Documents of Ancient Greek Music

The extant melodies and fragments

edited and transcribed with commentary by

EGERT POHLMANN anp MARTIN L. WEST

1. Pap. Vienna G 2315 (No. 3)

CLARENDON PRESS - OXFORD

2. Pap. Leiden 510 (No. 4) . 2001

 UNIVERSITY PRESS PREFACE
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6pp
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide in The ancient Greek system of musical notation was not highly regarded in antiquity.' Aristo-
Oxford New York
xenus condemns it as a banausic skill, too defective to form part of serious musicology.” The
Auckland Bangkok Buenos Aires Cape Town Chennai
Dar es Salaam Delhi Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kolkata Alexandrian scholars seem never to have used it, but to have produced text-only editions of the
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi lyric poets.? Varro does speak of the notation as if it was something generally familiar,’ but
Sao Paulo Shanghai Taipei Tokyo Toronto
Quintilian, for all his high esteem for the role of music in the orator’s education, excludes the
Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and in certain other countries
use of notation from his programme.® It is in accord with this that the treatises to which we owe
Published in the United States
our knowledge of the ancient notation are all of later date.* Clearly the technical side of music-
by Oxford University Press Inc., New York making remained for a long time beneath the dignity of literature.’ Nevertheless, a series of
© Egert Péhimann and Martin L. West 2001 documents of Greek vocal and instrumental music has been preserved in inscriptions and medi-
The moral rights of the authors have been asserted eval manuscripts and above all on papyrus. They extend in date from the fifth century BC to the
Database right Oxford University Press (maker) fourth AD.’
First published 2001 The present collection of all the ancient musical scores so far known is not published with the
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, intention of providing materials for the reconstruction of the sound of ancient music. To say no-
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
thing of the fragmentary condition of most of the pieces, such an endeavour is precluded by the
or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate nature of the ancient notation. Its transcription onto the modern stave is indeed straightforward,
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction once one has settled on an appropriate pitch level. But everything that comes under the heading
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above ᾿ of ‘performance practice’ remains open to question: intonation, tempo, vocal forces, tuning, the
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover form of the accompaniment.
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer The significance of the fragments here assembled is rather that they provide answers to a
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data number of philological and music-historical questions that would otherwise remain insoluble.
Data available Following the chronological sequence of the fragments, we observe how a rhythmical notation
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data develops to supplement the pitch notation. We can see how classical enharmonic scales are later
Data applied for
displaced by chromatic ones, and how these are enriched in the later Hellenistic period by semi-
ISBN 0-19-815223-X
tone accidentals which bring us closer to the modern concept of chromaticism. In the Roman
3579108642
period diatonic scales predominate. On the other hand, the taste for melisms, which already ap-
Printed in Great Britain
on acid-free paper by pear in the fifth century BC (no. 3), grows continually as time goes on; one of the latest pieces
Antony Rowe Ltd., Chippenham, Wiltshire (no. 59), a fragment of a Christian hymn, already hints at the melismatic psalmody of the Middle
Ages. Collectively, the fragments make it possible to establish the pitch level at which the an-
cient notation is to be read.
There are texts here that make an important contribution to our knowledge of the cultic and
dramatic poetry of the Hellenistic and Roman periods, perhaps.even some from the fifth century.
There is a change in the matter of word setting: the older, strophic-texts.pay no regard to the
word accents, whereas in and after the later Hellenistic period there‘is concern to reflect the word

' West 2 (1992), 254~76; Péhimann (1997).

2 Aristox. Harm, 2. 39 f.
3 Pohimann (1994), 23 f., 32.
4 Varro GrRF 282. 109 ff.; in general, Wille (1967), 489-91.
> Quint. Jnst. 1. 12. 14; Marrou (1946).
6 Péhimann (1995), 1657-63.
7 Pdhlmann (1998).
8 West 2 (1992), 277-326.
 accent in the melodic line. Reconciliation of the attested
melodies and rhythms with modern
conceptions remains a goal that musicology has not fully achieved
The greater part of the fragments contained in this book
. CONTENTS
(nos. 3, 8-18, 20-1, 23-40, 42-3, Preface
50-2, 59) comes from E. Péhlmann’s Denkmiiler altgriechischer
Musik (1970). Those sections
were revised by both editors and translated into English by M.
L. West. The new fragments (nos.
1-2, 4-7, 19, 22, 41, 44-9, 53-8, 60-1) were contributed by Introduction
West and partly revised by Pohi-
mann.
Ulrike Wagner-Hoizhausen devised the fonts for the Greek
notation, prepared the camera-
teady copy for the whole book with the assistance of Ines Kinderva
ter, supplied the files for all I. Fragments from the Classical period
illustrations, and contributed many valuable observat
ions on Péhimann’s Denkmiiler.
The provision of photographs of every fragment would have
been a wonderful boon to the Eleusis inv. 907 (trumpet signal) 8
reader, if an expensive one. We decided that we could reasonab

AYN τ
ly omit them in cases where im- Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Comp. 63 f. (Euripides, Orestes 140-2 = 153-5) 10
ages are of relatively easy access in the volumes of The Oxyrhyn
chus Papyri (nos. 38, 44-9, 53— Papyrus Vienna G 2315 (Euripides, Orestes 338-44 = 322-8) 12
9), in the Zeitschrift fir Papyrologie und Epigraphik (nos.
5-6, 17-18, 50-2), or on the Internet Papyrus Leiden inv. P. 510 (Euripides, Iphigeneia in Aulis 784-94(?); 1500-9)
(nos. 42-3, 61), and also in the case of the Delphic Paeans 18
(nos. 20-1), which are excellently
Teproduced in the recent edition by A. Bélis (1992). We have
included images of everything else. Ἡ. Fragments of the late Classical to early Hellenistic periods
For information, support of various kinds, and permissi
ons to publish we thank the Papyrolo-
gisch Instituut of the Rijksuniversiteit at Leiden (Frontispiece),
the Osterreichische Nationalbi- Papyrus Ashm. inv. 89B/31, 33 (Sophocles Junior, Achilleus?)
bliothek in Vienna (Frontispiece, figs. 6-13), the British Museum
(fig. 4), the Egyptian Museum Papyrus Ashm. inv. 89B/29~32 (citharodic nomes?)
in Cairo (fig. 5), the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library
at Yale (fig. 17), Mr. Martin Papyrus Hibeh 231 (examples of notation?)
Schoyen (fig. 18), the British Library in London (pl. 1a), the
National Museum in Copenhagen, Papyrus Zeno 59533 (tragedy)
Antiksamlingen (pl. 2), the Biblioteca Nazionale di San Marco
in Venice (pls. 3-4, 8-9), the Papyrus Vienna G 29825 a/b recto (tragedy)
Bibliothéque Nationale in Paris (pl. 5), the Biblioteca Nazional
e in Naples (pis. 6-7), and the Papyrus Vienna G 29825 a/b verso (satyr play?)
Universitetsbiblioteket i Oslo, Papyrus collection (pl. 10).
Scholars who wish to cite texts from Documents of Ancient Greek . Papyrus Vienna G 29825 ς
Music are recommended to . Papyrus Vienna G 29825 df
use the abbreviation DAGM.
. Papyrus Vienna G 13763/1494
. Papyrus Berlin 6870 lines 16-19; 23 (tragedy)
Epidaurus, SEG 30. 390 (Hymn to Asclepius)

Erlangen E. Pébimann ΠῚ. Late Hellenistic inscriptions from sanctuaries

Oxford
M. L. West
August 2000
20. Delphi inv. 517, 526, 494, 499 (Paean of Athenaios)
21. Delphi inv. 489, 1461, 1591, 209, 212, 226, 225, 224, 215, 214 (Paean of
Limenios)
22. Mylasa inv. 3 (Hymn to Sinuri?)

IV. Fragments from the Roman period

Copenhagen inv. 14897 (grave stele of Seikilos)

. Manuscripts of the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries (Mesomedes)
. Venetus Marcianus app. cl. VI 10 (instrumental pieces) 116
. Papyrus Oxy. 2436 (satyr play?)
Papyrus Oslo 1413 a lines 1-15; b~f (tragedy) 124
. Papyrus Oslo 1413 a lines 15-19; g—m (tragedy) 131
. Papyrus Yale (CtYBR) inv. 4510
 42. Papyrus Michigan 2958 lines 1-18 (tragedy) 138
43. Papyrus Michigan 2958 lines 19-26 (tragedy) 146 INTRODUCTION
44. Papyrus Oxy. 3704 148
45-49. Papyrus Oxy. 4461-5 152
50. Papyrus Berlin 6870 + 14097 lines 1~12 (paean) 166 The most important source for ancient literature, manuscript transmission, is unavailable for an-
51. Papyrus Berlin 6870 lines 13-15 (instrumental piece) 170 cient music except in the case of a few chance items, which owe their survival solely to the cir-
52. Papyrus Berlin 6870 lines 20—2 (instrumental piece) 172 cumstance that they found their way into a corpus of musical theory. Thus the Mesomedes
53. Papyrus Oxy. 3161 recto (tragedy) 174 hymns, which were published as early as 1581 by V. Galilei, are transmitted as an appendix to
54. Papyrus Oxy. 3161 verso (tragedy) 180 the treatise of one Dionysius (nos. 24-31). Excerpts on music theory are the source of the
55. Papyrus Oxy. 3162 182 ‘Hormasia’, first published in 1588 by Gioseffo Zarlino, which wrongly came to be included
56. Papyrus Oxy. 3705 (Menander, Perikeiromene 796) 184 among the musical fragments.’ The six instrumental pieces at the end of the anonymous musical
57-58. Papyrus Oxy. 4466-7 186 theorists edited by F. Bellermann in 1841 are teaching examples (nos. 32-7). That was the sum
59. Papyrus Oxy. 1786 (Christian hymn) 190 total of the genuine material available for study until late in the nineteenth century. ;
60. Papyrus MS. Scheyen 2260 195 Not surprisingly, this situation gave rise to imaginative reconstructions of ancient music at
61. Papyrus Michigan inv. 1250 (instrumental piece) 196 quite an early date. We can only mention in passing the numerous manuscripts of Virgil and
Horace embellished with medieval neumes.’ In a tenth-century manuscript of Terence a verse of
the Hecyra has note symbols added that have been claimed as Greek notation.’ A parallel case
occurs in a fifteenth-century Aristophanes manuscript, where a scholiast’s hand has added note
symbols to three lines of the Clouds.’ In 1650 the learned Jesuit Athanasius Kircher furnished his
Abbreviations 198 Musurgia Universalis with two ‘specimina musicae antiquae’.* And in 1724 Benedetto Marcello
printed the thirteenth Homeric Hymn with Greek notation.° ;
Bibliography 200 Firm ground was finally reached in 1883 with Sir William Ramsay’s discovery of ‘the song
of Seikilos’, inscribed on a grave stele from Aydin (no. 23). Then in 1890 C. Wessely was able
List of Illustrations 208 to publish a papyrus fragment with the musical setting of part of Euripides’ Orestes (no: 3). This
was quickly followed by two paeans inscribed on the Athenian treasury at Delphi, published by
Indexes H. Weil and Th. Reinach in 1893-4 (nos. 20-1). The corpus was now of a respectable size, and
1. General Index 209 C. von Jan collected the remains of Greek vocal music known by 1899 in a small Teubner vol-
2. Passages from Authors 212 ume.’
In the twentieth century it was papyri that brought the greatest increase. In 1918 W. Schubart
. Plates 213 published a Berlin papyrus that contained three vocal and two instrumental fragments (nos. 17,
18, 50-2). Four years later came an Oxyrhynchus papyms with a piece of a Christian hymn (no.
59), published by A. 5. Hunt and H. Stuart Jones. New collections were made by Reinach and J.
F. Mountford.®
In 1931 Mountford published a fragment from Cairo with three incomplete lines from a tra-
gedy (no. 8). There was then a lull until 1955, when S. Eitrem, L. Amundsen, and R. P. Win-
nington-Ingram brought out a papyrus from Oslo with remains of two tragic scenes (nos. 39-40).

' Péhlmann (1970), no. 6.

2 Cf. Wille (1967), 227 f., 253-60.
3 Péhimann (1970), no. 13%.
4 PdéhImann (1970), no. 14*.
5 Pohlmann (1970), no. 15*-16*.
6 Poéhimann (1970), no. 17*.
Jan (1895); (1899).
8 Reinach (1926); Mountford (1929).
 That was the state of the game reflected in C. Del Grande’s fragment collection,’ scription in modem notation, and commentary. The Greek texts from inscriptions and papyri are
though he gave
only parts of the Berlin and Oslo fragments and did not include the Mesomedes printed in minuscule and generally in scriptio continua; those from medieval manuscripts are
hymns.
He was not able to take account of an Oxyrhynchus monody fragment given with word division and accentuation. The notation is presented uniformly in majuscule.
which E. G. Turner and
Winnington-Ingram published in 1959 (no. 38). In 1965 came a Michigan The notes are placed above the relevant syllables, and the thythmical symbols above the relevant
papyrus, published by
O. M. Pearl, again with the help of Winnington-Ingram (nos. 42-3). In a series notes. In eight cases (nos. 8, 17-18, 42--3, 46, 50, 55) it was judged desirable to reproduce the
of publications in
1962, 1966, and 1970 eight smaller Vienna fragments, which had already been note placing and the word and syllable spacings of the originals printing the text in majuscule.
mentioned by
Wessely, and which are similar in date and character to the Orestes fragment As inscriptions and papyri give musical texts without colometry, we reproduce the layout of the
(nos. 9-16), were
finally published by E. Péhimann. All the material known up to 1970, apart originals.’ For further palaeographic details we must refer to the available photographs. Where
from nos. 7 and 22,
but with the spurious specimina musicae antiquae, were brought together by metre and line-length can be established, exempli gratia supplements have in some cases been
Péhlmann in a cor-
pus in which the items were arranged in groups according to the type of printed, but only in the transcriptions. " ;
source (medieval manu-
scripts, printed books, inscriptions, papyri) and, within the groups, according to As a rule, the text accompanying the musical transcriptions has been divided into syllables
the date of first
publication? without regard to the norm of Greek syllabification in order to distinguish metrically open and
Since then the number of authentic music fragments has grown from closed syllables. In the musical transcriptions the Greek note ς (vocal and instrumental) has
35 to 61. In 1945 L.
Robert published an inscription fragment from the sanctuary of the Carian been equated with our @ according to the usual convention established by Bellermann, although
deity Sinuri at Mylasa
(no. 22). In 1955 Turner published some scraps of a Hibeh papyrus, from a treatise
on music it is agreed that this sets the whole system too high by about a minor third. To indicate quarter-
which contained some examples in notation (no. 7). In 1973 D. Jourdan-H
emmerdinger pre- tone intervals the symbols + and T have been used; other nuances of intonation can only be de-
sented a provisional reading of a Leiden papyrus containing lyric excerpts
from Euripides’ Iphi- scribed in the commentary. The rhythmical values in the transcriptions follow the metrical val-
geneia at Aulis, one of them with notation surviving (no. 4). Three years ues of the syllables unless the rhythmical notation calls for something different. Short syHables
later M. W. Haslam
brought out two Oxyrhynchus papyri with tragic fragments (nos. 53—5). In 1980 are represented as quavers, long ones as crotchets, no. distinction being made between longum
M. T. Mitsos
published a fragment of a hexameter hymn to Asclepius from an Epidaurian and long anceps. Notes whose rhythmical value is unknown have been transcribed tailless, and
inscription, the first
line furnished with notation (no. 19). In 1984 A. Bélis drew attention to an conversely where the rhythm but not the melodic line is known, headless notes have been used.
epinetron of the Sap-
pho Painter in Eleusis, showing an Amazon blowing a trumpet and a series Bar lines have been used to mark off metrical units where appropriate. Melodic lines have been
of syllables repre-
senting her fanfare (no. 1). In 1986 Haslam published two more Oxyrhynch supplemented only in isolated cases. The transcriptions are to be understood purely as guides and
us fragments with
notation (nos. 44 and 56); the latter piece has turned out to be a line from should be used in conjunction with the transliterated originals. Where keys are named, the
Menander with four
different musical settings. In the following year M. L. West drew attention to Alypian system of transposition-scales is presupposed. Further questions are discussed in the
a passage of Di-
onysius of Halicarnassus and to a scholium which provide some scraps of information commentaries to the individual fragments. For other matters, and for introductions to ancient
about the
music of the parodos of Euripides’ Orestes (no. 2). In 1998 he published seven metrics, rhythmics, and music, we may refer the reader to our own relevant publications.”
Oxyrhynchus
papyri with musical notation (nos. 45-9, 57-8), and in 1999 a group of fragments The bibliography is limited to literature that we have had occasion to cite, as surveys of pro-
of earlier date,
some of them apparently belonging to a tragedy by Sophocles (Junior?) (nos. gress in the field appear regularly. Citation is by name, year, and page; if there is more than one
5~6). In 2000 W.
A. Johnson published papyri from Yale (no. 41) and Michigan (no. 61). We are title to an author’s name in a particular year, they are distinguished by numbers.
also able to in-
clude a papyrus from the private collection of Martin Schayen, which is to be published
by Ro-
sario Pintaudi together with the other papyri in the collection (no. 60).
Péhimann’s Denkmdiler altgriechischer Musik being out of print, the editors decided Critical symbols
to un-
dertake a revision of the corpus with a somewhat changed plan. The ‘Hormasia’ and
the spurious
Specimina musicae antiquae are no longer included? Three appendices giving an account @ uncertain letter illegible letter
of the
relationship between word accent and melody and explaining the Greek systems A uncertain note symbol ? illegible note symbol
of rhythmical
and melodic notation respectively could be dropped here, as West has treated those topics [] lacuna {] scribal deletion
ex-
haustively.* The fragments have been rearranged in order of presumed antiquity, following <> editorial insertion {} editorial deletion ;
the
model of West’s catalogue.* The text of each fragment is followed by critical apparatus, () resolved abbreviation " addition above the line
tran-
ι.1 restored from parallel source ΓῚ editorial correction
' Del Grande (1960), 435-76.
? Péhimann (1970).
3 Neither are the inscriptions without poetic text which D. Themelis (1989; ' See below, p. 15 f.
1994; 1999) and Ch. Spyridis
(1990; 1999) have mistakenly claimed to contain musical notation: cf. West 3
(1992) and Spyridis (1993). 2 Cf West 2 (1992), 273-6.
« West 2 (1992), 197-200, 254-73. 3 Cf. West (1982); 2 (1992); Péhlmann (1995).
* West 2 (1992), 277-326.
 8 I. Fragments from the Classical Period ELEUSIS INV. 907 9

No. 1 ELEUSIS INV. 907 Fifth century BC

TOTN TOTOTE

This ‘text’ comes from a broken clay epinetron (a knee-guard for sewing) in the Eleusis Mu-
seum, first published by D. Philios in 1885." It dates from the early fifth century, and was deco-
rated in black figure. The painting, attributed to the Sappho Painter, showed several Amazons,
one of whom was blowing a trumpet. Between her body and the trumpet are painted the letters
totn (reading right to left), and behind her the letters totote (reading right to left, though the ε
faces towards the τ). Philios already interpreted these syllables as representing the sound of the
trumpet-call.
A. Bélis” has attempted to interpret the syllables on the basis of the solmization
system at-
tested at a much later period, in which the degrees of the tetrachord were represented by the syl-
lables τὰ ty to ta and the disjunctive tone by τε. On this basis, and reading the lower line
(totote) before the upper (totn) (which seems unnatural), she arrived at the transcription.
Noe
$—
ἢ
= SE ἘΞ
ONIN
I =
It is much more likely that we have to do simply with an unsophisticated attempt to express
the characteristic sound of the instrument in nonsense syllables, as in Ennius’ verse at tuba ter-
ribili sonitu ‘taratantara’ dixit (Ann. 451 Skutsch). The dental plosive consonants perfectly imi-
FIG. 1: Eleusis inv. 907
tate the tonguing technique used by wind players to give a clean start to their notes.’
For the naive attempt to represent music or song in late Archaic/early Classical painting we
may compare three red-figure vases. On a cup made by Brygos, found at Vulci but now in Mu-
nich, a boy is represented playing the auloi next to a man who reclines on a Kline and sings; the
opening words of his song, ουὐδυναμοῦ, are shown in a line coming from his mouth.’ M. Wegner
has collected similar examples.’ On another vase in Munich, a kalathos from Agrigento,’ the
Brygos Painter has depicted Alcaeus and Sappho, and from Alcaeus’ mouth, as K.
Schefold has
noted,*® proceed five small circles to suggest his singing. The motif recurs in a school scene on an
early Classical hydria from Camirus, now in London:? a teacher with a barbitos sits in the
mid-
die, faced by a pupil who plays the auloi, and, as Henry Beauchamp Walters observes, ‘four
notes represented by circles or O’s issue obliquely from his [the teacher’s] mouth’.!”

' Philios (1885), 175-7. See fig. 1.

? Bélis (1984).
3 Arist. Quint. 77. 30-81. 6; Anon. Bellerm. 9-10, 77, 86, 91, see West 2 (1992), 265.
* See West 2 (1992), 120 with n. 185.
5 Munich 2646, ARV” 437, 1633. Elegiac incipits with οὐ δύναμαι are found at Theogn. FIG. 4: London E 171
695, 939; Simon. FIG. 3: Munich inv. 2416
eleg. 21. 3. See fig. 2.
6 Wegner (1949), 202 f,, cf. 221.
7 Munich 2416; ARV” 556. See fig. 3.
8. Schefold (1997), 84.
ἢ London E 171; ARV? 579. See fig. 4.
© CVA Brit. Mus. 5. 3. le (p. 13), pl. 75. 3, 76. 2; Wegner (1949), pl. 13.
 10 I. Fragments from the Classical Period
No. 2 EURIPIDES, Orestes 140-2 = 153--5 1

No. 2 EURIPIDES, Orestes 140-2 = 153-5 Fifth century BC For in these lines, οἶγα οἶγα λευκόν is all sung on one note, although all three words contain both graves
and acutes. And apBbAnc has the third syllable on the same note as the second, despite the impossibility
of one word having two acutes. And in τίθετε the first syllable is made lower in pitch, while the two after
it are high, both equally so. Again, in κτυπεῖτ' the circumflex (high falling) tone has been obliterated, as
the two syllables are both enunciated at the same pitch. And ἀποπρόβατε does not receive the acute
XO. ciya οἶγα, λεπτὸν ἴχνος ἀρβύλαο
accent of its middle syllable; the accent of the third syllable has migrated to the fourth.
τίθετε, μὴ κτυπεῖτ᾽.
HA. ἄποπρο βάτ᾽ ἐκεῖς, ἄποπρό μοι κοίταο. As Dionysius passes over ixvoc, he presumably found no disagreement between its accent
and the melody; its first syllable was therefore on a higher note than the second. In ἀρβύλας the
first syllable must have been lower than the other two, as in τίθετε. What is said about τίθετε
carries the surprising implication that in the antistrophe, 154, the interrogative τίνα was sung
ΧΟ. πῶς ἔχει; λόγου μετάδοο, ᾧ φίλα. with the second syllable on a higher note than the first. In 142 Euripides may have intended
τίνα τύχαν εἴπω; {τίνα δὲ ουμφοράν;} ἄποπρο βᾶτ᾽ rather than ἀποπρόβατ᾽, in which case there was no clash between accent and
HA. ἔτι μὲν ἐμπνέει, βραχὺ δ᾽ ἀναοτένει. melody either in the strophe or the antistrophe at this point. ;
The point which Dionysius is making about the independence of melody from accent might
have been illustrated from any strophic song. He has taken his example from the first lyrics in
These are the opening lines of the first strophe and antistrop the most popular of classical tragedies, one which we know was frequently performed.’ He is
he of the parodos, a lyric dialogue
between the chorus of young women and Electra, sung of course by a male actor and male referring to music which he had heard in the theatre and might expect his readers to have heard;
choreuts. They are moving and singing softly so as not to wake the sleeping Orestes; at 145 he is not quoting from ἃ manuscript with musical notation, and does not attempt to use notation
Electra beseeches her friends to make their voice like the breath of a panpipe’s slight reed in describing the ups and downs of the music.
(cdpryyoc ὅπως xvod λεπτοῦ δόνακος, ὦ φίλα, φώνει μοι). There is an interesting scholion He apparently assumes that it was Euripides’ original music. As there had been a strong tradi-
on line 176 (in the second strophe): tion of performance, it may have been so, except that the original enharmonic intervals may have
τοῦτο τὸ μέλος ἐπὶ ταῖο λεγομέναις νήταις ἄιδεται καί ἐςτιν
come to be sung more chromatically.
ὀξύτατον, ἀπίθανον οὖν τὴν ᾿Ἢλέκ-
τραν ὀξείαι φωνῆι κεχρῆσθαι, καὶ ταῦτα ἐπιπλήςοουοσαν
τῷι χορῶν. ἀλλὰ κέχρηται μὲν τῶι ὀξεῖ
ἀναγκαίως, οἰκεῖον γὰρ τῶν θρηνούντων. λεπτότατον (-tepov
cod.) δὲ ὡς ἔνι μάλιοτα. ' See West (1987), 28.
This song is sung on the so-called nétai (the top notes), and is
very high. It is implausible for Electra to
use a high voice, especially when she is upbraiding the chorus
{182 ff.]; but she has to use the high
register because it is typical of people lamenting. And (the song)
is as light as it can possibly be.
More detailed remarks on the melody of lines 140-2 (which must
be applicable also to the
corresponding words of the antistrophe, 153-5) are found in Dionysius
of Halicarnassus, De
compositione verborum 63-4 (ii. 41-2 Usener-Radermacher). He
quotes the lines to illustrate
the principle that music (ἡ ὀργανική te καὶ ὠιδικὴ μοῦσα)
subordinates words to melody and
not vice versa. He explains:
ἐν γὰρ δὴ τούτοιο τὸ “clya ciya λευκὸν" ἐφ᾽ ἑνὸς φθόγγου
μελωιδεῖται, καίτοι τῶν τριῶν λέξεων
ἑκάοστη Papetac τε té&ceLc ἔχει καὶ ὀξείαο. καὶ τὸ “ἀρβύληο
" τῆι μέοηι ουλλαβῆι τὴν τρίτην
ὁμότονον ἔχει, ἀμηχάνου ὄντοο ἕν ὄνομα δύο λαβεῖν ὀξείας. καὶ
τοῦ “τίθετε᾽ βαρυτέρα μὲν ἡ
πρώτη γίνεται, δύο δὲ μετ᾽ αὐτὴν ὀξύτονοϊ τε καὶ ὁμόφωνοι. τοῦ
τε “κτυπεῖτ(ε)" ὁ περιοπαομὸς
ἠφάνιοται: μιᾶι γὰρ αἱ δύο ουλλαβαὶ λέγονται τάσει. καὶ
τὸ “ἀποπρόβατε᾽" οὐ λαμβάνει τὴν τῆς
μέσης ουλλαβῆςο προοωιδίαν ὀξεῖαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τὴν τετάρτην
ουλλαβὴν μεταβέβηκεν ἡ τάσις ἡ τῆς
tpitne.

' Dionysius appears to have read ctya οἶγα rather than

ctya ciya, and λευκὸν for λεπτὸν. Both variants are
found in the Euripidean manuscript tradition.
 12 I. Fragments from the Classical Period No. 3 EURIPIDES, Orestes 338-44 = 322-8

No. 3 PAP. VIENNA G 2315 Third—second century BC

= :t oe Τὰν τ:Ἤν =| j

322... τὰ - νὰ - OV αἱ -θέρ᾽ ἀμ- πάλ -λεοθ, at - μα - toc

339 κα - τὸ - AO-Md-pO- μαι, κα-το-λοὸ - φῦ - PO - μαι

_——S 3 Ξ =
τῷ a ra =.
EURIPIDES, Orestes 338-44
2323 τι- νῦ - με -ναι δῖ - Kav, τι- νύ τ-με- var φό - νον,
338 μα - τέ - ρος αἵ - pa οᾶς, ὅ ο᾽ ἀ -νὰ -βακ - χεῦ - ev
—— e=—te : ==
p Ts |
8324 κατ θι- κετ-τεύτο- μαι κα τθι- κεὲ- τεύ- ο- μαι,
L[xatoropvpopar | : 339 340 ὁ μέτ-γας ὅλ -βος οὐ μότνιτ- μοο ἐμ -βρο - totc
cf # = 5
ρος. ῥϑ͵Ζςπι |
1 [κατολοϊΪφύρομαι Lpatepoclaripacac | 339.--338 8325 τὸν "A - γὰ - μέμ - vo - vooc
341 ἀ- νὰ δὲ λαῖ - oc ὡώς
cf : — 3
]Z _ IZ E AL —————— -Ξ 7 4
2 ἰοοσαναβίᾳκχευει L opeyalcorpocon| 338-340 3326 γό- νὸν ἐ- ἃἅ- cat’ ἐκ - λα -θέο -θαι Ade -οαας
342 τις ἀ-κάτ-του Go - dc τι- va -ἕας δαΐ - μῶν
} TTP ς izt ΕΖ
ἢ
5—S—
Ἔχ} Ξ : —— i
-«».
—— Ξ
3 L[pov
| cepBpotorc
ipo Lavalderargoc| 340-341
327 μα- νι- ά- δος OL - τὰ - λέ - OVOD. φεῦευ͵ μόχ -θωῶν,
343 κα - τέ - KAD-CEV EL - νῶν πό - VOWV ὥως πόν -τουοῦ
1¢P ἢ στρ ἐφ c+ cf —
4 Ιωώῶω τ = —ἘΞΞΞ Ια 7ΞΈ α — iE 1
τι [ςᾳκᾳτουθο αἰοἰτινα[ξαοδαι] 342
328 οἵ- ov, ὦ τά -λαο ὁ- ρεχ- θεὶς ἔρτρειο...
Ιῶπρ ἢ a 34 λάτ-βροισε ὀὁ-λε - θρί- ov - civ ἕν KD - μα-οιν.
5 Lh oo v | κατεκλυοεν") ΠΝ δίεινων! 343
δ Π 1 ΕΣ -

} Zi Ζ [ [ Ξ ΞΕΞΞΞ ΒΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΙΞΞΞ ΞΕ ΕΑ ΞΞΞΞΞΞΕΞΞΕ" ΞΞΞΞΞΞΞ ἤΞΞαΞΞΞΞΞΞΈΞΞΞΞΞΕΞΞΞΞΕΞΞΞΞΞ

Ty

6 ἱπονώω Ϊν7 19 ὦ ὦ ὁο ποντ ουουλα! 343 μα - τὲ - poc αἷ - μα cé&c,

f = Ἐ- τ - ia 5 } a — |
ΙΡ ὁ PZT φι τῷ —— -- ΞΘΞΞΞ--Έ : ἱ ie i γε -- ἘΞ π᾿
--
7 Ἰβροιοολεθριοι ἰοιἰενκίυμασιν! 344 ὁ ὅ ο᾽ά-να -βακ- xed - εἰ. ὁ μέ - yac ὄλ - Boc οὐ
f τ ἦ | =" na
ite ᾿Ξ ἘΞ ἘΞ ἘΞ Ξ Ξ ΞυΞ ΞΞ Ξ [-ΞΞΞΞΞΈΞΞΞΞΘΞΞΞΈΞΞΘ
HO -νι - μος ἐμ- Bpo - τοῖς ἀ- νὰ δὲ λαῖ- goc atic
Notation 1 TT Crusius ( 1893), 175, TT Wessely 1 (1892), 67, TT Turner (1987), 70 TI Wessely 1 (1892), 67, ra’ 4, 4. 4, 4 2. ᾿
Péhimann (above ΠῚ a hole), Ti Tumer (1987), 70 2 A West 1 (1992), 1; 2 (1992), 284, Péhlmann es ᾿Ξ ΞΞΞΩΞΞ Κρ- - - - Ἐφ} -- 3833 = -— —————|
C 2 Solomon (1976), 172 4 C- Hunger (1962), 77, C Z Wessely 1 (1892), 67
3 C Péhimann,
5 Φ or ὦ Cnusius (1893), 176, es tC ἀ-κά- τοῦ θο-ὀ ac
;
τι- νά- ξας δαί-
SSpowv
see φ line 1, 4 and in the text of no. 9. 5, cf. ὦ in the text of line 6 7. Pdhlmann (1970), 78, P Crusius (1893), 177
6 Z Hunger (1962), 77, Z © Cmsius (1893), 180 7 P Péhimann (1970), 78, P Wessely 1 (1892), 67 f., Hunger
—— ΞΞΞΞΈΞΞΞΙΞΞ ὡ»--- Ξ β ΞΞΞΞΞΈΞΞΞΕΞΞΕ = ——
ἢ Ν | ΤΗ͂Σ o- ἊΣ ]
(1962), 77, Turner (1987), 70 L Wessely 1 (1892), 68 P Z Hunger (1962), 77, Péhimann, P “L Crusius
(1893), 177 ΠῚ Solomon (1977), 75, Pohimann, ~ Tumer (1987), 70 © Péhimann, Turner (1987), 70, ® Cru- r ' 2 — ¢ ,
sius (1893), 178. ‘ κα - τέ - κλυ - οἐν δει - νῶν TO τ νωῶν @ac HOV ~ TOVOD

xe = = I ——
Text The order of verses in the papyrus (339-338-340) is at variance with the manuscripts (338-339-340) EGS _—} ἐΞΞΞ----ρ᾿Ξ-- -
-— —— Ξ ΞΘ ΞΞῚ ἢ ——ἘΞΞΞ 39F 4
2peyalc Péhlmann 4{owctr, West [c|Péhimann δίμωων,, 6 |xovaw|y, movtlovov| West 1 (1992), 1]
7{ctJPéhlmann ενκ West 1 (1992), 1, τιναίγαρ (= line 345) Solomon (1977), 79-81, ςιν Crusius (1893), 180. . λάτ-βροις ὁ - AE - Opt - oc- cw év Kb - μα - cw
 14 I. Fragments from the Classical Period
No. 3 EURIPIDES, Orestes 338-44 = 322-8 15

