Alexander the great and Music

[karen]

Not sure where it's sourced from -- my guess would have been Plutarch but I just searched through his works in vain. Don't have time to do more of a search -- sorry!

Warmly,
Karen

[Aengus]

You know Karen, that’s a curious one. I think there’s an agenda at work when it comes to this story of Apelles.

Let me explain.

First point to understand is that the Hellenic world prized two things above all in its top-end art: mimetic veracity (faithfulness to life/technical accomplishment) and graceful style (composition, rhythm, harmony etc). Truth and beauty, to plunder poor old Keats; each to be balanced with the other according to the taste and ability of the artist, with the better ones getting it just so.

It’s the first of these qualities that concerns us here. Stories abound of it. Nothing our Greek friends liked more than staring at a flat surface and being conned into thinking it had depth. They loved it. Alexander’s thunderbolt mentioned above was noted not because it was a thunderbolt but because it appeared to jut out of the picture surface along with the hand grasping it. Compressing three dimensions successfully into two was (and is) outstandingly difficult. Whenever some virtuoso pulled it off, the ancient equivalent of the critic tended to rhapsodise with goggle eyed exuberance.

The most celebrated example is the bizarre showdown between the painters Zeuxis and Parrhasius. I believe this set a precedent which the likes of Apelles had to try to live up to. According to Pliny it went like this. Unable to decide who was the better, Zeuxis and Parrhasius opted for the painterly equivalent of a gunfight. Zeuxis had it all sown up when he revealed a still-life of grapes so convincing that birds flew close for a greedy peck. Game over, he announced to his rival, I’ve convinced the beasts in the air, and you can’t beat that; but just for the sake of form we’d better remove the drape covering your work and give it a mollifying stare. Go ahead, invited Parrhasius. He gestured for Zeuxis to uncover his painting. And guess what? Exactly. It wasn’t a drape at all. Whereas Zeuxis had fooled the eyes of birds, Parrhasius had fooled the eyes of an artist. To his credit, Zeuxis admitted his loss on the spot, and his rival took the prize. Probably no more than a bowl of olives and a vegetative wreath, but the kudos was inestimable. However, in spite of his loss, I think it was Zeuxis’ birds that made the strongest impression on those who heard the story. The effect those grapes elicited from passing dumb animals had set a new benchmark for painters who aspired to be amongst the best.

Now look at this. Some time later a dynamic new talent has emerged: Apelles. He’s the first ranked painter of his time - there’s no doubt as to his virtuosity. But can he match the staggering achievement of a Zeuxis; can he pull off a stunt like the birdies and so confirm that he really is one of the giants? Well, coincidentally . . . it just so happens that . . . . “There is or was, a picture of a horse by him, painted in a competition, by which he carried his appeal for judgement from mankind to the dumb quadrupeds; for perceiving that his rivals were getting the better of him by intrigue, he had some horses brought and showed them their pictures one by one; and the horses only began to neigh when they saw the horses painted by Apelles; and this always happened subsequently, showing it to be a sound test of artistic skill.” So says Pliny.

Peculiarly, his paintings seems to have struck a particular cord with the equine world. Here is (and this is the episode you referred to) Aelian: “When Alexander saw at Ephesus the portrait that Apelles had made of him he did not give the picture the praise it warranted. Then his horse was brought to the spot, and it proceeded to neigh at the horse in the picture, thinking that it, too, was real, at which point Apelles remarked: “Your Majesty, the horse is evidently a better judge of painting than you are”.

I smell trickery. Never trust Greeks bearing anything. I’m not sure, but I have a notion. I think he may have been smearing the surface of these particular pictures with secretions from on-heat mares. Sniffable hormones can provoke a pretty explosive response from a stallion, and Bucephalus was probably not gelded. It may sound far-fetched, but I find it more credible than an animal with an optical platform completely at variance with our own being taken in by a painting’s formal perspective, draughtsmanship and tonality.

If not this, then he was a very able progenitor of rumour (or his later fans were). Either way, I absolutely guarantee it’s no coincidence that both Apelles stories argue for his excellence in the tradition of Zeuxis, and underpin how strong a hand he had when it came to capturing nature as convincingly as possible.

Master of his own reputation.

