 1971), 38–55, at 44–8Google Scholar; Armato (this note), 135–8.

30 See Boeri, M.D., ‘The Stoics on bodies and incorporeals’, RMeta 54 (2001), 723–52, at 726–50Google Scholar; Dodson-Robinson, E., ‘Rending others’, Mouseion 10 (2010), 45–68, at 47 with n. 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I refrain here from calling the Stoics materialists (although many do so: in addition to Dodson-Robinson, see Gould, J.B., The Philosophy of Chrysippus [Leiden, 1970], 107–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bloch, O., Le Matérialisme [Paris, 1985], 48–52Google Scholar) because of the doubts raised by Gourinat (n. 29 [2009]), especially 61–2, 66–9. But at the very least the words of poetry, and the humans who compose and utter them, are material in Stoicism—see below, pp. 10–19.

31 The full system also includes the poet (ποιητής) and/or his art (ποιητική). See Brink (n. 3), 1.54–74; Asmis, E., ‘Neoptolemus and the classification of poetry’, CPh 87 (1992), 206–31, at 211–15Google Scholaret passim; Porter (n. 20), 102–6 et passim; id., The Origins of Aesthetic Thought in Ancient Greece (Cambridge, 2010), 116 with n. 190Google Scholar; Janko (n. 18 [2000]), 152–3; Hadju, P., ‘The mad poet in Horace's Ars Poetica’, Canadian Review of Comparative Literature 41 (2014), 28–40, at 31–2Google Scholar; Steiner, D., ‘The poetics of sound’, CPh 110 (2015), 99–123, at 105Google Scholar.

32 So Porter (n. 20), 108–9. See especially Phld. Po. 5.xiv.31–3, where the Iliad is considered alternately as both πόημα and πόησις. On Neoptolemus’ Aristotelian roots, see further Brink (n. 3), 1.51, 1.57–8, 1.93–100; Hadju (n. 31), 29–32.

33 See Phld. Po. 5.xiii.32–xiv.2: [ἀ]λλὰ μὴν ὅ̣ [γε Νεοπ]τόλεμος (…) [ἔδοξ]ε τὴν σύνθεσιν [τῆς λέξε]ω[ς τ]ῶν διανοημ[άτων χωρί]ζει̣ν, xiv.27–9: τῆ[ς] ποήσεω[ς] εἶναι τ[ὴ]ν ὑπόθεσιν [μ]ό̣νον, xv.1–3: ποή[ματος μό]νον τὴν̣ [σύνθεσιν τῆς] λέξεως μ[ετέχειν].

34 Diog. Laert. 7.60.1–6 (= fr. 594.11–16 FDS): σημαντικὸν ποίημα, μίμησιν περιέχον θείων καὶ ἀνθρωπείων.

35 See Diog. Laert. 7.56.3–57.7 (= fr. 476 FDS). On the organization of the Τέχνη and the place of musical and poetic language within it, see Schenkeveld, D.M., ‘The Stoic Τέχνη Περὶ Φωνῆς’, Mnemosyne 43 (1990), 86–108, especially 94, 98–9Google Scholar. Cf. Schenkeveld, D.M. and Barnes, J., ‘Language: poetics’, in Algra, K. (ed.), The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy (Cambridge, 1999), 221–5, at 224Google Scholar.

36 Pace Brink (n. 3), 1.65–6.

37 Varro, Sat. Men. fr. 398, p. 67 Astbury (= fr. 605 FDS); see FDS p. 702.

38 Similarly, Lucil. 9.338–47. See Brink (n. 3), 1.63–4, 1.71–2.

39 See Arist. Poet. 1450b34–1451a15, 1459a17–b7; Heath, M., Unity in Greek Poetics (Oxford, 1989), 43–4Google Scholar; Belfiore, E., ‘Dramatic and epic time’, in Andersen, Ø. and Haarberg, J. (edd.), Making Sense of Aristotle (London, 2001), 25–49, at 34–6Google Scholar. Asmis (n. 31), 213–15 agrees that Neoptolemus and those who came after him may well have allowed for examples of ποίησις which were shorter than the epics they cited. Cf. Tukey, R.H., ‘The Stoic usage of λέξις and φράσις’, CPh 6 (1911), 444–9, at 446Google Scholar; Greenberg, N.A., ‘The use of poiema and poiesis’, HSPh 65 (1961), 263–89, at 269Google Scholar.