The papyrus collection of the Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek possesses a number of small The papyrus, whose left, right, and lower margins have perished, has seven lines of writing,
musical fragments. The most famous, G 2315, containing seven lines from Euripides’ Orestes, containing parts of verses 339, 338, 340-4 from the antistrophe of the first stasimon of the Or-
has been known since 1890.' Both it and the subsequently published fragments come from estes. In the middle of the first four lines and of the seventh, the instrumental note Z © g’) with
mummy cartonnage.” All are of Ptolemaic date. Fragments G 29825a~f (nos. 9-14) have vocal stigme stands between two dochmiacs; it takes the old form “L, also seen in no. 11, and clearly
notation, while G 13763 (no. 15) and G 1494 (no. 16) have vocal notation alternatin
g with in- distinct from the vocal Z = e’. The two dochmiacs of verse 343 in the fifth and sixth lines are
strumental.
each bisected by the sign-group 719 i.e. a diastole’ and the instrumental! notes f or J# and ly or
Restoration was carried out on all the Vienna fragments between
1961 and 1965 in prepara- ὃ. These instrumental irruptions frame the words δεινῶν πόνων, which a scholion interprets as a
tion for publication. E. Péhlmann collated the originals in 1970
and has checked them again in parenthetical exclamation.’ Repeated notes are not written, while vowels in melisms are written
the light of more recent critical contributions, New readings in
no. 3 which J. Solomon claimed double;? these features recall the practice of the Delphic Paeans.
to have obtained from a photograph? could not be confirmed;
black and white photographs tend Besides vocal and instrumental symbols the papyrus also makes use of arsis-points and
to be deceptive in the case of texts from cartonnage, as the many
brownish spots of glue are hard diseme signs. The rhythmical notation in lines 14 and 7 follows the pattern Z Guu~u-, and in
to distinguish from remains of ink. For the Euripides fragment
a colour reproduction has been lines 5—6 analogously OuU- JD δεινῶν | πόνων 719 υὐ--; in line 6 the place of the long
provided (see Frontispiece) so that the text may conveniently be
checked.‘ In many places pieces note with one arsis-point is taken by the melism ὥως (e-d’) with two. If a resolved arsis is
of an upper layer remain stuck to the surface, with or without
traces of ink. In no. 3 they can be marked with two stigmai, the instrumental Zs may be taken as somehow belonging together with
identified under the microscope by the orientation of their fibres,
which is some 30° from the the following pointed notes. M. L. West argues that they were actually sounded simultaneously.*
vertical. :
The vocal notes represented, ® C P1117 E and perhaps A (g, a, al or by, bg or δ, da’, ε΄, et or
On the dating of this piece C. Wessely wrote:
J’, f or f#’), are to be found in the enharmonic or chromatic Lydian scale, except for the g,
All diese Fragmente* habe ich successive aus einer Schicht
von Papyrusstiicken gehoben, welche dem I. which would be diatonic Lydian. O. J. Gombosi assumed a scale consisting of one diatonic and
Jh. n. Chr., spatestens der hadrianischen Zeit angehéren ... die
prachtige Schrift des Orestesfragmentes two enharmonic tetrachords.’ Similar mixed scales appear in the Delphic Paeans (nos. 20-21).
erlaubt gewi8, es in die Zeit des Augustus zu setzen, also in jene,
wo Dionysios von HalikarnaB die Par- Crusius had earlier® compared the ‘Platonic’ harmoniai given by Aristides Quintilianus (1. 9 p.
titur zu Orest 140 vor Augen hatte.® 18. 5-19. 10 W.-L., cf. 2. 14 p. 80. 28-30), whose ‘Dorian’ and ‘Phrygian’ scales contain exactly
the same series of note-symbols from Φ to A, continued at the upper end by © (a) and (07
It was left to E. G. Tumer to correct this erroneous statement,
which was evidently influenced respectively. The instrumental notes 1 D Z do not occur together in any of Aristides’ scales, but
by Dionysius’ testimony. The fragment is to be dated around
200 BC.’ This significantly in- would fit a Lydian scale that was enharmonic or chromatic from d to d’ and then turned diatonic.
creases the likelihood that the musical setting goes back to Euripides
himself? The redating also All musical fragments preserved on stone or papyrus are written without colometry, like
raises the potential credit of the Papyrus as a witness to the
text, though its inversion of verses prose,’ even when they are settings of stichic verses such as iambic trimeters (e.g. no. 40). No. 3
338 and 339, approved by O. Crusius and more recently by
G. A. Longman, is generally and appeared to be an exception to the rule;* but Turner denied this with good reason? West has
rightly rejected. made a non-colometric reconstruction of the lineation,’® which is adopted here with one modifi-
cation. In lines 4, 5, and 6 it postulates further melismatic doublings of long syllables, as in 6
wc. This permits a satisfactory alignment of the transmitted text of verse 344 with the note
' Wessely (1891), 16-26;
1 (1892); 2 (1892); Crusius (1893), 174-200; Williams (1894);
(1894), 91-4, 130-2; Jan (1895), 427-31; (1899), 4~7; Reinach (1926),
Torr (1894); Monro symbols of line 7, where nothing remains of the poetic text but the tops of three or four letters.
175 £; Mountford (1929), 148 f, 168 £; Crusius already recognized that the instrumental Z with arsis-point and the C with arsis-point in
Préaux (1930); During (1934), 251 Ε; Winnington-Ingram (1936), 31 f.; Koster (1936), 223-35;
Schlesinger
(1939), 363 ff.; Tiby (1942), 171 δ; Dale (1968), 2 f., 204 ff.; Martin
(1953), 14-24; Wagner (1955), 213 £5 Vogel
line 7 mark the beginning of a dochmiac. He read ὀλεθρίοι]ς IN (=344), but this left two certain
(1963), 109-13, 128: West 1 (1992), 1; 2 (1992), 277 f., 284 £
? For the Euripides fragment and nos. 9-11 and 13~14 Wessely
2 (1892), 269, gives the provenance as Her- ' So Wagner 1 (1955), 214; see also pp. 46 n. 7, 50, 53.
mupolis Magna. No. 12 was still not known to him in 1922 ᾿
(see p. 46, nos. 1-2), while nos. 15-16 were not restored ? Sch. Or. 340, τὸ δὲ δεινῶν πόνων᾽ ἐν pécor ἀναπεφώνηται. Occasional comments on the music of the
until 1964-5. Whether these last three fragments were acquired from the
same source as the rest cannot be estab- play in other scholia, on lines 176 (quoted above under no. 2) and 1384, together with the testimony of Dionysius of
lished.
> Solomon (1976); cf. the criticism by Feaver (1978); for a reply of Solomon : Halicamassus (= no. 2), suggest that it survived for a considerable time beside the notationless Alexandrian editions
see Feaver (1978), n. 40. of Euripides. Cf. Péhimann (1976); 1 (1994), 23-5.
* Plausible conjectures based on clear traces are West’s A in line 2
and Solomon’s fT in line 7. 3 See p. 72.
> That is, nos. 3, 9-11, and 13-14.
* West 2 (1992), 206 f., 284 f.
4 Wessely (1891), 18 f.
5. Gombosi (1939), 110.
7 Tumer (1956), 95 f.
® Henderson ( 1957), 337 £., was still sceptical on this question.
§ Crusius (1893), 181 ἢ
ἢ Crusius (1893), 179; Longman (1962); contra Biehl (1955), 24 7 CE Johnson | (2000), 66-8.
f.; Di Benedetto (1965), 73 ; Willink (1986), 8 Cf. Péhimann (1976), 70.
141 f.; West (1987), 203 f. A Berlin papyrus of the sixth
or seventh
century (Diggle’s TT’) containing Or. 290-300, 5 Tumer (1987), no. 35 with Addendum p. 150.
304-9, 321-30, and 333-9, has 338 before 339, as
in the medieval tradition; ef. Miiller (1964), 9 Σ᾿ © West 1 (1992), 1.
 16 I. Fragments from the Classical Period No. 3 EURIPIDES, Orestes 338-44 = 322-8 17

traces that he could not account for.' Solomon read TINA[ γὰρ ἔτι (=345), which is ruled out by τολοφύρομαι, τινάξαο, κύμασιν) and four clashes (ματέρος, péyac, Bpototc, ἀκάτου). Re-
the diseme mark in the notation and does not fit the layout of lines 5-7 (=343 f).? West’s ὀλεθ- peated notes, as on -ναι φόνον = -βακχεύει, μόχθων ~ πόντου, do not affect the equation; for
ρΐοιοιν] ΕΝΚ[ύμασιν best suits the traces.’ The instrumental Z can still at a pinch be accommo- the rest, too many notes are missing to allow any conclusions. The overall picture appears com-
dated in the line, but not the doubling of the epsilon assumed by H. Hunger and Péhimann for pletely random and does not encourage us to follow R. Giani, C. Del Grande, and Ὁ. Ὁ). Feaver!
the melism P Z on ἐν." We have to suppose that the nu in ὀλεθρίοιοιν was omitted in the papy- in their contention that the melody does pay some attention to accents. For this stasimon, at least,
rus. it must be concluded that the strophe was set to music without regard to the word accents, and
The notation does not reveal whether the fragment is to be read enharmonically or chromati- that the melody was then repeated for the antistrophe.
cally. If the setting is assumed to be Euripides’ own, the enharmonic interpretation is to be pre- This is in accord with the findings of Dionysius of Halicarnassus quoted under no. 2, that ἡ
ferred.’ We present an enharmonic transcription in two forms: the first with the text of the stro- ὀργανική te Kat ὠιδικὴ μοῦσα subordinated words to melody and not vice versa. He illus-
phe as well as of the antistrophe, without indication of rhythmical values and without attempting trates the point from the parodos of the Orestes, but says that it was clear from much other evi-
to incorporate the instrumental notes; the second in West’s version, which takes the instrumental dence besides. Nearly all the musical fragments so far known which antedate the Delphic Paeans
notes as heterophonic accompaniment to the following syllables and treats the dochmiacs as bars point the same way: so far as they are legible, they show no greater correspondence of accent
in **°/s time.® and melody than might be expected by chance.” Only a few of the fragments collected under nos.
Despite its brevity the fragment enables us to answer the much-debated question whether 5 and 6 look as if they may be exceptions.’
strophic lyric was subject to melodic as well as metrical responsion or through-composed over Dionysius apparently treats fifth-century music as a norm for his own time.* But from the
sirophe and antistrophe in accordance with the word accents.’ The remains of the melody Delphic Paeans (nos. 20-1) to the Christian hymn from Oxyrhynchus (no. 59) the practice of
accompanying the antistrophe in the Euripides fragment, whether transcribed enharmonically or respecting the word accents in musical settings—only possible in non-strophic genres—was the
chromatically, pay no consistent regard to the word accent, and they were clearly designed to go prevalent one, recognized by grammarians and rhetoricians from the second century BC to the
with the strophe too. The proof of this is given by the Jayout. As a tule the instrumental symbols fifth AD.
are placed not above the text, like the vocal notation, but between words. But in line 4, for no
immediately obvious reason, the metron-dividing Z is put up among the vocal symbols, while in
line 7, where there might have been reason to do this because the word ὀλεθρίοιοιν overran the ' References in the preceding note.
metron-division, the Z was apparently written within the word. The double anomaly is at once ? In the Berlin Ajax fragment (no. 17), which probably comes from a tragedy, the melody contradicts the ac-
explained when we substitute the words of the strophe for those of the antistrophe, for the cents almost consistently.
> See below, pp. 25, 39.
supra-linear Z of line 4 then comes at a place where a word overruns the metron-division
* Cf. Péhlmann 1 (1966), 210-13. Koller (1956), 27, basing himself on the account in Ath. 10. 453c—4a of Cal-
(2x|Aa@écOa1), while the Z in the text line at 7 comes where there is word-end (τάλας | lias’ ‘alphabet’ tragedy (PCG iv. 39; supposedly a model for Sophocles and Euripides), takes Dionysius’ discussion
ὀρεχθείο). The diastole + instrumental notes enclosing the words δεινῶν πόνων fit equally well as evidence for late Euripidean and post-Euripidean music. But his interpretation of Athenaeus’ report is contra-
in the strophe, where they will enclose the word φοιταλέου. Evidently the layout of the notation dicted by chronology. Cf. Péhimann (1971).
has been copied mechanically from the strophe to the antistrophe. We are thus entitled to > Athenodoms, GrGr i 3. 474. 19-23; Varro, GrRF 282, 84-104; Οἷς. Orator 57; Mart. Cap. 3. 268.
postulate the same melody for the strophe, as in our first transcription.
In the strophe the melodic line moves with the word accents at three or four points (αἵματος,
ἐάοατ᾽, φεῦ, perhaps καθικετεύομαι) and contradicts them just as often (τινύμεναι, ἐκ-
λαθέοθαι, μαννάδοο, and ὀρεχθείο if the oxytone accent is not regarded as annulled by san-
dhi). In the antistrophe there are two or more agreements (@odc, κατέκλυοεν; perhaps κα-

‘ Crusius (1893), 178, 180; Hunger (1962), 76-8.

? Solomon (1977), 79-81.
3 West I (1992), 1; 2 (1992), 284.
* Hunger (1962), 77. The Delphic Paeans show that even a short vowel in a closed syllable was written double
in the case of a melism, e.g. no. 20. 6 Δεελφίοιιν, 14 λωτοὸς; no. 21. 12 ἀαμπέχει.
5 Jan transcribed the piece in both ways: (1895), 431, and (1899), 7. For the prevalence of enharmonic in fifth-
century tragedy see West 2 (1992), 164 f., 351, 354.
© West 2 (1992) 284 f.
7 Cf. Monro (1894), 116; Mountford (1929), 164-6; Giani (1931); Dale (1968), 204-7; Sedgwick (1950);
Koster (1950), 27-9; Irigoin (1952), 6 £; Koller (1956); Winnington-Ingram (1958), 41-3; Feaver (1960);
Péhl-
mann (1960), 17-29; Del Grande (1965), 70 £; Koller (1963), 9-12; Winnington-Ingram (1965),
193; Wille (1965),
641; West 2 (1992), 197-200; Sicking (1993), 33 f.; Devine-Stephens (1994), 157-223; Péhlmann (1995),
1637 f.
 18 1. Fragments from the Classical Period No. 4 EURIPIDES, Iphigeneia in Aulis 1500(?)-09; 784-94(?) 19
No. 4 PAP. LEIDEN INV. P. 510 Third century BC

XO. κλέος yap οὔ ce μὴ λίπῃ ; . . 1504

EURIPIDES, Iphigeneia in Aulis 1500(?)-09; 784-94(?)
IO, ἰὼ id )λαμπαδοῦχοο ἁμέρα "Διός te φέγγος, ἕτερον ἕτερον 1505-7
αἰῶνα καὶ μοῖραν οἰκήοομεν / χαῖρέ μοι, φίλον φάος 1508-9
1 lf
Fee ae —— Gr —= 784
γ΄ f 7 1 r T ——_——)}

2 Jt ὶ = | ;
μήτ ἐ - pol | ont’ - ΟΑμμοῖ- cr τέκνων τέκνοις
3 Lafverylopar
ἐλπὶς ἅδε τότ’ ἔλθοι 785
4 1 [ 1 ἶ cp-tet—8 ——
he } ———_ 45:53: 39 ——| 786
5 ἰ|μηϊἰλιπηιῶι ὠ]λαμπ [ἰαδουχοοαμεραδιοοτεφεγγ
οοετερονετερον | 1504-7 ‘% οἵ ταν αἱ mo - AO - χρὺ - cor

11] [ ptt ΝΕ
.δἰαιϊφνακαιμοιρανοικῃ ἰοομενχαιρεμοιφιλονφαος] SS = 787
1508-9
Av τ- δαὶ καὶ Φρυγῶν ἄλοχοι
f 11.) i ? 9 27
7 [Ipn{[tepotpnte por ς ἰυτεκνωντεκνοιοελπιοαδεποτεελθοι |
784-5 CTHCOVCL παρὰ ictoic μυθεῦοσαι 9 τάδ᾽ ἐς ἀλλήλας 788-9

= = 790
ha
C.T CT.? ?
8 oltjavarrorvypvcorlr var [καιφρυγωναλοχοιοτηοουοιπαραιοτοιομυθευοαι! 786-9
ὃ tic ἄρα it εὐπλοκάμου κόμας
ΟῚ ΓΙ 1 > ΩΣ ,

2. =. Fk
9 ταδεεοαλληλαοστιοα ρ 4 ¢ 10 ;
—
ἰραμεευπλοκαμουκομαςερυμαδακρύοεντα
789-91 ἘΞ ΞΡ — | 791

TT TO ἔρυμα δακρυόεν τατνῦ - οας

L ς Τπτί
10 ylvcajemacnatpiaconk δὲ 2 “σ ; \ _
Q [pevacanorwtrer| τ: = a = 792
791-2

Psio ft ὁ - Ao-pé-vac ἀπολωτιεῖ;

11
- . 793-4
793-4

I!
Notation 7: there may be ink ona fibre at top left of the upright. C is not
suggested, as there is no trace of a top :
bar; Z or L may be possible Next: a spot of ink at mid height Above μοι ἃ stigme Above teporcl OXLO | may be intended; but there are several other possibilities (4 1 - etc.) 10 Above vive: TIT West, [+ Jourdan-
Jourdan-Hemmerdinger (1973), 294, 298; (1981), 49, 60 f.,
ΟΑ-- Mathiesen (1981), 24. The first sign may be
illusory; then (over te) a rising diagonal and a point, possibly Hemmerdinger (1973), 294, F Γ᾽ Mathiesen (1981), 30. The third sign, which is damaged at the right and broken
representing X or A; over pou a semicircle facing away below, may be either C or ΠῚ Jourdan-Hemmerdinger (1973), 294 sees two further traces over nat; ὅδ
right, the lower end extended in an upward curl, possibly ‘
representing Ὁ; over cl. part of an upright 8 Stigme after
the first C and probably the second T. At the second CT both does not 11 |, the top ofavertical Then a small circle open to the right, read by Jourdan-Hemmerdinger (1973),
notes are above the syllable χρυ, but perhaps the T is
displaced to the left to make room for the following 294 and Mathiesen (1981), 24, 30, as C, but while it resembles the c used in the text, it is quite unlike the square
markings (whatever they are); if xpv was intended
vided between two notes, the spelling xpvv would be expected to be di- sigma of the musical notation. Mathiesen estimated that these two notes stood above (ἔγτυμος (794), but this is
(but see below on the text of 10). Above cou, a-short quite uncertain.
low horizontal (perhaps to be combined with the stigme);
then the tops of two vertical strokes which do not reach
high as the tops of CT but extend down into the line of text, as
separating moAvypvcor from Avda; then a curved Text Between 6 and 7 paragraphos and coronis supplied conjecturally 8 This line of text as supplemented on the
stroke like a right-facing bracket, and another vertical in the
text line, not as tall as the first two, crossing the left leg basis of the medieval text seems excessively long; perhaps the papyrus had a shorter text here 10 τα] | γίυσα]ς
of theA Above dau possibly the left tip of T 9 Above τὰ a rising diagonal:
above Se a descending diagonal and van Akkeren (1983): τίαα]ς Jourdan-Hemmerdinger (1973), 294, wrongly. As there are two notes over veal, we
before it, level with its foot, a point Above (AA) a thick horizontal bar and stigme; above ἢ
Above (λα)ο something another stigme might have expected the spelling tavucacac, but the space does not favour it Then prima facie παο, but un! css
like a +; Mathiesen (1981), 24 sees a pentaseme
sign. The position does not suit a note, this was an accidental anticipation of xatpiac, ya may have been intended. The medieval codex unicus L has only
unless an instrumental note falling at the metron-boundary,
as in no. 3. In that case \, corresponding to the vocal L, πατρίδοο.
 20 1. Fragments from the Classical Period No. 4 EURIPIDES, Iphigeneia in Aulis 1500(?)-09; 784-94(?) 21

The papyrus was acquired by the University of Leiden in 1971. D. Jourdan-Hemmerdinger Stigmai appear in five or six places, probably with their usual meaning, that is, marking the
identified the text as Euripides and made the first provisional publication.' M. L. West examined ἄροιο or up-beat. For a cretic such as μήτ᾽ ἐμοί (784), whether understood as paeonic (5/8) ora
the papyrus for the present edition. For a colour reproduction of the papyrus see the Frontispiece. syncopated iambic (6/8), an arsis-point over the third syllable is in accord with ancient teaching,
The fragment, dating from perhaps somewhat before 250 BC, contains excerpts from two but one over the first syllable is not.’ For the pherecratean in 786 we might expect
lyric portions of the Iphigeneia in Aulis, not in the order in which they stand in the play. The first
four lines come from Iphigeneia’s sung dialogue with the chorus as she departs to be sacrificed; οἵαν αἱ πολύχρυοοι,
the excerpt ends at 1509, and is followed by another taken from the second choral stasimon, 784
and the second and third of the predicted stigmai seem to be in place. The metre of 789 is un-
ff. No musical notes are visible in what remains of the first excerpt, but the lines of text are
certain; with the transmitted μυθεῦσαι it will be a dragged glyconic, whereas with August Mat-
spaced as in the second excerpt, and presumably were also furnished with notation, or intended
thiae’s μυθεύουσαυ it will become an anapaestic dimeter. In either case the stigme over the sec-
to be. There is no colometry; we should not expect to find any at such an early date, and it is in
ond syllable of ἀλλήλας is satisfactory, while that over the first (if it is real, and not merely the
any case not characteristic of texts carrying musical notation. Instead the text is written in long end of the bar) is problematic.
lines of irregular length, usually ending with a complete word, though τανύσας in 791 appears
A few melodic features are worthy of remark. As in the Orestes fragment (no. 3), there is re-
to have been broken between lines 9 and 10.? The second excerpt started on a new line, and al-
peated play with the enharmonic pyknon; the three-note figure TT T C on (τα)νύοας (10) resem-
though the margin is lost, we may guess that it was marked by a paragraphos and coronis; cf. no.
bles that on (ἀκάγτου θοᾶς in Or. 341, descending semitone + rising quarter-tone. But there is
6, frs. 4 ii 7-8 and 15 ii 5.
then a surprising leap up to L, an octave above the TT. This high note is also used for the inter-
The order of the excerpts indicates that the compilation had nothing to do with a performance
rogative tic (9) at the beginning of the sentence; cf. no. 42, lines 2 (twice) and 8; no. 53 (a), line
of the play, but rather with some sort of concert performance of musical highlights.> Both pas-
3. Otherwise no significant correlation can be observed between melody and accent, such as one
Sages are emotional utterances of women, though of a chorus in one case, in the other mainly of
might have expected in this astrophic lyric.
the heroine of the tragedy. Who was to perform these excerpts? No doubt a solo singer—a man,
not a woman, as is shown by the vocal register, which extends from f to f#' and calls for a tenor.’
The notation is for the most part badly preserved and difficult to decipher. The first editor set 1 CE West 2 (1992), 137, 140.
scholars on the wrong track by mistaking the vocal sign C, which here takes a square form,° for 2 Cf. West 2 (1992), 148.
the instrumental sign ΓΞ, and concluding that the notation was a mixture of vocal and instrumen-
tal signs, from several different tonoi. The most clearly recognizable signs, however, are all from
the vocal notation (as one would expect), and moreover from the Hyperaeolian scale: T C TTL,
where T C ΤΊ make an enharmonic (or chromatic) pyknon, and L is the note an octave above TI.
Less certainly recognized notes from the same system are X or A, and diatonic Ο. In at least one
place, as clear as any other sign, we find a horizontal bar; this also occurs occasionally in papyri
of the Roman period (nos. 44 and 48), apparently with the function of a note, but its significance
is unknown.®
At two places of juncture between metrical cola, following πολύχρυοοι and ἀλλήλαο, We
find obscure symbols which cannot be interpreted as vocal notes, in the first case an assemblage
of downward strokes that may include a diastole, in the second case a cruciform sign +. The
analogy of the Orestes papyrus (no. 3) suggests that instrumental notes might be in place at these
points, even if we cannot identify them with any assurance. See the notation apparatus above.

‘ Jourdan-Hemmerdinger (1973); a second attempt in Jourdan-Hemmerdinger (1981). Other discussions: Co-

motti (1977); (1989), 110 f.; Oki (1979), 55-8; van Akkeren (1983), 259 ff; Mathiesen (1981), 23-32;
Cemy
(1986); West 2 (1992), 286 f. A larger photograph (with no discussion) in Boswinkel—Pestman (1978),
ph. 1.
? On column-widths in musical texts see Johnson 1 (2000), 66-8.
> Jourdan-Hemmerdinger (1981), 37, absurdly supposes that the sequence in the papyrus is original,
and that ‘la
tradition médiévale doit souffrir d’un déplacement accidentel’.
4 We may surmise that at 1504 κλέος γὰρ οὔ ce μὴ λίπηι he eliminated the dialogue element
by substituting
με for ce.
* Cf. Oki (1979), 55, 57. E is historically intermediate between Σ and C, and attested also on inscriptions
and
coins: Gardthausen (1913), 98 f.
® Cf pp. 150, 162.
 22 1. Fragments from the Classical Period No. 5 PAP. ASHM. INV. 89B/31, 33 23

No. 5 PAP. ASHM. INV. 89B/31, 33 Third-second century BC

Fr. 3

SOPHOCLES JUNIOR, Achilleus ? 1 he. yt

ΙΝ 2721
Fr. I 2 Ἰτνειοςθῖ
1 1
— . ἢ n 1 3 Javed [
WY NY NN NI tap — ΞΞΞ Ξε ς iaf o idΤὰ PaῬ rnd a)i$
1 ve voor ΤᾺ
ce αξιοντονερατί 1 lve I
+ ὧν por, 4 2 eo oe ft ΞΕ...
ἕ, ἃ - ξι- ov τὸν ἐ-ρατί 71 ΠῚ
4 rol
IN YN YN [ cf 4s
2 lose τιωποποιωοδαῖ ss 3 γ᾿ αν a
a t 7M Cf
2 Ἰ9- δε: ἱ--ὼ πό- ποι, ὡς Saf 5. Jyeovtvpovl
}YN [
3 Ἰμαντῃ f ] N N[
6 Ἰειφηπροοθᾳῖ
i NT
4 πος [
1} M MI
7 Ἰμαιωκαλεαιί
ΙΝΙ
5 Innate [
] Ν [
8 Jvepovercocol
IN N[
6 Berl ρ —
} M TNT{ rc — Ξ
9.1. ἀρλατιδαακ
εν % 91 ap- λαιτ t- δὰ a-gevl
Fr. 2
ΙΝ τ ΜΙ εἰ SSS SS 5. - ἔΞ-εω
10 Ἰχηλαταιδεδαι [ς & ; —
10 tpo-Jyn - λά - tor δε dar. [
1 Janivl
1YMY MA [ 4 ᾿ ; .
11: Jevarccaval Jel ot τ
7M f[
2 Jeogeoyl -- 11 Ἰεν ἁ - ic - cov o-[ Jef
] NAN f
12 Ἰκυκειηρατονί
1. 1

Fri Text 1 Perhaps δύστηνε ἄξιοντὸ γέρας not excluded 2 Perhaps τόδε 3 e.g. ὀλοίμαν, ἐϊμάν τ᾽.

Fr.2 9 Text 2d@ewv? Fr.3 Text 5 Possibly ἔκίνεον 7 ὠκαλέαι)ῦ 9.᾿Αχατΐδα cannot be read.
24 1, Fragments from the Classical Period No. 5 PAP. ASHM. INV. 89B/31, 33 25

These fragments come from a collection of cartonnage scraps in the Ashmolean Museum,
dating from the third to second century BC. Their provenance is not recorded but is assumed to
Fr. 4 Fr. 6
be somewhere in the Fayim. They are written on the — side of a roll which on the + side had
iambic and anapaestic portions of a tragedy, identified by a subscription as ᾿Αχιλλεὺ[ο] Co-
VKTI? 2
oxAléovc; there are also four fragments of this tragedy with nothing on the — side. All have
1 Ἰδ0{]1.. 1. Jetegde, [ been recently published by M. L. West.!
ΙΝ N 2 The music fragments have the appearance of tragic lyric, and there is a real possibility that
2 Sepveral Fr. 7 they belong to the same play that was copied on the ᾧ side of the roll. In Pap. KéIn 241, which is
also an Achilles tragedy from Ptolemaic cartonnage (but in a different hand), there stands at line
} NN [ . 28, between two iambic episodes, the note ἄλλα ὀπίοω χοροῦ μ[έλοο, ‘more on the back: cho-
3 J εἴδενα | 1. Ππιμεχειφρυαγμο͵ ral song’, suggesting that the text at least (if not the music) of the omitted ode had been supplied
on the verso.” The same practice may have been followed by the copyist of the play in the Ash-
] ΤΊ ] Γ molean papyrus.
4 Ἰχρυσεακί 2. J, Lev The music lies in a baritone register, spanning no more than a sixth, from Y (in real terms ap-
proximately f) to [ (approximately d‘), and in fact it is for the most part contained within the
} 27 f ] fourth from Y to A. : .
5 MeL The notes preserved, in order of frequency, are: N (24 times), M (9), Y (7), TI (7), T (4), A
(3), K (2), and Γ (1). This is at first sight perplexing, as none of the regular scales which contain
Fr. 8 N (enharmonic/chromatic Hyperdorian, Hyperionian, Hypoaeolian, or Hypolydian) also contains
Mor Y. In fact N is the odd one out; Y TM AKT represent a segment from conjunct tetrachords
in the enharmonic or chromatic Hypodorian or Hyperphrygian scale, while TT is the diatonic al-
Fr. 5 1 xf ternative to T in such a scale. It is impossible to be sure whether the notation should be inter-
2 wel
preted enharmonically or chromatically, as the early fourth century, the presumed date of the
11 3 [
lyrics, was a time of transition when both were used by tragic poets, and modulation into dia-
1. Ἰᾳυπατῃρμειί ΝΝ
tonic might occur with either. At the time when the manuscript was written, however, it is likely
4 τὶ
to have been read as chromatic. ;
1 1Π πῃ 121
2 Ἰφὺῦ ταλανμοι βαλί If the most frequent note in these fragments, N, is extraneous to the scale chosen for notation,
this is symptomatic of the inadequacy of handbook theory to accommodate the modal variety of
PMIA πί| ξβἤεξξεξξξξξβὲ actual music in the late Classical period. The N represents a note a semitone or so below the
3 1 χορευεδ δ ρ΄“pT, γε ρευ ξ-δ᾽ρΓ.
3] χό- ‘standing note’ M. In fr. 1 it alternates insistently with Y, giving the interval of a minor third (on
the chromatic reading), but it seems to appear also next to TI (semitone); in fr. 3 it alternates with
1? ?[ A (minor third), and with T (tone).?
Fr. 1 is of particular interest as showing how such typically tragic exclamations as 10(1) pot,
Ἐ ἕ, and ἰὼ πόποι might be sung. Here at least there is reasonable agreement between melody
Fr.4 Notation 3 The bar over each N is uncertain. and word-accent. So too at fr. 3. 10-11. For the rest there are too few identifiable words, or too
little melodic movement, to tell us anything.
Text 28 ἔφυ, -δε φύο, (E)pvcia? A feature of musical notation that appears here and in some other Ptolemaic fragments (nos. 6
and 8) is that certain notes sometimes have a bar above them (M, N). The significance of this is
unknown; the question is discussed below in the commentary on no. 8.
Fr.5 Text πατὴρ 2 ἔ]φυῦ βαλίλήν (βαοιλεῦ does not suit the traces) 3y6peve, then δίόμωι cor-
rected to δρίόμωι But the melodic pattern might favour e.g. χόρευ ἕδρίανα.
' West (1999), 43-53. See there for discussion of the play. As the title ᾿Αχιλλεύς is not attested for the famous
Fr.7 0 Text’ leg. ἄρ]τι μ᾽ ἔχει φρυαγμός. Sophocles, it is suggested that the drama may be the work of his grandson, the younger Sophocles.
? See Gronewald (1987), 20.
3 If we were to adopt an enharmonic reading, and take N to be a quarter-tone below M, the intervals would be:
Fr.8 1 and 3 may be notation. N Y, major third; N T, 1 % tones; N TT, % tone; N A, semitone. This is clearly a less plausible set.
26 1, Fragments from the Classical Period No. 6 PAP. ASHM. INV. 89B/29-32 27

No. 6 PAP. ASHM. INV. 89B/29-32 Third-second century BC

Fr. 2

1 Lisp. κεξυπαιί
Fr. 1
1 [
2 1] ᾳθιζῳγᾳμφοτερί Fr. 3
Col. i Col. ii ] [ ᾿
3. 1]. pororcel 1 Τυκολιγοδρί 1
¥ A Of 1Y [
1 JapoyKeap 1 βαρν͵ 1, logevtel 1 ΔΓ. IM Y [
4 ] pace Avel 2 ]enen [
Υ [ 1 ΠΤΩ) AL
21 -[Ἰνμήπως 2 θρυπτοί 1, ᾳμελακί Ιλ 7) Υἱ ‘ ] TIL
5 1... of 3 ] Setordarp[
} [ IM ΛῪΪ
3.»ΟΞΕΞΟᾷἢᾷΞ .0 Wee. .v 3. &, pal Ἰτανᾳυχί Fr.2 Text 2 Probably lxaét{av ἀμφοτερί After 5 three lines stripped, then traces of five more, with no
legible notation.
JAM. M2? T At ΤΥ 1
4 Ἰγιδᾳομινατιζει 4 .χ.π|. 1. werodl
Pr.3 ΖΤεχὶ The fibres of this fragment suggest that it may have stood to the right of fr. 2. 3-5 i o]¥« ὀλιγο-
Splolvi- 3o.:orperhaps πι Saiplav?
1} Λ Μ ΤΊ Pt) f
5 1ξιαν [1 5. κ᾿ τομεῖ Ἰλλογί Fr. 4
] ΠΙ JANIE 11
6 1.01, 6 lex [ Ἰδᾳνετοῖ Col. i 12. 2 ΛΠ ΘΠΥΠ Col.ii
εν αὐ αΠθειᾳλεῳιερήμ
toto. al

ray
1
. evar Ποιγαποτιπλαζεταιορμοιο {
three lines stripped, then

1 ΠΙ
11 J ecarte Jul .(ΟἸζοναυδανθρωπωνελικιτενεαι
Ἰναχλωροναμφ τγοι [
.. Ϊαυχεναβαλί
1 {Ἰκιοοονκαιελιοοομε [

.γανοταφῦλαν ερικυμοοιφορβαδων A
Notation i 1-2 seem to lack notation 4 The note after M may be TT, T, Y.

Text i lie ]Ἰαρὸν κξαρ αιτιγωντοκοιοιτερπομενονκαιακραάτωι f

2μή πως 4yv ἀτίζει.
it 18@lopev, Exlopev? 2 θρυπτο[μέϊνα μ᾽ ἐλάκίτιοε or the like? 3 The placing of the notes suggests word-
division after Irav. 1, [ ] [ Jolla
28 1. Fragments from the Classical Period No. 6 PAP. ASHM. INV. 89B/29-32 29

Verse with notation over the first line only. This cannot (as in the case of no. 19) represent a pattern to be followed
throughout, because here the verses are of variable length, and their boundaries are not indicated in the manuscript. Fr. 8 Fr. 7
Possibly the singer used these notes as a starting-point and then improvised his melody. In modern transcription the
note-sequence appears as
mM [ Parts of seven lines of text, largely illegible.
3]ν ἀρπιπτενεῖ, 6] avtexyncnal, with the note
_
M
8..} Ἰν 1 ].ᾳ ιδικατί
Ε above they 7 completely illegible, but a note M can be
ee =

ΚΙ
᾿Ν
made out.
? Mt f
2 1. φιςᾳδιφκί
Text 1 Apparently ἔρημόταται (the melody favours this rather than dative -τάται, though the higher note on -pn- Fr. 9
is anomalous) 2 Perhaps oiva; then ποτιπλάζεται ὅρμοις 4 ἀνθρώπων ἕλικί τενέαι SyA@pov 6-8 17 ΜῈ
αὐχένα ... κιοοοῦ καὶ EArccopevav οταφυλᾶν, then after a space of three letters ἐρικύμοοι φορβάδων αἰγῶν 3. ji ve, πε A scrap without notes.
τόκοιοι τερπόμενον καὶ ἀκράτωι. A paragraphos after7 Τὸ the right of 7-8: All over a paragraphos and coro-
nis, presumably marking a new beginning in the following column. The All, if not a title such as (Timotheus’) } WT YI
Αἴας ἐμμανήο, might represent αἰολιοτί (abbreviated?); cf. no. 9. 6 φρυγιοτί. But below this, blank papyrus
where text would be expected.
4 1, Ase. Fr. 10
12. 2? ΜΙ Narrow strip, about ten lines, only a few letters legible. The
5 | [ notes ΠῚ T are visible above the penultimate line and M
over the last. ᾿
] AM 7
1. «νος [
Fr. 5 Fr. 6

] 27
PY
1 YAewacyal 1. Ἰμελιοειΐ 1 [
J? A TIL 27 JM YI
2 7τερπνουπί 2 1.1 lee, 1
ἘΠῚ: Fr. 12 ' Frd4
YI about four lines stripped, then
Col. i Col. ii
1.
1: ΠῪ {ΠΠ|
1YM YA 2M Μ᾿ 11. 1 Ji 1 Jegye [ 1 Ἰφιληματῳγᾳπε͵
7 Mporceyxadedparcryehayxacouww Γ᾿ 1 κί
ΙΜ ΜΙ iq ἸΠΥῪΠΠπΠ f
1Π T MAM AYE 2 Ἶνον 2 εν... 2 Ἰπονταῖ 2 Kn λᾳοαλλεμανεκατί
8 Ἱμενονμελοί
1π 1λ MYT
ΤῪΥ ΝΥ ΑΙ 3 J. τὰν 3 If
9 1. 01. . ote

Fr. 14
Fr.5 Text 1 κἸλεινῶο yelp, βαἸλεῖν ὧς, etc. 2 τερπνοῦ. The content suggests a possible location near fr. 15 i: the piece sits well immediately above 15 1 1, but a join cannot
be confirmed.

Fr.6 Text lAyorAv 7 Apparently ἐν καθέδραιοιν (or -αις ἵν) Not ἐλαγχάν-: The x could be x, sc. EX Text 1 φιλημάτων ἀπε- or an’ ἐ- 2 Ζῆν ἄατ᾽ notruled οὐ Then apparently ἀλλ᾽ ἐμὰν (or ἐμᾶν, with
ἀγκάς 8 Ἱμένον μέλο[ο (The melodic line favours a perfect rather than a present participle). Ὁ ἕκατι).
30 1. Fragments from the Classical Period No. 6 PAP. ASHM. INV. 89B/29-32 31

Fr. 13
Fr.13 Coli Col. ii
Col. i Col. ii
shot Ἐπ ty
& eb Ἔ Ρ ἘΞΞΞΈΞΞ ξΞ i E a
12 1. ει- ev ὕμτνον κα-τὰ θεῖτον ἀ -θλι
- οἱ
1 1.