[amyntoros]

A remark about the Iliad in a BMCR Review of Mousike et Arete brings me back to this thread. Philip did not put down Alexander because he played the lute, but because he played it so well – and so charmingly. Musicians spent their lives advancing their skills. Kings had much better things to do. This is much more evident when the quote from Plutarch's Life of Pericles is seen in context:

Such objects we find in the acts of virtue, which also produce in the minds of mere readers about them, an emulation and eagerness that may lead them on to imitation. In other things there does not immediately follow upon the admiration and liking of the thing done, any strong desire of doing the like. Nay, many times, on the very contrary, when we are pleased with the work, we slight and set little by the workman or artist himself, as, for instance, in perfumes and purple dyes, we are taken with the things themselves well enough, but do not think dyers and perfumers otherwise than low and sordid people. It was not said amiss by Antisthenes, when people told him that one Ismenias was an excellent piper, "It may be so," said he, "but he is but a wretched human being, otherwise he would not have been an excellent piper." And king Philip, to the same purpose, told his son Alexander, who once at a merry-meeting played a piece of music charmingly and skillfully, "Are you not ashamed, son, to play so well?" For it is enough for a king, or prince to find leisure sometimes to hear others sing, and he does the muses quite honor enough when he pleases to be but present, while others engage in such exercises and trials of skill.

I think that Plutarch's final remark – for it is his own – is in error. As has been pointed out on this thread, some skill with a musical instrument was not misplaced amongst warriors and kings, and Achilles did, indeed, play the lyre. As Aengus said:

The martial tone is in keeping with Plutarch's anecdote of Alexander being offered a look at Paris' lyre at Troy only to turn it down, preferring instead to see that of Achilles. There’s a consistency here: not the music of the lover but the music of the hero.

Achilles himself made the distinction when speaking to Paris:

(Iliad 3.61-69) And now can you not dare face Menelaus and learn what manner of man he is whose wife you have stolen? Where indeed would be your lyre and your love-tricks, your comely locks and your fair favour, when you were lying in the dust before him? The Trojans are a weak-kneed people, or ere this you would have had a shirt of stones for the wrongs you have done them.

Achilles equates Paris' skill at the lyre with his misused charm and attractive looks – in other words (and again in agreement with Aengus), Paris used his musical ability for the wrong reasons; to charm Helen. The quote from Plutarch's Pericles is also specific in that Alexander played "charmingly and skillfully." Music was, indeed, a part of a young man's education, but I think that here Philip was concerned that his son might grow up to be a Paris rather than a Hector or (better yet) an Achilles. Hence the condemnation.

Best regards,

[the_accursed]

Hello again, Amyntoros.

What Philip said was: "Are you not ashamed, son, to play so well?"

And that was, apparently, all he said. Not: "Are you not ashamed, son, to play in such a charming manner?”

Why is it reasonable to disregard what Philip – according to Plutarch - actually said - "so well" and replace it with "so charming"?

You write that Plutarch’s conclusion is his own. I see no attribution in the quoted text of the word “charming” to Philip – or to anyone else. That word too, it seems, was Plutarch’s own.

In my opinion, Plutarch’s conclusion was correct. Alexander was supposed to learn something about music, and he was supposed to learn how to play the lyre, but he was not supposed to learn how to play it well. Learning how to play it well was a waste of time. And Alexander had, apparently, learnt how to play it well.

It seems to me, the logic of your post is flawed. Plutarch never attributed the word “charming” to Philip, or to anyone else. Most likely, thus, this word was his own, as was everything else in that text, except for that which he quoted.

In other words, if there was anyone making a subtle reference to the Iliad, it was Plutarch himself who made it - only to then, if I were to buy your argument – misunderstand his own reference.

If your argument is correct: what ancient works of literature are the words “objects”, “acts”, “virtue”, “minds”, “readers”, “emulation”, “eagerness” – and so on - references to? In my opinion these words, and the entire text, are Plutarch’s own – except for that which he quoted, and quoted to make a point.

And just for the record, though it doesn’t really matter: I don’t even agree with the conclusion you draw from the quote from the Iliad. Hector (not Achilles) doesn’t “equate Paris' skill at the lyre with his misused charm and attractive looks”. Nowhere does he separate playing the lyre from “love tricks”, “comely looks” and “fair favour” to argue that one thing somehow equals the others. What he does is list abilities and qualities that are of no use when facing a warrior on a battlefield.

[aleksandros]

I ve read somewhere i guess in Arrian that Alexander avoided the company of the musicians...

[amyntoros]

Hello again, Amyntoros.