40 Phld. Po. 5.xv.27–8.

41 See Brink (n. 3), 1.58–60, 1.93 with Arist. Poet. 1450a13, 1452b14, etc.

42 Somewhat similarly Boyancé, P., ‘À propos de l’Art poétique d'Horace’, RPh 10 (1936), 20–36, at 25–8Google Scholar.

43 The idea that Aristotle's εἴδη were in fact successive actions in the process of composition is defended by Silk, M.S., ‘The “six parts” of tragedy in Aristotle's Poetics’, PCPhS 40 (1994), 108–15Google Scholar, who reanimates an interpretation advanced by Else, G.F., Aristotle's Poetics (Cambridge, Mass., 1957), 12, 237, 279–80CrossRefGoogle Scholaret passim.

44 Philodemus (Po. 5.xv.30–33) considers something like this interpretation, which is elaborated upon more fully by Asmis (n. 31), 216–17. Cf. Dion. Hal. Comp. 1.18–41.

45 But in agreement with many others, e.g. Gorg. Hel. 9.54–5.

46 See Gal. PHP 8.3.12–13 (= fr. 539 FDS) and n. 35 above. As is well known, this linguistic atomism is neither unique to nor original in Stoicism: cf. Democr. fr. 21 DK; Arist. Gen. corr. 315b6–15; Pl. Tht. 201d8–e2; Cra. 422a1–b5, 424d5–425a5; Arist. Metaph. 985b12–19; Poet. 1456b20–1457a30; Dion. Hal. Comp. 14; Burkert, W., ‘Στοιχεῖον’, Philologus 103 (1959), 167–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gentinetta, P., Zur Sprachbetrachtung bei den Sophisten und in der stoisch-hellenistischen Zeit (Winterthur, 1961), 27–35, 98–118Google Scholar; Porter (n. 31), 230–1; id., ‘Philodemus on material difference’, CErc 19 (1989), 149–78, at 170Google Scholar; Armstrong, D., ‘The impossibility of metathesis’, in Obbink, D. (ed.), Philodemus and Poetry (Oxford, 1995), 210–32, at 211–13Google Scholar; Janko (n. 18 [2000]), 281 n. 1; Ademollo, F., The Cratylus of Plato (Cambridge, 2011), 166 n. 51, 258–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 See Sext. Emp. Math. 8.409, 10.218, 11.224.4–5.1 (= frr. 272.1–12, 720.7–13, 708.1–6 FDS); Long (n. 29), 136; Long and Sedley (n. 8), 1.163–5, 1.181–2; Brunschwig, J., ‘La théorie stoïcienne du genre suprême’, in Barnes, J. and Mignucci, M. (edd.), Matter and Metaphysics (Naples, 1988), 20–127, at 92–3Google Scholar; Frede, M., ‘The Stoic notion of a lekton’, in Everson, S. (ed.), Language (Cambridge, 1994), 109–28, at 114–18Google Scholar; Gourinat (n. 29 [2000]), 115–19; Boeri (n. 30), 735–7; Drozdek, A., ‘Λεκτόν’, AAntHung 42 (2002), 93–104Google Scholar; Dufour, R., Chrysippe (Paris, 2004), 1.177–8, 1.470–1Google Scholar; Kitzler, P., ‘Nihil enim anima si non corpus’, WS 122 (2009), 145–69, at 148Google Scholar; Powers, N., ‘Void and space in Stoic ontology’, JHPh 52 (2014), 411–32, at 411–12Google Scholar; Ierodiakonou, K., ‘The Stoic system: logic and knowledge’, in Warren, J. and Sheffield, F. (edd.), The Routledge Companion to Ancient Philosophy (New York, 2014), 438–54, at 446–8Google Scholar; de Harven, V., ‘How nothing can be something’, AncPhil 35 (2015), 405–29, at 406–7Google Scholar; and n. 30 above.

