(fl late 3rd and early 4th centuries ce). Author of a substantial treatise On Music (Peri mousikēs) written in Greek and arranged in three books.
There has been considerable debate about the author's identity and floruit, but the outer limits within which Aristides Quintilianus's treatise could have been written are clearly defined: book ii refers to Marcus Tullius Cicero, who died in 43 bce, and book ix of the De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii of Martianus Capella composed between 410 and 439 ce appropriates a substantial section of book i of Aristides Quintilianus's treatise. The work must therefore date from no earlier than the 1st century bce and no later than the 4th century ce.
Various arguments have been advanced for dating the treatise to the 1st or 2nd centuries ce. First, in some of the manuscript sources for the treatise the author's name is given as Aristeidou Koïntilianou, while in others it appears as Aristeidou tou Koïntilianou. The latter form, considered together with Aristides Quintilianus's emphasis on rhetoric and grammar, led to the supposition that Aristides might have been the son or freedman of Quintilian (30/35–c95 ce), the author of the Institutio oratoria. Secondly, both the Christian apologist Marcianus Aristides, who lived during the reign of Hadrian (117–38 ce), and Aelius Aristides (117/29–c181 ce) have been proposed as alternative identities for Aristides Quintilianus, largely on the basis of similar interests in metaphysics and medicine and the similarity of names. Thirdly, although Aristides Quintilianus mentions many names in his treatise, he does not refer to Ptolemy (fl 127–48 ce), the author of the Harmonics, another extensive treatment of ancient Greek music theory arranged in three books. Since Aristides Quintilianus states that he was writing his treatise because there was no other complete and systematic treatment of the subject, Meibom, the first editor of the treatise, proposed that it must predate Ptolemy.
The contents of the treatise itself, however, make a date in the 1st or 2nd century ce unlikely. First, at the beginning of the treatise (i.1), Aristides Quintilianus addresses his friends Eusebius and Florentius, typical Christian names that would not have been employed in Greek literature before the 3rd century ce. While it has been tacitly assumed that such an address was merely a literary device, there are numerous letters written to Antiochenes named Eusebius and Florentius between 355 and 393 by Libanius of Antioch (314–c393 ce), influential rhetorician and literary figure. In a letter of 357 to Aristainetus (Epistle 591 [W506]), Libanius refers to an admired fellow citizen Mariades, whom he characterizes as a rhetorician, agreeing that Aristainetus rightly called him Aristides. Thus, a Eusebius, a Florentius and the rhetorician Aristides were all located in Antioch and connected to one another in the mid-4th century through Libanius. Moreover, in conservatism, antiquarianism and stylistic terms, there are numerous similarities between the writings of Libanius and Aristides Quintilianus. Secondly, the vocabulary of the invocation of i.3, the several sections dealing with the soul (especially ii.2, 8 and 17; and iii.7 and 25–7), the differentiation between the sublunar and ethereal regions (ii.17 and 19, iii.7, 12 and 20) and the overall vocabulary and style are decidedly Neoplatonic and reflect specific passages in the Enneads of Plotinus (205–269/70 ce), the writings of Porphyry (232/3–c305 ce) and the De communi mathematica scientia of Iamblichus (c250–c325 ce). Thirdly, the treatise refers (iii.27) to the doctrine of the soul's escape from the cycle of reincarnations through the power of philosophy, a doctrine associated especially with Porphyry rather than with Plotinus. Fourthly, the ‘helicon’, which was first described by Ptolemy (ii.2) and explained at greater length by Porphyry in his commentary, appears in Aristides Quintilianus's treatise (iii.3): the author refers to ‘those who’ use this type of harmonic canon to demonstrate the various harmonic consonances, thereby making it clear that his description was derived from an earlier source. Lastly, references to the Mysteries (iii.21 and 27) suggest the De mysteriis of Iamblichus.
Although the treatise shows strong evidence of 3rd- and 4th-century literature, Neoplatonic and Neopythagorean themes certainly predate Plotinus, Porphyry and Iamblichus. Both the Manual of Harmonics, 3 of Nicomachus of Gerasa (fl mid-2nd century ce) and Ptolemy's Harmonics, iii relate music and Platonic or Pythagorean cosmology. Their treatments, however, are very different from Aristides Quintilianus's treatise, and it cannot be determined whether Aristides Quintilianus knew these works. It is almost certain that he did draw on such 2nd-century authors as Theon of Smyrna, Ptolemy, Plutarch and Hephaestion. Loci paralleli can be found among the later Greek musical treatises, including those of Cleonides, Gaudentius and Bacchius, but as the floruit of these figures remains conjectural, they offer no evidence useful in dating Aristides Quintilianus.