JATAM? A ΠΎΠΥ [ 3. ev τε
2 ] erevopvovKataderov αθλιρῖ pat 1
κᾧ. of
Of ot |1
{3.3
jp Pp .ΞΞ
f = “tarj f*: ιν :Τ ua =
T 4 Τ Τ
}Y 7 Y [ 14 é-]m-e- πό- μην 4 -ταιᾶ ἕρ - me... εἰ νει
3 εὐτξ, νον νον νννννν
νι νννον [ pt \
ae { f—t—t
ἹΜΛΠΛ TI }] TMTM ™ [
4 Ἰπιεπομην 4 ταυλί Ἰλαιτιοαδεταιερπε, evel] αχεὲν [ 5 B... BROW ε πᾶ κα

AOM A [ Ετ. 15. Col.i Col. it

5 12 5 . A. . μμοιοεπικας, [
fot ts chart + t
Text i 4é)mvendpnv. ee
i f i ee ——
i! δ —
.-- - -- =
ες Υ r i y 3 T T
it These verses perhaps stood not far from the poem-end marked in fr. 15 ii 4, and belonged to a citharodic sphra-
11] ε το Κύτπρι- δος ἐκ δα - 15. τ΄. νῦν ὅδ᾽ ἐ-γῴ, νῦν δ' αι,
gis. 2E.g. θεοὶ χαϊ]ρεῖεν. The dotted letters in καταθειον are very uncertain. A space before αθλιοί (the o
might be ef) 3Orcvye 4Perhaps ἄϊλλαι τίς ἀ(υδεταιῦ

6 ==] SSS
opr
.ὃ-1..αἃ — Πht 4, 4,᾿ εβεεῦρέξξϑα
aoe 4, =

2] ὧν ε Spd-pov ἐ -πὶ
- κρὸ -tov 6 ἐ - op- τήν
Fr. 15

Col. i Col. ἢ ppoh-5

δι th
ἢ ᾿ hots
δ | 4 teN
eate —— Ῥ-ρ-οοττ
ἘΞ = —— —
pt 9 α΄ “να
id ἘΞ = = “ΞΡ.
ΟΡ
ἘΞ = v
ὦ ἘΞ- Ὁ
¥ -—t ᾿eo

1 1. εοκυπριδοςεκδα 1 voz, [ 3. Je- Aevrer Ko-verp ἔ - ρὼ -τι t-@-@ λα-μ-[π]άς, ἂν ἔτταμ᾽ “I τ-δης tel
Fr. 15
] Y A ΠΥΛΠῪ A 2AYT [ The piece resembles in appearance the latter part of fr. 13, and may (with fr. 14) have stood fairly close below it.
2 1, ey εδρομονεπικροτον 2 TOAANpoxatayoovl Ivf Notation i 1 If the suggested placing of ff. 14 just above fr. 15 is correct, the notes M TI Y TT in fr. 14. 3 proba-
bly stood over the syllables e(—0), Kv, xpi, 80 6 ©: E would be a possible reading.
JIMTMT Y [
3 Ἰελειεικανειμερῶτι 3 ΝΞΞΞΕΕΗΙι Text i 2The melodic line implies the accentuation δρόμον éxixpotov 3 -evet perhaps the dative ending of an
adjective, doubled because divided between notes (cf. no. 10. 12 π]εριχαρειευ); the falling tone M T (if M ap-
] Foo [ 1.2 ε! proximates to M) would suit a circumflex accent, -e7, e.g. ὀξυβ]ελεῖ. Then prima facie κανεῖ μ᾽ ἔρωτι ‘will kill me
4 Ἰᾳ 4. 5πρί, 11. (ἀπο τδετιπολυτ, [ with love’, though the descending tone M TT conflicts with the accent. καίει was certainly not written 5 The Π is
placed over the e, implying -voc sic, -v dc εἷς, etc., rather than νοσεῖο.
Ὗ π fu AYTA ¥ Tl AMTI 222[ ii 2 Apparently τὸ(ν) ληροπαταγοφυ[ο]ίίαν (vel sim.) Paragraphos and coronis after 4 marking the start of a
5 ].vocete 5 τ. , vovodcyovevder. { 1 0{ new poem or extract 5 Apparently νῦν ὅδ᾽ ἐγώ, νῦν... 6 ἑορτήν’ ἰὼ λαμπάο, with the ὦ doubled because di-
vided between two notes (sc. TT A). There seem to be three notes over λαμ[π]άο, if the faint A and M are both real.
Τ1ΔΠΘ ΥΠ AM AMATIYATIY ¥ 7 In that case two of them must be allocated to the syllable Aap, though at this period the spelling λααμπας would
6 1ῳ ες, 6 ξεορτηνιωώλαμί lecavet μιδηοτεῖ, then be expected (cf. no. 21. 12 ἀαμπέχει, etc.). Then perhaps ἂν étap’ Ἴδης τέίμπεοι.
 1. Fr from the Classical Period No. 6 PAP. ASHM. INV. 89B/29-32 33
2

Fr. 16 Fr. 22

specks ! JN? 29%

1 1... ec Ἰᾳαυλαοουκεδᾳ [

2}... ΩΝ ἐξροιβ “ δον ου- μέτναν

δ... | On the back of the fragment is another, with no text surviving but the note-sequence A M A TI.
ee =
Η 21 YY MA?
Fr. 23 Fr. 24
Fr. 17
wm Ὁ
A scrap extending across two columns. The only legible letters are in col. i Ἰαχοοιτειμεί 1 Ἰροποοιοώνακ (γᾳ 11...
(τάχος ἴτε ἴτε is just possible, but not convincing) and in col. ii Sactepe _ , [ and in the next
line a Z. If this was a note, a different tonos from the prevailing Hypodorian is implied, e.g. Ly-
] Ν [ JA ΜΙ
dian or Aeolian. 2 Ἰρειοξεινονα,. ταί 2 Jouxpel

Fr. 18 Fr 19 JOMEITI 1 27 ΤΥ
3 Ἰοκρυοεντιδεχαῖ
1 AT TE
1 Πναξειει(γελεῖ " 1. ᾳ. 8, al 1... Wi YE

Fr. 25 Fr. 26
1. 2 Θ [ 122} AATIY ΥΓ
2 Ἰαβδας.λαβδα [ 2 1. λυπᾳπαδερυ, [
}? AMY AT . Γ [
1 Ἰδηηκαμνωμί 1 αλλατο [
pry y [ ] AY TT A ΠΙῚ
3 i 3 lt... Ag ercet_ [
Ir Δ 1
2 1... {1 {νδοι
Fr. 20 Fr. 21
Fr, 27

1 ] [Japoyveo. [ 1 if Traces from two lines of text (no letter legible), and between them the note-series A TI A TI A TT
N.
] MMA [ IN 2 {
2 Vicaé araor ayl 2 Ἰενβοᾳτευβορα ςιν [ Fr. 28 Fr. 29

PW 19} ITY 7 T Y Γ ΔΙ
3 τα. abot. 1{1ετ΄ς . él 1 βουλειειδεῖ 1 Te ουδί

JN Y 7
Fr. 18 Text ἵἴτ or y, if ever, probably melodic doubling of εὐ; any accent will have been circumflex
(descending tone) 2 Presumably λ]άβδα λάβδα.
2 baneal

Fr.20 Text 2¢:perhapsy ἀλααΐ, apparently, but one may think of dAa<A>at. Fr, 28 Text PovdAever does not seem to have been written. If this is another melodic doubling, for BovAet, the
large rising interval Y Γ (a sixth) might suggest oxytonesis and thus an adverb, [d]|BovAet or the like, rather than
Fr. 21 Text 2Bodt’ 2b? But after the second Boo. apparently a round letter. the verb-form βούλει. But a division βούλει: εἰ δὲ is also possible.
34 1. Fragments from the Classical Period No. 6 PAP. ASHM. INV. 89B/29~32 35

Frs. 30-4 Fr. 39

Five scraps with only a few letters apiece and no musical notes. Traces of about six lines, only a few letters legible. Visible notes in successive lines are TT
(twice) and perhaps T.

Fr. 35 Fr, 36

1 1: Fr. 40 Fr. 41
2 ἸἸνναικωγγαροί 1 Ἰφιπριγκ [
3 ], werd, [ 2 deve, eal Col. i Col. ii
4 Jeapcevo [ 3], .. .enxeat
5 Ἵτωνδς[ 4 Ἰεθασπαν [ ΝΝΝΥΝ ΜΙ
6 7.καπί 5 Ἰπνουδε [ 1 ἸἹμελλοῖ 1 Ἰρᾳτο ἀτφυτῴκῳμοος {
1 Af ] val PLIAL ] 1 AMN [
7 Ἰκεπί 6 T.va. 2 } eal 2 Iver [ εἰοαμβαοινται [

J] AM JIN TE ] TN ATTA ΠῚ
7 Ἱποντιῳΐ 3 Ἰλιυπί 3 ] W800...
Lal
] Wl
8 J ewal Fr. 41 Notation ii | The papyrus is broken off immediately above the notes, so that any N may have been N. N
NN, for example, would avoid the written repetition of consecutive identical notes, which is avoided in these early
texts.
1 ?[
9 1. Text ἘΠ ἴτω ito κῶμος 2 εἰς ἄμβαοιν, then perhaps ταὶ 5[é.

These two fragments have a similar appearance and layout—six or five lines of text without
notation, then (after a
gap) a new section with it—and they may have stood at the same level in the same column.

Fr. 35 Text 2 ylova.xév γάρ, with the nu assimilated to the velar 4 &pcev(o-). Fr, 42 Fr. 43
Fr36 0 Text lienpive [ 4 pléOac παν-, -μ]εθα cmav-?
] Λ
1 ΤἸιδαλλο 1 | νιν νιν νιν ον [
Fr. 37 Fr. 37 bis Fr. 38 1ΜΝ 12 ΠΟ ΓΠ f
2 Ἰρπετραν 2 1. ατιει δεινονῖ
low, [ IN NY NY[
Pood 1 J, vor f 1 1, , «εξξᾳπαρνί 1 ΝΝΙ ΜΜ Μι
1Π| Jabraded[
3 Ἰνουτῳῖ 3 Ἰχί dal
2 1], Aetol 2 | Awel ἸΛΠΛΙ
1Π| 1Π|
3. Ἰαμει [ Fr. 42 Text 18 ἄλλο 2 nétpav.

1ΠῚ Fr. 43 Text 2 tier, ἀτίει7 Then presumably δεινόν, but if so, the melodic fall of a fifth goes against the ac-
cent,
36 1. Fragments from the Classical Period No. 6 PAP. ASHM. INV. 89B/29-32 37.

με 44
Fr. 45 Fr. 51

AMAL Traces of two lines, only a few letters legible; between them the notes A TT A.
1 evnrel ae
]
; Y At 2
M ? 2{ Fr. 52
Ἰενολλυναιῃδ, [
A few letters from the beginning of the first line in a column; above the second line the note N.
1: ALY A Hi
3 1... mena, [
Fr, 53
Fr. 45 Text 2(évjoddbvar? 3 If interrogative ti or tic, the high note is appropriate; see nos. 4. 9; 42. 2, 8;
53 ff.1. 6.
No text; consecutive notes (all uncertain) MP ©.

Fr. 46
Fr, 54
A scrap on which the only legible letters are Ια [δα]υτοῖ (with αὖ written underneath [5a]) and
for the next line the note-series N Y TT A. Remnants of two lines; no notation.

Fr. 47
Fr. 56
Fr. 55
A line-beginning vt_ ταί and below it the notes Y A N.
1M 1M 1 Ἰθειπικροί
1 Ἰρπρεφαζγρμα [Ἃ
Fr. 48 ] [
1. J 2 Lt
A mid-line fragment JivyaArel (xaAvglpov-?) and below it the notes ATTY.
stripped
3 Jc, . νἱ

1 [
; 4 lxeul
Fr, 49 Fr. 50

TA [
1 1.1 1 1, φγῖ 5 Jrecd[

1 A ΜΙ WA ἢ
2 ἾἸδεινεντε [ 2 1. vtecel

Fr.55 The notes on the right are faint, and appear to have no text below.

Fr. 49 Text 2 ὦ]δεινεν, εὕ]δειν ἐν, etc. Fr.56 Text 1 Probably πικρόϊν.
 38 1. Fragments from the Classical Period
No. 6 PAP. ASHM. INV. 89B/29-32 39

These fragments, first published by M. L. West,' come from the same cartonnage
as no. 5; incorporated in the kithara tuning that he calls τρόποι and the lyra tuning that he calls
possibly from the same roll, if we suppose that a fair portion of it remained blank
after the final μαλθακή.)
column of the Achilleus on the | side and that the back of this portion (the left-hand
part of the The standing notes M and I, despite being the Mesai of the Phrygian and Hyperphrygian
reversed roll) was used for the present texts. There is indeed no certainty that these
fragments all scales respectively, do not stand out as being of especial importance in the melodies; A, TI, and
come from a single roll. But they are linked by the common feature of being all
written along the Y are all more frequent. We should attempt to evaluate the music on its own terms, without as-
fibres, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary we may take it as a working
hypothesis that suming that the choice of notation-key is more than arbitrary. Musically the effective tetrachord
we are dealing with one music manuscript.
seems to be Y Π M A, cutting across the theoretical semitone—tone—tone tetrachords of the Phry-
We should expect such a manuscript to have contained a number of different
items, and this is gian scale system and showing a tone-tone—semitone structure.
confirmed by the presence in two places of a paragraphos accompanied by a coronis.
Most of the Two further ‘irregular’ notes appear: N (20 times) and A (twice, at frs. 28 and 44. 2). We
fragments are too exiguous to reveal anything about the nature of the texts.
But we might expect have already met N in the context of the A MTT Y scale in no. 5, where it is even more promi-
them to be citharodes’ repertoire, either excerpts from tragedies or citharodic
nomes or dithy- nent, and we observed that it represents a flattening of the standing note M. A occupies the cor-
rambs. Some of them show clear signs of a lyric character. Fr. 4 is distinctly
and elaborately responding position in the upper tetrachord, a semitone below the standing note Γ.
lyrical, while in frs. 13-15 we seem to discern some kind of erotic verse in
the left-hand column, The accompanying diagram shows the notes in their places on a modern stave.
and in the right a citharodic sphragis with literary-critical comment, followed
by the start of a
new poem which seems to allude to a festival and torches. Perhaps the poems were
all the work
of one author. The content of fr. 4 may recall Antiphanes’ criticism of contempora
ry dithyram-
bists, whom he compares unfavourably with Philoxenus (fr. 207. 7-9 PCG
ID:

ot νῦν δὲ κιοςοόπλεκτα καὶ κρηναῖα καὶ

Although we cannot follow any melodic line very far—the longest uninterrupted note-
ἀνθεοιπότατὰ μέλεα μελέοιο ὀνόμασι
sequence is of thirteen notes—some observations may be made. Melodic intervals seldom ex-
ποιοῦοιν ἐμπλέκοντεο ἀλλότρια μέλη.
ceed a major third: rising fourths appears in firs. 1, 6, 15, 45, and 53, rising and falling fifths in fr.
On the most cursory perusal of these fragments it leaps to the eye that the most 43, rising sixths in frs. 28 and 44 (diminished), and a falling sixth in fr. 45. There is a tendency
frequent notes to oscillate between two notes separated by a semitone (frs. 13, 15, 16, 44), a tone (frs. 13, 14,
by far are A MTT Y, representing a segment of the diatonic Hyperphryg
ian (or Hypodorian) 55), a minor third (frs. 19, 27, 38, 41, 42), a flattened fourth (fr. 4), or a fifth (fr. 43). Once we
scale. The higher note [, which appears half a dozen times, also
belongs in this scale, and there find the four notes of the effective tetrachord in descending sequence (fr. 14: A MTI Y, ifM may
are about a dozen instances of T, which is the chromatic alternative to the
diatonic degree TT. In be treated as M), but otherwise we do not find even three successive
three fragments (8, 53, 55) notes from the related Phrygian and Hypophrygian scale degrees together.
scales appear (ΘΙ More typical is a ‘pentatonic’ type of progression, in which one of the inner notes of the tetra-
P).
The note © also appears in close association with A TT (fr. 4; 13 ii 5; 15 1 6; cf. chord is passed over, as in fr. 1 A M Y; 2, 13, 19, 48 ATT Y; 19 and 46 Y TI A; in fr. 15 cycli-
18), where it cally Y ATI Y ATI Y, and again after the coronis TT AY TIA Y..YTA..ATIY ATTY.
cannot be treated as Phrygian or Hypophrygian but apparently functions as a
degree of the Hy- The ‘accidentals’ are mainly used to create semitone or minor third intervals that vary the ba-
perphrygian scale; it takes the place of the chromatic K and diatonic H, which
are absent from sic structure of the tetrachord. In fr. 6 we find minor thirds (T M, Y N Y); so too in frs. 13 and 16
this whole set of fragments. This is paralleled in the Zeno papyrus (no. 8): there
too the lowest (M T oscillating), 29, 38, 41 (N Y N, resolving with a rising semitone to M); in frs. 8 and 41 de-
note is Y, and the scale runs Y ΠῚ M A © (no higher note appears in the fragment).
The © in scending semitone slides (TT T Y [also in the Zeno papyrus], A MN); descending semitones also
place of H must represent a slightly flattened note, giving an interval above A
of something like in frs. 21 (T Y), 28 (Γ A), 37 (Π T), 40 (N 11). The leap from Y to A (diminished sixth) in fr. 44
three-quarters of a tone instead of a full tone? The interval © F is then 1% tones.
This arrange- is exceptional.*
ment of intervals in the tetrachord MT, 4+ %+1% tones, is one recognized
by Aristoxenus, Not much can be said about the relationship between melody and accent, as the identification
who calls it ‘soft diatonic’ (διάτονος μαλακόο, Harm. 2. 51), and it resembles
what Ptolemy of words is often uncertain. There is reasonable agreement in frs. 13 i 4; 14; 15 ii 6(?); 42. 2; on
calls ‘tense chromatic’.’ The combination of this in the upper tetrachord with
the regular ‘tense’ the other hand there appear to be clashes in frs. 1 i 4; 4. 1; 6. 7; 13 ii 2; 15 13; 16. 2; 43.2.
diatonic in the lower seems to be prohibited by Aristoxenus, ‘but it is recognized
by Ptolemy: it is When a long vowel or diphthong is to be divided between two notes, this is indicated by
writing it double, not (as in the Roman period) by a double point and/or bracket in the notation:
fr. 1513 Ἴελειξι, ii 6 100, 16. 2 εκροιβδρουρυμεναν, 18.1 αξειει, 25.1 δηη.
' West (1999).
? Not a semitone, because in no. 8 1 and K also appear as ‘accidentals’ between
A and ©; see the discussion of
that fragment. :
3 χρῶμα ούντονον, Harm. 1. 15 and 2. 14, pp. 35. 7 and 72. 4 Diiring: ratios 22:21, 12:1 1, 7:6, ie.
267 cents.
81 + 150+ ' See West 2 (1992), 171 f.
᾿ ? Perhaps it resolved tol, cf. the sequence YT A in fr. 28.
Pa
40 II. Fragments of the late Classical to early Hellenistic periods No. 8 PAP, ZENON 59533 41

No.7 PAP. HIBEH 231 Third century BC No. 8 PAP. ZENON 59533 Third century BC

1A TAMYTMY Mi
1 lxovta deta po vine tivarvl

Mm! T ¥ AMO FT KLE A J

2 1. τγονα τῶν exixa ta οκίιων

1. ΜΙ
3 Jeav

4 τη
3 12¢ (IT

5 ex

Notation 2M West, — or Ε Mountford (1931), 98 T Mountford, T or Y Schubart: see Mountford (1931), 95

¥ pap.:seecomment K Mountford (1931), 97, N Del Grande (1935), 370, M Gombosi (1939), 128 3 ΜΙ Gom-
bosi (1939), 127 Ε, N Mountford (1931), 99.
Notation Fr.2 11:: the lower part of an upright ΓΙ: TI[ possible but less good 2 A small circle above Y
may be intended for a stigme marking the arsis. Fr.3 41 mightbeacursiveN P doubtful.

Pap. Hibeh 231, first published by E. G. Turner’ and now in the British Library (Pap. 2996), 5$ —— ΞΞΞ ἘΞΞΞΙ tS |}|
ἊΣ oy f
ft 7 —f—t ἀΞ 3) ψ»-------
{——h 4
consists of three small, abraded fragments of papyrus dating from the mid third century BC. v i [4 v Τ rt

They apparently come from some treatise on music with examples in notation. Fr. 1 contains no 1 Tou τάδ᾽ ἑ - τά - pov t- κέτ τιν αὐ [
notation and is not reproduced here; it contains a mention of the Lydian ἁρμονία, and perhaps fab hyts
1ἘΞ
ν- -Ξ- ἐκ---Ἐ» Ὁ ᾿Ε
}Ν
δ...,..} 4 4
Be ~ ——— ας ie e——F ey
of a ψαλτήριον. Frs. 2 and 3 have notation only. That in fr. 2 and in line 5 of fr. 3 evidently re- ἘΞ ἘΞ -ἢ-
La
τα --- τ γα ee
La
ee j
presents melodic sequences. Lines 1-4 of fi. 3, written in smaller writing than line 5, seem to be 2]. γο -νά - tov ἔ -πι κα -τας - κί - [ev
some sort of table of notes. Δ}:
The notes B BI are at home in Dorian or Hyperdorian, whereas K Y M look like chromatic — i H
——
Hypodorian (or Hyperphrygian). The notes in fr. 3. 5 are characteristic of diatonic Hyperdor- 3 Je - ὧν
ian/Hyperphrygian; notably similar sequences occur in nos. 6 and 8.
The purpose of the note table in fr. 3. 1-4 is obscure, and the readings cannot be guaranteed.
If they are correct, the three preserved note-pairs all yield intervals of a fifth or sixth.
Text 1 Jc West 1 (1992), 5, }e Mountford (1931), 91 2 Jeu Edgar, 1θι Schubart: see Mountford (1931), 93, 99
ex{iav West 1 (1992), 5, cxol or cxe[ Edgar: see Mountford (1931), 99 3 Jewv West 1 (1992), 5, Ἰδὼν Mountford
’ Turner (1955), 152; republished by West 1 (1992), 2-4; see pi. la. (1931), 91.
 42 IL. Fragments of the late Classical to early Hellenistic periods No. 8 PAP. ZENON 59533 43

This much-discussed fragment,’ dated by C. C. Edgar to about 250 BC, was acquired together Any hypothesis must take two observations into account. Firstly, the barring seems to be lim-
with a quantity of Zenon papyri. It was first published by J. F. Mountford in 193122 ited to the notes © MN T Y. Secondly, whereas in the Hellenistic period repeating notes are in
The left and right margins are broken off, while the top has apparently been cut away. The principle written only once, so that we do not expect successions such as NN, we do find in nos.
remaining text occupies only the upper third of the piece. The syllables are separated by spaces; 5 and 6 the successions MM, MM, MM M, NN, NN, implying that the bar signifies some real
cf. nos. 17-18, 42-43, 46, 50, 55. Below the text there is a subscription consisting of a TT], modification. It can hardly be a modification of pitch, as the alphabetic system provides suffi-
the
Ptolemaic form of sampi = 900, followed by the same sign again with the middle upright deco- cient other resources for denoting fine intervals. Perhaps we should suppose the bar to mean that
ratively prolonged downward and finished with a circle,’ this being preceded by ex(n), ‘verses’.* the same note is sung, but in a different way, or with some difference in the musical accompani-
If one may take the two sampis as having stichometrical significance, the fragment must be from ment. Nos. 5 and 8, at least, were presumably accompanied by an aulete, and there were various
the end of a roll. C. Del Grande assumed that the subscription must have stood in the centre of ways in which he might vary his tones. On the other hand it seems unlikely that an instruction to
the column, and tried to deduce the original line-length and devise supplements on this basis, the aulete would have been included in the vocal score.
which is however uncertain.*
The metre appears to be dochmiac (West), or perhaps paeonic (Kannicht—Snell). The melodic
line is in accord with the word accents of ἱκέτιν and ἔπι (if the preposition is in anastrophe),
but
not with those of ἑτάρων, γονάτων, or καταοκί[ων, which points to a strophic composition.
Together with the diction and subject-matter—apparent references to a female suppliant and to
knees (of a god’s statue?) that are shaded over (?), sc. with the suppliant’s boughs®—all this sug-
gests that the fragment may, as Mountford conjectured, be from a chomus of a tragedy.
The preserved note-symbols are Y TT MAK! ©. Of these, T K | appear to be ‘accidentals’,
and Y TT M A © degrees of a basic scale. We have seen the same scale in no. 6; see the discus-
sion there (p. 38 f.), where it is argued that the interval between A and © was one of three-
quarters of a tone. In line 2 of no. 8 the two notes | and K appear as ‘accidentals’ between A and
©. We must suppose that the sequence © | K represents a descent by successive quarter-tones,
trisecting the 74-tone scalar interval.
The interpretation of the sign ¥ and the barred note or notes in line 3 is problematic. In nos.
5-6, similarly, certain notes sometimes appear with a bar above them (© MNT) or through
them (¥). Mountford identified ¥ with > (ρ΄ double sharp), the note an octave above T, but mu-
sically this is most unlikely, Del Grande took the bars as the diacritic marking chromatic notes;
but this appears only in late sources, and only with the upper note of a chromatic pyknon.’ By
this convention we should expect a tetrachord ® Y T M. O. J. Gombosi interpreted the bar as the
diseme sign.* That seemed satisfactory so long as only the Zenon papyrus was in question. But it
now seems that it must be given up, as in nos. 5 and 6 the barred symbols appear above short
syllables in several places, as well as above the second element of the divided long vowel in no.
6 fr. 16 ἐκροιβδουρυμεναγ.
' Edgar (1931), 2 £, pl. 11; Del Grande (1932), 91-6; Mountford (1933), 260 £; Del Grande (1936);
Winnington-
Ingram (1936), 32 f., 40, no. 1; Marrou (1939); Gombosi (1939), 127 f£.; Norsa (1939), pl. 3;
Del Grande (1946),
135; Sedgwick (1950), 222; Winnington-Ingram (1955), 67, no. 3; Wagner 2 (1955), 115; Winnington-Ingr
am
(1958), 9; Del Grande (1960), 153, 227, 440-3, 475; Kannicht (1981), 264, no. 678; West 1 (1992), 4 ξ; 2 (1992),
287.
2 Mountford (1931). The original was collated for him by Edgar, Gunn, and Schubart. See fig. 5.
> Examples of this form of the numeral in Edgar (1931), no. 59732. 8; no. 59753. 8 and 14; no. 59762. 4. Middle
upright prolonged downward and ending in a semicircle: no. 59723. 18. Cf. Gardthausen (1913), 368 f
* ΟΕ Isocr. 12. 136; Diog. Laert. 1. 34, 61, and passim; cf. Gardthausen (1913), 71 ff.
5 Del Grande (1936), 370.
® Cf. Aesch. Supp. 346, 354, 656. FIG. 5: Pap. Zenon 59533
7 Del Grande (1936), 377 £; Alypios p. 384 J.; Boeth. Inst. Mus.4, 3~4.
ὃ Gombosi (1939), 127 f.
44 Il. Fragments of the late Classical to early Hellenistic periods No. 9 PAP. VIENNA G 29 825 a/b recto 45

No. 9 PAP. VIENNA G 29 825 a/b recto Third—second century BC

4

T. Ἰθε- ἃ ἐχ - θρὰν vl
cf : 1 "
11 ἢ [ ΕΞ =F ᾿ ' |
1 Ἰθεᾳεχθρανυΐ 2 Galva δδά - ne -δοίν

] | Ρ C[ f ΤΣind
=i ¥
ia
ΤΣ T
ia
2 Ἰναδαπεδοί t yt
3. [χρη τάν - 8 ἔτρο - cw
IM 1 P [ ἢ. 4, Π
a —— — ᾿ +8
eo : +t =| |
3 Intavdeportl
4 I-n- δητ ἢ pr ya [
}¢ Pt ?f[ A .
4 Jeinnpryal ie 5 5st
- Ξ ἘΞ .- Ξ Ὁ =
t ΙΞ: |Ϊ
4 “

} PM J o[
5 χίᾳτλι- 80 - φό -ρον, L.... Juve
5 ]q@Avsomopov[, |... ofa : 1 Ἄ ’ 1
<P. =
=
ἘΞ —
St
{+ —t+ ἜΣ ΡΞΞΞΞ1 Ἢ τς Ξ-
j
1. φρυϊγιοτι M [ JH P ME “6 roy ταῦ - τ᾿ βά- θοῦ n- Ce [
6 louy tant . βαθοσηΐε, [ fh } 1
FASS 5
ie =i Ἐi
- ἔν τα {————
fy ἘΞ-
τι ἰ- ||
v t γ᾽
] Φ Μ Cc PCT 57 ἧἾἸμενναι θύ- ya- τρες yor λα- θῃΐ - ναί
7 Ἱμεναιθυγατρεογαλαθηῖς[
ΠῚ i
as
& f: :ἘΞ at
ot =| |
] Cc PE Η “ Ω

8 ἸἹπαρθενοιελκεουν[ 5.8 παρθένοι eA -ὀ κετςοίζίπεπλοι

ta ἧς4ἘΣ +o
tt

i
a tit

ἡ
1 PR C P RE ταν ΤΣ a
¥

ty
9 Ἰριτροχαλακεῖ 5.9 Jou τρο - χα - λὰ κέϊ[λευθα].

e. g. μίγδία or μίγδίην Kannicht (1981), 265, μιγά[δ West 5. χ]αλιδοφόρον Hunger (1962), 56, 62, Pohlmann,
@A. or better λᾳ (λαϊδοφόρον) Kannicht (1981), 265, Ιααιδ- (κλ]ααιδοφόρον with melism like line 4) West τκὰ
PéhImann, West, Iycal or Juco.[ Hunger (1962), 56,64 6 Jove, followed by a chi-like sign: Pohimann ταῦτ,
Péhlmann, ταυτί }, Kannicht (1981), 265, tavtlJy West, tadt[d]y Hunger (1962), 56, 64 née, ἰ Kannicht
Lines 1--7 on fr. a, lines 5--9 on ἔτ. b (1981), 265, Péhlmann, nCeto i. e. ἵζετο Hunger (1962), 56,64 7 μεναι West, Pohimann, vevar Hunger (1962),
56 γαλαθηίναί Hunger (1962), 56, 64, γάλα θη[ο- Kannicht (1981), 265 8 Jxa Péhimann, πὰ Hunger
Notation 1 |, not Γ Hunger (1962),57 HorM West 4C orf Hunger (1962), 57 6@pvlyict, Hunger (1962), (1962), 56,61 ἑλκεοίίπεπλοι Diggle (1990), 150, ἑλκεοίίχειροι Hunger (1962), 64 9]Jo. West, }.. Hunger
56 Mand M Péhimann, M or H Hunger (1962), 57 7 Mor H Hunger (1962), 57 ς᾽ over@Péhimann 9 R and (1962), 56 κέίλευθα Hunger (1962), 64.
R PéhImann (1962), 67 £., ΓΚ and F pap.

Text 1 Ἰθεᾷ Hunger (1962), 56, @ or o or w, ᾳ or 4 (8. g. ἤ]θελ᾽. Kannicht (1981), 264, Péhlmann 2 ἀϊνὰ
δάπεδο[ν Hunger (1962), 63, €. g.-opélva West -δοῖν, not -S@[ Péhlmann, thus not Jv ἁ δ᾽ ἀπέδῳίκε Kan- Our nos. 9-14 are a group of small scraps in Vienna that were found with the Orestes frag-
nicht (1981), 265 3 χρ]ὴ Hunger (1962), 61 ῥοπίάν Hunger (1962), 61, 63: x or better τ (e. g. τάνδ᾽ ἔροτίιν ment. They were mentioned by C. Wessely, O. Crusius, and H. Gerstinger,' but remained for
comparing Eur. ΕἾ, 625) Kannicht (1981), 265, τί, not x West, Péhimann 4 Ἰεδηη: a melism like no. 10. 12
π]εριχαρειεῖ Kannicht (1981), 265 Hye Hunger (1962), 56: αἴ or δί or Al Kannicht (1981), 265, PohImann: ' Wessely (1891), 18, 23; Crusius (1893), 200; Gerstinger (1936), 309.
 46 IL Fragments of the late Classical to early Hellenistic periods
Nos. 9-10 PAP. VIENNA G 29 825 a/b recto and verso 47

long unpublished. A drawing and a transcription by Wessely, dated

4 October 1922, and missing
no. 12, were found among the papers of R. Wagner,' who studied the fragments
sometime before
1934. He used a photograph of nos. 9-14 in which no. 14 is broken
into three pieces, though in
Wessely’s drawing they are still united. :
These preliminary drafts by Wessely and Wagner, as well as the
original papyri, were avail-
able to H. Hunger and E. Péhlmann when they edited the fragments
in 1962.2 R. Kannicht re-
vised the text of the verses from photographs in 1981,° and Péhimann
has recollated the originals
for the present edition.
Fragments a and b of G 29825 are written on both sides of the papyrus,
the verso being in
both cases inverted with respect to the recto; clearly the two fragments
belong closely together,
and by matching the fibres Hunger was able to combine them.
Our no. 9 is the recto of the com-
bined fragment and no. 10 the verso. The hand is to be dated to the
end of the third century BC.‘
In no. 9 nothing of the upper or lateral margins is preserved. Lines
5-8 are compatible with an
anapaestic or dactylic metre. Epic correption appears in 8 and
perhaps in 1 (if the third letter is
a). The piece might come from tragic lyrics, and Kannicht included
it in his edition of the Tragic
Adespota as F 679. 1-10. τάνδ᾽ ἔροτ[ιν in line 3, on the other hand,
if correctly read, may point
to a dithyramb or other festival composition
᾿
The notesR OC PMI (f gabe’ d’) are diatonic Lydian.® The only
other note
(perhaps) appearing in the fragment is H (lines 1 and 6);
we say perhaps, because M is
not written very differently, and may be a possible reading.
In 6 the note-series | MH P
M is headed by the explicit signature φρυγιοτί, which is accompan
ied by a great chi-like
sign in the text, explained by Kannicht as a double diastole.’
M and | are common to the FIG. 6: Pap. Vienna
Lydian and Phrygian scales; the chromatic Phrygian contains G 29825 a/b recto
also H (67), but not P, while
the Hypophrygian contains both H and P, though a scale containi
ng both M and H would
be one in which a diatonic tetrachord (a bg ο΄ d’) was continue
d upwards by a chromatic
one (4΄ eg’ 6, 5).
As in the other Vienna fragments, and as is normal for the
period, repeating notes are
written only once.® There is no rhythmical notation in this piece.
There may be an exam-
ple of a syllable divided between two notes being written with
doubled vowel (4 εδηη).
In lines 1-5 (the pre-‘Phrygian’ part) there seems to be good
agreement between melody
and accent (reading 1 ἐχθράν, 2 δάπεδον, 3 ἔροτιν, 5 -pdpov),
but thereafter we find
clashes in {nCeto (if a verb form is rightly discerned), θύγατρες
, and γάλα (if a sepa-
rate word). So the ‘Phrygian’ section, at least, may have been
strophic. Hunger’s sup-
plement tatt[d]y in 6 would give another clash, whereas
e.g. ταύτ[η]ν would not. 9
τροχαλά is again in accord with the melodic movement.

ἢ In the possession of the Musikwissenschaftliches Seminar of Munich

University.
? Hunger-PéhImann (1962); re-edited in Pohimann (1970),
84-92.
> Kannicht (1981), 264-80 (F 679-86).
ὁ Hunger (1962), 53-5; see figs. 6 and 7.
°Cfno. 5 fr. 15 ii 6.
® The R, which is in principle a B modified by being left open at the
base (βῆτα ἐλλιπέο, Alypius p. 369. 5 Jan
etc.), appears in the unusual form γκ , also found in no. 13. It was identified as R
by Wagner; cf. Pohlmann (1962),
67; (1966), 503 f.
7 Kannicht (1981), 265. For other examples of the diastole
(a mark of separation) see nos. 3. 5, 6; 10. 3,7; 14. 4. FIG. 7: Pap. Vienna
® See p.15.
: G 29825 a/b verso
48 Il. Fragments of the late Classical to early Hellenistic periods No. 10 PAP. VIENNA G 29 825 a/b verso 49

No. 10 PAP. VIENNA G 29 825 a/b verso Third-second century BC

Ὁ: = { :
= αὐ" te Za =
1 ς ΠῸ-ς ΡρΡ
1 licev Gy - κά - Ac - μα
1 ] .cevayKaArAicha
δ ἢ

ΤΊ
} PO cP

Ril

{Μ|
am

“TT9
4
2 Ἰοιουμετάνᾳαρι

ν
ie
Tn
] π Φ

δὶ

les}

all
a
τὴν

Ἢ
3 T..bE..... } mo@mvKopertrc )

w
] ς N ζ

oe

ih
4 Τῶν! Ἱκορακασοσοικαιῖιοε
] oy [Ec] κότρα-καο, 6 - οον καί ce
1. ® oO Zz oO ς δ
x Ξ
4,
pt
—— 7 t ΕΞ-- Ἔ
-ἢρ ff+ +;ie ἘΞΕ
ie i: t
1 1
]|
5 Ἱπολύοπαν![, (Ἰοθοιεαχαιῶν ve = |
ὅ 5 Ἱπο-λὺς πάν -[τῶνϑν͵ ψῖῖο -ὀ Goi’ "A - χαι- dv
101 Mi Ι
ΞΕἘν ΞΞ α
6 ]lvypearlyydn.if >
οὖν με -λυ[τίδ]η, [
] [
7 Ἰρομιδοοΐᾳί...1.1
° 7 ἐνδ]ρομίδος- al
] Μ [
8 Jatawrve,..[ -Ὁ-
1? 0 ff 8 atawd
;

9 J,opatacl,..Vf

is
᾿

TTS
j¢ M © [ 9 ἀκΊῬ]α - μά - ταοΐ
10 ],.v@ev[. J. ΠΣ ΙΝ

.ket OM Ef . *10 1... - veevt

11 ταν κορανί ]..[
$—
ἸΟΡΜ if
12 leptxaperetl.
J. ἐπ Ἰτὰν κό - pavl

Lines 1-5 on fr. Ὁ, lines 3-12 on fr. ad

Notation 4C and Z Péhlmann, C and X Hunger (1962), 57 5.2 Péhlmann, Z Hunger (1962),57 6 © Poéhl-
SSS ρ-:

12 mle- pi
be

- ya- =>
per- εἴ
mann, C Hunger (1962), 57 11 ἰλυδ]ιςτι Hunger (1962), 58 f.
xoc), ὧν [Ec] κόρᾳκαο Hunger (1962), 57 6 υγμελιί (.).1η Pohlmann: sufficient room for μελι[τίδ]η as iota
Text 1) σεν Péhimann, ] cey Hunger (1962), 57 f. 2 Jot Péhimann, Jou Hunger (1962), 57 τὰν : tov corrected is often set close (lines 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 12), Ἰοῦν μελιίτίδ]η Hunger (1962), 57,645 7 Jpo Péhimann, Jpo Hunger
totav apv-(e. g. ἀρίδακρυο) or ept- (e. g. ἐρικύμων) Kannicht (1981), 265, dpilctav Diggle (1990), 150, ερι (1962), 57 8 Jato & vol Hunger (1962), 57, 64, Péhimann, not laty or lave 9 J apo Péhlmann, ], μα Kan-
Hunger (1962), 58 3 πόθῳν (not πόθον) West, Péhlmann, ποθῷν Hunger (1962), 57 xopei Kannicht (1981), nicht (1981), 266, ἀϊκαμάτας Hunger (1962), 57, 65 10 J, νθενῖ Péhimann, τὸ [pa]veév Hunger (1962), 65
265, PéhImann (the iota set close as often), κόρε Hunger (1962), 65 4 ev[,, Jkopaxac Péhimann (not xec or 11 Jrav Péhimann, ]tov Hunger (1962), 58 ρανΐ West, ρανί Hunger (1962), 58.
50 I. Fragments of the late Classical to early Hellenistic periods
No.
11 PAP. VIENNA
6 29825 ¢ 51

Part of the upper and right-hand margins of no. 10 is preserved. Lines 2 No. 11
and 4 do not extend PAP. VIENNA G 29825 c Third-second century BC
so far to the right as 1, 3, and 5. In 3 and 7 there are diastolai,
and in 11 a modulation signature
as in no. 9. 6. The hand shows cursive traits; sometimes letters like iota
are set close.
Lines 1-5, at least, are compatible with iambo-choriambic metre, with catalexis
at 3 and 5 and tf i of
probably after 2/3 ἀρί[οταν]; in line 4 (καί) perhaps there is a syncopated l :F vol 6 ταιρεῖ
iambus. Apparent
hiatus at 5 (and perhaps 8) is to be interpreted as scriptio plena of an
elided vowel. —_t
.
The composition is dramatic in nature. A female speaker (2) addresses Oo f[ cL (
abuse (4-5, 6?) to an
‘Achaean’ (5), presumably one of those who fought at Troy. It appears that 2--vu ovel 7 ngurdral
a high-born Trojan
woman (2 pe τὰν &pilctav]) is berating the Greek hero who plans to make
her his ἀγκάλιομα
(or ἐναγκάλιομα, 1), and threatening that he will suffer for it (3 πόθων Cc [ 1
κορεῖ tic, ‘someone
will give you your fill of lusts’). We may guess that the two persons 3 τεκί 8 τις ΓΙ
in question are Andromache
and Neoptolemus, with allusion to the latter’s violent death at Delphi;
the κόρα in 11 might be
Hermione. A tragedy seems a likely source of these lyrics, even though [ ΝΟΙΪ
the expression [éc]
κόρακας (4) dips below the usual tragic level. Μελιί[τίδ]η in 6 would 4 optol 9 :yuvl[
lie even more clearly in
the comic register (cf. Ar. Ran. 991; Men. Aspis 269). Thus one cannot
dismiss the possibility
that no. 10 is a fragment of a satyr play in Trojan context. R. Kannicht ς [
included the piece as a
possible satyr play in his Adespota’ because of line 5. 5-- πορῳῖς[
The segmentation implied by diastole and modulation signature is
confirmed by the music.
Lines 1--3, with the notes ® C P TT. (g a δι). are chromatic Lydian,
while 4-6, with OC OZ Ϊ Notation 1: Γ like the ἢ in 8, Hunger (1962), 59, but see Kannicht be-
ΝΖῴ αὖ ς΄ οβ΄ e’) are chromatic Hypolydian. In both cases, as perhaps
in no. 9. 6 (see low 8 Γ Hunger (1962), 59, Pohimann, f PéhImann (1970),91 9 O PéhI-
above), only the upper tetrachord is chromatic, the lower being diatonic. mann, O Hunger (1962), 59, © not possible in Hypolydian.
Line 6, with C
MI (a ς΄ 47), is diatonic Lydian; 8-10, with © CMOT (gac’ ἐ{΄ [7. diatonic Hypo-
phrygian; and 11-12, following the modulation Signature, diatonic Lydian Text 1 v9, not yo Hunger (1962), 59: vo Péhlmann, γυῷίν Kannicht (1981),
again (C P ΜΙ
=abe‘d’). 266: not possible, cf. notation lines 1,8 ἀπά πο. 14.4 3 tex Hunger (1962),
As in no. 9, repeated notes are not written out, and there is no rhythmica 59, Péhlmann, tev Kannicht (1981), 266 4 wpto Kannicht (1981), 266,
l notation. A Péhlmann, apt, Hunger (1962),59 δ ᾧ or ἡ Kannicht (1981), 266 6 aor
syllable divided between two notes is written with doubled diphthong
(12 π]ερι- FIG. 8: Pap. Vienna G 29825 ς ¢ Hunger (1962), 59, α Kannicht (1981), 266, PéhImann.
xaperst). The melodic line goes against the word accents in each
word of line 5, as well
as in 9 ἀἸϊκαμάτασο, and in 12 π]εριχαρεῖ it rises instead of falling
on the circumflex.
Once again, strophic composition is indicated. This fragment is the closest to the Orestes piece in the character of its script, and is likewise
to be dated to about 200 BC.’ The left margin is preserved, with at lines 2 and 5 symbols resem-
bling an obelos but having some attachment at the inner extremity. Besides the vocal notes C O
' Kannicht (1981), 265 f.; the fragment is F 679, 11-22. N | (α ὃ c#’ d’) there are instrumental notes with arsis points: Γ (e) at 1 and 8 in the text,
and Z (g’) at 7 between vocal] notes, as in the Orestes fragment, and with the same shape
as there, ~L. In 2 the note O is clearly surmounted by —,, the triseme symbo! otherwise
first attested in the Seikilos song (no. 23). Above N O in 9 runs a long horizontal stroke
(diseme). The dicolon or double point (:) appears at the beginnings of 1 and 6, and a tri-
ple point (:) before 9; their function is obscure.” The last revision of the text is due to R.
Kannicht.’ Nothing can be seen of its subject matter. Its significance lies in the variety of
its notation, with the marginal symbols, double and triple points, and diseme and triseme
signs. The melodic notation is all consistent with Hypolydian, mostly diatonic but
modulating into chromatic with the N in 9.