48 See Long and Sedley (n. 8), 1.165 on ‘transition’ (μετάβασις: Diog. Laert. 7.53.7–8 [= fr. 255.58–60 FDS]), 1.199–202; de Harven (n. 47), 418–24, especially n. 19. Cf. Lloyd, A.C., ‘Grammar and metaphysics in the Stoa’, in Long, A.A. (ed.), Problems in Stoicism (New York, 1971), 58–74, at 60–1Google Scholar.

49 Posidonius does not seem to mean ῥυθμός here as the irregular rhythm of spoken prose (i.e. not as at Arist. Rh. 1408b30)—he is only talking about syllabic configurations which possess arrangement (σκευή) beyond that of τὸ λογοειδές. In this he may be said to agree with Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Comp. 11.120–33) that rhythmic prose is εὔρυθμος, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἔνρυθμος.

50 See Porter (n. 20), 124.

51 For a trenchant account of Philodemus’ hypomnematic technique, see Delattre (n. 18), xxvi–xxx. I follow Janko (n. 18 [2000]), 139–40 in attributing Phld. Po. 1.ix–xii and cl–clxvi to Andromenides rather than to Megaclides.

52 See Ardizzoni, A., Ποίημα (Bari, 1953), 87–90Google Scholar; Rostagni, A., ‘Filodemo contro l'estetica classica’, in Scritti minori, I (Turin, 1955), 394–416Google Scholar (= RIFC 1 [1923], 401–23), at 411–14; Mangoni (n. 18), 279; Janko (n. 18 [2000]), 151–2. Jensen, C., Philodemos über die Gedichte, fünftes Buch (Berlin, 1923), 151Google Scholar argued that Andromenides was a Stoic; Romeo, C., Demetrio Lacone: La poesia (Naples, 1988), 48Google Scholar dated him slightly earlier.

53 He also seems to adopt Neoptolemus’ tripartition: see Mangoni (n. 18), 277–8; Asmis (n. 31), 227; Porter (n. 20), 138 n. 124, 147; Janko (n. 18 [2000]), 152–3.

54 Phld. Po. 1.cxxxi.8–12: ποητῶν ἔργον οὐ λέγειν ὃ μηδείς, ἀλλ’ οὕτως εἰπεῖν ὡς οὐκ ἂν ἕτερος ἑρμη[νεύσ]ειε. In this Andromenides is not unlike the persona of Pope's Essay on Criticism (2.93–8).

55 Phld. Po. 1.clxvii.20–6: γενήσεσθαι τοὖργον ἂν τὰ κα[λ]λίω τῶν κατ’ αὐτοῦ τιθεμένων ῥήματ’ ἐγλέγηται, τὰ [δ]’ αἰσχίω περιίστητ[αι]. This elaboration of the elliptical τῶν κατ’ αὐτοῦ τιθεμένων is the one that fits best with Andromenides’ views—see further Janko (n. 18 [2000]), 383 n. 6.

56 Phld. Po. 1.xviii.1–6: [οἰκειότα]τα τοῦ πρά[γ]ματος ἐγλ̣[έγεσ]θαι τὰ ῥήμαθ᾽ ἵνα προ[σαρμόσῃ] and 5.xxxv.17–20: ὁμοιότητα λέξεως τοῖς δηλουμένοις πράγμασιν. See also 1.clxix.15–18, 5.xxxiv.35–xxxv.1; Janko (n. 18 [2000]), 387 n. 1, 389 n. 1. The appearance of οἰκεῖα ῥήματα at Po. 1.clxxii.19–22 supports the supplement [οἰκειότα]τα at xviii.1–6.