What Philip said was: "Are you not ashamed, son, to play so well?"

And that was, apparently, all he said. Not: "Are you not ashamed, son, to play in such a charming manner?”

Why is it reasonable to disregard what Philip – according to Plutarch - actually said - "so well" and replace it with "so charming"?

You write that Plutarch’s conclusion is his own. I see no attribution in the quoted text of the word “charming” to Philip – or to anyone else. That word too, it seems, was Plutarch’s own.

In my opinion, Plutarch’s conclusion was correct. Alexander was supposed to learn something about music, and he was supposed to learn how to play the lyre, but he was not supposed to learn how to play it well. Learning how to play it well was a waste of time. And Alexander had, apparently, learnt how to play it well.
It seems to me, the logic of your post is flawed. Plutarch never attributed the word “charming” to Philip, or to anyone else. Most likely, thus, this word was his own, as was everything else in that text, except for that which he quoted.

Hmm, I don't see that I'm replacing the word well with the word charming nor am I disregarding what Philip actually said. Plutarch quotes Philip after telling us that Alexander played "a piece of music charmingly and skillfully." I don't think it's necessary to disassociate the one from the other just because one part consists of quoted words and the other is Plutarch's description of the event, presumably taken from earlier sources. The use of the word charming doesn't have to be attributed to Philip - any one (or all) of the people present could have described Alexander's playing as such. However, we are in agreement that Alexander was supposed to learn how to play the lyre but not to play it well – as I said in my earlier post, "some skill with a musical instrument was not misplaced amongst warriors and kings." Plutarch's conclusion, however is that it is "enough for a king, or prince to find leisure sometimes to hear others sing, and he does the muses quite honor enough when he pleases to be but present, while others engage in such exercises and trials of skill." I don't think the sources support this because Alexander – a prince – was obviously playing music in front of others. Philip isn't quoted as saying he shouldn't have played at all, only questioning if he wasn't ashamed to play so well.

In other words, if there was anyone making a subtle reference to the Iliad, it was Plutarch himself who made it - only to then, if I were to buy your argument – misunderstand his own reference.

If your argument is correct: what ancient works of literature are the words “objects”, “acts”, “virtue”, “minds”, “readers”, “emulation”, “eagerness” – and so on - references to? In my opinion these words, and the entire text, are Plutarch’s own – except for that which he quoted, and quoted to make a point.

And just for the record, though it doesn’t really matter: I don’t even agree with the conclusion you draw from the quote from the Iliad. Hector (not Achilles) doesn’t “equate Paris' skill at the lyre with his misused charm and attractive looks”. Nowhere does he separate playing the lyre from “love tricks”, “comely looks” and “fair favour” to argue that one thing somehow equals the others. What he does is list abilities and qualities that are of no use when facing a warrior on a battlefield.

It is recorded by Homer that Achilles also played the lyre and it isn't shown as a negative quality; however, Achilles was remembered as a great warrior whilst Paris was not so I certainly think it can be interpreted from Hector's words that he thought Paris was better at "love" – including the playing of the lyre – than he was at warfare. But as you said, it doesn't matter. We have a difference of opinion and/or interpretation which happens all the time when Alexander is debated. (Although I'm not exactly sure any more where we agree and where we do not! )

I ve read somewhere i guess in Arrian that Alexander avoided the company of the musicians...

You could be right although I don't recall this in Arrian right now, but Plutarch has several references to Alexander in the company of musicians. There's the time that he was with Evius the flute-player (when Cassander was also present) and there's also the following.

Plutarch, Moralia 334F – 335A (On the Fortune or Virtue of Alexander II) Various harp-players also were his friends, among them Aristonicus, who came to Alexander's aid in a certain battle, and was slain, fighting gloriously. Therefore Alexander ordered to be made and set up at Delphi a bronze statue of him, with lyre in hand and spear advanced; thereby he not only honoured this particular man, but also paid tribute to Music herself, in the belief that she is a creator of true men and, in particular, that she fills with inspiration and impetuousness those who are truly her foster-children. For once upon a time, when Antigenides was playing on his flute the Chariot Song, Alexander became so transported, and his spirit so inflamed by the strains, that he leapt up and laid hands upon the weapons that lay near, and thus confirmed the testimony of the Spartans who used to sing,

The noble playing of the lyre is meet to match the sword.