Aristides Quintilianus remains unmentioned by name in any datable source earlier than Martianus Capella, or indeed in any early source at all, with a single exception: his name appears in connection with a passage from his treatise (i.5) cited in a scholium On Prosody, which is ascribed to Porphyry in a number of manuscripts (GB-Ob Baroccianus gr.116, dating from the 14th century, and F-Pn gr.2452, from the 16th century; the scholium also appears, but without the attribution to Porphyry in I-Rvat gr.14, from the 13th century). If this scholium were indeed written by the Neoplatonist, it would place Aristides Quintilianus between Plotinus and Porphyry and perhaps as a contemporary of Porphyry in the late 3rd century. The scholium, however, is also ascribed to George Choeroboscus (fl 8th century ce) in at least one manuscript (Dk-Kk gr.1965), and as Choeroboscus was a grammarian, this attribution may well be correct. In this case, it would not add to the limitation of Aristides Quintilianus's floruit already provided by Martianus Capella.
Taken as a whole, the evidence supports the floruit assigned at the head of this article. Within this range, however, it is not possible to place a more precise date on the composition of the treatise itself.
Aristides Quintilianus's On Music is preserved complete in 56 manuscripts; the earliest is I-Vnm gr.app.cl. VI/10 (RISM, B/XI, 273), dating from the end of the 12th century. Excerpts appear in nine other manuscripts, and part of the treatise is embedded in the treatise of Cleonides in six additional manuscripts (see Mathiesen, 1988). Unlike other treatises in the tradition, On Music is neither a handbook (an encheiridion) nor an introduction (an eisagōgē) on the technique or science of music. Rather, a wide range of materials – musical, philosophical, medical, grammatical, metrical and literary – are woven together into an intricate and elaborately unified philosophical discourse in which music provides a paradigm for the order of the soul and the universe. The language of the treatise is rigorous, systematic and highly complex, enabling the author to develop implicit and explicit relationships among all the disparate types of material.
The design of the treatise is stated in the proem (i.1–3): book i defines the science of music (mousikē) and its parts (harmonics, rhythmics and metrics); book ii provides an explication of music's paideutic role; and book iii culminates with an exegesis of number, the soul and the order of the universe. The proem concludes with an invocation to Apollo, who is associated with the Neoplatonic notions of unitary proportion (logos heniaios) and pure form (eidos euages).
After reviewing traditional definitions of music (i.4), Aristides Quintilianus formulates his own definition – ‘knowledge of the seemly in bodies and motions’ – by which he establishes his approach of Neoplatonist epistemology. He then defines (i.5) the various subclasses of music (Table 1), each one of which is explored and interrelated in an ever more complex fashion as the treatise progresses.
The treatment of harmonics (i.6–12) largely follows the Aristoxenian model, perhaps derived in part from the treatise of Cleonides, but many points differ in specifics. Various notational diagrams are included, one of which (i.9) purports to preserve scales of ‘the exceedingly ancient peoples’ (it is a matter of debate among scholars whether Aristides Quintilianus said that these are the scales of Plato's Republic, although they are often described as such in the scholarly literature). Another diagram (i.11) illustrates the fifteen tonoi laid out ‘akin to a wing’, a description and pattern preserved in the parapteres in a number of Latin music treatises of the 9th to 11th centuries. The treatments of rhythmics (i.13–19) and metrics (i.20–29) once again draw on Aristoxenus, but there are also apparent loci paralleli with Hephaestion's Handbook and Dionysius of Halicarnassus's On Literary Composition. In his vocabulary and development of definitions, Aristides Quintilianus carefully conjoins harmonics, rhythmics and metrics.
In the second book, which was conceived in three sections, Aristides Quintilianus applies the definitions of the first book to larger considerations. The first section (ii.1–6) includes a treatment of the soul, an explanation of the views of ‘the ancients’ on the influence of music on character and a demonstration of the validity of these notions based on ethnic stereotypes and the use of music in the Roman empire. Aristides Quintilianus identifies Cicero as one of his sources, but close parallels can also be identified with Plato (especially Phaedrus, Timaeus, Republic and Laws), Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics and Politics), Plutarch (Table-Talk) and the Neoplatonic school. The second section (ii.7–16) deals with the way in which ethical notions can be developed through the proper union of text, pitches, rhythm and instrumental accompaniment, thus supporting the paideutic value of music throughout life, as the disciples of Damon, which certainly included Plato, are credited (ii.14) with proving. The section is much concerned with the relationship of souls and bodies (human and otherwise) and the association of masculine, feminine and medial natures with each detail of the technical subclass of music as described in book i. The third section (ii.17–19) expands on the affective power of instruments, gained through their conjunction with the soul and their association with the Muses and the gods.
The third book of the treatise is devoted to the two subclasses of music that remain unexplored: the arithmetic (iii.1–8) and the natural (iii.9–27). These are now related to all the others, revealing music as a paradigm for cosmic order. The review of the traditional mathematical-musical affinities is probably drawn from Plutarch (On the Generation of the Soul in the Timaeus), Porphyry's commentary on Ptolemy's Harmonics and Theon of Smyrna (Exposition of Mathematics Useful for Reading Plato), but Aristides Quintilianus expands it with material that may have been derived from Plotinus, Galen, Pliny (Natural History) and perhaps Plato (Phaedrus, Republic and Laws) and Aristotle (Physiognomics). The final section is intended, Aristides Quintilianus states, to ‘work through the particulars of what is discussed in music, making quite plain the similarity of each particular to the universe altogether’. Nearly every particular of the preceding material is now related in a grand Neoplatonic cosmology based not only on Plato (especially Republic and Timaeus) and Aristotle (On the Heavens, Physics, Metaphysics and History of Animals) but also on Plotinus, Ptolemy (Tetrabiblos), Porphyry and Theon of Smyrna.