57 E.g. Arist. Rh. 1376a33–b30, 1405a3–1407a18; Isoc. 4.9, 10.11; [Cic.] Rhet. Her. 3.vi.11. Cf. Arist. Poet. 1450b4–7 and Macleod, C., Collected Essays (Oxford, 1983), 52Google Scholar; Hornblower, S., Thucydides (London, 1987), 46–7Google Scholar; A Commentary on Thucydides (Oxford, 1991), 1.59–60Google Scholar.

58 See Phld. Po. 1.xii.21–5, 1.clxi.2–6.

59 Theophr. in Demetr. Eloc. 173–5; cf. Licymnius in Arist. Rh. 1405b5–7. The comparison between Andromenides and Theophrastus originates with Ardizzoni (n. 52), 88; see further Chiron, P., Démétrios: Du Style (Paris, 1993), 117Google Scholar; Janko (n. 18 [2000]), 149 n. 5.

60 Similarly Sbordone, F., Contributo alla poetica degli antichi (Naples, 1961), 63Google Scholar.

61 Phld. Po. 1.xxi.1–14: ὄνομα π[αρέχε]σθαι κάλλος, ὅτα[ν] ἐσπαθημέναι γράμμασιν [φαίνω]σιν αἱ συλλαβαί {ι}, καὶ δράξασθαι τὸ στ̣όμα καὶ ῥίπτει̣ν ὀγκώδεις συλ[λαβὰς τ]ῶν λαμπροτά[των φθό]γ̣γ̣ων. Cf. also Phld. Po. 1.clxx.22–clxxi, where Andromenides advocates that poets bring their characters to life in the ears of a listener rather than, as is usual in discussions of ἐνάργεια, that they make their imagery vivid in the mind's eye (cf. e.g. Arist. Poet. 1455a22–6; [Longinus], On the Sublime 15.2; [Cic.] Rhet. Her. 4.lv.68–9; Quint. Inst. 8.3.61; F. Berardi, ‘Alcune riflessioni sull’ ἐνάργεια dall’Ars rhetorica di Pseudo-Dionigi di Alicarnasso’, Rhetorica 30 [2012], 339–53, at 339, with further bibliography at 340 n. 1. But cf. Dion. Hal. Comp. 15.60–16.24).

62 Heracleodorus and Pausimachus did have some significant disagreements, which are complicated by the fact that Janko's forthcoming edition of On Poems Book 2 will probably reattribute to Heracleodorus some passages currently ascribed to Pausimachus—cf. ‘Miscellanea Papyrologica Herculanensia I’ (Review), JHS 132 (2012), 182–3, at 183Google Scholar. But the burden of their arguments, and the development of Euphonism over time, is already clear from the text as it stands.

63 On this position, its origins in atomism, and its defense via lexical metathesis, see especially Phld. Po. 1.xxxix, 1.xl, 1.lxxxvi.25–lxxxvii.1; Jensen (n. 52), 147–9; Gomoll, H., ‘Herakleodoros und die κριτικοί bei Philodem’, Philologus 91 (1936), 373–84, at 373, 376–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Greenberg, N.A., ‘Metathesis as an instrument of criticism in poetry’, TAPhA 89 (1958), 262–70Google Scholar; Pohl, W., Die Lehre von den drei Wortfügungsarten (Tübingen, 1968), 145–9Google Scholar; Porter (n. 46), 170–4; id., ‘Οἱ κριτικοί’, in Abbenes, J.G.J., Slings, S.R. and Sluiter, I. (edd.), Greek Literary Theory after Aristotle (Amsterdam, 1995), 82–109, at 88–9Google Scholar; id., ‘Des sons qu'on ne peut entendre’, in Auvray-Assayas, C. and Delattre, D. (edd.), Cicéron et Philodème (Paris, 2001), 315–41, at 332–6Google Scholar; Rispoli, G.M., Dal suono all'immagine (Rome, 1995), 131–2Google Scholar; Armstrong (n. 46), 221–3 and passim; Janko (n. 18 [2000]), 227 n. 2; id., ‘Reconstructing Philodemus’ On Poems’, in Obbink, D. (ed.), Philodemus and Poetry (Oxford, 1995), 69–96, at 90Google Scholar. Cf. [Longinus], On the Sublime 40.