' Hunger (1962), 55; see fig. 8. ; ;

? On their use in literary texts cf. Turner (1987), 7-9; on the dicolon as a rhythmical sign preceding notes cf.
West 2 (1992), 267.
> Kannicht (1981), 266 (F 679. 23-31).
52 Il. Fragments of the late Classical to early Hellenistic periods Nos. 12-14 PAP. VIENNA 29825 d-f 53

Nos. 12-14 PAP. VIENNA 29825 d-f Third—second century BC Nos. 12-14 are palaeographically very similar, and like no. 11 are to be dated to around 200
BC. They also have features in common with the other Vienna fragments. The note R has the
same unusual form F as in no. 9. As in the Orestes fragment (no. 3), epsilon has a square epi-
No. 12 No. 14
graphic form as a musical note (14. 6), but is rounded as a letter in the text. The diastole appears
again, as in nos. 3 and 10, and it is followed by the same instrumental T with arsis-point that we
1.31 1 [
11. [ 1 Iptarcdal have seen in no. 11. Repeated notes are not written out (13. 1). The diseme sign appears at 12. 4
over an unidentified note.
The few legible words are all found in tragedy.’ All the vocal notes are Lydian (R ® C P1Z
Pf ] Cc f
2 Ita [ 2 Ieotrotl E=fgalbjd’e’f’). The instrumental Γ (e) fits in with this. ἄγκεοι (13. 4) is set without
regard to the accent, and so is iva if rightly recognized at 12. 4.
] [ 1Φ[
3.)...., [ No. 12 3 elonpepol
δ 4

1? oC? [ ΞΞΞΞΞ ] I
4 lwpocival 4 Ἴῳτρος {-va [ 4 ἸρυοαῦΓΙ

] 1 1C ZI
SlvenrtaAcal 5 J.avayl

] 21 ]Z Εὖ
6] λινφῳδί 6 locvel

[ ] } cl f
FIG. 10: Pap. Vienna G 29825 e

7 J. 71 ]
No. 13 No. 13

Jl P ct ———,
1 Ἰχενωσεφαί ὃ rr ?
1 lyev ὧς. & - gal
ἢ Π

2 Ἰφαγκεοικί % Ἰς dy- κε- cr κ

Notation Νο. 12. 4 ?Péhimann © Péhimann (1970),92 6?Péhlmann. No. 13.2 R Péhimann (1970), 92,
Fpap. No. 14.4 fF Péhimann (1970), 92, y Kannicht (1981), 266, but see the stigme οἱ Γ and the note ἢ in no. 11.
1,8 67? Péhimann,

Text No. 12.4 wpoc West, Péhlmann, apoc Péhimann (1970), 92, epoc Kannicht (1981), 266, but see the FIG. 9: Pap. Vienna G 29825 d
disemos 5 xvavéatly σπιλάζδοιν (Soph. Ant. 966) Hunger (1962), 65, ἐὶν σπιλάϊδεοοι Pohimann (1970), 92
6 Atv@s Péhimann, λινῳλ, West, -Aw εδ- Kannicht (1981), 266, g.ived Péhimann (1970), 92, auved or λινεδ
Hunger (1962), 60. No. 13.1 ]yev West, Péhlmann, Jcev Hunger (1962),60 cl Pdhimann, ga { Hunger
FIG. 11: Pap. Vienna G 29825 f
(1962), 60 2 Je Kannicht (1981), 266, 1.ἄγκεοι Hunger (1962), 60, 65, cf. Eur. Bacch. 1051. No. 14. 1 Jp
Kannicht (1981), 266 2 Aor Péhimann, λοι Hunger (1962), 60 3 ἐϊφημεροί Hunger (1962), 66, cf. Eur. Herac.
866, ἐ]φ Kannicht (1981), 266, West, Péhlmann 4 Jo West, Péhlmann, Jo Hunger (1962), 61 6]oc West, POhl-
mann, Jac Hunger (1962), 61, ] Ὁ Kannicht (1981), 266. ' The fragments are edited by Kannicht (1981), 266 (F 679. 32~46); see figs. 9-11.
 54 IL. Fragments of the late Classical to early Hellenistic periods
Nos. 15-16 PAP. VIENNA G 13786/1494 55

Nos. 15-16 PAP. VIENNA G 13763/1494 Third-second century BC Nos. 15 and 16, like the other Vienna fragments, belong to the period around 200 BC, even if
some uncertainty remains owing to the small extent of the legible text.' No. 15 contains vocal
music which is three times interrupted by instrumental sequences. After line 1 there are two lines
of instrumental notes bearing disemes and arsis-points; in 4—5 there is more text with vocal no-
No. 15
tation; in 6 we appear to have the end of an instrumental sequence and, following two large dots
which are perhaps equivalent to the diastole, the start of the next vocal section; and a similar
19 [
1ταν ta [ arrangement is probably to be assumed for 7.
Vocal and instrumental parts alternate similarly in no. 16, which has a later cursive non-
musical text on its verso. In 1-2 we can discern the end of a vocal section; then, afier a wide gap,
2jcCuUxKéCcy {

ΧΗ
stands a note K with diseme above, and instrumental notation continues in 3-4. In 5 there is more

all
ry
text with vocal notation. On κοι- there is a melisma.
3 ἸἹΚΓΗΚέσος [ The notation in both fragments is Hypolydian, diatonic in the instrumental parts, chromatic in
the vocal. The notes preserved are: instrumental h HP C K“¥<CU(Bdeabe'd'e'f’); vo-

i,
JN 2 Nf cal RVC OZNE (ff#a bc’ c#’ f), with an uncertain diatonic Φ (g) at the beginning
41... εοτιᾳί of no. 15.
It may be that both fragments belong to the same piece, but no physical connection
12 RV Ef can be established. They are of interest for their combination of vocal with instrumental
5 Ἰιδηζανοοῖί music, their rhythmical notation, and their use of the notes R (also in nos. 9 and 13) and
V, whose existence by the late third century BC is of significance for the history of the
1. Of development of the Greek vocal notation.”
6 ]??K οτί

] v[
7.127} eof

No. 16

1 Jo [
2 Ἰθασᾳ KI

3] <7CE [

4 »Γ ἶ
ΙΝ O02? Εἰ
5 Jey κοινοῖς δῖ - voic δῖ

FIG. 12: Pap. Vienna G 13763 FIG. 13: Pap. Vienna G 1494
Notation No. 15.3 Κὶ Péhlmann K West, Péhimann 5 2 Péhimann, δ or ἃ (Péhlmann (1970), 93) not possible
6K West, Péhimann. Νο. 16. 4 ~ West, Pohimann, not C (Péhlmann (1970), 93).
' H. Hunger (personal communication); cf. Péhlmann 2 (1966), 501; see figs. 12 and 13.
Text No. 15.7 κα Cf Pohlmann, &L_}.{ Pohimann (1970), 93. ? See Pohimann (1976), 64; West 2 (1992), 259 f.
No. 16.5 νοῖς : o over τ in the pap.
 56 II. Fragments of the late Classical to early Hellenistic periods Nos. 17-18 PAP. BERLIN 6870 lines 16-19; 23 57

Nos. 17-18 PAP. BERLIN 6870 lines 16-19; 23 Second-—third century AD

No. 17 No. 17

SS Ξ Ξ [ΞΞΞΞΞ
ΈΞΕΞΞΞΞΕΕ ἘξξῆξξΞ
ἢ ἢ i Τ ΤΣ ΤΟΣ Τ Τ

ror OF « κ' δ'΄ :ἢ o KF (Ἐ 16 Αὐ - τὸ - φό -

Τ
νῶι
[4
χε-
Τ Υ
pl καὶ @ac-ya-vov 1
16 AY TO ®O NQ XE PI KAI ®A CTA NON If
Pit =< a
Α΄
——- ζΞΞΞΞΕΞΕ p—st—+4 tf ΞΞΞΈΞΞΕ
γΞ-Ξ[ΞΞ-Ξ- ᾧ-ΞΞ -Ξ- ΞΘ
1 roof O ΒΙΚ΄ ο΄ Po osvK ni ef
.
17 Τε- λὰ-ὀ μὼ - νι- & - δα, τὸ cov, Αἴ - αν, εἰ
17 TE AA MQ NIA AA TO CON Al {ij
NY

AN Εἰ
ρ- - + 9— tye — τ
KK Vn oo AE “ OK 2
i ΞΞΞΞΞΞἤΞΞΞΞΕΡ
γ--Ὑ
——
4 Τ
ᾧ- ᾧ- Ξ Τ-----ς
4 r
18 AlLQOAY CEAT 18 δι Ὃ - Buce-<c> & - a τὸν ἀἁ - λιτ-ρόν, ὁ | [
a
A AI TPON
ON OTP [
oto
er ae +.at 2 τpr rr te »: τ|
Ι΄ K’ Ε΄ 1’ Κ' ΚΞ ο΄ A) VE x [ == f——+
“
——— Li Τ
Ξ -Ξ
19 EAKE CIN
O T10 ΘΟΥ ME NOC [ 19 ἕλ- κε- CLV ὁ πὸ -ὀ θοῦ - με - νος

Notation 16 :' Mpap., I’ ὦ supplied by Wagner (1921), 261, Ι΄ A by Pohimann (1970), 100 Text 16 leftmarginAA : ΧΊμαι is ἄλλ(ο) χίοροῦ) εἰ Schubart (1918), 768, West 1 (1992), 13, γ Kannicht
17 Β that is [B]
Schubart (1918), 766, 768, West 1 (1992), 13, [K} Wagner (1921), 261, Pohimann (1970), 100 181’ M Schubart (1981), 275 17 [I] Schubart (1918), 766, 768, | Pohimann (1970), 100 18 [ ’O}Suc<c>éa, Schubart (1918), 766,
(1918), 768, West 1 (1992), 13, 14, 1’ A Pohimann (1970), 100 A’ E’ I’ West 1 (1992), 13, Péhlmann (1970), 100, 768, ycea West 1 (1992), 13 te, West 1 (1992), 13, on Schubart (1918), 766, Kannicht (1981), 276, ty Pohl-
A’ Ἐ΄ ? Schubart (1918), 766, 768,A’ E’ I’ Wagner (1921), 261 19 :K’ Wagner (1921), 262, «Κ΄ Schubart (1918), mann (1970), 100.
768 [1 West 1 (1992), 13, 14, AE] Wagner (1921), 262 Α΄ West 1 (1992), 13, Α΄ Schubart (1918), 768.

No. 18
No. 18

TYA Τ K 10 T K A’ KI
23 Al MAKA TA XOONOCATOT Be if
#
Py
4.:- to
|
-Ξσ᾽
fr Ἂν
6
»
£
fy
ci
ns ΤΣ
i
=
-ς- = j — “ ᾿
23 αὖ - μα κα - τὰ χθο- νὸς a- ποί

Notation 23 ΤῪ ὦ Schubart (1918), 766, 768, West 1 (1992), 13, 14,:1X ὦ Pohlmann (1970), 100, 103, TX A
Wagner (1921), 262 KA’ ΚΙ Péhimann, K A’ K [’ West 1 (1992), 13, 14, Y A’ ? Schubart (1918), 766,
768, K or
Text 23 left margin (cf. 16) on the level of the notation 1 α΄ [._.] ἀ΄ Péhlmann, 1 α΄ A’ West 1 (1992), 13,
tema

X, A’ or X, T Wagner (1921), 262.

ἄλ(λο) A’ Schubart (1918), 766, that is ἄλ(λο) [α΄] Pohimann (1970), 100.
cement
58 Il. Fragments of the late Classical to early Hellenistic periods
Nos. 17-18 PAP. BERLIN 6870 lines 16-19; 23 59

Pap. Berlin 6870, published by W. Schubart in 1918, preserves, on the verso Provenance from a strophic composition might be assumed too for no. 18, whether
of a military or not it
document dated to 156 AD, the left half of a column containing five musical items.' belonged to the same play. These two fragments are accordingly placed here, whereas the
Lines 1-12 other
are from a paean (no. 50), of which the first line is marked by a paragraphos and
ἔκθεοις. Lines items on the Berlin papyrus (nos. 50-2) would seem to belong to the Imperial period
and appear
13-15, which begin further to the right, are an instrumental piece (no. 51). Lines later in the volume.
16-19 are from
an Ajax-tragedy (no. 17), introduced by the marginal note GAA(O) x(opov), similar The setting of no. 17 lies in the soprano register. The note symbols, Ο΄ Κ΄ I’ Ε΄ A’, are all
to those
found in nos. 9 and 25. Lines 20-2 are a second instrumental piece, again indented furnished with the octave stroke. Except for the E’, they belong in the top octave of the
(no. 52). In Hyper-
the left-hand margin of line 23 there stands another note α(λλο), followed aeolian scale. The note E = Κ΄ occurs in Hyperionic, Hypolydian, and Lydian, but none of the
by a single line of
tragedy, the last on the sheet. The left, upper, and lower margins of the papyrus
are preserved. In standard scales has Ε΄ = Κ΄. O. J. Gombosi wanted to explain it away as a mistake
for H’ = e'’,
no. 50 the length of the lines can be approximately established, and it indicates but Wagner rightly rejected this on palaeographical grounds.' One might consider the possibility
that the width of
the original sheet was at least twice as great as the preserved portion. The
format shows that we that the copyist of the Berlin papyrus added the octave strokes to the notes on his own initiative,
have to do with a collection of musical examples, which share the same
highly developed to give the excerpt more explicitly the character of a women’s chorus: without the octave
thythmical notation? strokes, the notes could be combined with the likewise Hyperacolian notes of no. 18 (only one of
Schubart left the musical notation for others to analyse, but provided
a transcript and a fac- which has an octave stroke, apparently an error) to yield the series X? TOKIE A. (Instead of
simile, which served subsequent students well.’ R. Wagner checked readings X an exharmonic Y = g is also possible.) But the E remains anomalous; we should expect
on the original with X T
Schubart’s help, making a decisive advance in the interpretation of the notation.*
C. Del Grande (C)OKIZA=f# g#ab c#'d'e'f#. Evidently this music used a special modal scale in which
and G. B. Pighi contributed further proposals for supplementing the text.®
Ε. Heitsch edited the the seventh degree was sharpened. Had it been raised by a whole semitone, we should have ex-
paean without the musical notation but with a full synopsis of the conjectural
supplements.’ The pected the note-symbol A to have been used according to normal principles of notation.? The
papyrus disappeared with the whole Berlin collection at the end of the Second
World War, but choice of E suggests that it was raised only by a quarter-tone.
eventually came to light again, and R. Kannicht was able to recollate it
for the text of the two As to the high register, it can hardly reflect the original tragic performance, in which all fe-
tragic fragments.® A small additional fragment (inv. 14097) was joined on at male parts would have been played by male actors. What we have before us must be a later ar-
the top right-hand
corner and, following a re-examination of the papyrus by Stephanie West, published. rangement for concert performance by a female singer (a chorus is harder to envisage). She pre-
No. 17 may be assigned to a tragedy of the Classical or early Hellenistic sumably assumed the persona of Tecmessa, even if the (strophic) original was choral.
period on the basis
of its content (lyric dialogue of Tecmessa and female Chorus about Ajax’s suicide), The rhythmical notation does not follow the system used in the Paean and the instrumental
its metre
(dactylo-epitrite), and its musical setting (largely contrary to the word accents), fragments (nos. 50-2). With one exception (line 19), the long syllables do not carry diseme
which points
strongly to strophic composition.’° This last feature is against the proposal of signs, the time-value of the notes being given by the syllabic quantities. If a leimma is added to a
Del Grande to as-
cribe no. 17 to Timotheos’ Ajax dithyramb, of which nothing is known but the title,"
but which long syllable, the result is a superlong. The hyphen appears only once in the notation, line 17,
will have been astrophic.'? Nor can F. M. Heichelheim’s ascription to the though it occurs twice in the text (lines 18, 23), where its function is unclear.
“OrAwv κρίοιο of
Aeschylus be upheld.” There is nothing to connect no. 17/18 with the other Ajax tragedies The pointing in no. 17 is generally consistent with the apparent dactylo-epitrite character of
of
Aeschylus (Opfjuccat, Cadapivict),'* or with those of Astydamas II, Carcinus, the metre. The dactyls are notated -UU or -uv. Line 16 begins with a D-colon, apparently fol-
or Theodec-
tes.'° Kannicht rightly placed them among the Tragic Adespota.'* lowed by another. To regularize the rhythm the last syllable of the first D-colon is prolonged by
means of a leimma; unfortunately the papyrus is damaged above the leimma, and it is not possi-
' Schubart (1918).
ble to be sure whether it carried a diseme sign with arsis-point. In line 17 there was probably
? See pp. 168 f.
> Schubart (1918), 764. period-end after Αἶαν, the first syllable of which is extended to double length, equivalent to a
* Reinach (1919); Thierfelder (1918); (1919); Schréder (1920); Romagnoli (1920). whole dactyl, with a melisma.‘ In line 18 we probably have the end of one D-colon, -uu- δι᾽
° Wagner (1921); cf. Schrdder (1922). *OSvc-, a short link-syllable, and then another D-colon. Here again superlength is used to equal-
6 Del Grande (1931); Pighi (1943). ize the rhythm, the leimma over the second syllable of ’O8uc<c>éc. serving to scan -δυσοέ- as
7 eitsch (1961), 168-70. LU, equivalent to the dactyls. (We must suppose that in the two notes over -cé& the arsis-point
5. Kannicht (1981), F 683.
> West 1 (1992), 12-14 and pl. 1. has erroneously been applied to the second O’ instead of to the first.)
West 2 (1992), 197, 282, 320-1, with pl. 35.
In line 19 and πο. 18 R. P. Winnington-Ingram saw that the pointing of the groups -UUUU
"' Del Grande (1946), 89 ξ, and again Bélis (1998). Cf. Wilamowitz (1903), 106. (ἕλκεοιν ὁ mo- and -τα χθονὸς ἀπο[) has an analogy in no. 23, the song of Seikilos, where the
12 West 2 (1992), 36].4. ᾿ iambic metra are pointed U-UUU. These are therefore trochaic metra, in which the first half is
15 Heichelheim (1958); Péhlmann (1970), 101.
* Aeschylus, Ὅπλων κρίσις: TrGF III F 174-8; Opiicco.: TrGF ΠῚ F 83-5; Cokapivuat:
7rGF Il F 216- ' Gombosi (1939), 134 f.; Wagner (1955), 115.
20.
? West 2 (1992), 322.
15 Astydamas II: TrGF I 60 F 1 a; Carcinus: 7rGF 170 F 1 a; Theodectes: ΟΕ
1 72 F 1. > Cf. West 2 (1992), 255-8.
'S See above, n. 8.
* For similar treatment of mythological names in other papyri (nos. 39 and 53) see West 2 (1992), 203.
60 Il. Fragments of the late Classical to early Hellenistic periods No, 19 HYMN TO ASCLEPIUS 61

reckoned as the thesis and the second half as the arsis.' Only the beginning of line 23 (no. 18) is No. 19 EPIDAURUS , SEG 30. 390 (Hymn to Asclepius) Hellenistic?
anomalous, for to go by the notation, αἷμα κα-- occupies only five time-units, T Y in the thesis
and M T K (with stigmai) in the arsis. There is no sign that a note or diseme sign has been lost. E. JEN AZOE A ΕΝΔΟΙ
Péhlmann (1970) attempted to resolve the difficulty by reading | for the first T. But T seems to
be what the papyrus has,’ so that this solution remains a conjectural emendation. Jov ἀείσωμεν

μ᾿
Melody and rhythmization link no. 18 with no. 17, though the connection seems to be contra-
dicted by the marginal sign at line 23, af. . .] [a], which Schubart interpreted as ἄλ(λο) Α΄ 1 ἀνθρώποιοιν

NY
(3. H. Abert supposed that the second A’ indicated the transposition of the whole line into
᾿Απόλλωϊνι κλυτοτόξωι

WH
the higher octave.’ Wagner took it as an indication of key, and Gombosi as a duplication of the
ἄλλο." But the difficulty of an ἄλλο here was recognized by Pighi. This is the last line on the Jac δέ ἀείοω

FF
verso of a single sheet of papyrus: hardly the place for a new excerpt to begin.’ The decisive
point is that the two A’s are set-somewhat above the level of the musical notation. They belong, ἐπιοταϊμένως καταλέξαι

AH
therefore, neither to the notation nor to the text. This leads us to return to Schubart’s interpreta-
ΤἸιου ἀγλαὰ τέκνα

NHN
tion and to read an ἄλλο followed by a cancelled A, this being not a note but the initial letter of
the line of text, which the scribe had put too high. The purpose of the ἄλλο was simply to sepa-
Ἰς ὕμνοο ἀοιδῆο

HN
rate no. 18 from no. 52, in the same way as no. 51 is marked off by an ἄλλο from no. 17. So far
as the page layout goes, there is no objection to taking no. 18 as an addendum to no. 17. Ἶτον δέ cor ἧτίορ

Oo
FIG. 14: Hymn to Asclepius Ἰούνεκα πί

ΞΟ
' Winnington-Ingram (1955), 80.
? West 1 (1992), 14, following Stephanie West’s re-examination of the original. Jpol

~
3 Schubart (1918), 764, 768.
* Abert (1919), 325. Notation A West (1986),
41, A lapis © Solomon
(1985), 170, © lapis _ © [ West (1986), 41, E [ Mitsos
5 Wagner (1955), 115; Gombosi (1939), 135. (1980), 214. . :
5 Pighi (1943), 225 f., 242 pl.
Text 1 θε]ὸν Mitsos (1980), 212, ᾿Ασκληπιυ)ὸν West (1986),40 3,5 suppl. Mitsos (1980), 212.

ὃ
v
=
x + 4Ἔν
et———o—
BY > oe “
᾿Ασ-κληςπὶ] - ov ἀ- εἰ- οῶτμεν

This fragment of a hymn was discovered in the precinct of Asclepius αἱ Epidaurus in 1977
and published by M. T. Mitsos.' 5. Bonefas has argued that it is part of the same inscription as
IG 41. 135. It was inscribed in the late third century AD, but as with other verse inscriptions
from the site, the composition may be several centuries older; the notes appear to come from a
chromatic scale, which is a pointer to a Hellenistic rather than a later date.
The hymn was clearly in hexameters. The fact that musical notation appears only over the
first line suggests that the same melody served for every line, possibly a traditional procedure in
singing hexameters.” After the notes for the last two feet of the verse comes a A, which must be
taken as a diseme leimma, not a note, and then (at least) four more notes, which may represent a
figure played on the accompanying instrument before the next line was sung.
With the two small emendations adopted, the notes fit neatly into two conjunct chromatic te-
trachords, from Hypate to Nete synemmenon in the Hyperionian scale.

' Mitsos (1980), cf. SEG 30, 1980, no. 390; Solomon (1985); West (1986); Bonefas (1989); Wagman (1994), 3
fr A, 226.
? Cf. West (1986), 43 ἢ
 62 IIL. Late Hellenistic inscriptions from sanctuaries No. 20 ATHENAIOS, PAEAN 63

No. 20 DELPHI INV. 517, 526, 494, 499 128/7 BC

(Paean of Athenaios)

Coli (. . 000000000000. Ἰειοτονθεονοεῖί | JInvaroc Col. iii [Παιὰν καὶ ὑπόρχημα] eic τὸν Θεὸν ὃ ἐ[πόησεν [[Αθ]ήναιος.

Col. i Col. i

[ IM | Μ
pt ! ‘ —-? =
= ——~ ΞΞΞΞΞΞ =— Ft =|
ns τ νιν Ἰφῳφωναβαθυδενδροναιλα [Κέκλυθ᾽ "Ελικ]ῳ - va Ba- θύ - δεν -δρον at Adlyete, Διὸ]ς
[ ]1ΘΙΊΙΜΙιΙΜ ΕΠ x . ΒΕ. a
2... Icel, Ἰβρομουουθυγατρεσευωλί,1
]
os ————
Ct oe
ν + } SSS
ἐίρι] - Bpd - pov-ov @b-ya-Tpec εὖ - ὦ - Afevor] μό- Ae-te ουνόμ-
ΘΙ[19 Ι ΜΙ Μ cpt ty τ 4, τ Ἐπ Ἐπ ἘΞ vere!
3. μολετεουνομαιμονιναφοιοιβονωιδαεῖί] ἘΞΞ[Ξ -5 -ὶ ἘΞΞΞ--- ΞΡ ἘΞ Ὲ ΞΞ- ΒΞ ἘΞ χα ΞΕ ΞΞ
Φοι-οἵ - βον ὠϊ- Sa-elt]-cu μέλ - ψη - τε ypv- οε- ο- κό-μαν,
Μ Ε Φ F 9
4 fFra γι ff.t |:~—— 1+
5,
— ——" a2 ——— IΤο
οιμελψητεχρυσεοκομανοσαναδικορῦυν ir
rd

π᾿κα ee i
κ΄.
on
,
—— απ " £ t= a —a ὩΞ ¥ ane--- y«-Ξa eee YrΡΞ ΞΡ ΡτΟ δ naa} |
sé id Ι4 ΕΔ Τ Τ' i ia i T aa γ —)
2. 28 , , 5 , . ΗΝ
ὃς ἀτννὰ δι- κό-ρυν- Ba Παρ - νας - οἱ - δος τα- ἄο-δε πε-τέ- ρας ἕτ-δρατν᾽ ἅμ
Θ ὃ © ft] ™M Θ M Y [ Jj
.th 6,ty Κα as Fh -- ρ.
5 Banapvaccr8o0ctaac’enetepacedspavanl | Geo
Pf — ————— <a" x
ν
1—— nasca οὐ Ὁ Ἂ Pf
ἘἜΞΞΞΞΕ
- Ὁ ‘t Ph -τ icy
ρ.- νΞΕ -Ξ we
δ"ΞΞ
α΄ =|
Foret
r
——
τ
ἜΞΕΞΞ Ἐ-Ὲ
—
i } f+t f ||
YM YM 1! 6 Or [ἀ]- γα- κλυ- ται-εῖς Δε- ελ- φί- οὐτἷν Κα - cta-At- δοῦ ἔτου
- - δρου
6 YaKAYDTALELCOEEAMICLLVKaCTaALSOC $fA ——t « —e , ι + :
8
tyἢ —
eS = ἘΞ ΞΕ ΞΞΞΕΞΞΞΞΙΕΞΞ
Τ Υ̓ v ΞΞβv ΞΞΞΈΞΞΘΞΞ— |———
Ooh O ΘΓ Λ νά - pot’ &- mL - νί - οε - ται, Δελ- φὸν &- νὰ [xplo -ὦ -να μα-αν-
7 εουυδρουναματεπινιοεταιδελφονανα
ai ——τ- φ ἢἪ
ss
He
1 fj
“Η-ς-- -τττ-
—t τὶ rt
Ἢ
Υ Mt 6 1M ὃ TEL-EL-OV ἐφτ ἔξ -ὀ RAV πά -γον
8 [, Joovapaavterelovegexnoverayov

Text Title: [Παιὰν καὶ ὑπόρχημα] Pohimann (1970), 58 ὃ élxéncev|’ Αθ]ήναιος (᾿Αθηναίου) Bélis (1992),
33f.
Supplements to 2-24: Weil (1893), 574-77, (1894), 361 and Reinach (1909-13), 152 £, supplements to 23-6: Cru-
Notation 1Μ on the photo and squeeze: Bélis (1992), 55, 58, pl. V 1-2, ]© Reinach (1909-13), 154 sius (1894), 33.
3: West,
Ὁ Péhlmann (1970), 58, Bélis (1992), 55, 59
50 M lapis, | M Bélis (1992), 60, supposing that | belongs to 1 {Κέκλυθ᾽ ᾿Ἐλικ]ῶνα Crusius (1894), 40 f., ᾿Ελιϊκῶνα Péhimann (1970), 58, [Πρόμολεθ᾽ ᾿Ἐλικ]ῶνα West 1
the second syllable of taac Mand © above δε and te lapis, shifted back to ας and πε by West (1968), 176. (1992), 6, “EAuxlodve Bélis (1992), 58 2 Ardc] é[pu]- Reinach (1909-13), 152, Διὸ]ο ἐρι Ε Bélis (1992), 55, 58.
64 Ill. Late Hellenistic inscriptions from sanctuaries No. 20 ATHENAIOS, PAEAN 65

[ ] r OND [ ]
Ato
eee
9
= ————————
ΡῚ hal .“ . .“ ΡῚ ΡῚ 410 n
ΕΞ ee
9 [Ἰκλυταμεγαλοπολισοαθθιοευχαιει [Hy] κλυ-τὰ με-γα
Lé

τλό- ποτ λιὸ "AO - Otc, εὖ -ὀ χαιτεῖ- cr φερ-ό-

[ΙΚΛΜ ο K AK F&F Gm BD [1] ee fe be a κ«ς
10 []er1mepon AOr1vocovarovcatpit@avidsocbal ] a an ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ St
RAOL- O ναί - οὐ- ca Τρι- tw-w-vi-S0c δάτ[πε]-δον
ἄ - Opave-tov &-yi-
ΘΓ Μ rBrAK
—F OME oe : τ —-»— ἰδ — , ᾿
11 δοναθραυοστοναγιοιοδεβωμοιοιοινα ΨῈΞ ———- a LA “ Τ t

K MA KA M AM OK ΜΝ
ove δὲ BO
x3
- μοιτοῖτοιν “A- φαιοττος
.
ai -εἰ - Ge<i>vé - ὧν μῆτρα τα-οὐ-

1. PALCTOCALELOE<EVEOVENPATAOVPAVOLOD a ce eo
—s f fF ————+ " -- ΞΡ =er ——
ATMG ®t ΘΓ © YOMA Μ ° ρῶν" 6-pov- od δέ viv “A - pay ἀτ- μὸς ἐο [ΟἹ - Afilp-nov a&-va-
13: ουδενιναραψατμοσεοίζο)λ[υἱμπονανακιδν[] pt ~ 14 = —— : ——t ἢ
ee ΞΕ i ———_—$—— -ΞΞ
Oo YO MA M AKAM A «18 - νία]- tov Av-yd δὲ AM - TO-dc βρέ-μων ἁ -εἰ -όλ - οιτοις
14 ταιλιγυδελωτοοοβρεμωναειολοιοιομί!) Ly 15.

M Y 0 M AM Γ ΛΚΓΜ 1 δ ek ae τον ὠς - “be pe “nev ) ον eb το δ᾽ τς 86-0 [0]

15. λεοινωιδαανκρεκειχρυοεαδαδυθρου1] ω 16 αν Κρετκεν χρὺ τὲ τὰ & τ οὐ τύρονὶο
ΠΊΝΕΙ 1 4

K A MO YOM
AM OOO[ ] eS ——— SS SS SS SS -ΞΞ ἡ
16 θαριουμνοιοιναναμελπεταιοδεί ᾿ ᾿ Ikt]-@a-
prc SH -τ- νοιτοῖν dG - να - μέλ- πε-ται.

Notation 9 ] above 1, [Θ] Reinach (1909-13), 157, [F] Bélis (1992), 64 10K or M West, K or I Reinach Text 9-10 edyare| {ichae Weil
Ne? (1893), 576,
| εὐχαιεῖ | [clot Reinach
δὰ (1909-13), :154: ‘par inadvertance’, Bélis
(1909-13), 154, Bélis (1992), 55, 65 11 O lapis, © Jan (1899), 15 12 A above -0e<t> lapis, omitted by Bélis (1992), 65, 12 areve lapis, αἰείθεκι» Weil (1893), 576
.
13 [*O}A Tv] μπον Weil (1893), 578, ὑλομπον lapis
(1992), 64 14 last A Bélis (1992), 66, on the squeeze and an old photo, A Pohimann (1970), 60 15 Above [. 1 16-17 [6] | felofplav Weil eee 577, τίεχνι) [{τἸωῶν Weil (1894), 361 comparing no. 21. 20-1, [τεχνι] [[π]ωῶν
[ΓῚ Reinach (1909-13), 157 16 K lapis, Bélis (1992), 64, T erroneously Bélis (1992), 55. Reinach (1909-13), 152, [τεχνι] | τωῶν Péhlmann (1970), 60, [texve] | τωῶν Belis (1992), 73.
66 ΤΠ. Late Hellenistic inscriptions from sanctuaries No. 20 ATHENAIOS, PAEAN 67

Col. i/ii

nN
εβξεενεξες - aa —? - Ἐξ -- pe
oT ΘΓ np 8 [ J a bP $er i tἘΞΞῚ pt {—F—
} Ὁ - ὁ -Ξ 3} =|
1 τωωνπροπασεομοοαθθιδαλαχφῳί,, 1 ‘O δὲ ἴτεχν!]) - τω - dv πρό-πας éc - hoc "AB - θι - δα λα -xoalv]
pt 18 e . «2 «©
pare
ἔξει ἘΞΞΞΡ
ἘΞΞΞΈ =e — >y=} —f »ΞΞ-Ξ- Ὁ=Ξ
Col.ii ᾿ } = t: : 51{
[ayAat] - ζει KAv- τὸν παῖ- δὰ με-γά - rAov [ Ardc-]
[19 or. δ Ὁ bor f ] oe
ie : +19 tft
se —ee
7 2.
aN
18 [Ἰζεικλυτονπαιδαμεγαλοῦυΐϊ, 0... {0 ως J : p+ t t |j
[cot yap ἔπο]ρ᾽ & - KPO - νι - φῆ τόν - δὲ πά -γον, ἀ - ἀμ -[βροτ᾽ &-]
M | OF Bh On fF BEI ] 44 20 ΄ a2 ae a 21
Eek SSS ΞΞΞΕΞΞΞΞΕΞΞΞΕΞΞΞΈΞΞΕΞΞΞΞΕΞΞ
ΓΠ--- τ Τ ——1 oT Τ r
19
LT
ΓΤ Jpaxpovigntovierayovaanl,......... ]
ΙΝ ΒΕ Ε a —|

ne ~ ΗΝ , ,
[yevdé’ ο] ὃ πὰ - ct θνὰ - τοιτοἷς προ -φαί - νει-ίειο λόγια,
[1h Ὁ AT [2] ΓΙ ] .ρ..} κ m= 22 ΡῈ
202 [Ἰυπαοιθνατοιοιοπροφαινειί,, J =
Pee >> — ——,α΄ Ἂν = ht
Ἐ- ς΄ -ὰ ra ra f Ἐ---
ἘΞΞΞΞΈΞΞΞΙ ἥἥΨ :Ν
3 15:[.::}Ξ Ὁ
= >|

ὃ [tp]i- πο - δα pov - τει- εἶτ ον ac

ΜΥΜ iM 160 fF ef ] εἰ - εἴ - ἴλεο, ὃν μέγας ἐ-φρ]ου-οὐ-
an —»c™, ee fi e
21 [., JumoSapavterveroveceretl........... ] of — 2 --ὖ — + —-8. : 23: σιν —"—e 1
& rt —-¥——
: Ἐ-- Ὁ tf ———
= »-ΞΞ Ξ1
[10 rom Bb Φ δι ] ‘ ρει - εἰ δρά-κῶν, 6- τε τέ - [κος Tade ἀπέ- οτ]η - ἡ - σας, αἷ-
22 [, Ἰουουρειειδρακωνοτετεῖ ΟΠ ως { ως ] ες - - 5- —f 24
foe 7.» ᾿
5 ¥ f = ἘΞ- it $f i-—F = 4|
10 F nm Ὁ [ ] 6- λον E-ALK - τὰν ἰφυάν, ἔοθ ὁ θὴρ πυκν]ὰ eur or
23 []Ἰ nncacatoroveatxtavl,... 0.1... ] ———— a, ={+ .- τ. ᾿ =
ἕ b-fy-——+ : ayf Ε--- #
— f t t+— t Ἢ"|
[ J | Oo MIO T “Ὅ [ J piy- poe’ i-u- εἰς a- θώ - πείυτ᾽ ἀπέ - mvevc’ ὁμῶς:
24 [Ἰᾳαουυριγμαθιιειοαθωπεῖ ων 4 {ων νος ] πϑεὺυ.5--.-5--25 —_ δel οἵstp —Ἢ —
bpf
p» Ρ--- | +: 26
a
oy ——— :: >᾿
[10 mn Kh w [
—F Ξ
1
% @c]éé Ta- Aa -ta- ἂν ἄ- ρης [BdpBapoc, τάνδ᾽ ὃς ἐπὶ γαῖα]ν ἐπέ-
25 []δεγαλατααναρήηοί ΝΠ ee ee es ]
fate5 oe SF - } : .: 27
ἢἢ
[1] | OF mh [ 1 as
% 2
᾿ i Ξῇ
pa-ac’ ἀ- οέπ -
, My st ΗΑ ~
26 [Ἱνεπερααοσρασεπτί, 9.0... ]
τίως, χιόνοο ὥλεθ᾽ by - Οὠραῖς χοαῖ]ο.