Best regards,

[the_accursed]

We have a difference of opinion and/or interpretation which happens all the time when Alexander is debated. (Although I'm not exactly sure any more where we agree and where we do not! )

I disagree that Philip expressed concern that Alexander "might grow up to be a Paris rather than a Hector or (better yet) an Achilles."

You're arguing that because Plutarch used the word "charmingly" - and because Paris - a lyre player - possibly "charmed" Helen, Philip was, in fact, making a reference to the Iliad, and expressing fear that Alexander might grow up to become a a new Paris - a womanising lyre player (which is, after all, what Paris was - unless he was a kidnapper) with little interest in the things that a potential future king needed to know. And I don't think that's what Philip meant. I think what he meant was, that Alexander should have been ashamed for having spent so much time learning to do something so unimportant (for a future king), well.

I just think that you, in this case, made too much out of almost nothing. I think the word "charmingly" may very well have been Plutarch's own. But even if that was not the case, if he was in fact quoting someone, I think you read too much into that one word.

[amyntoros]

We have a difference of opinion and/or interpretation which happens all the time when Alexander is debated. (Although I'm not exactly sure any more where we agree and where we do not! )

I disagree that Philip expressed concern that Alexander "might grow up to be a Paris rather than a Hector or (better yet) an Achilles."

You're arguing that because Plutarch used the word "charmingly" - and because Paris - a lyre player - possibly "charmed" Helen, Philip was, in fact, making a reference to the Iliad, and expressing fear that Alexander might grow up to become a a new Paris - a womanising lyre player (which is, after all, what Paris was - unless he was a kidnapper) with little interest in the things that a potential future king needed to know. And I don't think that's what Philip meant. I think what he meant was, that Alexander should have been ashamed for having spent so much time learning to do something so unimportant (for a future king), well.

I just think that you, in this case, made too much out of almost nothing. I think the word "charmingly" may very well have been Plutarch's own. But even if that was not the case, if he was in fact quoting someone, I think you read too much into that one word.

Well, I certainly don't think Philip's fears were that Alexander would grow up to be a womanizer - other quotes from the sources seem to show quite the opposite. My thoughts were more along the lines of Philip fearing that Alexander might not grow up to be a great warrior if he gave too much attention to excelling in things like music. I drew the comparison with Paris because it's obvious from the sources that the Macedonians knew their Homer. When Alexander demonstrated his skills he charmed an audience at a "merry-meeting" whilst Paris used his skill to charm Helen. Neither was appropriate behavior for a prince, it seems. Charming music is obviously not the same as the martial tone to which Aengus refers. I previously referenced Aengus' post without actually quoting it – my sincere apologies to Aengus. I was agreeing with him when he said the following:

What hasn't been touched on yet is how music was known to be a tremendous motivator in Alexander‘s time. Even the hairy Spartans admitted as much. And martial music was king. Alexander clearly had an enthusiastic ear for this. Call to mind the anecdote that has him springing to his feet during a Doric recital by Timotheus/Antigenides (different sources give different names) and rushing for his arms. Evidently he’d managed to get quite worked up. The martial tone is in keeping with Plutarch’s anecdote of Alexander being offered a look at Paris' lyre at Troy only to turn it down, preferring instead to see that of Achilles. There’s a consistency here: not the music of the lover but the music of the hero.

Very true, IMO. The Spartans even marched into battle to the tune of the flute, did they not?

To finish up and hopefully clarify all this; you said "And I don't think that's what Philip meant. I think what he meant was, that Alexander should have been ashamed for having spent so much time learning to do something so unimportant (for a future king), well." In the introductory paragraph of my first post I said, "Philip did not put down Alexander because he played the lute, but because he played it so well – and so charmingly. Musicians spent their lives advancing their skills. Kings had much better things to do." Are we not in agreement here? Except, it seems, in my emphasis of the word "charmingly". Don't read too much into it.

Best regards,

[the_accursed]

Amyntoros,

I guess the difference in opinion is subtle. I agree that Philip thought that getting good at playing the lyre was a waste of time. I just don't believe that his remark was the expression of any true fear that Alexander might not be interested in becoming a warrior.

I think that there are plenty of indications that Alexander expressed an interest in war, warriors, conquest and “glory” at an early age. There are the questions, of a military nature, that he asked the visiting Persians. There’s Lysimachus flattering Alexander by calling him “Achilles” – the greatest greek warrior, and the hero Alexander seem to have admired (and identified with) the most. There’s Alexander complaining, when Philip had conquered yet another city, that he’d leave nothing great for Alexander to do. And there is Alexander fighting his first battle at the age of 16, winning it and naming a city after himself. Neither of which indicates any lack of interest in becoming a warrior. And I don't think that this interest was something that Philip could have failed to notice.