64 P.Herc. 1676.v.17–19: ὁ ποητὴς τὸ (. . .) ἴ̣δ̣ι̣ον ἐν τ̣[ῆι συ]νθ̣έσει β[ού]λ̣[ε]σθαι (text from Janko [n. 18 (2011)], 51 n. 2); Phld. Po. 1.xxxvii.8–10: τὴν σύνθεσιν (. . .) ἴδιόν τ[ι τοῦ ποη]το[ῦ φ]αμεν. See also P.Herc. 1676.iv.18–25, vii.12–16.

65 P.Herc. 1676 vi.1–7 (with corrections from Janko [n. 18 (2011)], 51 n. 2): σύ̣νθε[σιν μόνην ἰδίαν] ἐργάζεσ[θαι, καὶ (. . .) τὴν (. . .) ἐ]π̣[ιγει]ν̣ομένην [ε]ὐφωνίαν ἴδιον [εἶν]αι. This also means that the ἴδιον of poems is the ἴδιον of good poems, which suggests the somewhat surprising result that unsuccessful attempts at poetry fail to qualify as poetry at all: see Phld. Po. 1.lviii.16–26, 1.cxxvi.20–5.

66 See also Phld. Po. 1.ccviii, 5.xxiv.27–32;P.Herc. 1676.vii.8–12; Porter (n. 20), 152, 162–4; Janko (n. 18 [2000]), 162 n. 6. On ἐπιγίγνεσθαι as the term for supervenience and its use in Stoic aesthetics, see Graver, M., Stoicism and Emotion (Chicago, 2007), 29, 32–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Celkyte, A., ‘The Stoic definition of beauty as summetra’, CQ 67 (2017), 88–105, at 95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67 See Phld. Po. 1.lxxxiii.11–14, 1.lxxxvi.19–24; Porter (n. 46), 175; Janko (n. 18 [2000]), 287 n. 2.

68 Phld. Po. 1.cxv.1–8. See Porter (n. 20), 134–5; Janko (n. 18 [2000]), 171–2, 181.

69 See further Pace, N., ‘Problematiche di poetica in Filodemo’, CErc 25 (1995), 111–90, at 137–42Google Scholar.

70 Porter (n. 20), 118–22; (n. 31), 242.

71 Phld. Po. 1.cxcviii.24–1.cxcix.25. See also Phld. Po. 1.cci (with Janko [n. 18 (2000)], 430 n. 1); cf. Cic. Orat. 20.67.

72 Phld. Po. 2 N 1074b fr. 21 + 1081b fr. 8 sup. 1–5: εἰ [κατ]ὰ τὸ ἴδιον ἀγαθὸν ὁ ποη[τὴ]ς μὴ ἀποπίπτοι.

73 See Phld. Po. 1.xxxiii.1–5, 2 N 1081b frr. 1 + 5b + 1074b fr. 13.7–13 (text in Janko [n. 18 (2000)], 162 n. 6), 1081b fr. 23.6–8; P.Herc. 1676 fr. 11.27–col. i.5, iv.10–14, vi.2–7; Gomoll (n. 63), 373–4; Porter (n. 63 [1995]), 88; id. (n. 31), 116–17, 225 n. 164; Janko (n. 18 [2000]), 161, 221 n. 1. Cf. Neoptolemus in Phld. Po. 5.xv.1–6 and Crates of Mallos in Phld. Po. 1.cxxxii.27–1.cxxxiii.3.

74 Some intellectual exchange between the two schools of thought is certain: see Asmis, E., ‘The poetic theory of the Stoic “Aristo”’, Apeiron 23 (1990), 147–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Crates on poetic criticism’, Phoenix 46 (1992), 138–69, at 139–40, 144–5, 156–9Google Scholar; Janko (n. 18 [2000]), 178–83, 188.