Text 17 λαχ[ὼν] Reinach (1909-13), 152, λαχῴφίν] Péhlmann (1970), 60, Bélis (1992), 73 17-18 [xv0|pilcer
or ζει Reinach (1909-13), 155, [ἀγλαὰ [{]Ἰζεὶ West 1 (1992), 6 f. 18 kavtov Reinach (1909-13), 155, κλυτὸν
Colin (1909-13), 155, Bélis (1992), 74 18-19 [Διός: | cot yap &|xolp’ West 1 (1992), 7, [Διὸς ὑμνοῦοί ce |
πα]ρ᾽ Reinach (1909-13), 152 20 [o}$ Bélis (1992), 56, 74, West 1 (1992), 7, [δ]ς Péhlmann (1970), 60, [Sc]
Reinach (1909-13), 153 21 et-ei-[Aec, Bélis (1992), 74, ei-eltAec, ἐχθρὸς Sv Reinach (1909-13), 153, ὃν
μέγας Diggle (1984), 71 22-3ré[xoc Γαᾶς ἀπέϊοτ]ηηοας West 1 (1992), 7, τ[εοῖοι βέλεοιν E|tpInncac Rein-
Notation 19 M Bélis (1992), 74 20 A lapis, Bélis (1992), 74, pl. VI 1-2, [Δ] Reinach (1909-13), 155, West ach (1909-13), 153, 155, tel and ]inncac or better Jynncac Bélis (1992), 74 23-ἀπυκ[ν]ὰ West 1 (1992), 7,
2 (1992), 291 22 © Bélis (1992), 74 23 O lapis, Θ Jan (1895), 434, West 1 (1992), 7: the mason has acciden-
cux- |vld Reinach (1909-13), 153. 25 [tc] δὲ Reinach (1909-13),153;cf.1.21 26- 7 ἀςέπτίως, χιόνος ὥλεθ᾽
tally put the missing dot into the first O of -ovov- (line 22).
ὑγραῖς BoA|at]c Péhimann (1976), 60, xojaile West 1 (1992), 8.
68 ΠῚ. Late Hellenistic inscriptions from sanctuaries No. 20 ATHENAIOS, PAEAN 69

[ ]<?> 0 or f
27 [ Ἰοαλλιωγεενναν[
σι
[1] [ο nm f fat ——f}—_—# .----------Ὁ κα Ὁ : 1
28 [ἰ Ἰνθαλοοφιλομί
ca ᾿Αλλ ἱ-ὼ ye τέντναν [
£ J ὦ Γ 0 if
29 [, Ἰεδααμοιοζχοιΐ
pot -28 --.-.. 5΄.. , =
[.ν θά
- λος φι- λόμ[αχον]
[Δ GD 7f
30 [. lpavegopol porch 2? δ - a——f : : —
ie £ 4 po : : —
[Je δα -ἄ - μοι- o λοι - [γόν
[ ]x of
31 L, Jteov«l[ pat 39. eg α΄ ; =
[ ] ol 4 [. Jpwv & - po- pol
32 [, Jevarxl
frp ot be Ὁ -- ; , —
[10 [ ci [, ]Jre-ov - xf
33 [Ἰνθηΐ
ofa 2 __e :
eo ; f f : —
[Ὁ
34 [ [, Jevaix[
a ———4
Fr. 3 J} crf Fr. 4
1 Janel 1 1 ᾳ.9[
] [ 19 Γ f
2 Ἱρατί 2 Ἱἱτιναοί

JO κυ Jo of
3 locvl 3 Jrevl
Text 27 caAALe, not coda lapis, -c. AX ἰώ Crusius (1894), 37 28 ]v and pf Bélis (1992), 79-80, φιλό-
μίαχον Crusius (1894), 38 29 Je Reinach (1909-13), 153, Je Bélis (1992), 80 (metrically impossible) λοι
Péhimann (1970), 62, Aol Bélis (1992), 80, λοῖιγόν Crusius (1894),38 30 epopol or εφορφί (metrically impos-
sible) Bélis (1992), 80, ἐχθ]ρῶν ἐφορίμάν Crusius (1894), 38.
Notation 27 <?> Bélis (1992), 79: a note is wanted at the beginning of the epilogue © Reinach (1909-13),
153, Bélis (1992), 79, Q Péhimann (1970), 60: ἃ misprint 29 ἦν onda. shifted to ap by West 30. ? Bélis (1992), Fr, 3 Text 1 lame Reinach (1909-13), 155, Bélis (1992), 81, ] πε PéhImann (1970), 62 3 Jocu[ Bélis (1992),
78 531 Ὁ Bélis (1992), 80, ἦι PéhImann (1970), 62 32 Ὁ Bélis (1992), 80, © Péhlmann (1970), 62 33 0 81, w}poct[ Reinach (1909-13), 155, ] oc [ Pohlmann (1970), 62.
Reinach (1909-13), 153, Bélis (1992), 80 34 ? Bélis (1992), 80.
Fr.4 9 Text 1] ᾳ οἱ Bélis (1992), 82, lox, [ Reinach (1909-13), 156 2 7τι- or πι- Reinach (1909-13), 156,
Fr.3 Notation 3X Bélis (1992), 81. ]n- Bélis (1992), 82 3 Ἰτενΐ Bélis (1992), 82,1 ev{ Pohimann (1970), 62, Ἰενί Reinach (1909-13), 156.
 70 Ill. Late Hellenistic inscriptions from sanctuaries
No. 20 ATHENAIOS, PAEAN 71

On the south outer wall of the Athenian treasury at Delphi, among

festival decrees concerning Reinach had printed no. 20. 1-24 and no. 21. 1-27 and 31-40 with continuous
the Athenian Pythaides of the years 138/7, 128/7, 106/5 and 97/6 BC,' are supplements.!
two metrical inscrip- This is defensible, as the language is so formulaic and the structure of the two
tions with musical notation: a pair of Paeans to Apollo, represented by Paeans so similar
sixteen fragments. The (see below) that a restoration in one poem can often be supported by a
parallel in the other. M. L.
allocation of fragments is facilitated by the fact that one group has vocal
notation, the other in- West in 1992 proposed alternative supplements for several problematic passages,
strumental.? After an initial unsuccessful attempt’ it proved possible to establish and published
the fragments’ transcriptions of the Paeans with a commentary on the music.? Our present transcripti
positions in the wall.* The larger ones could be combined in two blocks, ons include
each with two columns supplements exempli gratia.
of text, and these are now on display in the Delphi Museum. Jn this
reconstruction, however, The author and the date of performance of the Paean with instrumental notation
fragments 3 and 4 of no. 20 and fragments f, g, h of no. 21 remained (no. 21) are
unplaced. Th. Reinach’s known from the heading and the associated decree: Limenios, son of Thoinos,
version of the two Paeans may be found in many collections. * an Athenian,
member of the artists’ guild known as the Technitai, composed the Paean
Many of the older editors’ readings can no longer be verified. This for the Pythais of the
may be put down to dam- year 128/7, making honourable mention in the text (lines 20 f.) of the great choir of
age in transport, especially affecting the edges of the stone.® The the Technitai
surviving fragments are, that was to perform it.’
moreover, badly sintered in places. This means that the early drawings,
squeezes, and photos The heading of the other Paean, the one with vocal notation (no. 20), is damaged.
cannot be disregarded even when we have the stones. For his final edition Above the
Reinach made use of left-hand column can be seen Θεὸν ὃ 2[xénce, and above the right-hand one * A@}nvatoc
the originals together with the other materials.’ He took account of . The
all the fragments and pro- lettering links this Paean with that of Limenios from 128/7 BC, without excluding
vided photographs of them all from squeezes.* As his apparatus indicates, the possibility
many of his readings that it was composed for the Pythais of ten years earlier.’ Again the singers
could even then not be confirmed on the originals by M. G. Colin. are mentioned in the
Half of fragment e had disap- poem (no. 20. 16 f.; admittedly the key word [τεχνι]ϊτωῶν is restored). But in the Pythais
peared.? of
138/7 the Technitai were not yet participating; there was only a boy’s choir with its
E. Péhlmann examined the inscriptions in situ in 1968. A search for fragments 3, 4, f, g, ἢ in choirmasters
Elpinikos and Kleon, and this can hardly have performed a Paean of the Technitai.>
the magazines proved fruitless. However, the fragments in the Museum had recently been If one looks for clues in the festival decrees for the Pythais of 128/7, which are
cleaned and rejoined, and this made it possible to correct many of Reinach’s readings, especially explicit to a
provincial degree, one finds the boys’ choir again,° then a list of the choristers
at the edges. On this basis, and with regard to the older material mentioned above, he published a of the Technitai,
introduced as τοὺς ἀιοομένους tov Παιᾶνα, and finally a reference to ἀκροάματ
revised text of the Delphic Paeans in 1970.9 α of the
Technitai, which may have included a further Paean. Other named participants are
In 1992 A. Bélis re-edited them using additional evidence!’ She was able to instrumental
consult photo- and vocal soloists, actors, and the three directors of the boys’ choir, Elpinikos, Kleon, and
Phil-
graphs taken when the fragments were first unearthed (PI. Il, IV); she rediscove
red the missing ion, two of whom had already performed this function in 138/7.’ There is no mention of a
fragments 3, 4, f, g, h; and she had the most up-to-date photographic technique second
s at her disposal. Paean.
This enabled her to win new readings in the text and in the musical notation.
All the fragments The uncertainty has been resolved by A. Bélis. She recognized that the author of no.
20 was
are presented in drawings and many photos of originals and squeezes,
with detailed commentary. one ᾿Αθήναιος ᾿Αθηναίου, who is mentioned in the same decree as Limenios,
Unfortunately, there are discrepancies between drawings, transcriptions, and the author of
commentary. But it no. 21.3 It is his name that is to be read in the heading of the Paean, and not
the ethnic.’ A@n-
is always possible to give a reliable text by comparing the commentary
with the photos of the ναῖοο. Bélis was also able to show that the lacuna in the heading had room for no more than
stones.
eight letters.°
This not only establishes the identity of the author of the hitherto anonymous Paean as
' FdD ΠῚ 2, 1909-13, nos. 1 1, 47, 49, 48. Athenaios, son of Athenaios, but also fixes the date of the composition as 128/7. It is, to
be sure,
? FdD ΠῚ no. 137, vocal notation: fragments B (Inv. no. 517), A
(Inv. no. 526), 3 (Inv. no. 494), 4 (Inv. no.
not clear which of the two Paeans is referred to in the decree in question, but the δέ in the head-
499); no. 138, instrumental notation: fragments A (Inv. no. 489),
B (Inv. no. 1461), C (Inv. no. 1591), D (Inv. no. ing to no. 21 is now easier to understand: it implies a connection with no. 20, inscribed immedi-
209), a (Inv. no. 212), δ + ¢ (Inv. no. 226), d+ e (Inv. no. 225), f ately above. Colin and G. Daux had already guessed that the two poems belonged to the same
(Inv. no.224), g (Inv. no. 215), ἢ (Inv. no. 2 14).
3 Weil (1893); Reinach (1893); Crusius (1894).
* Weil (1894); Reinach (1894). A drawing FdD I 1, 3; 1933, Taf. Β und C, FdD
IL 2, Text 158, Planches XVI.
* Jan (1895); 432-49; (1899), 8-34; Smyth (1900), 529-38; Fairbanks (1900),
119-39; Dieh} (1925), 303-9; ' Reinach (1909-13), 152 f., 160-2.
Powell (1925), 141-59; Reinach (1926), 177-92; Del Grande (1960), 450-61;
154-66.
Oki (1979), 12-34; Chailley (1979), ? West 1 (1992), 6-8, 2 (1992), 288-301,
> The identity of the author was recognized by Colin (1909-13), 332 n. 1, (1913) 529-32, from the decree FdD
5 ἘΔ ΠῚ 2, 109-13, p. UI.
III 2 no. 47. 22. For the historical context see Daux (1936), 521 ff, 584 ΓΕ, 708 ff.
7 Reinach (1909-13), 148, 150 ff., 158 ff.
* Reinach (1909-13), 148 and n. 1 (Colin). For different letter-cutters see Schréder (1999), 70.
ὃ Reinach (1909-13), 147-69, FdD ΤΠ 2 Planches X.
5 Reinach ( 1909-13), 158 erroneously: ‘Le petit morceau e est perdu’.
* Cf. Sifakis (1967), 90. For the boys’ choir see FdD ΠῚ 2 no. 11, 3 f.; 20 ff.
§ FdD [ΠῚ 2 no. 12,3.
° Pdhimann (1970), no. 19-20, pp. 58-76.
7 FdD Ill 2 no. 47, 9 ff; 20 ff.; 28 f.
"| Bélis (1992).
ὃ FdD ΠῚ 2 no. 47, 19.
? Bélis (1992), 24, 25.
5 Bélis (1992), 48 ἢ, 53 ἢ
72 ΠῚ Late Hellenistic inscriptions from sanctuaries No. 20 ATHENAIOS, PAEAN 73

year. Recently, St. Schréder, after careful study of all relevant arguments, proposed a dating of can in fact be extended to 25 with Crusius’ proposals, and for 26 we have the wording of Li-
Limenios’ Paean (no. 21) to 106/5, in spite of hitherto unsolved epigraphical problems.' menios (line 33) to guide us. The rest (27-33), however, must remain lacunose, since fragments
Two features of the notation link the Paeans with the older musical fragments.’ Firstly, many 3 and 4 still cannot be placed. It is at least certain that GAN’ ἰώ in 27 begins a new section; com-
syllables carry no note-symbols; it is to be assumed in such cases that the preceding note is re- pare the new starts with ἀλλά in Limenios, 21 and 26. An apparent address to Apollo (27 f.) and
peated. The later practice was to write out repeated notes. Two apparent exceptions at no. 21. 12 the mention of a δᾶμοο (29) indicate that this Paean, like that of Limenios (33-40), concluded
f., 21 prove the rule, for there a fresh start is made on a new line or after paragraphos. Secondly with a prayer, probably for Athens and Roman rule. As the cretic rhythm continues, the section
it is to be observed that long syllables are often furnished with two notes which are not linked by should perhaps be considered as a Hyporchema rather than a Prosodion.' This possibility may be
a slur (d@év) as in the later fragments,’ and in such cases the vowel or diphthong is doubled or borne in mind in restoring the heading.”
prolonged in the text. Occasionally the vowel is doubled but the second note-symbol is missing Tonally Athenaios’ Paean presents a varied picture, with the notes F (εὐ, ® (g), Y (αὐ, Ο (),
(nos. 20. 5?, 21. 26). It is noteworthy that in the closing Prosodion of Limenios’ Paean (no. 21. Mc), Λ (ὦ), Κ (47, 1 (417, © (62). F (7). B (gf), Ὁ (2°), Δ (as), & (41. The notation is Phry-
33-40) there is no division of long syllables between notes; it was evidently less appropriate to gian and Hyperphrygian. In the two lowest tetrachords, Lichanos is avoided, giving an archaic
the isosyllabic Aeolic metre of that portion.‘ pentatonic effect: [d] εἰ g; g αὐ ο΄ (= Mese).* Above Mese there is modulation between a conjunct
In both Paeans the word accents are carefully followed in the melodic line. Only once in each chromatic tetrachord (M A KT = ε΄ d α΄ 77), continued upwards to B (g;’), and a disjunct
poem is an unaccented syllable set to a higher note than the accented syllable of the same word: diatonic one ([ Θ F Ὁ =d’ ef f 57). continued upwards with the two inner notes of another
no. 20. 10 φερόπλοιο, and no. 21. 2 δικόρυφον. Once a δέ is higher than the following ac- chromatic tetrachord (4 > = af’ a’). In addition we find the exharmonic note O = b, a semitone
cented syllable (21. 10); and in θνατοιοῖς (20. 20), unless the stonecutter has made an error, the below Mese. As Reinach remarked,’ modulations of key and register are closely connected in
circumflex is set on a rising interval. both Paeans with the sectioning of the text>
As there is no rhythmical notation (something that had existed long before, cf. nos. 3, 11, 12, This sectioning finds expression also in physical layout, content, and metre. Both Paeans are
14-16), it is to be assumed that the rhythm corresponds to the metre. There is no ground for incised in wide columns without colometry,° but with clear indication of the aforesaid sections.
pressing the cretics used in both Paeans into 6/8 measure, as E. Martin wished to do,> even if In Athenaios the ending of the first section at πάγον (8) is marked by brevis in longo’ and by
Aristoxenus does know of six-mora ‘cretics’ (with a triseme long) in iambic metre.° The same Iine-break. This section employs the Phrygian scale ¢ g ac’ d’ (I) ef Κ΄ κ΄ af’, consistently
applies to the Prosodion of Limenios’ Paean, which scholars have transcribed in 12/8’ or 3/4 avoiding ly (cf. above). A ὦ αἱ line 7, from the (Hyperphrygian) conjunct tetrachord, prepares us
time® with irrational longs, or in 2/4 time with super-longs.’ As there is no indication of a rhyth- for the next section (9-16). Here the notes used are as ὁ ς΄ dy d’ (K) d’ (ἢ ef Κ ξ΄ af’. The d (Ὁ
mization that diverges from the metrical pattern, we should simply convert the metrical quanti- and eg’ (©) still recall the earlier Phrygian, but the prevailing key is now Hyperphrygian with the
ties into monoseme or diseme note-values. chromatic tetrachord c’ dj’ d’ (K) 97, corroborated by the gy of line 11 (Trite synemmenon) and
Athenaios’ Paean remained unsupplemented in Reinach’s version after line 24. O. Crusius chromaticized further by the ten times repeated accidental b, for which R. P. Winnington-Ingram
tried to make use of the smail frs. 3 and 4 to supplement lines 27-9; but then he erroneously compared similar phenomena in other musical texts.’ This section is marked off by hiatus at
placed fragment Ὁ in lines 32 f., although its instrumental notation shows that it belongs to Li- ἀναμέλπεται. A third section ends at line 24 with the death of the Python serpent; here the loss
menios’ poem. Even with regard to content his suggestions are problematic, as he followed the of the end of the line deprives us of any palpable sign of the division. This portion uses the notes
first editors in placing fr. A (= col. ii), with the Gauls’ invasion and the prayers, before fr. B (= familiar from the first section (εὐ g ac’ d’ (I) ef’ f ξ΄ af’). Again there is a Hyperphrygian &
col. i) with the invocation of the Muses.'® P. W. Moens supplemented lines 25~33 without using (20), and also an accidental b (23) which recalls the tonality of the second section.
frs. 3 and 4, but made the last portion (27~33) into a Prosodion in glyconics, despite two exam- In the damaged ending of the Paean (25—34) the beginning of the prayers is clearly marked by
ples of vowels divided between notes.'' Supplementation of the text, taken by Reinach to line 24, ἀλλ᾽ ἰώ (27). But the continuation of the cretic metre is matched by the maintenance of the same
tonality. In lines 25-34 (and the fragments 3 and 4, which probably belong here) we find the
' Colin (1913), 531 no. 1; Daux (1936), 725; Schréder (1999), 65-75, but see 73 f. notes gd’ εὐ 77 ξ΄ as’ a’—again a segment from the Phrygian scale, with a chromatic pyknon
2 CE nos. 3-6; 8-16. appearing at the top end. Obviously, form and content are closely connected, as in Limenios’
3 The first example is no. 22. 6. Paean (see no. 21).
4 Reinach (1909-13), 160; Koster (1936), 169. The earlier Paean to Apollo by Aristonoos, which is also pre-
served as a Delphic inscription (FdD ΠῚ 2 no. 191; Diehl (1925), 297-300; Powell (1925), 162-4; cf. West (1982),
141), uses the same metres as Limenios’ Prosodion. ' Crusius (1894), 61; Fairbanks (1900), 55, 66, 91, 125; Koster (1936), 210.
5 Martin (1953), 27-35; but see Wagner (1955), 214. 2 Pohlmann (1970), 58; Bélis (1992), 54.
§ Pearson (1990), 37 f. 3 Winnington-Ingram (1936), 24, 33-5, compared the old Spondeion scale; cf. ibid. 35-8 on Limenios.
7 Reinach (1909-13), 169. * Reinach (1909-13), 150 Ε΄, ef. ibid. 154 f, 159, 164 £ on Limenios.
8 Doutzaris (1934), 344 f. 5 Hagel (2000).
5 Martin (1953), 77 £. § Col. i: 43.8 cm., col. ii: 44.8 cm.; see Bélis (1992), 49 and below p. 85 n. 1.
“Cf p.70n. 3. 7 If [ἤν] is rightly restored in line 9.
"| Moens (1930), 48-56; cf. above n. 4 and no. 20, lines 27 γεένναν, 29 δαάμοιο. * Winnington-Ingram (1936), 33, 34 and n. 2, 40 and n. 1, 41 and nn. 2 f.
 74 ΠῚ. Late Hellenistic inscriptions from sanctuaries
No. 21 LIMENIOS, PAEAN : 75

No. 21 DELPHI INV. 489, 1461, 1591, 209, 212, 226, 225, 224, 215, 214
128/7 BC
(Paean of Limenios)

Col. ifii [. Jvavdexarnl Ἰδιονειοτί Col. iti [Παιὰν δὲ καὶ π[ροοό]διον εἰς tlov Θεὸν ὃ ἐπό]ηςείν
Incel[

eee ee eee eee ᾿ς JvAunnvel.. Jowol....... J καὶ προοεκιθάρι | celv Λιμήνι[οο Θ]ρίνο[υ ᾿Αθηναῖος.

Col. i 1 “™ ,
io pt ΞΞΞΈΞΕ ΞΞΞΈΞΞΞΕ ἘΞΕΞΞΡ
$ ~—+t ἘΞΕΞΞ pΞΞόΞΞΞΞῚ f᾿ ἘΞ}
ἘΞ —
=
ΠΗ Cc < ὁ “It ἐ- πὶ τὴ -λέο- κο- πον ταάν - δὲ Παρ ~[vaci]- av ἰ[φιλόχορον]
¢ 1c f[ ]
1 ιτεπιτηλεοκοπονταανδεπαρί, αν .2 .
ΝΞ ΕΕΕ 1 pret YJ ind r r 2
ἔξξξξξξν
S — ΤΣ τε ae τῇ ΓΕ
r =. T.
ἘΞ --ν ΤΡΞ }t :ἘΞΈΞΕΞΡ'f +
=
—_}

——
< OC<uU < oF <€ ῳ [ Kl “ δι-κότρυτφον κλει- εἰ - τόν,
} ὕμ. - νωτῶν καϊτάρ] - χίε-τε δ᾽ ἐμῶν],
2 δικορυφονκλειειτυνυμνωωνκαί, Ιχ[ Lecce 3
1 —-f-
== ——————
-“ Yo | “. i}

ἘΞ ΞῈ υμ’-- --α -τ-τν el

|
;
— ΞΞ- ἘΞΞΈΞΞΈΞΞΞΞΕΞΒ —— ἘΞ ΞΞΈΞΞΘ —- sf ΞΞ--Ξ-
==
[ 1τ ν « Vi Jo ΜΓ 1 . Titepi-Sec, al vi-go-Bb- ove mé-tpac ναί - εθ᾽ [[Ἐλιὶ] - κω -νί-δίας
3 πιερυιδεοαινιφοβολουσπετραοναινεθί,
Ἰκωνιδί, J τ4 - τας »- ‘ἀν -ὦ : ———— χ
uoou c
ere ΞΞΕΞΞΞΖΞΞΙΞΕΞΞΞΞ ————— ——— :
:
==
—
< Cuc _q ω μέλ-πεττε
4 μελπετεδεπυθιονχί δὲ Πύ- θι- ov ΧΙρ]ν- σε - ο- χαί - ταν, ἕτίκα!τον, εὐ-λύτραν
Ἰυσεοχαιτανεῖ Ἰτονευλυραν p>5
Bet { ph * ra a Ἐ- ποι a t—#* Ἂν =
uo uc < cl }< Eu
in} # TF ΙΔ Τ Ῥ T L 1 Τ "a "a ΙΔ
[-#
Τ +
rat
ἣν ἡ
= =|
_——___—_}

5 φοιβονονετικτελᾳατωμακαιραπαί ὁ Φοῖβον, ὃν ἔ - τικ - τε Aq - τὼ μά τ-και - ρα πα-[ρὰ λίμεναι] κλὺυ -τᾶι,

Ἰκλυται
A aN
es ΓΞΞΞΙ͂: : —
1ν «ν « Of 712 oF pt = [1- - ἘΞ
=f t i —
6 χεροιγλαυκα[]ξελαιαοθιγουουοῖ ΟῚ χερ- οἱ γλαῦ -Ka-[Gle &- λαί - ac θυγουτ-οὔς᾽
Ἰς [ὄζον ἐν & - γωνίαι]ς
a7
[a ae eS We —Ty
ς [1]
7 εριθαΐί ]
ἐ - ρι -θα-[λῆ.]

Text Title: [. πιανδεκαυπί,, Ἰδιονειοτί col. Incel ἔτ. ἢ | JvAunvl.. Joo col. 1 {πα]ιὰν δὲ καὶ
πί[οθόϊδιον (or πίροοό]διον) εἰς τίὸν θεὸν ὃ ἐπό]ηῃοείν Reinach (1909-13), 163 καὶ προσεκιθάρι(ςεϊν Λιμή-
viloc Θ]οίνοίυ ᾿Αθηναῖοο] Colin (1909-13), 332 n. 1.
Notation IC Reinach (1909-13), 164, ? Bélis (1992), 89 Supplements to 1-27, 29-40 Weil (1894), 349, 352, 355 f. and Reinach (1909-13), 160-2.
2E ᾧ Reinach (1909-13), 160, F Bélis (1992), 1 yt Bélis (1992), 88, ["I]v Reinach (1909-13), 160
89 3{ ]U Péhimann (1970), 68, [? 71] taavsenap Bélis (1992), 88 f., txavlSlenalp Reinach
Bélis (1992), 87, 89 LI Bélis (1992), 89, pl. TH 2 4 < Bélis (1909-13), 160 1αν fr.h
(1992), 89 5 < or Y Bélis (1992), 89 f, < Reinach (1909-13), 160 2)y[ ἢ. ἢ ἀπ ἃ καί and Ιχί Bélis (1992), 87, 89, κ᾿ and Ἱχ[ Reinach (1909-13), 160
160 ?: perhaps < Bélis (1992), 90
6 Bélis (1992), 90, Y Reinach (1909-13), 3 πε- Pohimann (1970), 68, πε- Bélis (1992), 89 4 χίρ]ν Bélis (1992), 89, χίρ]υ Reinach (1909-13), 160 6 οἱ
7C Reinach (1909-13), 160, C or < Bélis (1992), 90.
Bélis (1992), 90, ¢f Pdhimann (1970), 68.
76 ΤΠ. Late Hellenistic inscriptions from sanctuaries No. 21 LIMENIOS, PAEAN 77

——s : γε .-
—S i oe a ee =
Tla- ἄϊο δὲ γ]ά - θη -οε πό-λοο οὐ - ρά - vi-o¢ ἰ[ἀννέφελοο, αἀγλαόο!]
49 o>
ΕΞ roa a + {—_——— το ΡΡ τ Ὁ t i —|

c rf 17 Euu< C£ < κ[ j [νη] - νέ - μους δ᾽ ἔο-χεν ai - On-tp ἁ -εἰλ - λωῶν tayone-]

8 παᾳί.,. Jaencenortocovpaviogl........... ] 4 10 ;
- cou < SSS SSS SS —— 5
{ IsuUT uo< [ J [τ]εῖς [δρ]όσμουο: λῆ - Ee δὲ Ba - pb-Bpo-pov Νὴ -τοίρέωοῖ
9.ϑΡὈ[..... Ἰηνεμουοδεοχεναιθηηραξῖί,, 2.1...lL. Jere 1
: τῷ ΞΞΞ--- - τ t ty —" τ »--ρ —
f lr ce K r v uf . 1c ee ee et =
10 [, JopovcdngedeBapvBpowovvanl............ Jer 2
ἰζαμενὲο ὁ] τε - Su’
ἡ- δὲ 12μέτγαο oo᾽Ω τ κετα τνόο, ὃὸ πέριξ
< xo< Η [ Ju f ἘΞ- Ξ er —H
1 SpndsepeyacaKxeavococnepreyl.. 1... ll... κα γίαδν ὑγραεῖο ἀγ]-
κά - λαιῖις ἀ-αμπ-έ
- χει.
13 o> 14
< cuc a τ- πα Ἃ-- - —~ ——]
2 λαιοσοααμπεχει = naa — =? “6 - SS
, Τό - te λι-πὼγ Κυτῦυν -θίταν ναΞᾶ -cov én -[é - Ba
Θ εὸ]ς tpw-[t6}-Ka<a>p-
—OCEx< ruc of KD J < C€] ft a .- τ (ν κα ᾿ ᾿ -
13 τοτελιπωγκυσυηνθιανναασονεπί, |... lexpol, 1] ΕΞ er it ee is Ἶ ἘΞ =
- πογ κλὺυ -τὰν ᾿Ατ Teli’ ἐ - πὶ ya'-a - λίόφωι Tpedvi] Tpr-
K “~ < Ε ΖΦ CUE uf 17) « ΞΙ1Ε A o~
14 Kax<o>pmroyKaAvtavat[Ojrdenry
a aal......... ]tpit@wovrii0c a
v

τω - ὦ - vi- Soc

Notation 8 CT Bélis (1992), 94, F Péhlmann (1970), 68 ? Bélis (1992), 85, 93 9T lapis: [E] Reinach Text ° 8&maqlc Bélis (1992), 85, 93 9 αείλλωων Weil (1894), 351, ¢ or x Reinach (1909-13), 164, Bélis
(1909-13), 164 Li above ae- Weil (1894), 351, Reinach (1909-13), 164, ~ Bélis (1992), 95 1011 Bélis (1992), 94 10 vnnl Bélis (1992), 95, Nnm[péac Weil (1894), 351 13 Jexpol fr. f 14 Ka<a>pro- and
(1992),95 C Reinach (1909-13), 164, < Bélis (1992), 95 13 K Bélis (1992), 99, [ Reinach (1909-13), 164 ατ[θ]7ιδ Reinach (1909-13), 164, καρπο- and ατοι[ο]δ lapis γα΄αλ- Reinach (1909-13), 164: ‘a’ linked with
14 CU Reinach (1909-13), 161, Bélis (1992), 98, ὦ Bélis (1992), 85 2: ~ or K Bélis (1992), 100. ᾿ the note [ΓΞ which belongs toa τριτωώνιδοο fr. f, g and C.
 78 ΤΠ. Late Hellenistic inscriptions from sanctuaries
No. 21 LIMENIOS, PAEAN

415
a Τ TS,nN
> 2.ΤΣ Ἢ
slΠΕ ΤΠΣ
ἜΣ τ t

ΓΗ͂

rye

ill
μ ε- λί -πνο τον δὲ Ai-Buc αὖ - Say xé-olv λωωτὸς & -νέ Ἵπεν [ἁ]-
cea 16 ἐν 1--} ----ὶς -ἰ Τ "
c< D< a —
VIV «< Vf J<[ ] [] a ee e a6; —
15. μελιπνοονδελιβυοσραυδαγχεῶῖ, ςςς .ν ως Ἱπεν[] devet-av 6- πὰ μει-γνύτμετνος αἴτει - όλ-ίοις κιθάριοο)
17
υ ς ce Qo [
κεῇ.--.
FASE
4, 4, 4, 1.

16
] Ξ 5
Ε-»
Ξ-Ξ Ε ΞΕ - Ρ
Ρ
ν
----Ὁ
ae
---Ὁ tf ἘΞ
= τ
=
πὰ
t Ξ--- ἃ
ΞΞ--
Servervavonaperyvupevocareroal,........ i: ee " [4
J [μέλεοιν: ἅ]μα δ᾽ ἴτ-α - yep
Τ
πεττροσκαττοι
4 , T >
-͵ κη- Toc ἂ-
[1 «ως o Joc [ ᾿ εξ =; ἢ
17 [μαδιαχεμπετροκατοικητοοσαχί ΝΞ ΞΕΕΕΕΕΕ Ἰοδεγεγα
χίὼ παιὰν ἰὲ παιάν]
.μ « K x «Ε UC ul } “K
18 θοτινοωιδεξαμενοσααμβροταν ce
fa)

SS
18 = Τ =
δι,
ind

=
ἊΝ ——*
ΟΠ. {00 lyav@oav =

“x<
ὃ δὲ yéyae’ δὲ - ξά - μὲ -νος ἀ- ἀαμ-βρό- ταν
vy < ? ΚΕ ue< Cc ou Eft Jc 19
19 εκειναοσαπαρχαοσοπαιηονακικληιοκί ΕΞ " Ἷ : ——— —
Ἰλαοσαυτί[] ——
= [ΞΞΞ- Ξ- ΞΕ = ΖΞ ΞΞΞΞΞΩΗ͂ΞΞΞΕΗ —
4 ΓΘ —==
Pox Cc x K L
[yv@ @pély ἀνθ᾽ @-Gv ἐ- κεῖ- vac dm ἀρ - χᾶς Παι-ἤ-
ς[ Ix « Ε
20 χϑονωνηδεβακχουμεγασθυροοπλη[
lepoctexvi 20
ἢ ΣΡ ΞΞΡΞΞ ΞΘ ΞΡ
fo

: ———
I mall T r 2

ΞΈΞΞΞΕΞΞΕΞΞΞΘΗ
~— a ra r J r ἊΝ. ——]

Τ Υ̓
uUcu< Cu Ε Γ Γ[ . ] ‘ οτνα κι -κλήι - cxlopev ἅπας Ἰλαὸς αὖ - τίο] - χθό
- νων ἦ - δὲ Βάκ-
21 TOMVEVOLKOOCTOAELKEKPORLAL——aal Δ ἢ 21σἧ
SSS ——
Ξ--Ξ- Τ Τ ἢ τ Τ
5
T r.J ΙΝ «ὦ ria ad ———]

yoo pé- yac 6up - co - AMIE ἑομὸς 11- e- pdc TE - χνι- τωτῶν ἔν -οι-
f— ι-Ὁ
tt eo

)
9.--
i Ὁ" p——t
& t———

Ι
κοτοῦ πό-λει Ke - xpo- πί -αι.