[amyntoros]

Amyntoros,

I guess the difference in opinion is subtle. I agree that Philip thought that getting good at playing the lyre was a waste of time. I just don't believe that his remark was the expression of any true fear that Alexander might not be interested in becoming a warrior.

I think that there are plenty of indications that Alexander expressed an interest in war, warriors, conquest and “glory” at an early age. There are the questions, of a military nature, that he asked the visiting Persians. There’s Lysimachus flattering Alexander by calling him “Achilles” – the greatest greek warrior, and the hero Alexander seem to have admired (and identified with) the most. There’s Alexander complaining, when Philip had conquered yet another city, that he’d leave nothing great for Alexander to do. And there is Alexander fighting his first battle at the age of 16, winning it and naming a city after himself. Neither of which indicates any lack of interest in becoming a warrior. And I don't think that this interest was something that Philip could have failed to notice.

Yes, I also think that generally we have little more than a subtle difference in opinions. I do suspect however, that more is being read into my words than I actually said. For me to say, as I did, that Philip may have feared that "Alexander might not grow up to be a great warrior if he gave too much attention to excelling in things like music" doesn't quite translate into Philip fearing that Alexander might not be interested in becoming a warrior! Now, if I'd put emphasis on the word "great" we'd probably not be having this discussion.

There's certainly no question that Alexander identified as a warrior from a young age; but more to the point, we really don't know how much Philip was aware of this. Just because we know, in retrospect, of Alexander's feelings doesn’t mean that Philip did. I wouldn't equate today's family dynamics with those of ancient Greece and Macedonia and assume that the father was totally involved in a son's upbringing from birth because it wasn't the case. And it varied even more depending on the circumstances. Look at Alexander, Barsine and Herakles. As far as we can tell from the sources Alexander might not even have seen his son before his own death! In Alexander's case Philip was also away from court to a great extent because of his conquests. The sources seem to indicate that Alexander's musical ability came as quite a surprise to Philip (who prior to this incident may have been away fighting his battles); it follows, IMO, that Philip may not have known everything else about Alexander at that time.

Best regards,

[the_accursed]

Amyntoros,

If Philip didn’t’ know about Alexander’s interest in war, at that time, then neither would he have had any reason to expect that Alexander might grow up to become, as you put it, a “great” warrior, only to then suddenly get disillusioned by the mere fact that Alexander played the lyre well.

What I think Phillip did was his version of good parenting. Alexander appeared at their “merry-meeting”, and he played the lyre and played it well. And people appreciated it, perhaps by applauding and shouting praise, and Philip just didn’t like that they were encouraging him to get even better. Hence: “Are you not ashamed, son, to play so well?”

There is a difference, in my opinion, between thinking that Alexander should not be encouraged in an area so – relatively – unimportant, and expressing genuine concern that he might grow up to become a Paris.

[Paralus]

It is, in the end, an anecdote retailed by Plutarch. Whether or not it transpired or, given it did, in those words is much debatable. It comes in Plutarch's Alexander amid a stream of "illustrative anecdotes" designed, essentially, to show the boy as a prodigy. Some (much?) of it is conceived in hindsight; the conversation with the Persian ambassadors being a classic example designed to show the boy as the Alexander to be - a foretaste of the brilliance to come etc.

Plutarch writes storied lives not exact history. They are illustrative and much is selected and recorded for its inherit interest rather than historicity. Evidently what he did not record he found less than interesting or useful to his purpose.That is not to say that everything he includes may be unhistorical, just that what he chooses to include is not neccessarily chosen based on whether it actually occurred or not.

The Pixodarus affair is a case in point. Chronology is evidently seconded to the illustrative and entertainment interest in the story - which only he tells - as Olympias, who recently left for Epirus, is on hand to advise her son. This sees the banishment of four promising individuals (and possible future commanders), as well as Alexander, at a time when the expedition is readying to leave for Persia. More likely Ptolemy (or Aristobulus) has it correct and the banishment took place where it makes sense: after the wedding fracas. All of which indicates that the Pixodarus affair is likely unhistorical but a good story. Just for the record though, that is my view in any case.