After Martianus Capella, the treatise of Aristides Quintilianus was used by later writers, including Georgios Pachymeres, Manuel Bryennius, Franchinus Gaffurius, Giorgio Valla, Conrad Gesner, Francisco de Salinas, Vincenzo Galilei, Girolamo Mei, G.B. Doni, Marin Mersenne, Athanasius Kircher and others in the Greek, Latin and Arabic traditions. With the publication of Meibom's edition in 1652, the author and the treatise became widely known.
M. Meibom, ed. and trans.: ‘Aristidis Quintiliani De musica libri tres’, Antiquae musicae auctores septem (Amsterdam, 1652/R), ii, 1–164 [with parallel Lat. trans.]
R. Schäfke, ed. and trans.: Aristeides Quintilianus von der Musik (Berlin, 1937)
R.P. Winnington-Ingram, ed.: Aristidis Quintiliani De musica libri tres (Leipzig, 1963)
R. Schäfke, ed.: Des Aristeides Quintilianus Harmonik (Tutzing, 1976) [issued by E. Schäfke from his father's unpubd MS; incl. only i.1–12]
T.J. Mathiesen, trans.: Aristides Quintilianus on Music in Three Books (New Haven, CT, 1983) [incl. numerous addns and emendations to the critical text and extensive bibliographic annotations]
A. Barker, trans.: ‘Aristides Quintilianus, the De musica,’ Greek Musical Writings, ii: Harmonic and Acoustic Theory (Cambridge, 1989), 392–535
H. Abert: Die Lehre vom Ethos in der griechischen Musik (Leipzig, 1899/R)
R.P. Winnington-Ingram: Mode in Ancient Greek Music (Cambridge, 1936/R)
A.J. Festugière: ‘L’âme et la musique d'après Aristide Quintilien’, Transactions of the American Philological Association, lxxxv (1954), 55–78
H. Potiron: ‘Les notations d'Aristide Quintilien et les harmonies dites Platoniciennes’, RdM, xlvii (1961), 159–76
W. Anderson: Ethos and Education in Greek Music (Cambridge, MA, 1966)
J. García López: ‘Sobre el vocabulario etico-musical del griego’, Emerita, xxxvii (1969), 335–52
W.H. Stahl and others: Martianus Capella and the Seven Liberal Arts (New York, 1971–7)
J. Chailley: ‘La notation archaïque grecque d'après Aristide Quintilien’, Revue des études grecques, lxxxvi (1973), 17–34
R.P. Winnington-Ingram: ‘The First Notational Diagram of Aristides Quintilianus’, Philologus, cxvii (1973), 243–9
U. Duse: ‘Das Scholion zu Aristeides Quintilianus 3, 2 S. 98, 8–21 W.-I.’, Philologus, cxx (1976), 309–13
L. Zanoncelli: ‘La filosofia musicale di Aristide Quintiliano’, Quaderni urbinati di cultura classica, xxiv (1977), 51–93
C. Lord: ‘On Damon and Music Education’, Hermes, cvi (1978), 32–43
R.P. Winnington-Ingram: ‘Two Studies in Greek Musical Notation’, Philologus, cxxii (1978), 237–48
A. Barbera: The Persistence of Pythagorean Mathematics in Ancient Musical Thought (diss., U. of North Carolina, 1980)
J. Solomon: ‘Ekbole and Eklusis in the Musical Treatise of Bacchius’, Symbolae osloenses, lv (1980), 111–26
J. Solomon: ‘The Diastaltic Ethos’, Classical Philology, lxxvi (1981), 93–100
C.M. Atkinson: ‘The Parapteres: Nothi or Not?’, MQ, lxviii (1982), 32–59
T.J. Mathiesen: ‘Aristides Quintilianus and the Harmonics of Manuel Bryennius’, JMT, xxvii (1983), 31–47
T.J. Mathiesen: ‘Harmonia and Ethos in Ancient Greek Music’, JM, iii (1984), 264–79
T.J. Mathiesen: ‘Rhythm and Meter in Ancient Greek Music’, Music Theory Spectrum, vii (1985), 159–80
J. Solomon: ‘The Manuscript Sources for the Aristides Quintilianus and Bryennius Interpolations in Cleonides' eisagōgē harmonikē’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, cxxx (1987), 360–66
T.J. Mathiesen: Ancient Greek Music Theory: a Catalogue Raisonné of Manuscripts, RISM, B/XI (1988)
M.L. West: ‘Analecta musica’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, xcii (1992), 42–6
T.J. Mathiesen: Apollo’s Lyre: Greek Music and Music Theory in Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Lincoln, NE, 1999), 521–82
THOMAS J. MATHIESEN