Notation 15 Ὁ Colin (1909-13), 164, Pohlmann (1970), 70, Bélis (1992), 100, C Reinach (1909-13),
164 J<[
fr. f, Bélis (1992), 100 16 CC Reinach (1909-13), 161, Bélis (1992), 98, E Bélis (1992), 85 YQ Péhimann
(1970), 70, ὦ Bélis (1992), 100: [Ὁ] ὦ lapis 19 x Bélis (1992), 105 7. Bélis (1992), 85, 104 C Péhimann Text 15 Jxevl fr. g 16 δει- Reinach (1909-13), 164, 5e1- Bélis (1992), 98 1. Bélis (1992), 100: 9 or p
(1970), 70, ΓΕ or Γ Bélis (1992), 105 201. Reinach (1909-13),161, Bélis (1992), 104, LI Bélis (1992), 85 Ε 17 Ἰοδεγεγα Bélis (1992), 105, pl. ΠῚ 2, Ἰδεγεγᾳ Reinach (1909-13), 161 18 "ν΄ lapis, Reinach (1909-13), 164
PéhImann (1970), 72, £2 Reinach (1909-13), 165 (‘presque l’aspect d’un carré’)
21 < Péhimann (1970), 72: δι- Reinach (1909-13), 161, δῳ- Bélis (1992), 105 19 λ]αὸς afdto-] Reinach (1909-13), 161, JAaoc αὐτίο-]
[C}<lapis Γ Bélis (1992), 106, C Reinach (1909-13), 161.
Bélis (1992), 105 21 αλί Péhlmann (1970), 72, Bélis (1992), 106, ἀϊλλὰ Reinach (1909-13), 161.
80 Til. Late Hellenistic inscriptions from sanctuaries No. 21 LIMENIOS, PAEAN 81

A 22 com>
ε τ « - gg - τ ———— τ
= ἘΞ} —— ἜΞΞΞΕ-- γε ~Ξ—ῇ- Ξ 5Ξ- ΞΕΞΞΞΕΞΞΞΞΕΞΞΞΞΕΞΞΞΙ͂ΞΞΞΞΘΙ
> ~— Ὁ =|
UuU <C uc εκ ΜΙ ] Γ
᾿Αλιίλὰ χρήηη - ομ]ωιδὸν ὃς ἔ - χειτεις τρί - πο - δα, βαῖν' ἐ - πὶ θε-
22 ocexerverctpimodsa ParvenrOcoctiBl,........ Japvaag
423 L
εῷ6.
α΄——— 9. Ὃ75Ξ-Ὁὁ Ἢν- - :5 ———— — - ἢνfr χ---ηττς -----
ἘΞΞΞΕ---Ἢ
N Cu <C Γ c < Vv JV <. ] Kee ———————— ἘΞ ΈΞΕΞΞΞΞΕΞΞ-ῴΞΞϑΞΞΞΈΞΕΞΞΞΞΞ ΞΞ- ΕΞ ῷῇ
“ , , -ς- ἢ ,
23 ονανδειραδαφιλενθεοναμφιπλοκί, —. Ἱνωφῳ!, 1] ο - ctt- Blé-a tadvde ap - va-@-ci- αν δει-ρά - Sa φιλ- év- be -ov.
~4$— —by τὐκ τὰ 4 , +
9 ῳ ς Ξ ς oO [ j > —?of_— 15: ty t 7-SS
Γ΄ --- τ αν ἘΞ»
ἘΞῚΞ £ a |Ϊ
24 dagovackrAadsovrrAcbanevocaanl,.............., 1 ° "Ap - φὶ πλό-κία - μον cd δ᾽ ot] - vo-G~ [πα]δάφ- vac κλά -δον

SS Ξ ===
ra’ 4 h, IN 25 ἢ
Ες ως F 5υ ς of ]
25 ααμβροταιχειριουρωναναξγί, οὌὍ «ον εν νιν νιν νιν ] 7 TA - ξά - μὲ - voc
——
ἁ -α - πίλέτουο θεμελίους
᾿ τῇ
ae
& -αμ-βρό τται
4 ᾿t 26, ht
Cc F πε i [ ] πβΞΞΞΞΞ κ = 1 : : ἢ
26 KOpat—aAAahaatovcepatoyAl........d.., ᾿
Ss i SS
t ¥ SF]
yer- pi cd- ρῶν, &- vaé, ΓΙᾶς πελώ - por covav - τἄϊο] κό -ραι.
A : 27
“ «»Εεῃ [ΙΝ < Ε ἶ ] _——=
—— S ἐξῇ =
=—
271. Ἱμπαιδαγαῖ, Igemepvecrorcol,. 1.2... ]
" "AA- Ac Aa-a- τοῦς é-pa-to - γλίέτφαρον ἔξ - voc dypi - alp
Col. II a. “™~
εξ πε“ Ὁ mules o—— f= _— ἀπε ἘΞ ——|
+ Lé
ppt = : =|
uw eu<e€& [ παῖ - δὰ Γα-[ὅ0}] τ᾽ ἔ-πεφ-νες i - οἷο, ὁ - [μοὶ - | we τε Τυτυ-]
28 ποθονεσχεματροο[ A 28 29-—~
of 5.- - a ΞΕ
= =e 7 —
= τ
+ =τ: f2ἘΞ— Ι
: = :ΞΞΞ ἘΞ ++ +
u< Cu oF ς ΓΙ
* [ὃν ὅτι] 26 -θον ἔο- χε ματ- pocl Ἰθη-ἢρ᾽
29 θη πρακατεκτ[]σοοί
‘ 30
ΕΞ
= ft
o
ft
f
¥
=
ἘΞ
t—t
ἘΞ =
+} —*
tῬ
{—3—F
:t ++
t ΤΕ
ἘΞΞ
-
- ft
{{- τ:
=4]
[ JuU< CUL J Cf
dee κατέ - κτία]ς οοἵ ο]υ- ὁ - ριγμ᾽ ἀπ’ efd-]
30 [Ἰνυριγμαπεῖ,
Jovi
of -— ἦ2 : Ηῃ4}
He t} =3
Notation 22 LI < Bélis (1992), 104, 106, pl. VIE 1-2, «Ἐ Reinach (1909-13), 161 1 lapis, [LJ] Reinach
(1909-13), 165 LJ or © Reinach (1909-13), 165 Bélis (1992), 106, pl. DI 2, [Ξ Bélis (1992), 85, [ Péhlmann ὅς [νωϊ-ὥν( 1
(1970), 72. 23 N Péhlmann (1970), 72, Bélis (1992), 106, pl. VIII 1-2, © Reinach (1909-13), 165, V Colin
(1909-13), 165, cf. line 27, see p. 84. V on -πλοκ- and -vw- Reinach (1909-13), 161, Bélis (1992), 113,0 lapis
V < Bélis (1992), 113, pl. I 2, V < Péhlmann (1970),72 24 © Péhimann, C Reinach (1909-13), 161, F or Γ
Bélis (1992), 113, pl. VIEE 1-2: [I] C lapis 26 CL lapis, cf. Bélis (1992), 112, pl. VIII 1, [7] C Reinach (1909-- Text 22 θεο- Reinach (1909-13), 161: θίη]εο lapis, Bélis (1992), 106 Ἰαρναᾳ- Péhimann (1970), 72, Bélis
13), 161, Bélis (1992), 113 1 (or alternatively [Π) shifted by West 2 (1992), 298 over second syllable of λαα- (1992), 106, pl. ITI 2, Japva- Reinach (1909-13), 161 23 Jvwal Bélis (1992), 113, pl. DI 2, Jvol Reinach
τοῦς 27 <Reinach (1909-13), 161, < or ς Bélis (1992), 85, 111, 113, pl. VIL 1 N Bélis (1992), 113 ἔν, 11 (1909-13), 165 26 γλί Péhlmamn, Bélis (1992), pl. VIII 1, yf Bélis (1992), 85,111 27 ὁμοῦ τ ἀναβοαῖο: ἣ
Reinach (1909-13), 161: see p. 84 _£ Pohlmann, C or € Bélis (1992), 114, pl. VWI 1,16} lapis 2811] fr. e, δὲ] Reinach (1909-13), 161, 165, dlpotwe te Τιτυὸν ὅτι] Moens (1930), 91-4, see p.84 28 nofr.e μᾳτρος [
PohImann (1970), 72, LI Bélis (1992), 86, 111 -- Reinach (1893), 606, now lost 29 < Reinach (1909-13), Bélis (1992), 111, 114, cf. pl. TIE 2, IX 1, μᾳτροοῖ Péhimann (1970), 72 29 en fr.e θηῆρ᾽ ἄτι» or θῃῇῆρά «τε»
161, [Ὁ] < lapis, Bélis (1992), 114. PéhImann (1970), 72, Bélis (1992), 114, {ΠῚ Reinach (1909-13), 165 E- West, θηϊήρ, ἃ κατέκτζαα]ςο ὃς Weil (1894), 356 30 οἹυύριγμ᾽ Péhimann (1970), 72, Bélis (1992), 114, 122, pl.
Bélis (1992), 114. IX 1, [ουϊύριγμ' ax εἰὐνω]ῶν Weil (1894), 356.
 82 ΠῚ. Late Hellenistic inscriptions from sanctuaries
No. 21 LIMENIOS, PAEAN 83

[1 «Ε ΓΙ le [ ]
3. LJ. εφρούυρεῖς, Jdeyool , νν νων ν νιν εν νιν νος ] o~
31
4 —! : :
I¢ “¢ ul lI ¢ « ¢ Zo ΞΞΞΕΞΞΞΞΞΕΞΕΞΞΕΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΒ :
—
==
]
32 Bapocapneotel, Joppaveocel....
νιν νυ.. [ὅτ]
a ba
ἐπε- φροῦ
᾿
- ρείι-ει]ς δὲ
7 4
Γα-άϊς
~
ἱερόν,
ε ,

] ὦ
“
- ναξ, παρ᾽
:
dp}
32
«“«ΠΠΗ ΤΕΓῚΤ κα ¢g ] Bs —f—t— fF ἘΞ - 5- π-τ ἘΞ[-Ξ: = =|
te ? ἘΞ : a :
33. θεοληζομενοοωλεθυγραιχεῖ, ,.. 6 {νων ννν νυν ] “ [φαλόν, ὁ βάρ] - Bea -pog ΓΑ-ρης ὅ - te [te] -dp μαν ~td-cy[vov]
μπιι εκ ι«-[ ]
34. οὠιζεθεοκτι[Ἱκτονπαλλαδοοῖ, oe ; : = ———— β-Ξ- --ἶ---τ -" --α---- --
ςς . 0 0 {{ω ων ] Her ——— |
° [od ceBi - Cav ἕδος πολυκυ]θὲς = ANn<i>-CO-pe-voc = - λεθ᾽ ὑ-
ω «ΓΙ! « U< VC ]
35 τεθεατοξωνδεοποτικρηοιῶῖ, νων νων νν νιν νος J
cu < Vv < [
γρᾶι χι [ὄνος ἐν ζάλαι.)
]
36. κυδιοτακαιναεταοδελφωντί, oo 34
2 7 =
. _
]
33 —— ΞΞ ΞΞΞΞΈΞΕΞΞΞΞΞΞΈΞΞΞΞΞ ΞΞΈ =
c «ὺ CoO uo Cc “ [ἴΑλλ᾽,
[ ὦ Φοῖβε οι - Ce
ΟῚ
J θε- ὁ ,
- xric{k}-tov Παλλ - λά - δος ΄
[ἄοτυ καὶ]
» A

37 βιοιοδωμᾳςιναπταιοτουοβακχουΐ ΝΞ
] δ ᾿ 35 ΜΝ
Iv < o< f[
(ΕΞ _———— ΞΞΞΕΞΞΞΕΞΞ ΞΕ ΞΞΞ ΞΞΞΕΞΞΞΗ
τ -Ξ

] % [λαὸν κλεινόν, οὖν]

¥
τε θε- a, τόξ
i :
38 vercphoal ltexpocnororc<i>tavtedopicl ΝΞ... - ὧν δεο - πό- τι Κρη - οἵ - οἴν]
]
<
4
Ξε 36= bee
Oo C¢ O F ῳ ς « [ ] = i
᾿Ξ t
ἘΞ
| Τ
a
Τ
5- -“a
-ἧ Ι 4 ! en |
39 ρωμανω[Ἰαρχαναυξεταγηρατωιθαλλί ΝΠ ΞΞΞΕΕΕ 1 [κυνῶν τ΄ “Aptepic, ἠδὲ An - τῶ] κυ - Οδῖο- τ [κ]Ἰαὰὶ να - ἐ- tac
ω ? Ρ 37 t ΕΞ:
4 νικαν ΞΞΞΞΕΞΞΞΞΕ , SSS 5
Aei- φῶν τἰημελεῖθ᾽ ἅμα τέκ - voc ουμ]|βί - uc, δώ- pa- ςιν ἀ-
38 eo
ae -— —~—f ——* 1
is . Τ [ca / ἃ -—
ἘΞ ΠΣ e Τ + t
Ϊ t - - ; -
¥ L J

Notation 31 <C lapis, Bélis (1992), 121 f,, pl. IX 1, AF erroneously p.86 32 “95 UI lapis, Bélis (1992), 121 ξ,
πταίτοτους, Bax-xov [θ᾽ ἱερονί - καιοῖν εὐμε]νεῖο μό - Ale] - te
pl. IX 1, LU erroneously p. 86 34 Li Bélis (1992), 126 f,, Ll Reinach (1909-13),
162 35 C Bélis (1992), 126 f 39
pLIV 36 ὦ «Βέϊ (1992), 126 f, pl. IX 1, Ὁ <Péhimann (1970), 74 fob x - > =
37 OC © Reinach (1909-13), 162,
Bélis (1992), 126, ὦ ὦ erroneously Bélis (1992), 86 40 ? Reinach (1909-13),
162, 165, Bélis (1992), 126 Ε, C
ἘΞΞΞΞΕΞΞΞΩΞΞΞΕΞΞΞΞΦΞΞΞΈΞΞΞΞΞΕ
f : Ξἤὅξξιεξξξξε : ἘΞ
Reinach (1894), pl. XXII. προς -πό- λοι -οτι», τάν τε
“
δο-ρί - οἴτεπτον κάρτει]
7 «
‘Po - pai- alv]
,

-
Text 31, Ἰεπεφρουρει Bélis (1992), 122, pl. 1X 1, [ὅτ] ἐπεφρούρε[ ΜΕΝ ἢ .μ΄ 40 ΒΒΟΝ
ιειο) δὲ e.g. West, [1 ἐφρούρεζιειο]
Reinach (1909--13),1[61 δὲ γαᾶίο Reinach ( 1909-13), 161, δὲ γααίλατᾶν
Bélis (1992), 122, metrically not pos- = SS ΞΘΞΞΦΞΞΞ ΚΞ ΞΞΕΞΕ Ξ =A
sible 32 -pog: feJc lapis Bélis (1992), 122 (tl<e>dp Bélis (1992), 122
-cv[ Pohlmann (1970), 74, clv- Reinach ἀρ- χὰν αὖὔξ - et ἀ- yn- ρά- τῶι θάλλίς-ουοαν φερε- Ἰνί-καν.
| Ϊ ,΄ a

(1909-13), 161 33 πολυκυ]θὲς Weil (1894), 357 An<.>Copevoc Bélis (1992), 121,123 34 Gedxtic{K} tov
Reinach (1909-13), 162, 165, θεόκτιτέκ)τον Bélis (1992), 127 36 καὶ West τί Bélis (1992), 1265.
pe]| νεῖς Reinach (1909-13), 162, lapis, pl. IX 1-2, [v]uevc Bélis (1992), 127 38 [ed-
μόλί(ε]τε Bélis (1992), 126, pl. IX
1, -Ale}q- Péhimann (1970), 74 -Aouc<t> Reinach (1909-13), 162
39 θαλλί Bélis (1992), 126.
84 IIL. Late Hellenistic inscriptions from sanctuaries No. 21 LIMENIOS, PAEAN 85

Th. Reinach’s edition of the Limenios Paean left one section (lines 28-30) unsupplemented.’ Like the Athenaios Paean, the Limenios Paean is incised in wide columns without colometry,'
The difficulty was line 28, which Reinach took to refer to the serpent Python and its mother but with various external indications highlighting the structure of the composition. An initial
Gaia.” P. W. Moens, starting from the te in 27, which points forward to a second heroic deed of Lydian section extends to the line-break after ἐριθα[λῇ] (line 7). A second, Hypolydian section
Apollo’s to balance the fight with the serpent, arrived at the correct interpretation of the pas- ends with line-break after ἀαμπέχει (12), followed by paragraphos in the left margin of line 13.7
sage.’ The reference must be to the violation of Leto by Tityos (also a child of Gaia) and the A third, also Hypolydian, is delimited only by the modulation following Tpttwavidoc (14). The
punishment of his πόθος by Apollo. To Moens’s parallels, in particular Od. 11. 576-81 καὶ Ti- fourth section, in chromatic Lydian, extends to [παιάν] (17). A fifth, in Hypolydian, is marked
τυὸν εἶδον ... ANT Yap HAKnce and (even closer in wording) Apollodorus 1. 4. 1 κτείνει δὲ ... off by the hiatus and mid-line paragraphos after Κεκροπίαι (21); the sixth, again probably
καὶ Τιτυόν. odtoc ... Anta θεωρήστραοπόθωι KAatTACXEPEtLC ἐπιοπάᾶται, can be added Hypolydian, by the brevis in longo in φυλένθεον (23). Hiatus and paragraphos after κόραι (26)
no. 50. 9 (the Berlin Paean), Aatot{c...] patpdc λώβαν, and Nonnus, Dion. 20. 76 f., ἰὸν ... | mark off the seventh, chromatic Lydian section. The end of the eighth, Hypolydian section falls
Γηγενέοο Titvoio ποθοβλήτοιο φονῆα. in the damaged portion of line 30. The ninth, Lydian section is demarcated by the paragraphos in
Line 28 of the Paean, then, πόθον ἔσχε patpocl, refers to Tityos and Leto. In 29-30 the left margin (33/34) and by the change of metre after [ζάλαι] (33). The tenth, Lydian section,
Τθηηραΐ Katéxtlale, δοῖ ... οἹυύριγμ᾽ ἀπ᾽ eldvaldv, the narrative returns to the fight with the like the first, fourth, and seventh, is characterized by the appearance of the Synemmenai.
serpent, as H. Weil realized, reading θηήρ, ἃ xatéxtac and assuming a female dragon as in the Comparing the two Paeans, one is immediately struck by their similarities. The framework in
Homeric Hymn to Apollo (300-4, 354-62).* But xatéxtac is surely addressed to Apollo, and both cases—amplified by Limenios only in details—consists of an invocation of the Muses, the
the monster is a male δράκων in Athenaios’ Paean (no. 20, line 22), not a δράκαινα. The read- epiphany of Apollo, the sacrifice, a recital of the god’s wondrous deeds, and concluding prayers.
ing θηῆρα κατέκταο, which Moens follows,° would suit the melodic line, but is metrically im- Something of the structure of Limenios’ composition is indicated in the heading: ‘Paean and
possible, as the cretic rhythm does not admit two shorts between two longs, and the single long. Prosodion to the god’. The main portion in cretics, lines 1-33, is the Paean, while the remainder
θηη- cannot be divided between two cretics. A. Bélis reads θηῆρ᾽ ἃ KatéKtac Scl, which is (33-40), in aeolic rhythms (glyconics and choriambic dimeters, with a pherecratean as clausula),
neither intelligible nor in accord with her translation.® Its seems necessary either to read θηῆρ᾽ is the Prosodion, containing the prayers. Athenaios’ Paean has a corresponding structure. The
ἄτι» xatéxtac’ or to assume the omission of a particle, e.g. θηῆρά «τε; κατέκταο. In lines main part, 1-27 (cretics), is to be regarded as the Paean. The concluding part (27-34), clearly
31-3 Limenios adds the most recent of Apollo’s relevant achievements, the repulse of the in- marked off by its opening words ἀλλ᾽ id, is likewise in cretics, and contains the prayers, frag-
vading Gauls in 279 BC. mented but recognizable. Therefore its heading could have been ‘(Paean and Hyporchema) to the
The following notes are employed: Γ (e), L (/), F (g), C (ὦ ὦ (8), D (δ), Κ (δ), ¥ (ce), < god’. If Limenios’ Paean has‘ten sections as against Athenaios’ five, the explanation is that he ~
(d’), V (¢), CE (e’), UG), N (#7) T=Z @’), 5 = M(a’), 4 (δ). With the exception of N, they has expanded the traditional framework that underlies both poems with additions, among which
belong to the Hypolydian and Lydian scales: Hypolydian ef gab (K) ς΄ d’ ε΄ ΚΓ g’ a’ b’, Lydian the story of the god’s birth (8-12), the building of the temple (23-36), and the Tityos episode
efgabjb(D)d'e’f ξ΄ a’ Β΄, the middle tetrachord in the latter series being chromatic, the rest (27-8) deserve particular mention. On the other hand, the two Paeans are bound together by the
diatonic. In other words, as in the Athenaios Paean, there is modulation between a conjunct close correspondence of musical and textual structure, as well as by certain programmatic
chromatic tetrachord and a disjunct diatonic one. We also find modulation into Hyperlydian, the touches in the music.’
Lydian Paranete Z (g’) being treated as Hyperlydian Mese; the note V (e’) then appears as the.
sole intermediate degree between g’ and d’ (= Hyperlydian Hypate, Lydian Mese).
The note N is also at home in the Hyperlydian scale, where it represents Lichanos (77). But ' Col i: 44.5 cm.; col. it: 46.5 cm.; see Bélis (1992), 50 f. On column-widths in musical texts see Johnson
(2000), 66-8.
where it appears in Limenios’ piece, in line 23 and perhaps in line 27, it is associated with the
? Bélis (1992), 99, pl. VIII 2; Pohlmann (1970), pl. 20.
Hypolydian notes < [ LI (d’ ε΄ f’). We cannot suppose that the composer intended it to signify 3 Cf. Poéhlmann (1960), 64-71; West 2 (1992), 201, 289, 291-2, 295, 298.
the same note for which he otherwise (at least fifty times) correctly wrote L1.° He must be using
it for the chromatic degree above UL, i. e. Ε΄, though for this we might have expected 2.

' For the history of the discovery, state of preservation, dating, structure, and notation technique see above on
no. 20, pp. 70-3.
? Reinach (1909-13), 161, 163, 165.
3 Moens (1930), 91-4.
4 Weil (1894), 356: ‘ainsi tu expiras, monstre, qui avais tué quiconque se trouvait ἃ ta portée’.
5 Moens (1930), 99, after Reinach (1893), 608.
§ Bélis (1992), 112, 114, 120.
7 Ch anci>topevoe no. 21, line 33.
ὃ Bélis (1992), 109 f.
86 III. Late Hellenistic inscriptions from sanctuaries No. 22 HYMN ΤΟ SINURI 87

No. 22 MYLASA INV. 3 (Hymn to Sinuri) First century BC Notation A lZ:orperhaps2,A 4K:orX,A‘? 7K:orR 9E:orZ? 10 7: perhaps Ὁ,

B 3 M: or0? Sl:orL,€? 11-20 It is not certain that there are any musical signs in these lines.
FrB
Text A 6perhaps ἱμυρμί 10 perhaps εγνῖ
?
15 Jno [

The existence of these fragments, inscribed on blocks from the sanctuary of the Carian god
16 jul Sinuri near Mylasa, was reported by L. Robert in 1945.’ Their present location is unknown.” The

Ἑ,
Ὁ
2
on
readings were taken by M. L. West from the published photograph, and must be regarded as pro-
visional.* A transcription of the scattered musical notes is superfluous, except perhaps for A 6:
Kevl 1. Ini
K §—_<—
Icee[ 18: 1. ἘΦ-ἘΞΕΕ
H
Jpoel 1. Ἰυο [ If the dating of the inscription is correct, this is the earliest known instance of a long syllable

μ-
wa

a
=
divided among three notes and of the articulatory notation with dicolon (certainly) and hyphen
201 (perhaps). These notes belong to a diatonic tetrachord in the Hyperionian or Hypolydian scale.
Ἰησυρμί 2. 11. Not all of those in the other lines are compatible with this key.
Κ
Ἰθαιμί ' Robert (1945), no. 81, pp. 104-6, pl. 1; see figs. 15 and 16.
? Blimel (1995), 43.
Ε 3 West 1 (1992), 8-10.
Ἰνιῦᾳ

E?
Ἰλακί

A?
10 lyeyyl 10} [Έ0
K
1] Ἰνοεῖ 11. Jpexl

1 Α.
12 Ἰονί 12 Ἰτραῖ
Α 7
FIG. 15: Hymn to
13 Ἰδενῖ 13 pl
FIG. 16: Hymn to
Sinuri, Fr. A Sinuri, Fr. B
Ε 2
14 Ἰανᾳ 14 Jovi
 88 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period No. 23 SEIKILOS 89

No. 23 SEIKILOS, Funeral Epitaph Second century AD

εικωνηλιθος

bWN μα
ειμι τιθηοιμε Εἰκὼν ἡ λίθοο εἰμί: τίθηοί pe Cerxiroc ἔνθα
σεικιλοοσοενθα
μνημησαθανατοῦυ μνήμης ἀθανάτου οῆμα πολυχρόνιον.
οημαπολυχρονιον

WM
-- a a)
C ZZ KIZ 1
6 o covGncgarvov
Ag 4
i 2 et
—— =|
Kitz io "O- cov ζῆιο, gat -- νοῦ,
7 pndsevoraaccn
As 4
Gao = se .-ΞΡ α΄» Po?
t t +—
|
— —JI et f py ΞΞΞΞΞΞ τ: β? 1
COO CKZ * pn - 88 6 -Awe Cc λυ - ποῦ,
8 AvVTOVAPOCOAL-

wit
ΝῊ —- =<

am!
[ΚΗ

Trt
a

ee
ΗΒ

ih
ἜΝ

as
1 Ki K CO® πρὸς ὀ-λί- γον éc - τὶ τὸ ζῆν,

οἱ
9 γονεοτιτοζην δ
ts
4,
x ity 4,
!
1
ἔξξεττ ----
—
ἢ
_———
v
———
4 T
45 ἀΞΞΞΞΞΈΞΞΞΕΞΞΗ
cKO i Ζ τὸ -τέ -λοὺ ὁ χρό -voc ἀπ- αἵ - tet.
10 τοτελοοοχρο-

Kc ΦΟΧῚ
ll] νοσςαπαιτεῖ ζεικίλος Εὐτέρ(που)

ζῆι.
12 οεικιλοοευτερίπου)
13 Cn [

Notation 6ΚΙΖ lapis, Jan (1899), 38, ΚΙΖ Wagner (1921) 285 TPohimann (1970), 54, Tlapis 71 Péhimann
(1970), 54, I" lapis iK Pohimann (1970), 854, IK lapis, ik Jan (1899), 38, ik Wagner (1921), 285 f., 296 8 do
Péhimann (1970), 54,
54, Qo lapis, Jan (1899), 38. ΟΦ Wagner (1921), 295 9 IKi lapis, Wagner (1921), 296, IKI
Jan (1899), 38 ao Pohimann (1970), 54, Qo lapis, Jan (1899), 38, οᾧ Mountford (1929), 147 f. 11 K lapis,
Wagner (1921), 296, K Jan (1899), 38 x4 lapis, Wagner (1921), 286, 295, CXF Jan (1899), 38, Od Martin Text 2 EIMt lapis 12 CEIKIAOC EYTEP lapis (P with apex), Ceixidoc Εὐτερίπου) Marx (1906), 145
(1953), 52: perhaps ςΧῚ ? 13 ZH [ lapis, ζἢ Marx (1906), 145, see pls. [0 and 2 for undamaged surface after EYTEP and before and after ZH.
 90. IV. Fragments from the Roman Period
No. 23 SEIKILOS 91

In 1883 Sir William Ramsay published a grave stele in the form

of pillar, inscribed with two The deficiencies of the available facsimiles and photographs! left earlier commentators in
poems: an elegiac distich, and a little song with musical notation.’
The object had been discov- uncertainty over several details, especially the arsis-pointing, long-marks, and hyphens (ties)
ered during the building of a railway in the neighbourhood of Aydin
(Tralleis), and had entered beneath the notes. Since the reappearance of the original, from which Raasted has checked the
the private collection of the building firm’s director, Edward Purser.
As the pillar was broken at text, these uncertainties have been eliminated. Supposed points above letters of the text (6
the bottom, its base was sawn off straight so that it could stand
and serve as a pedestal for Mrs @AINOY, 8 AYTIOY) turn out to be mere flaws in the surface of the stone. In line 12 the bow
Purser’s flowerpots. This resulted in the loss of one line of text,
as appears from comparison of a of the P has a projection indicating the abbreviation of a name2
Squeeze made by Georg Weber sometime before 1893 with a photogra
ph taken by Alfred Lau- Certain inconsistencies of the rhythmical notation remain. The addition of a superfluous point
monier in 1922.7 The pillar passed into the collection of Purser’s son-in-la
w, Mr Young (later de above the last note in line 6 (the !) will be a simple mistake by the stonecutter. The stigme above
Jongh) in Buca, Izmir, where it remained until the Turkish defeat
of the Greeks in September the first | in line 7, which is in the thesis, not the arsis, is also an error, unless it results from later
1922. The Dutch Consul in Izmir took it over for safe keeping
during the ensuing disturbances, damage to the stone. We must accept as an aberration the fact that ὅλως in line 7 is notated with
and his son-in-law, Willem Daniéls, later brought it by way
of Istanbul and Stockholm to The Z TK but -yov éct- in line 8 with i K i, which is rhythmically the same thing.* Perhaps the most
Hague. In 1966 it was acquired by the Department of Antiquiti
es of the National Museum in important observation is that the triseme sign can stand over two notes linked by a hyphen. R. P.
Copenhagen, and on 6 December 1967 J. Raasted reintrod
uced it to the world in a public lec- Winnington-Ingram had questioned this in the case of no. 42,“ but it is now established by the
ture.’ Itis now exhibit no. 35 in Room 11 of the Museum, with the inventory number
14897.4 two instances of δ © in lines 8-9 (not that this helps for no. 42). By analogy we might have ex-
The lettering of the inscription dates it to the second century AD.
Characteristic features are pected C X “1 over the last syllable in line 11 rather than ς X “1; but the stonecutter did not have
the numerous swallow-tail serifs, especially on E, M, N, Σ;
the almost triangular ® with pro- enough room for a longer triseme. None of the new readings affects the reliability of the tran-
longation below, ligatures between N, H, and M;° and above all the peculiar form of omega, OO
, scription. In the groups Ὁ © the time-value must obviously be divided up J in accordance with
attested in dated inscriptions of 127/8 and 149/50,° The fully
developed rhythmical notation is the underlying iambic metre .
also to be noted.” Many scholars have discussed the meaning of the subscriptio, without definite result.> It is
O. Crusius was the first to appreciate the significance of the musical
notation.? Various others now Clear that the surface is undamaged on each side of CEIKIAOC EYTEP. EYTEP therefore
applied themselves successively to the establishment of the notation
text,’ while E. Martin stu- can only be understood as an abbreviation of the father’s name, usually supplemented as
died the rhythmics,'° and W. Fischer made a dubious attempt to illuminate the
modern parallels and to find echoes of it in Gregorian chant and
melody from Edtép(nov). This interpretation, proposed by F. Marx,° is supported by the above-mentioned
German folksong." The text has projection on the bow of the P. The ZH which Ramsay read in the following line, clearly visible
been reprinted with bibliography by W. Peek, F. B. Poljakov,
and R. Merkelbach and J. on the pre-1893 squeeze, likewise stood alone in mid line with undamaged surface on either
Stauber.” side; it means ‘is alive’, in other words Scikilos set up the inscription during his lifetime.’
The note series, “1 (6), X (f#), ® (g), C (a), O (6), Καὶ (6,
1 (4, Z (e’), corresponds to a Marx took Seikilos to be a Carian name.* The apparently Greek name of his father does not
segment from the Ionian scale. The melody respects the word accents
except for the upward leap tule this out; however, no other Seikiloi are attested. L. Zgusta in his monograph on the onomas-
of a fifth on dcov (line 6), which is paralleled in no. 24, and the
figure on ἐστι (line 9), which tics of Asia Minor took it to be a Hellenized *Sicilus, ‘Sicilian’,? but this is problematic, as the
would be no exception if the accentuation ἔοτι were admitted.”
Latin form is Siculus and the Greek Cixedéc. If the father’s name was really Euterpes, it implies
a family line of professional musicians. (One thinks of Φήμιος Τερπιάδης in the Odyssey.)
' Ramsay (1883), 277 f. (no. 21).
? Crusius (1893) reproduces a drawing of the squeeze; for the photograph They may have belonged to the ούνοδος τῶν ἀπὸ ᾿Ιωνίας καὶ ‘EAAncrévtov (τεχνιτῶν) at-
see BCH 48 (1924), 506 f, fig. 20 tested for Tralleis by a third-century inscription."
(Chronique des fouilles).
? Raasted (1967), 1-7. We are indebted to the author for the text of the lecture.
“ Cf pis. 1b and 2. For the fata columnae cf. Poljakov (1989), 186-8. ' Cf. above, ἢ. 2.
> Guarducci, i (1967), 385 £. ? Observed by 1. Spiliopoulou-Donderer; cf. Guarducci, i (1967), 402.
δ Larfeld (1914), 274: Guarducci, i (1967), 383. The best parallels are
an ephebic list (mid second century) and
> CEKIZ above pa: in line 6 without hyphen.
an epitaph (second century), both from Smyma: Guarducci, i (1967), * Winnington-Ingram (1965), 191. ; ;
376 fig. 201; Merkelbach—Stauber i (1998),
545 no. 05/01/62 (personal communication of Ioanna Spiliopoulou-Donderer). 5 Congny (1890), 595, 607; Wessely (1891), 20; Marx (1906), 145; Carcopino (1922), 273; Picard (1925), 123—
7 It was on this that Henderson (1957), 369, based her dating 5; Robert (1937), 412 n. 4.
to the Roman period, though she thought the let-
tering might be put as early as the second century BC. § Marx (1906), 145; so also Poljakov (1989), 188; Merkelbach—Stauber (1998), 207.
ὃ Crusius (1891), 163-72; (1893), 160-200. 7 Merkelbach—Stauber (1998), 207: ‘Seikilos, der Sohn des Euterpes; er lebt (noch)’.
* Monro (1894), 133, 145; Reinach (1894), 365 ff; (1926), 171; Jan ὁ Marx (1906), 145, ‘Seicilos barbarus et Car vivus sibi ... monumentum fecit cum inscriptione’.
(1895), 450 fF; (1899), 35 ff; Wagner
(1921), 285 f., 295 ff; Mountford (1929), 147 £ > Zeusta (1964), 459 § 1390.
° Martin (1953), 48-55. *° OGIS 501. 6; cf. Poland (1934), 2511; Gould—Lewis (1968), 298.
" Fischer (1953), 153-63.
2 Peek (1955), 609 no. 1955; Poljakov (1989), 186-8 no. 219;
Merkelbach—Stauber (1998), 207 no. 02/02/07.
15 Cf. Winnington-Ingram (1955), 68. For further melodic analysis see
West 2 (1992), 301 f.
92 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period Nas. 24-31 MESOMEDES 93

No. 24 MESOMEDES(?), Invocation of the Muse Second century AD

fo —— 3 7 --- t Ἐν -} >
ς ZZ o eo CC
"“Aetde Μοῦθοά μοι φίλη, % ν ΜΡ “ς
1 ἼἌτει-δε Mod-c& μοι φί - An,

εβξεξξξξῇ + +5 ——p
I ΦΜ Μ -— t [-----Ξῇ
2 μολπῆο δ ἐμῆο κατάρχου,
2 μολ-πῆς δ᾽ ἐ- μῆς κατ -άρ -χου,
4 — .
2Ζ.ϑᾧ Z Ζ EZN N tt at Sr
αὔρη δὲ cOv ak ἀλοξων 3 αὔτ pn δὲ civ ax’ GA-
οἔ τῶν
fy _- I : 4
M ZN | ®C P MOC i
v
—_
-:
"2 ΤΙ
γ
+
“
is
᾿
ἐμὰς φρένας δονείτω. 4 ἐ- pac φρέ- vac S0-vet-
τω.

Notation in N, C and V:

C Ζζῷφ© cc 210MM
«ὦ 2

CZZO OO CC 210MM
CZZMO OO CC 2 ΦΜΜ

Ζ ΖΖΕΖ NN ΗΓ 4 MZN 1 OC PM OC
<N24

ZZZEZ NN ΙΓ 4 M ZN [OC PM OC
ZZZZNNI 4 M ZN IOC PM OC

Text Title in a Eic Μοῦσαν ἴαμβοο βακχεῖοσ The initial letter is enlarged in B In the left margin of V
YapBoc, which is omitted inB Over μολπῆς in V N σποῦ, in C cnovietoc, which is omitted in Ve Bellermann
(1840), 53 f. inferred a metrical scholion ἴαμβοο — cnovdetoc — ἴαμβοο -- βακχεῖος, which belonged to lines 1-2.
 94 IV, Fragments from the Roman Period
Nos. 24-31 MESOMEDES 95

Nos. 25-6 MESOMEDES, Invocations of Calliope and Apollo

Second century AD

No. 25
No. 25 ς PM PC OC
Καλλιόπεια οοφά, SSS
fo
i4 ΠΡ ς
————
2S
5 Καλιλι- 6- πει- a co- od,
Φ NC Cc CCT OR ® $ beh " —t—
Μουοῶν προκαθαγέτι τερπνῶν,
6 Mov- ον προ-καθ-α - γέ - τι τερ - πνῶν,
4ty.
R o C¢ P MIM +
msΤ = Σ rs
καὶ σοφὲ μυοστοδότα, Ι
7 καὶ co- φὲ μὺυο- τὸ - δό - τα,
fh !

Μ ! ΕΖ ΓΜΡ μι os —
oS f ΞΞΞΞΞ -— ΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΌΞΞΞΞ σΞΞΞΞ:ΞΞΞΈΞΞΕΞΕΟΞΞΗ
—— ΕΞ- Ἐ-ἢἃὦ
Λατοῦς γόνε, Δήλιε Παιάν, 8 Λα-τοῦς γό- ve, Δή - λι- ε Παι -άν,
4 ἢ ἢ
ΜΙΖΜ ΕΞ Ἵν ra αν Ρ t iss f iq
too ¢ ς ee + a i—t a ¢ a i
_edpevete πάρεοτέ μοι. Pp} ᾿ a
9 eb- pe- νεῖς πάρ -εο- τέ por.

Text 5 In the right margin of V ἄλλωο The initial letter isenlargedinC Καλλιόπεια VCVe, Καλλιόπα N
6 προ[υἱκαθαγέτι Ν 8 Δήλιε β, δ᾽ Ἥλιεν.