75 See Phld. Po. 1.lxxxiv.6–1.lxxxv.26, 1.lxxxvi.5–24, 1.lxxxviii.3–15, 1.xci.3–13;P.Herc. 994 fr. 18.26–19.7; Janko (n. 18 [2000]), 175–83, 283 n. 1.

76 P.Herc. 1081 + 1074 fr. e, i.20–ii.24. Cf. Phld. Po. 1.lxxiv.7–26; P.Herc. 1676.iii.12–22, iv–v;Asmis, E., ‘Philodemus on censorship, moral utility, and formalism in poetry’, in Obbink, D. (ed.), Philodemus and Poetry (Oxford, 1995), 148–77, at 157–77Google Scholar.

77 So Porter (n. 31), 494–510.

78 There is some evidence to suggest that the Stoics also thought that beauty and other aesthetic properties supervene upon material arrangements, much as meaning supervenes upon verbal arrangements: see Celkyte (n. 66), 95–6 on Stob. Ecl. 2.62.15–63.5 Wachsmuth (= SVF 3 fr. 278).

79 See Phld. Po. 1.xciii.19–1.xciv.3 and p. 19 below.

80 Hence Philodemus (Po. 1.cli.1–4) unfairly accuses his opponents of conflating poetry with music.

81 See West, M.L., Ancient Greek Music (Oxford, 1992), 198–9, 357–8, 361–4Google Scholar with Dion. Hal. Comp. 11.93–119; Pöhlmann, E. and West, M.L., Documents of Ancient Greek Music (Oxford, 2001), 16–17Google Scholar; Csapo, E., ‘The politics of the New Music’, in Murray, P. and Wilson, P. (edd.), Music and the Muses (Oxford, 2004), 207–48, at 223–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Csapo, E. and Wilson, P., ‘Timotheus the New Musician’, in Budelmann, F. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Lyric (Cambridge, 2009), 277–94, at 287–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; D'Angour, A., ‘The musical setting of ancient Greek texts’, in D'Angour, A. and Phillips, T. (edd.), Music, Text, and Culture in Ancient Greece (Oxford, 2018), 47–72, at 58–60Google Scholar; Thomas, O., ‘Music in Euripides’ Medea’, in D'Angour, A. and Phillips, T. (edd.), Music, Text, and Culture in Ancient Greece (Oxford, 2018), 99–120, at 99–100, 107–9Google Scholar. Cf. Barker, A.D., Greek Musical Writings (Cambridge, 1984–9), 1.93–8Google Scholar; Hordern, J.H., The Fragments of Timotheus of Miletus (Oxford, 2002), 34–5Google Scholar.

82 See Aristox. Harm. 1.2.11–1.3.2 Da Rios, 2.34.30–2.35.21, 37.13–38.3, with Barker (n. 81), 2.124–5; id., ‘Oἱ καλούμενοι ἁρμονικοί’, PCPhS 24 (1978), 1–21, at 8–18Google Scholar. On Aristoxenus’ predecessors, see further Bélis, A., Aristoxène de Tarente et Aristote (Paris, 1986), 90–107Google Scholar, but with Barker's notes about the identity of οἱ ἔμπροσθεν. For the possibility that the author of P.Hibeh i.13 also accuses some ἁρμονικοί of confounding practical performance concerns with scientific theory, see Pelosi, F., ‘Against musical ἀτεχνία’, Apeiron 50 (2017), 401–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar (on the view of music expressed in this papyrus more generally, see Barker [n. 81], 1.183–4; Pelosi [this note], 393–4 with n. 1).

