or THALE'TAS (
The position of Thaletas is one of the most interesting, and at the same time most difficult
points, in that most interesting and difficult subject, the early history of Greek music and
lyric poetry. The most certain fact known of him is, fortunately, that which is also the most
important; namely, that he introduced from Crete into Sparta certain principles or elements of
music and rhythm, which did not exist in Terpander's system, and thereby founded the second of
the musical schools which flourished at Sparta. (Plut. de Mus. 9, p.
1135b. )
He was a native of Crete, and, according to the best writers, of the city of Gortyna.
(Polymnestus, apud Paus. l.c. ; Plut. de Mus. l.c.) Suidas has preserved other traditions, which assigned him to Cnossus or
to Elyrus. (Suid. s.v. for the articles Cret. 1.9; Küster, ad loc. ;
Müller, Hist. Lit. of Greece, vol. i. p. 159.)
In compliance, according to tradition, with an invitation which the Spartans sent to him in
obedience to an oracle, he removed to Sparta, where, by the sacred character of his paeans,
and the humanizing influence of his music, he appeased the wrath of Apollo, who had visited
the city with a l.c. ; Plut. Lycurg. 4
; Ephorus, apud Strab. x. pp. 480, 482; Sext. Empir. ad v. Rhet. ii. p. 292, Fabric. ; de Mus. l.c.) These matters will be examined
more fully presently; but the brief outline just given is necessary for the understanding of
the chronological investigation which follows.
In studying the early history of Greek lyric poetry, nothing would be more desirable, if it
were possible, than to fix the precise dates of the musicians and poets who contributed to its
development ; that so we might trace the steps of its progress, in relation to the time they
occupied, the social state of the people amongst whom they were made, and the order in which
they followed from one another. It must, however, be confessed that, after all the labour
which scholars have bestowed on the subject, there is an uncertainty, generally to the extent
of half a century, and in some cases more, respecting the dates of the earliest poets, while
the more important point of their relative order of succession and their distance from each
other in time is beset with great difficulties. These remarks apply most strongly to Thaletas,
the various dates assigned to whom, by ancient and modern writers, range over a period from
before the time of Homer down to the year
How uncertain, and even fabulous, were the traditions followed by the generality of the
ancient writers respecting the date of Thaletas, is manifest from the statements of Suidas,
that he lived before the time of Homer, of Demetrius Magnes (apud
l.c. ; Arist. Pol. 2.9.5, 2.12.)
These accounts, which Aristotle (l.c.) condemns as anachronisms, can
easily be explained. The influence of music upon character and manners was in the opinion of
the ancients so great, that it was quite natural to speak of Terpander and Thaletas as
fellow-workers with the great legislator of the Spartans in forming the character of the
people; and then such statements were interpreted by later writers in a chronological sense;
for similar traditions are recorded of Terpander as well as of Thaletas. [TERPANDER.] Moreover, in the case of Thaletas, the supposed connection with Lycurgus
would assume a more probable appearance on account of his coming from Crete, from whence also
Lycurgus was supposed to have derived so many of his institutions; and this is, in fact, the
specific form which the tradition assumed (Ephor. apud
Lycurg. 4),
namely, that Lycurgus, arriving at Crete in the course of his travels, there met with
Thaletas, who was one of the men renowned in the island for wisdom and political abilities
(Chron. s. a. 1266,
of Miletus
(probably meaning Thales of Crete, for the philosopher's age is well known) lived in the reign
of Romulus. Perhaps this may only be another form of the tradition which made him contemporary
with Lycurgus.
The strictly historical evidence respecting the date of Thaletas is contained in three
testimonies. First, the statement of Glaucus, one of the highest authorities on the subject,
that he was later than Archilochus. (Plut. de Mus. 10, p. 1134d. e.)
