H. offers readers the first monograph on Aristoxenus’ Pythagorean Precepts since two German dissertations written in Latin in the early twentieth century (Joannes Mewaldt [1904] and Hermann Täger [1922]). The Pythagorean Precepts is replete with references to Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Ethics. However, H. defends the position, contrary to the ‘standard view’, that Aristoxenus neither denigrated nor stole from Plato and Aristotle. Drawing on Iamblichus (245 – c. 325 ce) and Stobaeus (fifth century ce) for excerpts of the Pythagorean Precepts, H. shows that the views of the Pythagorean life were perceived in a similar way in the fourth and fifth centuries bce. H.'s objective is to evaluate critically the presuppositions of the standard view of the Pythagorean Precepts, as discussed in Chapter 9, with the intention of providing an alternative view. That there was no explicit mention of the standard view amongst the ancients suggests that we should hold the ancient opinion on Aristoxenus as the starting point against which the standard view should be judged. That the standard view identifies similarities between the Pythagorean Precepts and Platonic and Aristotelian texts, nobody denies. However, it unsuccessfully attempts to comprehend the true nature of those similarities, for the terminology and general level of ideas are also shared with many other fifth- and fourth-century authors. ‘Plato and Aristotle clearly shared a number of the general attitudes expressed in the Pythagorean Precepts, but none of the ideas for which Plato and Aristotle are famous are anticipated there. They make excellent sense as the Pythagoreanism that Plato and Aristotle would have encountered in the fourth century and no sense as documents forged by Aristoxenus to denigrate Plato and Aristotle and exalt the Pythagoreans’ (p. 83).

H. structures the book according to expectations of two different types of readers: specialists in the ancient Pythagoreans and non-specialists who wish to study the Pythagorean Precepts as a guide to a way of life. For the latter, H. suggests reading Chapters 1 and 2 in order to obtain a brief idea of the nature of the evidence of the Pythagorean Precepts, after which to go to the reconstructed texts of the Pythagorean Precepts in Chapter 11, only then to turn back to Chapter 10 in order to get a theoretical explanation of the ethical system of the Pythagorean Precepts. Scholarly readers will appreciate the critical discussion of the standard interpretation of the Pythagorean Precepts in Chapters 8 and 9, and, moreover, will appreciate Chapters 3–6 in order to follow the extensive study of the fragments, which show Aristoxenus to be an original philosopher and one who not only appreciates Plato and Aristotle, but also shows great respect for the Pythagorean way of life. Most of H.'s book is a detailed commentary on the fragments with the goal of providing evidence that the fragments derive from the Pythagorean Precepts, and it shows to what extent the fragments have been altered in transmission in Iamblichus and Stobaeus. The second part of the book comprises H.'s translation of Aristoxenus’ Pythagorean Precepts.

Stobaeus tells us that Aristoxenus composed 453 works, and only two have come to us in manuscripts on music: Rhythmics and Elementa Harmonica. While no list of Aristoxenus’ writings survives from antiquity, and all titles that we know are handed down to us by others, for the Pythagorean Precepts H. introduces seven lemmata that are found in Stobaeus’ work. Moreover, when we study Iamblichus’ On the Pythagorean Way of Life, we see virtually identical passages in Stobaeus. H. concludes that these excerpts are regarded as parts of Aristoxenus’ Pythagorean Precepts, as seen in fragments 8 and 9, and also other passages in Iamblichus that are similar in form and content to the material in Stobaeus (cf. Chapter 4). Thus, one can only draw on Stobaeus’ use of these excerpts, for this is the only explicit evidence from the Pythagorean Precepts.