83 Practical theorists of this kind would probably have included Lasus of Hermione (on whose performance and theory, see Barker [n. 81], 2.14, 2.29; A. D'Angour, ‘How the dithyramb got its shape’, CQ 47 [1997], 331–51, especially 334–9; Levin, F.R., Greek Reflections on the Nature of Music [Cambridge, 2009], 86, 189–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Porter, J., ‘Lasus of Hermione, Pindar and the riddle of S’, CQ 57 [2007], 1–21, at 10–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar) and Damon of Athens (on whom, see Lynch, T., ‘A sophist “in disguise”’, EPlaton 10 [2013, not paginated]Google Scholar with Pl. Resp. 399e8–400c6, and cf. West [n. 81], 248–90; Brancacci, A., Musica e filosofia da Damone a Filodemo [Florence, 2008], 88–9)Google Scholar.

84 See Barker (n. 81), 2.67–9, 2.123–4; id. (n. 5), 105–64; id., ‘Aristoxenus’ theorems and the foundations of harmonic science’, AncPhil 4 (1984), 23–64, at 24–5Google Scholar; id., ‘Aristoxenus’ harmonics and Aristotle's theory of science’, in Bowen, A.C. (ed.), Science and Philosophy in Classical Greece (New York, 1991), 188–226, at 201–22Google Scholaret passim; Bélis (n. 82), 34–8 et passim; Gibson, S., Aristoxenus of Tarentum and the Birth of Musicology (London, 2005), 30–8, 61–73Google Scholar; cf. Levin (n. 83), 66–9, 74–5.

85 See Arist. An. post. 71b9–73a20, 75b14–20.

86 On the Pythagorean idea, see Barker (n. 84 [1984]), 28–9; cf. ‘Pythagorean harmonics’, in Huffman, C.A. (ed.), A History of Pythagoreanism (Cambridge, 2014), 185–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially 188–90, 196–7; Zhmud, L., Pythagoras and the Early Pythagoreans (Oxford, 2012), 289–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar with Nicom. Harm. 6; Aristid. Quint. 3.2.6–2; Gaud. Harm. 11. On its adoption by Aristotle, see Lear, J., ‘Aristotle's philosophy of mathematics’, PhR 91 (1982), 161–92, at 164–9Google Scholar; Bélis (n. 82), 65–9; Lennox, J.G., ‘Aristotle, Galileo and “mixed sciences”’, in Wallace, W.A. (ed.), Reinterpreting Galileo (Washington, D.C., 1986), 29–51, at 42–4Google Scholar; Barker (n. 84 [1991]), 202–4 with Arist. Mete. 1077b17–1078a17; An. post. 78b32–79a16; Sens. 439b19–440a31. On the persistence of this view into the medieval period, cf. e.g. Leach, E.E., Sung Birds (Ithaca, NY, 2015), 15Google Scholar.

87 κατὰ τὴν τῆς αἰσθήσεως φαντασίαν: see e.g. Aristox. Harm. 1.8.19–9.21, 1.20.2–28, 2.48.15–27. Cf. Aristoxenus’ definition of a note as an actual incidence of audible sound (φωνή) at a consistent pitch (1.15.15–18; reiterated in e.g. Cleonid. Harm. 1.7–8; Gaud. Harm. 2.1–2; Nicom. Harm. 12.6–9). Musical sound thus becomes not an abstracted concept but a perceptually manifested quality (ποιότης—see Cleonid. Harm. 2.1–3). This makes the Pythagorean project of discerning the ratios behind musical sound largely irrelevant to Aristoxenus’ aims: see Barker (n. 81), 2.120 with Aristox. Harm. 2.32.18–33.1; id. (n. 82), 3–4.

88 Cf. Aristoxenus’ co-heir to the Aristotelian tradition, Theophrastus (in Porph. in Ptol. Harm. 62.1–33), who seeks to distinguish a certain ἰδιότης which is unique to φωνή. See further Barker, A.D., ‘Music and mathematics’, PCPhS 23 (1977), 1–15, at 9–10Google Scholar; id., Porphyry's Commentary on Ptolemy's Harmonics (Cambridge, 2015), 209 n. 212Google Scholar.