Secondly, the fact recorded by Pausanias (de Mus. 5, p. 1133a.) Thirdly, in his
account of the second school or system (de Mus. 9, p. 1134c.) that the first
system was established by Terpander; but of the second the following had the best claim to be
considered as the leaders (
Now, from these testimonies we obtain the results, that Thaletas was younger than Archilochus and Terpander, but older than Polymnestus and Alcman, that he was the first of the poets of the second Spartan school of music, by whose influence the great Dorian festivals which have been mentioned were either established, or, what is the more probable meaning, were systematically arranged in respect of the choruses which were performed at them.
These conditions would all be satisfied by supposing that Thaletas began to flourish early
in the seventh century B. C., provided that we accept the argument for an earlier date of
Terpander than that usually assigned to him [TERPANDER]. To escape
from the difficulty as Clinton does (F. H. vol. i. s. a.
644), by making Terpander later than first founded by Terpander, and the second by Thaletas, the
whole matter is thrown into hopeless confusion. Such a mistake, made by so eminent a
chronologer, through following implicitly Eusebius and the Parian marble, is an excellent
example of the danger of trusting to the positive statements of the chronographers in
opposition to a connected chain of inference from more detailed testimonies. On the other
hand, Müller, while pointing out Clinton's error, appears to us to place Thaletas much
too low, in consequence of accepting the tradition recorded by Plutarch respecting Olympus,
whom also he places later than Terpander (Hist. Lit. vol. i. pp. 158,
159). The fact is that we have no sufficient data for the time of Olympus; and even if we had,
the tradition recorded by Plutarch is much too doubtful to be set up against the evidence
derived from the relations of Thaletas to Archilochus and Alcman. When Müller says that
Clinton " does not allow sufficient weight to the far more artificial character of the music
and rhythms of Thaletas " (i. e. than those of Terpander), he seems to imply that a long time
must necessarily have intervened between the two. Not only is there no ground for this idea,
but it is opposed to analogy. There is no ground for it; for it is clear from all accounts
that the second system of music was not gradually developed out of the first, by successive
improvements, but was formed by the addition of new elements derived from other quarters, of
which the first and chief were those introduced by Thaletas from Crete. It is also opposed to
analogy, which teaches us that the period of most rapid improvement in any art is that in
which it is first brought under the dominion of definite laws, by some great genius, whose
first efforts are the signal for the appearance of a host of rivals, imitators, and pupils.
Moreover, if there be any truth in the tradition, it would seem probable that Terpander and
Thaletas were led to Sparta by very similar causes at no very distant period; and it seems
most improbable that, after music had attained the degree of developement to which Terpander
brought it at Sparta, the important additional elements, which existed in the Cretan system,
should not have been introduced for a period of forty years, which is the interval placed by
Müller, between Terpander and Thaletas. Müller's mode of computing backwards the
date of Thaletas from that of Sacadas (flourished about
The improvement effected in music by Thaletas appears to have consisted in the introduction
into Sparta of that species of music and poetry which was associated with the religious rites
of his native country; in which the calm and solemn worship of Apollo prevailed side by side
with the more animated songs and dances of the Curetes, which resembled the Phrygian worship
of the Magna Mater (Müller, p. 160). His chief compositions were paeans and hyporchemes, which belonged respectively to these two
kinds of worship. In connection with the paean he introduced the rhythm of the Cretic foot,
with its resolutions in the Paeons; and the Pyrrhic dance, with its several variations of
rhythm, is also ascribed to him. He seems to have used both the lyre and the flute. (See
Müller, pp. 160, 161.)
Plutarch and other writers speak of him as a lyric poct, and Suidas
mentions, as his works, Bibl. Graec. vol. i. pp. 295-297;
Müller, Hist. of the Lit. of Anc. Greece, vol. i. pp. 159-161;
Ulrici, Gesch. d. Hellen. Dichtkunst, vol. ii. pp. 212, foll., a very
valuable account of Thaletas; Bernhardy, Geschichte der Griech. Lit. vol.
i. pp. 267, 270, vol. ii. pp. 420, 421, 427.)