The title and nature of the Pythagorean Precepts, H. argues, is centred on the usage of the word apophaseis. Although Iamblichus did not refer to Aristoxenus’ work by way of the title Pythagorikai apophaseis, chapter 22 of Iamblichus’ On the Pythagorean Way of Life suggests that an alternative form of education has been transmitted down through the Pythagorean apophaseis. Apart from the lemmata to the fragments of Aristoxenus preserved by Stobaeus, in which the term apophaseis appears so that it seems extremely likely that what Iamblichus says here is ultimately based on Aristoxenus’ Pythagorean Precepts, Iamblichus’ account of the term apophaseis is identical with the use of apophaseis in Pythagorean education. Because it matches perfectly what Stobaeus has preserved from Aristoxenus’ work, one can reasonably accept what Iamblichus says as a limited guide to the nature of Aristoxenus’ work. The term ‘Precept’, then, refers to the moral content of these judgements rather than mere sayings or maxims, which H. discusses further in Chapter 10.

H. analyses the unique style and format that is shaped by the extracts explicitly identified as from the Pythagorean Precepts by Stobaeus. The stylistic aspects of Stobaeus can help us identify passages in Iamblichus’ On the Pythagorean Way of Life that derive from the Pythagorean Precepts even though Iamblichus does not explicitly identify their source. H. further attempts to identify the primary stylistic and formal features of the seven fragments of the Precepts (frr. 1–7) preserved under Aristoxenus’ name in Stobaeus. H.'s approach to Iamblichus’ On the Pythagorean Way of Life confirms the general view that fragments of Aristoxenus’ Pythagorean Precepts are preserved in Iamblichus’ work, which are represented by Stobaeus (see fragments 8, 10 and 11). Thus, it would appear that Iamblichus and Stobaeus are the only two sources in the ancient tradition that preserved fragments from the Pythagorean Precepts. We have seen that there are five cases in which excerpts in Stobaeus, identified as coming from the Pythagorean Precepts, correspond closely to passages in Iamblichus’ On the Pythagorean Way of Life, often agreeing word for word (cf. frr. 1–2 and VP 175; fr. 6 and VP 183; fr. 2 (end) and VP 203; fr. 3 and VP 205; fr. 4 and VP 209–11). While Iamblichus and Stobaeus use excerpts significantly differently from one another, they both recognise the authoritative text of Aristoxenus’ Pythagorean Precepts.

In Chapter 6 H. does some detective and exegetical work in order to identify the five different titles for works on the Pythagoreans by Aristoxenus, which have been preserved in the ancient tradition and are cited by various authors, as testified by Diogenes Laertius, Iamblichus and Stobaeus: The Life of Pythagoras, On Pythagoras and His Associates, On the Pythagorean Way of Life, Pythagorean Precepts and The Life of Archytas (cf. p. 51).

That humanity is perceived as hubristic in the Pythagorean Precepts is a fact, and it discloses the ethical agenda of the text. The Pythagorean Precepts is a continuation of the Pythagorean ethical system, as highlighted in the acusmata, which are usually transmitted by oral tradition, dating to the time of Pythagoras in the sixth century. The view of the acusmata and the retention of this in the Pythagorean Precepts suggest that this opinion was the position of Pythagoras himself (cf. Iamblichus, VP 251: ‘they preserved their original customs and studies’).

Ultimately, H. argues that the standard view of the Pythagorean Precepts is in contrast to the Eudaimonian ethical system of Plato and Aristotle. However, herein lies the problem. In the history of Western ethical thought, the Pythagorean Precepts is not referred to, for it is not an Eudaimonian ethical system (cf. p. 131). The salient features of the Eudaimonian ethics of Plato and Aristotle, and, in fact, of the whole Greek tradition, are noticeably absent in the Pythagorean Precepts, thereby making it impossible to justly accuse Aristoxenus of bastardising or stealing the content of Plato and Aristotle.

This is an excellent book for those who wish to read a new translation and commentary of the Pythagorean Precepts, and it is also a fount of wisdom for those scholarly readers who wish to re-evaluate the modern view of Aristoxenus and the Pythagorean ethical system he echoes in his Pythagorean Precepts. H. has provided a valuable piece of research for all those interested in the Pythagorean tradition, as captured in Aristoxenus’ Pythagorean Precepts.