89 Aristox. Harm. 2.31.16–29.

90 On this subject I agree with Barker (n. 81), 2.120–3; id. (n. 5), 115–35, cf. 230–3; Gibson (n. 84), 43–61; and Rocconi, E., ‘La dottrina aristossenica dell’ethos musicale nel de musica dello Ps.-Plutarco’, SemRom 8 (2005), 291–7, at 292Google Scholar; id., ‘Aristoxenus and musical ēthos’, in Huffman, C.A. (ed.), Aristoxenus of Tarentum (London, 2012), 65–90, at 77–8 n. 43Google Scholar; contra Bélis (n. 82), 24–48 that the text as we have it is not a unified whole.

91 Harm. 1.1.24–1.2.7, 2.32.3–9—see Gibson (n. 84), 44.

92 Macran, H.S., The Harmonics of Aristoxenus (Oxford, 1902), 165Google Scholar; Barker (n. 5), 231–3.

93 Harm. 2.32.5–9.

94 On the Aristoxenean pedigree of this passage, see Lassere, F., Plutarque: De la musique (Lausanne, 1954), 102–3, 175–6Google Scholar; Meriani, A., Sulla musica greca antica (Naples, 2004), 51–5Google Scholar; Rocconi (n. 90 [2005]), 296 with n. 26.

95 On this use of Aristotelian χωρισμός to abstract several cognitive elements out of a single perceptual experience, see Rocconi (n. 90 [2012]), 81–6. Cf. Lalory, L., Aristoxène de Tarente et la musique de l'antiquité (Paris, 1904), 154–64Google Scholar, although Lalory is wrong to exclude ethical concerns from the final analysis of a complete composition.

96 Cf. Pl. Phlb. 16c5–18d2 with Gosling, J.C.B., Plato: Philebus (Oxford, 1975), 170–3Google Scholar; Soph. 253a4–b4; Adrastus in Theon of Smyrna 49.6–20 Hiller; Barker (n. 81), 2.145 n. 115, 213–14 n. 12.

97 Aristox. Rhythm. 2.8, 2.10 Pearson; Porph. in Ptol. Harm. 79 Düring (= pp. 32–5 Pearson). Cf. Aristox. Harm. 1.18.16–19.1.

98 Aristox. Harm. 1.18.5–27.

99 Ps.-Plut. [De mus.] 1143A2–D12.

100 Compare Dion. Hal. Comp. 11.64–119 with 17.1–9.

101 See Kroll, W., ‘Randbemerkungen’, RhM 6 (1907), 86–101, at 93–6, especially 96 n. 1Google Scholar.

102 See Koller, H., Die Mimesis in der Antike (Bern, 1954), 137–42; Pohl (n. 63), 121–6, 157–9Google Scholar; Porter (n. 20), 97–8, 140–1; Porter (n. 63 [2001]), 328–33; Porter (n. 31), 322–3, 369–71, 492–4; Janko (n. 18 [2000]), 134–8 (on P.Herc. 1677.vi.5–28 Romeo; Phld. Po. 5.iii.13–vi.5), 173–6.

103 I have touched only briefly on the related and simultaneous attempts in ancient theory to disambiguate poetry from prose, which must be understood with reference not only to the schools of thought discussed here but also to the rhetorical tradition. E. Rocconi (‘The notion of synthesis in harmonic science (and beyond)’, presented at a conference on Harmonic Theory in Ancient Greece [Berlin, 2018]Google Scholar) has shown that the concept of synthesis was shared not only between musical and poetic theorists, as I have indicated here, but also between harmonic scientists and rhetoricians. See also Hunter, R.L., ‘Rhythmical language and poetic citation in Greek narrative texts’, in Bastianini, G. and Casanova, A. (edd.), I papiri del romanzo antico (Florence, 2010), 223–45, at 231Google Scholar. Hunter gestures towards Arist. Rh. 1408b21–1409a23; Demetr. Eloc. 118, 179–86; Quint. Inst. 4, 9, 56, 72–8. See also Dion. Hal. Comp. 20.139–46, 26; Strabo 1.2.6.1–17.