No. 25 Notation 6 ON Cc a, OMC Νο. 26 Ἐὐφαμείτω πᾶο αἰθήρ,

σδαωνΝ re
Winnington-Ingram (1936), 42 8 MP PéhImann (1970), 14, IMP
Reinach 1 (1896), 17, MP a. γῇ καὶ πόντοο καὶ πνοιαΐ,
οὔρεα, τέμπεα οιγάτω,
ἦχοι φθόγγοι τ ὀρνίθων:
Notation in N, C and V:
μέλλει γὰρ t πρὸς tT ἡμᾶς βαίνειν
Φοῖβος ἀκεροεκόμας edyattac.
Cc PMPC O¢ 6o NC CCC “tT A®
C PMPC OC 6® NC CC CC [(] 1 ΒΦ
C PMPC OC 69 NC CCCC TRO
Νο.26 Notation 6 Except for a solitary C over the second syllable of ἀκεροεκόμαςο in V no. 26 has lost the
P®CPMIM 8M 1 EZr MPC MI notation altogether.
P®CPMIM 8M 1 EZP MPC Mi
ROC PMIM 8M EZ-!MPC M Text Title Ὕμνος εἰς Ἥλιον (61 Ν) α The initial letter is enlarged in B 1 Paragraphos in the left margin
of V. In the margin of no. 26. 1 -- no. 27. 10 appears in VCN a metrical scholion, which is omitted by γε: ουζυγία
κατ᾽ ἀντίθεοιν. ὁ node - ὦ καὶ ὁ -, γένοο διπλάσιον. ὁ ῥυθμὸς (καὶ ῥυθμὸς C) δωδεκάοσημος (δώδεκα Ν)
M
VCN δ πρὸς ἡμᾶς a, emended by Wilamowitz (1921), 604 (npdccw) and Reitsch (1961), 25 (nopt ἦμάο), but
M ZMIO CC see Browning (1963), 159 δὲ πρὸς van Leeuwen (1904) on Ar. Thesm. 39 ff. 6 εὐχαΐτας VC, εὐχέταο γ.
96 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period Nos. 24-31 MESOMEDES

No. 27 MESOMEDES, Hymn to the Sun Second century AD

of +——t i ιν t ty ῃ t 7
ccc C!c PE ac = Me od ρα. oda
7 Χιονοβλεφάρου
:
πάτερ Aodc, 7 Χιτο τνοβ- Ae- φά τροῦ ma τ ερ ove,
4 7 ιν + —

ony MM 1 CO MIAM ῥ τό ee. 00 Bc ἂν. τὸ. γα πώ - λῶν

8 posdeccav bc ἄντυγα πώλων 8 po -d0 = Ec cow
. ᾿ μϑ-τ 25, ze ra =]

9 MIM
πτανοῖς | 1 PM IZA Ζ 5 πτ - votc ὑπ᾽ ἴχ- vec - cu διτώ - Kete,
ὑπ᾽ ἴχνεοοι διώκειο, ,
ῥ = x ——— ———
ae ἘΞ ἘΞΞΞξξῴζξξξθιὶ ΞΊΞΞΞΞΞΙΞΞΞΞ ~—t |
M Ζ ΜΖ / Μ <I> ΓΜ Z 10 χρυ- céar- cw ἀ- yaA- λό- με- νος κότμαιο
10 xpvucéaicriv ἀγαλλόμενοο κόμαις , — ; _
SF —— 5:Ξ: . 5. -ατΞ
Μ | zi M 1 Po ς P PC 11 me -ρὶ νῷ
- tov ἁ -πεί - pri-tov od
- pa - vod
li περὶ νῶτον ἀπείριτον οὐρανοῦ A ᾿
7 iy 1 0 "νι Τ ¥ t
Ld

μ
cPMC MM MM M ΕΜ "12 ἀκ- τῖ- va πο-λύο- τροτ-φον ἀμ - πλέ
- κῶν
1. ἀκτῖνα πολύοτροφον ἀμπλέκων, A —
= et + —
I~ M PM - ΖΙ MPAPC 13 aly -λας πὸ -Av-Sep-
Ke- a πά - ναν
1. αἴγλαο πολυδερκέα πάγαν A ἢ ᾿

cP MM M C R OM M
SS SS SS ΞέΞΞΙ
14 πε-ρὶ γαῖ - av ἅ - ma-cav ἑ - λίς - cov,
ι a 2 eat
14 περι γαῖαν ἄπαοσαν ἑλίοοσων,

Notation in N, C and V:

IN CC ¢Ccic PC OC 8 0 MM MM COM
7.0 ce ccic PC OC ὃ O09 MM MM COM
IV cece CCciec PC O/C 8 09MM MMIC OM

ΟΝ MIM PM ZA Z 10 MZMZ | M IM Zi
9c MIM It PM ZA Ζ 10
9V MIM ] 1 PM IZA Z 10 MZMZ 1M IM ZI
igo
Notati 27 wos
ἼΦΛΟ ve
Pohl mann ( 1970),), 27,27 O/C V, ® CCN 10 (1) Péhimann
Shi: (1970), 2 26 13 MPAPC Péhimann
ὃ MN ΜΙ ΖιΙ MIP ® ¢ PPC 12 CPM MMMMM

" , ΠΝ ΜΙ ZE ME Ρ Φ C PPC 122 CPM CMMMMM

Text 7 The initial letter is enlarged in B χιονοβλεφάρου CNVe, χιονοβλεφάρουον 8 foddeccav VCVe,
podéeccavN 9 ixveccr Ν᾽, ἴχνεοι β 11 οὐνοῦ α 13 πάγαν a, πάναν West 1 (1992), 10, παγάν Beller- BN ! M P M$ ZI MP/PC 144 C PMMMC [AJR OMM
mann (1840), 27, 33 f. : 3V ITM
I
 98 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period Nos. 24-31 MESOMEDES 99

ΜΙ ZZ Ζ ΖΕΊῚΙ Ε Ζ
155. ποταμοὶ δὲ σέθεν πυρὸς ἀμβρότου ra 1-7
> Ὁ 1 t {τ -- --- τ Ea Tr
ἼΣ ΤΣ Ἐ " 4
γ2.-.- t Yr r
Ls
Η͂ ,
Ρ MiZzzZtM 15 ποτ-ταὰ -μοὶ δὲ cé&- Gev xv -ρὸς ἀμ - Bpd-tov
P <i> C
16 τίκτουσιν ἐπήρατον ἁμέραν. ,ἘΠ:-::-:-
ἘΞ —S SS α - ΞΞΞαΞΞΞΞΒ
1:-::----
Τ Τ “ V ἢ

c 16 tik- τοῦ - civ ἐπ -ἡ - pa -tov ἃ -μέ -ραν.

Φ Cc P M MM P Pc
17 cot μὲν χορὸς εὔδιος ἀστέρων j4-—4
rat 1
: \
4 i
—,
pt pF ᾿ :
“17 col μὲν χο-ρὸς εὖ -δι - οὐ dc - τέ τρῶν
Μ I MoM [ Po oM Ι ZZ
18 κατ᾽ Ὄλυμπον ἄνακτα χορεύει oes EE
ke ΞΕ ΞῚ
f=
= at Fy
i—
Τ i
:
T
Ϊ
4

ὅ18 κατ᾽ Ὃ -λῃυμ -πὸν & -νακ -τὰ yo- ped - εἰ

2 2Μ ZZ MZ ΕΖ
19 ἄνετον μέλος αἰὲν ἀείδων
ἢ.

py ¢— ᾿ΞΞΞΞΞΞ: — ἘΞΞΞΞΞΞΞῚ
ὅ19 ἄν -ε - τὸν μέ -λοο αἱ - ἐν ἀἁ - εἰ - δῶν
ΜΊΙΖΖ Μ 1 P ® ZZ
20 Φοιβηίδι τερπόμενοο —— + — 1
λύραι. _——————————
T T id
-[ΞΞΞ
ἢ
20 ῷοι - βὴ - t- δι τερ - πό- με -νος λύτραι
CPM M Μ C P MMIAM
21 γλαυκὰ δὲ ——— oe ᾿ =
πάροιθε Certava
1 ¥ ¥ yo a t +
21 γλαυ- κὰ δὲ πάρ -οἱ -@e Ce-Ad - va
ΜΙΜΜΡΜΙ ZZ
22 χρόνον ὥριον ἁγεμονεύει EAE —
—— i
μη:
SS
+e 3 Ε raf
SSE
x I
—
t — J
22 χρόνον 6 ~ pr-ov ἁ -yEe- po -ved - εἰ
Mi ΖΜ Ι @ C PMP C ρ x ὑπ ἘΞ
4

23 λευκῶν ὑπὸ cCdppactr μόοχων' =ἘΞ ——

ν = SS
23 λευ - κῶν ᾧ -πὸ cop - μὰ τοι poc - χῶν:
ς |ς ς CHEE! C PC PO PM ch ἐς - τὴ t ty ty t ty ΓΞΞΞ
᾿ { =]
24 γάνυται δέ τέ cor νόος εὐμενὴς 5 6: [---
4 ¥ q
24 γά-νυτται δὲ τέ cor νό -ος εὖ - Ομε-νὴς
ΜΙΖΙΜ Ι Φ C PMPC ——
4 7 κ- ΕΝ
4,
fry
25 πολυείμονα κόσμον ἑλίσσων. ppt : i——t SS |
25 mo-Av-et- po - va κός -μον & - Alc - cov.
Notation 16 PMIN, EMI West 1 (1992), 10 <I> Péhlmann (1970), 26.

Text 16 ἐπήρατον VCVe, ἀπήρατον N, ἀκήρατον Wilamowitz (1921), 603

18 ἤΟλυμπον Bellermann (1840),
26 ἔ,, οὔλυμπον α ἄνακτα a, cf. Bellermann (1840), 34f. 20 Φοιβηίδι B, φοιβήδι V λύρᾳ N, Adpn VCVe
21 γλαυκὰ a, κλαυκὰν 22 ἁγεμονεύει a: fo] in red ink rectified by N 24 γάνυται Vaticanus gr. 1772,
γάννυταια cor Bergk (1868), XCV, ol a πολυείμονα Monacensis 215, Pari sinus 2532, πολυοίμον a.
α
 100 TV. Fragments from the Roman Period Nos. 24-31 MESOMEDES 101

No. 28 MESOMEDES, Hymn to Nemesis Second century AD

1MMM{M}IM M | C PM
1 Népecr. xntepdecca βίου pond,

OM ZZ ZZ E Z |} ZM
2 κυανῶπι θεά, θύγατερ Δίκαο,
SS S SS
Ἵ
ἘΠ a. " 1 Ι. 1 rd r 2 j

Μ O ὃ (ome) E Z EAO 1 Né-pe - οι πτε- ρό- ec - ca Bt- ov po -πά,

3 ἃ κοῦφα φρυάγματα θνατῶν
ie ᾿Ξ pa fh —F — I —
coor ix 26. rd = τα ra ‘2 - ra? > }

2 κυταν-ὦ -πι θε -ά, θύ - γα - τερ Δί -Kac

Ὁ ΟΜ ΟΖ E | M<I>M
= —=——_———— ——— =
δ κα. “΄ 4. ρ. Φ 5 YJ
4 ἐπέχειο ἀδάμαντι χαλινῶι,
i
’

3 ἃ κοῦ -@a pv τάγ - μα -τὰ Ova - τῶν

Μ M M M M MMM ς ΜΦ fh ΓῚ Φ. ες-οἭΩ
5 ἔχθουσα δ᾽ ὕβριν ὀλοὰν βροτῶν a oe +
———
¥~ Ἐ
———
LJ as
- t
re
Ἐ a
= 3

5.4 ἐπ -ἐχ τεῖ ἀ -δά - pov -t χα - AL - νῶι

PCO PP
6 μέλανα φθόνον ἐκτὸς ἐλαύνεις i
Η 4 is
ze fe _— — —* = ee!
kK —— ]

- t ¥ + | a x i τ --
5 ἔχ - θου - ca 8 OB -ριν ὁ - AO - ἂν Bpo - τῶν
ἘΦ ςἘ O<I> | ς Φ P ΜΙ
-$—— +e t = Τ᾿ a 1

7 ὑπὸ οὸν τροχὸν ἄστατον ἀοτιβῆ Ῥ ty = = ΤΊ Τ᾽ | Ῥ ty t ——]

6 pe -λὰ -νὰ φθό - νον ἐκ - toc ἐ - Aad - νεις

“ “ La ᾿ ΕΥ F ᾿ ,

ΖΕ δ Ζ ! I <I> M ΖΜ δ i , ‘ —

SSS S S SSS SS
+” a Ἷ A iu A. ~ 2. ΤΣ ἊΝ - “»-

8 χαροπὰ μερόπων οτρέφεται τύχα,

7 ὃ - πὸ cOv τρο -χὸν ἄς - τὰ -τὸν ac - τι - βῆ
fal Φ. ρ.
M MM M M M P MC<ADCO®
Apt
vy. £ fof" —— [£Ξ - Ξ- ]J
9 λήθουςσα δὲ πὰρ πόδα Paiverc, Y r " Vd Ἔ | "
8 χα -po - πὰ με -pd- πὼν οτρέ -φε - ται τῦ - χα
,ὔ

R ΦΡΡρ M i P MAM f <———— = }

a = x _—— ΞΞΞ —— ν — =|
10 Yavpovpevov αὐχένα KALVE LC. Eo FS a <
9 An τ-θου - ca δὲ πὰρ πό - Sa Bai - VELC,
A ΄ a’

τ ἘΞΞΞΞ > = @
| 4
ἘΞ ——_i
ας χ- Ξ
t
τς
a 7
=a
ft
=
{ —}
1
Notation 1 {M} Péhimann (1970), 26 4 <I> West 1 (1992),11 71} PéhImann (1970), 26 9 MC<AsCo 10 yoo ~pod- pe-vov αὖ -χέ -νὰ KAL - ὠὀἀνεῖο.
, 2 ΄ ,,

Pohimann (1970), 27,MCCO®N 10 OPPN, ORR West 1 (1992), 11.

Text Title “Yyvoc Νεμέσεως V, Ὕμνος etc Νέμεσιν N, Εἰς Νέμεσιν Ve, no titleC 1 The first letter is en-
larged in B, paragraphos in the left margin of V 7-8 are quoted by Lyd. Mens. 184. 15 Wiinsch, 9~11 by Synes.
Ep. 95. 2350 and Suda v 163 (iii. 448.5 Adler) 5 ἔχθουοα β, ἔχουσα V ὕβριν a, ὕβριν τ' Hermann (1877),
350 6 ἐκτὸς ἐλαύνειο without notation in a, lacking in V7 ἀςτιβῆ B, &cterBh V. :
 102 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period
Nos. 24-31 MESOMEDES

R ® PC © P pC ρ M Ι
Ὅν ἀεὶ βίοτον μετρεῖο,

GM ΖΕ | M{IMJM OM = $4 SS S55 ——
, ae ; : a os
12 νεύεις δ᾽ ὑπὸ κόλπον ὀφρῦν τὸ ;
ἀεὶ ll ὁ - πὸ πῆ - χυν ἀ - εὶἾ 4
Bi -ο Ϊ
-tov r
pet - -
pete,

ΦΜ ΜΜ PC M LAT f=
— Ε πὶ + _— — :[Ἔ
Ξ- ας— = = τΕ 7:ἷ 1|
13 ζυγὸν μετὰ χεῖρα κρατοῦσα. 12 ved - εἰὸ δ' ὑ - πὸ KOA - πον ὁ -φρῦν & - εἰ
εβεεξϑϑε — = aa =|
EEE € ZZ tM 4 P eS fF SS pot j
14 ἵληθι μάκαιρα δικαοπόλε 13 ζυ - yov μὲ - τὰ yet- pa κρα- τοῦ - ca,

EEE ᾿
ZZi tt ΖΜ
IM SS
oS =SSS
SeSS Se
15. Népeci xntepdecca βίου pond. 14% - An - @ μά - καὶ τρὰ δι -Kac
- πό - λὲ
es 7 = 5-----Ξ- # = ῃ
1MM MM 1M C P MM τι------ -τ--Ὸ- ἘΞ ἘΞ - 5 ad “
16 Νέμεοιν θεὸν ἄιδομεν ἀφθίταν, : 15 Νέτμε - οι mte-pd- εὐ - cao BL τοῦ 6 .

ZM | ZE t ! M ZM
1 Νίκην τανυοίπτερον ὀβρίμαν

ΜΜ OO 0) ὃ Z E OM ea ra = = Ξ μ᾿ a = =r+ - % =
Ἵ
|
‘ . , ἢ ——} f
18 νημερτξεὰα —¥θὲ ¥
καὶ πάρεδρον Δίκαο, 16 Νέ-με
- cw -ὁν ἄι᾿ - δὸi -μὲν ἀφ - BiΤ᾽ -ταν,
J

ΡΜ MM M C «Ι»Μ ΡΜ f
ΕΞ i =
= 2 = τ: = ᾿
Ξ ΤΣ { oy py = y { |
19 ἃ τὰν μεγαλανορίαν βροτῶν 17 Ni- κην τὰ - w- cin - τε - ρον OB - pi- μὰν
ρ -- δ΄ :
f——.
p——F
΄f 6-
:; [
-- =|
᾿
Ζ ἘΞ = = : :
20 νεμεοῶσα φέρειο
~
κατὰ
,
Ταρτάρου.
x ΄

18
Τ
νη -
Ι
pep - τέ - a@ καὶ πάρ - εὃ - ρον Δί - kac

᾿ ts z =
Notation 12 {ΜῈ Jan (1895), 470 19. <i> Pohlmann (1970), 26. oS —— St
19 ἃ τὸν pe- ya- Aa - vo- pt - av βρο - τῶν
Text 11 βίοτον petpeic a, βιοτὰν κρατεῖο Synes., Suda 12 ὀφρῦν ἀεί Wilamowitz (1921), 604, ἀεὶ κάτω
9 e .--- - > 74
foe fh——t fh : ty is f Ῥ' Hi
ὀφρῦν a, ὀφρῦν κάτω Bellermann (1840), 26,44 13 ζυγὸν a, ζυγὸν εὖ Hermann (1877), 350, τὸ ζυγὸν West 1 εἰ ἥ
(1992), 11 14 ἵληθι C, Wilamowitz (1921), 605, ἵλαθι VNVe 15 pond βίου West
1 (1992), L116 θεὸν "20 ve - μὲ - οὗ
A
- cH
, - πὸ ο- τά - Ov.
ἄιδομεν ἀφθίταν Boivin in Parisinus 2458, ἄφθιτον Wilamowitz (1921), 604 f., θεῶν αἰδομένα (αἰδομέναν
φέ τρεῖς κα - τὰ Tap - τά - pov.
C)
φθιτάν (φοιτᾶν Ve)a 17 ὀμβρίμαν VNVe, dBpinavC 18 Aixac C, Bellermann (1840), 49, Δίκαν VNVe
19 μεγαλανορίαν B, μεγάλαν ὀρίανν 20 vepectica φέρεις κατὰ Bellermann (1840), 48, φέρει Wilamowitz
(1921), 604, Νεμέσεως ἀφαιρεῖο καὶ a.
104 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period Nos. 24-31 MESOMEDES 105

Nos. 29-31 MESOMEDES: Hymns to Isis, Physis and Sundial Second century AD Nos. 24-31 MESOMEDES Second century AD

Table of manuscripts
No. 29 MESOMEDES: Hymn to Isis

The manuscript (Ottobonianus Graecus 59) exhibits before the “Hymn to Isis” of Mesomedes! a Vv Venetus Marcianus app. cl. VI 10 (1300), no. 1 Jan (1895), no. 273 Mathiesen (1988), 13th—
scholion, which explains the poem’s metre (paeonic dimeters) correctly and gives testimony for a 14th century. V exhibits on f. 205v—206r Hymns of Mesomedes (nos. 24-8) with notation as
lost setting to music in the Hypolydian key: far as no. 27. 13; see pl. 3-4.

ἡ ουζυγία πυρρίχιος καὶ ἴαμβοο. γένη δύο, tapBoc διπλάσιον καὶ πυρρίχιος ἴσον. ὁ ῥυθμὸς Parisinus Coislinianus graecus 173, no. 138 Jan (1895), no. 103 Mathiesen (1988), 15th
δεκάοσημοο. ὑπολύδιοο ὁ τρόποο. century. C exhibits on f. 222v Hymns of Mesomedes (nos. 24-8) with notation as far as 27.
9; see pl. 5.

Neapolitanus graecus 262 (Ill C 4), no. 78 Jan (1895), no. 203 Mathiesen (1988), 14th-15th
Νο. 30 MESOMEDES: Hymn to Physis century. N exhibits on f. 82v-83r Hymns of Mesomedes (nos. 24-8) with notation as far as
no. 28. 20; see pl. 6-7.
The Ottobonianus exhibits before the “Hymn to Physis” of Mesomedes’ a scholion, which gives
testimony for a lost setting to music in the Lydian key, but does not fit the poem’s metre. Perhaps it Venetus Marcianus graecus 318 (994), no. 182 Jan (1895), no. 262 Mathiesen (1988), 14th
belonged to the “Poem on the Swan”? century. Ve exhibits f. 228r Hymns of Mesomedes (nos. 24-8) without notation; see pl. 8.

Πυθαγόρου. 6 ποὺο προκελευοματικόο. ὁ ῥυθμὸς ὀκτάσημοο. ὁ τρόποο λύδιοο. For the copies of V, N, Ve see Heitsch (1959), 36, 43 and Péhimann (1994), 187-9.

Ottobonianus graecus 59, 13th—14th century. O exhibits on f. 31v—33r the hymn to Hygieia
of Ariphron, and eight poems of Mesomedes not contained in V, C, N and Ve; see Heitsch
No. 31 MESOMEDES: Hymn to the Sundial (1961), 26-31 nos. 4-11. These poems lack notation, but give testimonies for lost melodies
(nos. 29-31). Two further poems of Mesomedes are transmitted as AP 14. 63 and 16. 323,
In the Ottobonianus appears a scholion to the first “Hymn to the Sundial”,4 which does not fit the see Heitsch (1961), 31 f. nos. 12-13.
metre of the poem. It is nearly identical with a scholion to no. 26:

ουζυγία Kat’ ἀντίθεοιν. ὁ node -ὦ καὶ U-. yévoc διπλάσιον. ὁ ῥυθμὸο δωδεκάοημοο,
Filiation of manuscripts
which does not make sense there either, but helps to correct no. 31. Both scholia belong to poems in
choriambic dimeters; the scholion to no. 31 gives testimony for a lost setting in the Lydian key:

ἣ ουζυγία tpoxatov καὶ idpBov.’ ὁ τρόπος λύδιος. ὁ ῥυθμὸς δωδεκάοσημοο: yévoc διπλάοιον.

' Heitsch (1961), no. 5; cf. below p. 113.

2 Heitsch (1961), no. 4; cf. below p. 113.
3 Heitsch (1961), no. 10.
* Heitsch (1961), no. 7; cf. below p. 113 f.
5 Ἰάμβου καὶ τροχαίου in the Ottobonianus.
 106 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period
Nos. 24-31 MESOMEDES 107

From the Cretan Mesomedes, court musician to Hadrian,’ we have

altogether fourteen or fif- copy of Ve.' Mathiesen has pointed to a fifteenth-century manuscript in Salamanca which is a
teen poems. Two had always been known from the Greek Anthology,” and these are the only two descendant of 2 It is noteworthy that the copyists of some later manuscripts leave a blank page
transmitted under the poet’s name. Five more (one of which, however, following the treatise of Dionysius where the hymns would be expected, perhaps in the hope of
may be of different
authorship) are preserved, with musical notation of the ancient type, in a series of manuscripts finding a better or more complete exemplar for the difficult notation.
dating from between the thirteenth and seventeenth centuries: invocations of the Muse, of Calli- Only a fourteenth-century Paris manuscript with notation (C) turned out to be independent of
ope and Apollo, and of Phoibos, and hymns to Helios and Nemesis
(nos. 24-8).? V, N, and Ve. It does not persevere as far with the notation as do V and N, abandoning it at 27.
Ancient quotations from the Nemesis hymn’ virtually guaranteed Mesomedes
’ authorship for 9, but up to that point it strengthens the basis for criticism. It also helps us to form a clearer idea
these pieces too. Finally, in 1903 K. Homa discovered in a late thirteenth-century manuscript of the page layout, scholia, and headings of the common archetype of V, C, N, and Ve.
(O) eight more poems, whose metre and style favoured ascription to Mesomedes
.5 Although they C has the hymns on a verso page which had been left blank between Dionysius and Bryen-
lack musical notation, accompanying scholia show that some of them,
at least, had been set to nius. They were evidently added later, as the scribe did not have enough space for them, and had
music (nos. 29-31). Horna himself argued that they derived from the
same corpus as the other to crowd lines 11-20 of no. 28 into four columns at the foot of the page. The rest is written in
four invocations and hymns.
two columns, to be read straight across, as also in V and N.
Work on the history of the transmission, initiated by F. Bellermann
and carried on by C. von At the top stands the heading contaminated with a scholion, as known also from V, N, and
Jan, Th. Reinach, and Horna, reached something of a culminatio
n in the article by E. Heitsch.® Ve, Eic Motcav tapBoc βακχεῖοο; to the scholion belongs also the word οπονδεῖοο, which
He concluded that for the text of the poems there were three primary
manuscript sources (V, N, has got in among the notes to no. 24. 2. Each new poem begins with ecthesis and enlarged initial.
Ve), from which all other known manuscripts were derived. The transmissi
on of the musical Nos. 25 and 27 receive this treatment despite having no headings of their own in the tradition. As
notation, however, is not so clear. Ve has none; V has it only as far as
no. 27. 13, whereas N has these two poems occupy respectively only four and a half and twelve and a half lines, the right-
it throughout nos. 24-8 apart from two gaps in 28. 6 and 20. There
are clear errors of transmis- hand half of the last line in each case remains empty, and is used for the heading of the next
sion in the notation, and where we rely on N alone it is difficult to remedy
them. It seemed desir- poem. In the left margin, level with 25. 9-27. 7, there stands another scholion, again known from
able, therefore, to enlarge the manuscript basis.
the other manuscripts.
The Mesomedes settings are transmitted together with a late musical
treatise by one Di- N has the same layout in detail, except that it fails to mark Καλλιόπεια (25) as the start of a
onysius, which in the manuscripts follows on, without a new title, from
the treatise of Bacchius. new poem. V, on the other hand, diverges in a way that was to have significant consequences:
An examination of all the manuscripts listed by Jan and Th. J. Mathiesen’
as containing only the empty half-line at the end of no. 25 was used for the first line of no. 26, so that in what fol-
Bacchius disclosed, inter alia, that a lost manuscript in Wolfenbiitt
el, last heard of in an eight- lowed the allocation of verses to columns was reversed. The heading was shifted into the space
eenth-century catalogue, had contained hymni Graeci cum antiquis notis
musicis Graecorum? A between the columns, while the scholion was split in two and accommodated in the middle and
sixteenth-century Vaticanus? contains, like Ve, the four hymns without notation or verse- the right-hand margin. Consequently incipits had to be indicated by paragraphot (nos. 26 and 28)
division, and instead of Dionysius it has, again like Ve, a Pythagorean
text, of which a divergent or by ἄλλωο (no. 25). In the manuscripts copied from V the sequence was not correctly fol-
recension is known from Photius. Comparison of readings shows the
Vaticanus to be a direct lowed, and the order of verses became more and more confused.
Ve, which has no notation and is written continously like prose, marks verse-end throughout
Dio Cassius 77. 13. 7; Historia Augusta, Pius 7. 8; Suda
with : and the end of a poem with :+ (after 25. 9), :- (after 26. 6), :— (after 27. 25 and 28. 20).
668 (iii. 367. 8 Adler); West 2 (1992), 383 f. Three poems, nos. 24, 26, and 28, begin with enlarged initials. The headings to nos. 24 and 26
? AP 14. 63; 16. 323; Heitsch (1961), 31 f, nos. 12-13.
3 Ed. princeps: Galilei (1602), 97, who leamed of the poems from Girolamo are incorporated in the running text, while that to no. 28 is added in the right margin; the second
Mei; cf. Palisca (1960), 156, 159-
63; Galilei (1602), 96 f., 154. Galilei was followed by Fell (1672), 49-69,
and Burette (1731), 284-308, who used scholion is omitted. ; ; ;
cod. Paris. gr. 2532 (no. 126 Jan, 95 Mathiesen). Bellermann (1840), 20-4, reviews
the other early editions. The The apographa of V, N, and Ve and the early editions call for no further discussion following
poetic texts (without the music) are also in Bergk (1868); Wilamowitz
(1921); Heitsch (1961). the studies of Heitsch and E. Péhlmann.‘ It remains to ask in what relationship V, C, N, and Ve
* See above in the apparatus to no. 28.
5. The Manuscript contains on f. 31°33", under the general heading
παρεξεβλήθηοαν ἀπὸ τῆς Μουοικῆο, the
following items: (Ariphron), Hymn to Hygieia; (Mesomedes) 1. To Physis,
2. To Isis, 3. To the Adriatic, 4. On a
Sundial 1, 5. On a Sundial If, 6. Ecphrasis of a Sponge, 7. On a Swan, 8.
On a Mosquito. Editions: Lambros ' It has all of Ve’s distinctive variants (no. 28, title Eic Népectv; 16 φοιτᾶν), and the additional errors 27. 7
(1906); Wilamowitz (1921), 595-607; Horna (1928); Heitsch (1961). Photos:
Merkelbach_van Thiel (1965), 25-8. χιονοβεφάρου, 9 ἐπὶ ἴχνεοι. At 27. 24 it makes the easy correction γάνυται for γάννυται. ᾿
§ Bellermann (1840); Jan (1890); Reinach 1 (1896); Homa (1928);
Heitsch (1959). 2. Salmanticensis Univ. gr. 2748 (63 Mathiesen). The other eight manuscripts presented as new by Mathiesen
7 Jan (1895), xi-xciii; Mathiesen (1988). The manuscripts of writers
on music are cited with Jan’s and Mathie- (1981), 15 f, 21 ἢ, were already known to Heitsch (1959), 36-43, who had eliminated them as apographa of V. The
sen’s catalogue numbers.
Salmanticensis is also to be eliminated, as it derives from V through Mathiesen’s no. 95, as may be seen from the
ὃ Heinemann (1913) on Gudianus 103.
form given to the Nemesis Hymn in this group, ὕμνος Nepéceme instead of ὕμνος εἰς Νέμεοιν, and from the con-
* Vat. gr. 1772, f. 181-182 (158¢ Jan, 232 Mathiesen).
fusion in line-sequence that stems from V (see below).
'° Phot. Bibl. 249, where the piece is labelled as a Life of Pythagoras; see
Immisch (1919). Ve and the Vaticanus > Paris. Coislinianus gr. 173, f. 222" (138 Jan, 103 Mathiesen).
are abridged in comparison with Photius, but offer an extra page of text
at the end. . * Heitsch (1959), 36; Péhlmann (1994), 187-9.
 108 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period Nos. 24-31 MESOMEDES 109

stand to one another. Heitsch derived V, N, and Ve directly from an archetype a.' However, such displaced the note 1.} Three times this note seems simply to have been overlooked.? So where
a simple construction is no longer tenable. It is true that all four manuscripts are independent of there are notes missing over acute syllables in the portion transmitted only in N, it will be rea-
one another and dependent upon a common source, as the various separative and conjunctive sonable to supply the note |, if this results in a plausible melodic line; in other cases the preced-
errors recorded in the apparatus show. It can further be inferred that already in the archetype (a) ing note may be repeated.
the heading of the invocation to the Muse was contaminated with metrical glosses, (b) there were Further, comparison of the manuscripts (see the plates) shows that where there are gaps, N is
three headings but five incipits, and (c) the second half of no. 28. 6 had no notation, as in N, especially prone to arbitrary redistribution of the notes. Thus V and its apographa P and Mo®
which explains why V omitted the words too. 1C OM cP MC COM Cc PM
Four passages, however, show that these manuscripts were not direct copies from a. At 26. 6 give at 27.8 ἄντυγα πῷ and at27.12 ax«ti va, whileNhas ἄντυγα and &Ktiva,
V C have the correct εὐχαΐταο, while N Ve have the unmetrical ebyétac. It is in accord with in both cases producing a clash of melody and accent. But such errors may already have been
this that V C correctly indicate a new incipit at 25. 5 with &AAwc or ecthesis and enlarged initial, present in α.
while N Ve run the two poems into one. N Ve, therefore, have a common exemplar (y). Further, Taking all the clearly identified note-symbols together, we obtain a segment of the Lydian
V correctly has in the margin at 24. 1 the metrical gloss ἴαμβοο, which finds its logical con- scale: 1 (e), R (3, Φ (g), € (ὦ). P (os), M (c’), 1 (4Ὑ, Z (ε΄). E (7), Ὁ (g’), to which is added an
tinuation in the crovSetoc ἴαμβος βακχεῖοο at 24. 2, whereas C N Ve omit the first ἴαμβοο. exharmonic N (c#’) from the chromatic Hypolydian scale.
And at 27. 9 V alone has the metrically necessary tyvecct, while C N Ve have ἴχνεσι. These The note R has led to a series of variants in the manuscripts. Thus at 25. 6 V C have R and N
shared errors in C N Ve point to a further hyparchetype (B). This gives us the stemma: has A, while in the next line V has R and C N have P. At 27. 14 N has again misread R as A but
corrected the error in the margin. After this point the scribe has understood the sign, rendering it
correctly at 28. 7, 10, and 11.

ws
The mistakes are divided between B and N, as the R is always correct in V. Its misreading as
P in β at 25. 7 lends colour to M. L. West’s conjecture at 28. 10, where he eliminates a clash
between melody and accent by reading R © R R instead of R © P P.*

“SS At four places (24. 3 f.; 25. 6) Jan read in V the note Η (62), where N gave N (c#’).° C agrees
with N in all four places in giving N, so this was evidently the reading of B. The supposed H
V is fact nothing but a cursive N, of the kind that V uses in final position in the text. This inter-
in

A Ἂς: pretation, already considered by Jan, was taken up by Reinach,° who explained the N in the in-
vocation to the Muse as an exharmonic note analogous to the O (6) in Athenaios’ Paean.’ This
led him to question Mesomedes’ authorship of the poem and to date it earlier, nearer in time to
As already mentioned, the Mesomedes hymns are transmitted as an appendage to the treatises the Delphic hymn.* ‘
of Dionysius and Bacchius. Chr. Tertzis has investigated the 23 manuscripts in which Dionysius A variant at 25. 8 calls for emendation against all the manuscripts. V C give a clearly legible
is transmitted and arrived at the same stemma for V, C, and N.? He left Ve out of consideration, r (f), while N gives the same sign with breaks in the crossbar. [ would belong in the Lydian
as it contains only Bacchius and not Dionysius. Synemmenon tetrachord, which is not otherwise represented; it makes no sense, coming as it
Further confirmation of the stemma for Mesomedes is given by the musical notation. If one does just after the regular Ε (f°) and Z (e’) of the Diezeugmenon tetrachord. It was already
compares the variants for the notation in V, C, and N given in the apparatus as far as 27. 13, it emended to | (d’) by Reinach.’ The error perhaps goes back to {" , as written at 24.3 (N C) and
appears that C and N often share errors against V.> But V is also on occasion in error against C 27. 13 (V), i.e. | plus diseme.
N. There are many omissions, sometimes explicable as haplographies (24. 1; 25. 6), but more
often to be accounted for otherwise:
In @ accents and breathings had to share the space above the line with the note-symbols, as 1 25, 8 Παιάν; 27. 8 ἄντυγα, πώλων, 9 ixveccr, διώκειο, 12 ἀμπλέκων. The confusion of notes and accents
can be seen most clearly from V. Hence it is understandable that in six cases the acute accent has shows that the same colour of ink was used in α for both. Bellermann (1840), 62 already reckoned with such confu-
sions,
? 24.2 ἐμῆς; 25. 9 εὐμενεῖς; 27.9 dr.
3 Paris. gr. 2532 (126 Jan, 95 Mathiesen); Monac. gr. 215 (69 Jan, 20 Mathiesen); facsimiles in Bellermann
(1840), pl. IHL.
' Heitsch (1959), 41-3. 4 West 1 (1992), 11.
? Tertzis (to be published). 5 Jan (1895), 458.
? A check of V and its apographa disclosed that Jan (1895), 462, 464, and (1899), 48, 50, overlooked a note | 6 Reinach 1 (1896), 17.
over 27. 8 ἄντυγα and a note C over 27. 12 ἀκτῖνα. He had relegated a further note | to the apparatus 7 See p. 73. Gombosi (1939), 132 f., derived these four Ns or Hs from badly written M in the archetype.
(at 27. 9
ixveccr). C cancels a sixth C at 25. 6; N cancels an A at 27. 14 and adds the correct R above, corrects
a wrongly- ® Reinach 1 (1896), 19, 22.
made C in the margin at 28. 16, and uses square and rounded forms of the note U side by side (at 28. 18 δίκαο). 5 Reinach 1 (1896), 16 f.
 110 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period
Nos. 24~31 MESOMEDES 1:

The numerous omissions of notes fall into different categories. At

28. 7 τροχόν and 19 Of greater significance is the leimma found six times in nos. 27-8 (27. 8, 9, 21; 28. 3, 10, 13).
μεγαλανορίαν the note is missing on the accented syllable; supplemen
ting | yields a melodic V and Ὁ, so far as they carry notation, agree with N on this matter. The leimma occurs only in
line in accord with the accents.’ At 28. 8 the acute belonging to οτρέφετα
ι is displaced over the catalectic lines and stands between the penultimate and the final note or note-group, taking the
©, probably resulting in the loss of an | over φε.
place of the suppressed short syllable. As the papyri have shown, the function of the leimma is to
| MIM IM IM
At 27.10 V gives ἀγαλλόμενος and N ἀγαλλόμενοο, while at 27.16
MP C add length to the preceding note. It indicates that the clausula - u - (J) J) becomes ~ - . 2).
Nhas -tov ἁμέραν. This is confirmed by 27. 23 and 25, catalectic lines in which the penultimate syllable is furnished
In both cases an | has been lost above the accented syllable and the
remaining notes have moved with three notes (.) ) ) and must have triseme value.
' M<bIM M P<il> C There are several catalectic verses in these two poems where the leimma is missing (27. 7, 13,
out of place. The melody can be restored by emending ἀγαλλόμενου
and -tov ἁμέραν. 14, 18, 19, 22; 28. 4, 9).' This is not surprising. A scribe who took the leimma as a note-symbol
On the other hand, at 27. 15 σέθεν and 28. 8 μερόπων, where again the
accented syllables are A would attribute it to the final syllable of the catalectic line, and in fact, as R. Wagner has
bereft of notes, the insertion of | is not appropriate, as it would put
the accented syllable on a shown, where the leimma is preserved, it usually appears in the manuscripts together with the
lower note than the surrounding unaccented ones. In these instances
it is better to assume a following note above the last syllable.’ This does not, however, as Wagner supposed, mean that
haplography and repeat the preceding note. Loss of | may again
have occurred at 28. 4, where it belonged rhythmically to that syllable. ΝΕ ;
the transmitted notes on χαλινῶι put the first, unaccented syllable
a tone higher than the other In two passages the trace of a vanished leimma is perhaps to be recognized in an anomalous
two; the difficulty is resolved by reading | M <I> Mor! M <tl> M2
acute accent. At 27. 7 CN give cotc with the notes Φ C, where we expect ® A C, but v gives
In other places we have nothing to guide us. At 24. 2 three notes
are missing, no doubt dis- aovc (no breathing or accent) with the notes © / C: Apparently the copyist took the /, relic of a
placed by the gloss cxovSetoc. No. 26 has no notes at all apart
from an isolated C in V, it may A, as an accent belonging to dovc, so he added no other. ;
be that these verses, which form a separate prooimion, were never
set to music. At 28. 6 the sec- Six lines further on, all manuscripts give πάγαν, and N, the only one still providing notation,
ond half of the line lacks notation in C N and is omitted altogether
in V. Bellermann skilfully furnishes the word with the notes MP P C, where we expect MP A P C. The paroxytone accent
filled the lacuna from the melody of line 103
is in accord with the melody, which fits West’s πάναν, but not Bellermann’s naycv.’ Here too,
Finally, 28. 20 has Jost all its notes except for a Z over the initial syllable.
Here we can tum to possibly, it is the remnant of a leimma. ;
the melody of line 8, which also begins with a Z and (perhaps not coincident
ally) has the same R. P. Winnington-Ingram suggested that the catalectic lines without a leimma had a different
pattern of accents as line 20. The reprise effect that this supplementation
would produce is at- thythmic value, namely - ~ (J J.); this would account for the apparent inconsistency in the use of
tested in no. 27, where again the last line (25) repeats the melody of
a previous line (23) without the leimma.* But in the outstanding passages we should probably assume the loss of a leimma
clashing with the word accents.
and interpret the rhythm accordingly, particularly in view of the fact that they all fall in the por-
At 28. 12 (where the verse text itself is corrupt) Jan diagnosed a dittograph
y, and deleted one tion where the notation is transmitted only in N. ;
of the three M’s above ὀφρῦν." A similar treatment is calied
for at 28. 1, where, if one works How are we to understand the catalectic lines in which the penultimate syllable is given two
back from the end of the line and allocates the note symbols. according
to the accents, there are notes? Where a leimma (or a trace of it) is preserved, it always comes after the second note,
five notes on πτερόεοοα. By deleting the second M, melody, metre, and
accent are brought back never between the two (27. 8, 13, 21). The implication is that the rhythm is bd, giving a synco-
into harmony.
The rhythmical notation in the manuscripts is, compared with that of
pated effect in relation to the underlying metre, 1.6. }J J instead of the paradigm J δ JO This is
contemporary musical unexpected, but it is clearly what the notation indicates, and that must be our guide. The same
papyri, very sparse. But this is not surprising in view of the metrical simplicity
of the poems.® must be assumed where no leimma survives (28. 9). ;
Occasionally we find disemes (24. 3 Ζ and 1; 25. 8 and 27. 13 1), but
only the Ζ΄, drawing at- There remain three cases of catalexis without leimma in no. 24 (lines 2 and 4), no. 25 (line 9).
tention to a long anceps, seems to serve a useful purpose. No doubt other
disemes have disap- Here the suppressed short is allocated to the final syllable, which in the second instance is actu-
peared, as the manuscript variants indicate. But we cannot assume that
originally every long note ally set to two notes. ;
was so signalled.
The three titles that stood in the archetype α are due to a copyist who thought he had three
hymns to deal with, one to the Muse, one to Helios, and one to Nemesis, and who derived the
titles from the texts. The page layout, however, implies five poems: three prooimia (no. 24 to the
' Cf above, pp. 108 f. Muse, no. 25 to Calliope and Apollo, no. 26 to Phoibos), followed by two hymns (no. 27 to He-
2 West 1 (1992), 11. lios, no, 28 to Nemesis). The supposed ‘Hymn to the Muse’ (nos. 24 + 25) cannot be a single
> Bellermann (1840), 82.
4 Jan (1895), 470.
' At 28. 6 and 20 the notation is partly or wholly lost.
5 No. 24 consists of two iambic tetrameters with catalexis; no. 25 of
two hexameters with a lekythion as clan- ? Wagner (1921), 287-9.
sula; no. 26 of spondaic heptasyllables, such as Mesomedes uses also in
his hymn to Physis (Heitsch (1961), 26 no. 3 West 1 (1992), 10; Bellermann (1840), 27, 33 f.
4), closing with a dactylic tetrameter; nos. 27 and 28 of ‘apokrota’
with their catalectic equivalent, the paroemiac (vu -
(UU - UU - UU-u-)in irregular alternation * Winnington-Ingram (1955), 82 f. ;
UU~ UU - -} For this metre see West (1982), 172 £. 5 West 2 (1992), 306. PéhImann (1970), 27, took the contrary view.
112 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period Nos. 24-31 MESOMEDES 113

piece. G. Hermann and Wilamowitz' saw that the iambics of no. 24 with their Ionic vocalization further poems carry scholia of the same type. In addition the notation-keys of the (lost) musical
must be separated from the Doric hexameters + lekythion of no. 25, making two independent settings are stated.
prooimia, just as V indicates with its ἄλλως and C with its ecthesis and enlarged initial. The The scholion to the Isis hymn (no. 29) is perfectly in place. The specification of ten-unit lines
page layout, then, is older than the headings. It follows that at 27. 7 too the ecthesis and initials composed from a pyrrich and an iambus corresponds exactly to the metre of the hymn, actually
in C N and the punctuation :- in Ve, as well as the change of metre and the re-start of notation, paeonic dimeters with their various resolutions and contractions. What Aristoxenus treated as a
must be taken as evidence for the beginning of a new poem. coherent entity, the paean (UU ὦ UU), is here analysed as a compound, pyrrhich + iambus, much
Wilamowitz clearly recognized the separate status of 26. 1-6: ‘Die ersten sechs Verse haben as in Bacchius, who divided it into a trochee and a pyrrhich.' The identification of the key as
keine Noten; sie k6nnen ein altes Pro6mium sein oder bilden doch ein solches nach.’? The con- Hypolydian shows that the piece was once transmitted with notation. ;
tent alone would not compel us to make the division, even though the prooimion speaks of Phoi- As for the scholion to the Physis hymn (no. 30), Horna had difficulty in reconciling it with the
bos, while the hymn is to Helios; Apollo and Helios were, after all, identified at an early date. spondaic metre of the poem. He argued that προκελευοματικός here referred not to a measure
But Heitsch, without actually separating the poems, made clear the linguistic break after no. 26.4 consisting of four shorts, as usual, but to its doubling, four longs, equivalent to two spondees, the
The manuscript evidence now impels us to treat no. 26 as an independent prooimion, and to long syllable constituting the basic time-unit.? The poem is in fact composed in lines of seven
group it with the two preceding prooimia. P. Maas went a step beyond Wilamowitz, conjecturing long syllables with no resolution. If the scholiast describes the rhythm as ὀκτάοημοο, he may,
that all three prooimia were older than Mesomedes, though he allowed that the musical settings Horna supposes, have found a diseme leimma at the end of the verse in his notated exemplar and
of the first two might be by the Cretan.* counted it in. But it is more plausible to refer the metrical part of the scholion to the poem On a
Further evidence for the history of the text is to be found in the metrical-musical scholia, Swan (no. 10 Heitsch), or to a lost poem in the same metre, namely anapaestic monometers with
which must have stood in a and which have parallels in O, the branch of the Mesomedes tradi- much resolution, often giving proceleusmatics.
tion that lacks musical notation. Bellermann was able to reconstruct a scholion which explained The first of the two poems On a Sundial comes with a lengthy scholion that falls into two
the purely iambic line 24. 1 as tapBoc and the catalectic line 24. 2 as cnovSeioc ἴαμβοςο βακ- halves. The first part, printed above as no. 31, would, if the sequence iambus—trochee were taken
χεῖοο, but which came to be divided between the heading and the line of notation.‘ It is due to ἃ at face value, point to antispastic dimeters, an ancient form of analysis of the glyconic or related
glossator who, instead of reckoning with iambic metra and catalexis, divided lines mechanically measures.’ If the order is reversed, we get the same choriambic dimeters as in the scholion to the
into feet. ᾿ Helios hymn. But the poem in question contains neither antispasts nor choriambs; it is in the
Another, longer scholion, which makes no sense in its present position, uses a different termi- same metre as the hymns to Helios and Nemesis. The two scholia have evidently got into the
nology: οὐυζυγία Kat’ ἀντίθεοιν. ὁ ποὺς - ὁ καὶ ὁ -.- γένος διπλάοιον. ὁ ῥυθμὸς wrong places. They probably referred to two lost poems.
δωδεκάοσημοο. C N have it in the left margin, level with 25. 9-27. 7; V divides it between the There remains the second and longer part of the scholion to the sundial poem. It appears to be
right margin and the intercolumnium; Ve leaves it out. Bellermann, W. Christ, Jan, and a later gloss which vainly attempts to interpret the misplaced first part and reconcile it with the
Wilamowitz tried in vain to reconcile it with the iambics or hexameters of the prooimia to the hendecasyllabic metre of the poem: ὡς μὲν πρὸς ὅλον τὸν ctixov ὁ ῥυθμὸς δωδεκάοημος:
Muse.’ Reinach and Horna realized that the copyist of a meant the scholion to refer to the begin- ἕνδεκα γάρ ἐςτι ουλλαβῶν, ἡ δὲ τοῦ οτίχου τελευταία οὖοα τὸν τόπον, ἑνὸς λείποντοο
ning of the hymn to Helios (27. 7).® But it does not make sense there either. In itself it is per- χρόνου, ὅτι δωδεκαούλλαβοο ὁ οτίχοο ἐοτίν, ἣ τελευταία ουλλαβὴ γ΄ χρόνων ἐοτίν. This
fectly intelligible: it describes a choriambic dimeter in the terminology of Aristoxenus or Aris- was evidently written by a Byzantine who no longer measured syllabic quantities but merely
tides Quintilianus.’ The verse comprises twelve time-units. Each choriamb consists, as its name counted syllables, and who endeavoured to reconcile the δωδεκάοημοο of the intrusive scholion
implies, of a xopetoc, i.e. a trochee, and an iambus, two antithetical components, each of them with the eleven syllables that he found in the verses. He confused syllables with time-units—
assigned to the yévoc διπλάσιον, that is, having their arsis and thesis in the proportion 1 : 2. these apokrota contain not eleven or twelve but fifteen χρόνοι npGto1—and explained the count
That the scholiast understood the Aristoxenian terminology in this sense can be confirmed of twelve in an eleven-syllable verse simply by assuming an extra time-unit in the final syllable.
from the noteless branch of the Mesomedes tradition. There, in the codex Ottobonianus, three I. Henderson was moved by the scholion to deny the transmitted musical settings to
Mesomedes and to explain them as Byzantine reconstructions applied to his poems.‘ Her princi-
pal objection was to the musical setting of an ecphrasis such as On a Sundial, as implied by the
statement of a key. The difficulty disappears once it is accepted that that first part of the scholion
' Hermann (1877), 343; Wilamowitz (1903), 97.
2 Wilamowitz (1921), 604.
did not originally belong to this poem. Nor does the fact that the second, syllable-counting part
> E.g. Oinopides VS 41.7; Diggle (1970), 147. of the scholion is of Byzantine date prove that the Mesomedes melodies are not genuine, for the
“ Heitsch (1960), 145.
5 Maas (1933), 156 with nn. 1-2. ' Aristox. Rhythm. pp. 16-18 Pearson; similarly Arist. Quint. 1. 34 ff; Bacchtus 100 f. (p. 315 Jan).
§ Bellermann (1840), 53 f. 2 Homa (1928), 8; cf. Arist. Quint. 1. 36.
7 Bellermann (1840), 54; Christ (1874), 600; Jan (1895), 461 f.; Wilamowitz (1903), 97 n. 2. 3 Hephaest. Ench. 10. 2; Schrdder (1929), 11; (1930), 19, 157; Koster (1936), 21, 179 n. 1; Snell (1955), 23 τ.
ὃ Reinach 1 (1896), 13 n. 1; Homa (1928), 21. 1; Dain (1965), 22.
* Aristox. Harm. 2. 34 and Arist. Quint. 1. 52 δ; Aristox. Rhythm. pp. 14-16 Pearson and Arist. Quint. 1. 34 ff. * Henderson (1957), 371-3.
 114 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period Nos. 24~31 MESOMEDES 115

first part, which it is attempting to explain, belongs to an older stratum of scholia Μουοικῆς attached to some excerpts on music theory edited by Reinach.' Reinach postulated as
in a and O
which show a correct understanding of quantitative metre, and which presuppose the common source a corpus of theoretical writing on music which bore the title ἢ Μουοική.
the musical
settings of several poems, as they specify the notation-keys in three cases. Thus This may have been the channel by which Mesomedes (apart from the two Anthology poems)
Henderson’s
observations become arguments for the age and authenticity of the settings, both was transmitted.
the preserved
ones and those attested by scholia.
Henderson’s other arguments against the genuineness of the melodies do
not stand up to
closer consideration of the transmission, The incompleteness of the rhythmical ' PdhIlmann (1970), 32 no. 6; Reinach (1897), 324.
notation is cer-
tainly noteworthy; but at least in the case of the leimma this may be attributed
to progressive
degradation of the tradition, such as we were able to see in the extant manuscripts
.’ Then it
might seem supicious that the notation in N is written in red ink, as Byzantine
notation is. But
we have seen that in the archetype the text, accents, and notation
were 81} written in the same
colour of ink, scil. black.?
Finally, the observation that the melodies do not show such careful regard
to the word accents
as in most of the fragments on stone or papyrus loses its force when it
is borne in mind that the
portion from 24. 1 to 27. 9, where the notation is transmitted in
three manuscripts, is free from
disagreements except for the initial rising fifth, paralleled at the beginning
of Seikilos’ song. So
is 27. 10-12, preserved only in V and N, once one easy correction has
been made.
The disagreements of word accent and melody are more numerous in the
remaining portion,
where N is the sole source: 27. 13 παγάν, 16 tixtoverv; 28. 4 χαλινῶι, 10 γαυρούμενον, 15
ῥοπά. Here the fault may lie with the transmission. West has proposed
emendations which
would correct all the clashes.’ In any case it will be better not to rely on this
part of the text in
arguing about authenticity or in making comparisons with the other musical
documents in regard
to the treatment of accents.’
Horna and Heitsch both concluded that the two separate branches of the Mesomedes
tradition,
α and O, went back to a single ancient edition, and they speculated about
its contents.> We can
add that it contained a couple of poems that have now disappeared and
are attested only by
scholia. Musical settings are certain only for the first two of the prooimia
(nos. 24—5), for the
hymns to Helios (27), Nemesis (28), and Isis (29), and for two lost poems (30-1).
The Nemesis hymn was perhaps followed by Ariphron’s hymn to Hygieia,
which precedes
the other poems in O. Horna’s conjecture that this poem from the fourth century
BC was set to
music by Mesomedes deserves consideration; at any rate it suddenly became
well known again
in Mesomedes’ time, as the multitude of quotations and the epigraphic evidence indicates.
Finally, a further indication of the poems’ provenance is given by the peculiar
note before the
Hygieia hymn in O, παρεξεβλήθηοαν ἀπὸ tic Μουοικῆς. Compare the
heading of the
‘Hormasia’, ἡ κοινὴ 6ppacia ἡ ἀπὸ τῆς Μουοικῆς μεταβληθεῖοα, and the
note ἀπὸ tic
' Above, p. 111.
? Above, p. 109 n. 1.
3 West 1 (1992), 10 £
ὁ Jammers (1941), 107, remarked that in the Helios and Nemesis hymns
the accentual clashes were concen-
trated at the beginnings and ends of verses. Of the five instances that still
remain in our improved text, two occur in
the first word of the line (27. 16; 28. 10) and three in the last (27. 13;
28. 4, 15). The clash at 27. 23 ὑπὸ is only
apparent, as the preposition in proclitic position really has no accent.
ὁ Homa (1928), 6, 30 ff; Heitsch (1959), 42 ff.
* Plut. De virt. mor. 10, 450b; De frat. am. 2, 4798 (hence Stob. 4. 27. 9);
Luc. Laps. (64) 6; Max. Tyr. 7. 1;
Ath. 15. 702ab; Sext. Emp. adv. Math. 9. 49; Them. Or. 11. 15]be; 10
22. 4533 (Athens, 3rd c. AD); JG 4?, 132
(Epidaurus, 4th c. AD).
116 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period Nos. 32-7 Instrumental Pieces

Nos. 32-7 ANONYMI Bellermann ὃ 97-101; 104 Third—fourth century AD?

No. 32
. ee
= »- τὰ
Se
᾿ ΓΈΞ-.--τ ——e
ees it
No. 32 8104 Κῶλον ἑξάοημον ; ὃ ᾿
~ —_— _—— -- -- . --- Ι
1 LO<UC<10%<TFC 2 CONOLUK<
No. 33
No. 33 8.97 “AdAoc ἑξάοημοο === ΕΞ ΕΞ ΞΕ ΞΞ =
3 ePLERCrF 4 μέγίηγεξ.: 5 μγεῆεει

Νο. 34 100 Τετράοσημος

ὃ poet No. 34
eOLFeELIEF 7 εεγιεγέι 8 ELFDRFLE : pte eS a se a ss ee ee τας ---ἢ
6 ee ee ΞΕΞΞΞΈΞΒΘΒ
! «εἰ cd cd Cd e

1
No.35 898 Δωδεκάοσοημοσ ;
I

9 HAFEFCACLEA 10 CAFFLEDAPFLA No. 35 ;

WU ePLPLFACLFEFA 12 CFCELFACLEA ΕΞ a — τ τς - ἘΞΕΞΕΞΈ -π

Νο.36 899 <"AdAoc

> δωδεκάοημοο oe Sa ΕΞ -Ξ-- - ρει ς So τὸς

wy

ΜΙ

eal

mill
ΠῚ
ΒΕ’

ὟΝ

δι]

8)
Ἢ]

Ἧ
at

ν
a
ew
δ᾽
1. ErALFCOTNA< 144 «λύόξει
Γ ΛΕ

Νο.37 8101] ᾿Οκτω-καιδεκάξοημοο

' No. 36
.= . - . -- ! A ——"]
15. μλγιίεοες, 16 KAPLECFL ' ΕΓ ἘΞ Se
17 μλιέηειΠῚ 18 σΕΕΕΕΓΕΙΕ . Ὁ ᾿

Νο. 37
Notation 1 The notes < (Bellermann 1841, 98) appearinVaseH# 2C OTO0inV,C ONY0 Najock (1975),
33 <Péhimann (1970), 36, ξ Westphal (1867) Suppl. 52, ε- in V 3 First Ε- Bellermann (1841), 94, einV 5F
Bellermann (1841), 94,F in V 9 A Westphal (1867) Suppl. 50, AinV 11 A PéhImann (1970) 38, A in V, A
Westphal (1867) Suppl. 50 12 A Westphal (1867) Suppl. 50, Ain 13 & and < Westphal (1867) Suppl. 50,
+ and & in V, < Pohlmann (1970), 38 14 Γ΄ Westphal (1867) Suppl. 50, < in V.

11]
δ 5,

ΝΗ]

Wl

bd

ἯΙ

it
Hef

ali

λιν
WL
4}
.
Text No. 35 δωδεκάσημος Westphal (1867) Suppl. 50, ἐνδεκάοσημοον No. 36 «ἄλλος» PdhImann (1970), 38
No. 37 ὀκτωκαιδεκάοημος Pohimann (1970), 38, δεκάοσημος Westphal (1867) Suppl. 52, ὀκτάσημοο V.
118 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period Nos. 32-7 Instrumental Pieces 119

These six Lydian instrumental items have been known since 1841: they stand at the end (§97- cunose 879, In the right-hand column stands §103, an independent table of interval ratios. Then
101 and 104) of a compilation of treatises on Greek music first published in that year by F. Bel- come the musical examples: on the far left §97 with §100 below it, to the right of them, reading
lermann.' Their purpose is clearly to illustrate the use of the rhythmical symbols. downwards, §§98, 99, 101, and at the bottom § 102 (a table of symbols for pauses, which would
Bellermann used six late manuscripts for his edition. A. J. H. Vincent published a translation be more in place in §1 = §83); and finally in the right-hand column §104, which probably be-
and commentary, divided the text into two separate treatises,” but made little improvement to the longs before §97.
text of the melodies. R. Westphal appended the pieces to his Rhythmik, adducing two more late The notation of the examples is also defective, as the critical apparatus indicates. The scribe is
manuscripts.’ C. von Jan studied the structure of the compilation and identified the beginning of especially uncertain in the placing of the arsis-points. Wagner limited himself to discussing the
a third treatise at §66,* but did not include the melodies in the appendix to his Musici scriptores. pointing of §§97 and 100, where it is best preserved.’ In §100 (no. 34) we have a measure of four
R. Wagner was the first to consult Venetus Marcianus VI 10 (V), but contented himself with time units (tetpdcnjoc) with the clearly preserved pointing UUUU. The same note sequence
commenting on the rhythmical notation.® E. Péhlmann showed that Bellermann’s Anonymi rep- appears in 897 (no. 33) in a six-unit measure (ξξάσημοο), pointed U-U~.? 8104 (no. 32) is also
resent an aggregate of independent technical writings, to which the instrumental melodies were in six-unit measure, but here a different scheme must be restored, U-U- 3
appended subsequently. D. Najock produced the first critical edition,’ and gave a definitive ac- For the rest, the picture is more confused. §98 (no. 35) is headed in the manuscript év-
count of the manuscript relationships.* δεκάοημος, and three of the four lines have Just eleven notes, none marked as diseme. The sec-
The manuscripts fall into three groups. We can ignore all those that contain only excerpts, as ond line, however, has twelve, and on this basis Westphal added a diseme in each of the other
they omit the sections with the melodies.° Three further manuscripts, Neapolitanus Graecus ITI C lines and emended the heading to δωδεκάοημος. The pointing is erratic, but the fact that there
4 (N; already known to Bellermann), its apograph Vaticanus Urbinas 77, and Florentinus Ric- are points on the fourth, fifth, (sixth?), and final notes in 10, the fourth, fifth, and final in 11, and
cardianus 41 (F), do not contain the melodies and likewise remain out of consideration here."® A the fifth (and fourth?) in 12, together with the analogy of §100, may suggest the pattern
third group of manuscripts, which contain the whole of 881--104 and thus include the melodies, YUU] UUUU-. 899 (no. 36) is a scale in ‘twelve-time’ rhythm; from the irregular pointing in
derive from V, which is therefore, so far as the melodies are concerned, the codex unicus."' V we may consider either -UU|UUUU|UU-, the rhythmization assumed in our transcription, or
This disposes of an argument of Vincent against the antiquity and genuineness of the melo- (parallel to no. 35) -ὐὐὐὐ]υυσυῦξ. Finally, § 101 (no. 37), in ‘eighteen-time’ rhythm, should
dies. As they did not appear in N, the oldest of the manuscripts known to him, but in all the later have three points in each of its four measures, as indeed transmitted in lines 15 and 17. The pat-
ones, he inferred that they were later inventions.’ Now that we know that the oldest manuscript tern should presumably be ὑυυσυυύ-,
is V, which does contain them, the situation is reversed: the redactor of the branch to which N The didactic purpose of these items is obvious. Three of them lack any musical character: §99
and F belong omitted §§83-104, perhaps because he had noticed that §§83-93 were identical is simply an ascending and descending scale, while the melody of 8897 and 100 consists of six
with §§1~-11, and ended his version of the compilation with a table of scales and with the much- permutations of the notes d e fg (keeping d as the initial note). This helps us to understand §80
excerpted chapter 3. 16 of Ptolemy’s Harmonics on the connection between the stepwise con- of the Anonymi, where the note-series d e fg d g, followed by its inversion g fe d g ἃ, is written
struction of the scales and the planetary system." Ὁ out twelve times, starting each time from the next highest note. The whole series of 144 notes is
A glance at pi. 9, however, will show that V too has its deficiencies. The page in question, f. then written out backwards in §81. These sections have no rhythmical notation; it is evidently a
197", is a jumble of additions and notes. After the end of 894 (ὑπερλύδιον) and §95—known purely melodic exercise. But such exercises might also be sung, as §78 indicates.
from Aristides Quintilianus, p. 31. 24-7 W.-L and Aristoxenus Rhythm. 2, 6, p. 4 Pearson—there Although the melodies are so formulaic, the examples in §§97-104, which, as we have just
follows as §96 a scale of notes with reference numbers for the interval ratios, much as in the la- seen, are closely connected with those in §§78—81, cannot be dismissed as the additions of a
Byzantine copyist. On the contrary: just such systematic use of abstract combination and per-
'
Bellermann (1841), 94-8; see pl. 9. mutation was characteristic of Hellenistic schooling. In the same way, the pupil learning to
?
Vincent (1847), 5-13, 14-63. write, after mastering the alphabet, was taught the systematic combination of letters in syllables,‘
3
Westphal (1867), Suppl. 50-3. and in grammatical instruction paradigm sentences were rotated through all the cases in singular,
*
Jan (1871), 414 ἔ; (1894), 2326. dual, and plural, without regard to the resulting sense or nonsense.° So the little instrumental
|
5
Wagner (1921), 289-92. Ι pieces of Bellermann’s Anonymi, even if they have little artistic significance, may be taken as
ὁ
Péhlmann (1975); 2(1994), 190 Ε: §§1-11 = §§83-93, §§12~28, §§29-66, §§66-82, appendix: §§94-104. Ι documents of musical education in antiquity.
7
Najock (1972), (1975). : {
ἢ Najock (1975), vi-xxii. |
° Mathiesen (1988), nos 14, 52, 250 (§103 only); nos 114 (§29 only); πο. 270 (§§29-57 only); no. 299 (§§33- ' Wagner (1921), 292 f.
69, 78 only). i ? This should be understood as equivalent to U-U-, the normal allocation of thesis and arsis in iambic rhythm
1 Mathiesen (1988), nos. 203 and 255 (§§1-82 only); no. 176 (§§1-78 only). Ι (Arist. Quint. p. 38. 5 W.-1.), and so marked in πο. 23; cf. West 2 (1992), 137. In no. 38 ii 6-8 we again find the
τ ν (Mathiesen 1988, no. 273) is the source of nos. 20, 36, 41, 87, 89, 95, 172, 181, 198, 200, 204, 219, 230, 1 arsis-point written over the last note only. .
238, 253, and 284; nos. 41 and 284 were not known to Najock: see Péhimann 2 (1994), 188. ? Here again the arsis should be taken as embracing two notes, U-U-.
\
12 Vincent (1847), 229. { ὁ Ziebarth (1913), 4 δ; Marrou (1957), 2215.
° Cf Daring (1930), Ixxvi, Ixxxiv ff. > Ziebarth (1913), 16 Ε; Marrou (1957), 256 f.
|
|
{
|
120 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period No. 38 PAP. OXY. 2436 121

No. 38 PAP. OXY. 2436 Second century AD

pool
ie z¥ ἔπι
—— ,-- ἘΞ δὉ - δ
joc © 152 Μ v

Coil Ἰερειφα 4 1 ππος 1 [ἀντοτγᾳ ταῦ, πὶ πὶ on ψαύτω δεμῖί

cp
ἡ.
x τι τ- - —#_@_@.
-α᾿ δ - -- τα ΡῚ πτ
1. O:RC Jz 2 ἘΣ rh
ff oe
+i— p——ti po
21] χρειο 5 Ιφαινε 2 [ἡν ὁ δὲ pol) [Ive [zleic Ἄτρετως “Y - μητίτόο' ‘Ep-]

jc z jo ς cf
ε--.
ἘΞ
ΜΝ = #2.
2 1 : ν ΞΖ
—f 2 x
Ι:
: :1 ΞΡ:
y——t 7 πονt +t+ ba
————— + —_
f ΤΣ— ᾿
3 Jpav 6 Ιδομοιο Le Τ “4 4 —

3 μοῦ μᾶλτλον ηὐ- τέ - κνη-οὰα ἐ- γώ exed - colv ac]

δ. . πιο νος
ce ΕΞ ΠΞΞΞΞ ΊΞΞΕΞΞΕ-- ae --«Ρψ. Ὁ ee Ts
ἘΣ a ἘΞ ΞΈΞΈΞΞΞΞΕΞΞΕΞΞΞΞ-[α
is Τ 4
er oe
] Of 1? ΖΜ BD ΘΙ 4 ἀπ- αλ-λα -[γῆτε τ]ῶν κα-κῶν. χο - ped - σα -te ἀλλὰ
Col. ii 1 {, Jrove ταί Ἱππιηψαυωδεμ[ 4 κα 4.) : e
_——— +oe
Hee ———
ee Ἔν ΞΕ ἘΞΞΞΞΈΞΞΕΞΞΞΞΘ
»--- περ-- τ -- jp
τ τ - - τς |
ἯΜΖΖ 1 PZ σσδσε δι
5 {καὶ μὴ πίά] - θίει) μά-θη - te, μνη -μο - ved -οατ [ἐν πόνωι
2 [Jvodepol}
Γ Ivy Γ Ἰᾳανοαρεωσυμητί
cf- Τ Oo 8----5..- Υ So τ
eet © =
Ε--- -—————
-:,κἱ΄Ἢ ΜΝ δ τΝ ==e ~—f—F
~— ——
ft ἕ— Ρ΄ aΕΕ ΞΕoe α¥- - et e
Z ὃ Zl] M PM:MZ Ὁ Z[ ΟἹ Τ 7 T if
6 ε ttc κα-τὰ cté- yor mup- coc €- τι λεί - πε- ται, πυ-ρΐ, natldec
3 HOVHAaALAOVHVTEKVACaEYacTEvcOl
ἢ. . i ~ , “
ΕΞΞΞΕΞΕΕΞΞΞΞΕΕΞΞΕ ἘΞ ΞΞΞΡΞΞΙ - - - -- τα 5 =o ° ἘΞΡ
22 δι } 1 MM © Z12 C € [ ECs ἘΞ τ Ξ oS + — = ᾿Ξ ἐΞ
4 anrarra[ Ἰωνκακωνχορεῦυσατε al ὁ 7-hac- σεται. ἤν, tla] - Sec αἱ - πό- λων καὶ κι΄, cof
cHA : Tee! . . an
@ GOEL]? & ZIM Zz ZED Ὁ Ἐ.a
- ΤᾺ 5 —
ἘΞ f
[ΞΞ---ῖ e aπε 7:χ---Ξ Ξ τιτ-
=
== ΞΕ - - ἘΞ φ- -Ξ ἘΞ 5-Ξ-:Ξ- Ξ-Ξ ΕΞ — ἘΞ Ξεὶ
5. xatpntl If. Ἱμαθητεμνημονευσατί ὁ 8 -πης ποι -[μέ-νε]ς βου - κό - λοι μαι - νὰ - δες Sol

AMA MME JIM TAG Zi ZA OF OMPT

Text i 1 φἸέρει e.g. Turner (1959), 121, ¢ or y or ¢ or τ Kannicht (1981), 270 4 J xnoc West, 1 ποὺ
6 ειτιοκαταοτεγᾳοπυροος ετιλειπεταιπυριπαι Tumer (1959), 120 ὁ δόμοιο Turner (1959), 120, ὃ or 4 or καὶ Kannicht (1981), 271.
ii 1 oye ταῦ Turner (1959), 121, Ἰιογμεςοί better than Ἰποῃμεταῖ Kannicht (1981), 271 Ἱππιη West, nron
EA 1 Z ζΖι Ιχῦδ ZA BU E IAiA Εἰ Turner (1959), 121 better than nye¢n Kannicht (1981), 271 Sey West, δὲ λίούτρων! Borthwick (1963), 241
7 KaccetainvallvsecarmorAwavKarKkr
cs’. col 2 Jv ὁ δ᾽ éndlc or Ἰν- ὁ δὲ pol Kannicht (1981), 271 lyy{ West, lvil,.] or hel or 1π| or Jnl Turner (1959), 121,
lees Kannicht (1981), 271 x}quc Turner (1959), 121 Ὕμητί West, “Yuneic- or ᾿Ὑμήν Tumer (1959), 121,
π]ᾳῖο ”Apewc ᾿Ὑμηρίοόο- ᾿Ἐρ]μοῦ West 1 (1992), 12 3 Tptd]|pou Tumer (1959), 121 σπευοόϊμεθα or -co-
Z EAL ]? ORUMEMZA 2 ὃ EQ ἴμεν Kannicht (1981), 271, ᾿Ερ!μοῦ μᾶλλον ηὐτέκνησ' ἐγώ. cnetcolv, ac] West 1 (1992), 12 4 ἀπαλλα[γῆτε
8 ππηοποιΐ, οβουκολοιμαιναδεοδοί τ]ῶν West, [-γὴν τ]ῶν Turner (1959), 121, ἐμ]ῶν Kannicht (1981), 271, -γῶοι τ]ῶν West 1 (1992), 12 ἀλλά
West εἰ or @{ Kannicht (1981), 272, αἱ West 1 (1992), 12 5 Kain (not cot) doubtfully Tumer (1959), 120 £,
Kannicht (1981), 272, nun [ West 1 (1992), 12 {και)μήτί West, μὴ πίά]θίει] μάθητε ( or ¢, μ or 4) Kannicht
(1981), 272 μνημονεύοατίε Tumer (1959), 121, -οατεὖ Kannicht (1981), 272, -cot{~U-] West 1 (1992),
12, -cat [év πόνῳ e.g. Péhimann (1970), 126 6 ctéyac not cxeoc Turner (1959), 120 f., pap., CTE set close
Fvpcdc, not θύροος Turner (1959), 121 because of the notes d/—g! πυρὶ, παῖίδεο Turner (1959), 121 (unmetrical)
Notation i 32 West, Tumer (1959), 121 comparing the Z line ii4 47 West.
7 celAdccetar (Nic. Th. 46) or gv], ἀπαλ], πα], μα], cto], ψα], OAc] Tumer (1959), 121 πία]δεο (x or 1, 1 or
iil @ West 272 West, Z Tumer (1959), 120 3Z,M,Z West M:MTumer (1959), 121,M’Mpap. 5@ West &) Turner (1959), 121 κιὶο΄, col West, νοοίο altered to κι᾿ οοοίς Kannicht (1981), 272, perhaps καὶ xuccolte
E Turner (1959), 120, P West EZ 1ZM and E Ὁ shifted to μάθητε and vevcet by Péhimann (1970), 126, 128 Péhimann, [¢]yeaco Turner (1959), 121 8 ποιίμένε]ο Turner (1959), 121 80 perhaps cancelled Turner
2 West 8 EA Tumer (1959), 121, West, EA Péhimann (1970), 126 MEM Turner (1959), 121, [PJMEM pap. (1959), 121.
 122 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period
No. 38 PAP. OXY. 2436 * 123

Pap. Oxy. 2436 was published in 1959 by E. G. Tumer and R. P. Winnington-Ingram.! Its Certain details call for comment. At ii 2 ” Apewe is provided with three notes, though from a
content has been the subject of speculation by various scholars.? R. Kannicht re-examined the metrical point of view it would be read as disyllabic. At ii 3 the ‘elided’ vowel in ηὐτέκνησί(α)
papyrus and presented a new text (without the musical notation).? M. L. West, by restoring col. ii ἐγώ is both written (scriptio plena) and furnished with its own note; we shall find the same phe-
2-5 as trochaic tetrameters, provided a basis for estimating the column-width, and discussed the nomenon in no. 40. In ii 5 a long note appears over the short syllable μαί(θ), and we must assume
rhythms and melody of the piece on this assumption.’ He has recollated the papyrus for the pres- that a series of notes has been displaced one syllable to the left of where they ought to be, with |
ent edition. ΖΜ making a three-note group on the single syllable τεμίν), like 2 IZ on pev in ii 4, interpreted
It is a fragment from a roll, with a lower margin measuring about 4 cm. The recto contains rhythmically as J JJ. In ii 6 there is what seems to be a false arsis-point over até.’ At the end of
remnants of two columns from a dramatic text with Lydian and Hypolydian notation. In the first that line πυριπαιῖ is metrically inexplicable, and the notation does not help to elucidate it. In ii
column there remain only word-ends from six lines, preceded by a gap of at least one line (or a 7 the notation implies that ἤν, xla]isec represents an iambic metron, with the last syllable
lost line that was exceptionally short). This apparently marked the beginning of a new section, or scanned long: there is clearly something wrong here. In the last line the note-group MEM should
of a new item in an anthology. From the second column we have beginnings of the last eight have a hyphen or colon to bind it together.
lmes, each extending for 10.5 to 11.5 cm.; West’s supplements yield a maximum column-width The editors inclined to see the fragment as a monody from a satyr play, and H. Lloyd-Jones
of 12.5 cm.’ The ἔκθεσις at ii 6 marks the beginning of iambic lyrics with frequent syncopation. concurred. In favour of it are the metre’ and the calls to the chomus at ii 4 f. and to the country
The two following lines are again indented. The hand of the text points to a dating in the folk at ii 7 Γ᾽ The singer, in view of the παῖδες in ii 6-7, might be Silenus.‘ As to the subject
early
second century AD. The notation was added by a different hand, which helps to explain the mis- matter, A. M. Dale, pointing to π]αῖς “Apewc, ndtéxvnca, and πυροόο (ii 2, 3, 6), thought of
alignment of text and notation in ii 5. The verso of the papyrus has remains of a magical text the Meleager story and a monody of Althaea’ B. Gentili and A. Lesky even admitted the possi-
from the second or third century. bility that the fragment came from Euripides’ Meleagros.° But ii 4, 7, and 8 are hard to under-
The notes used, R (f), Φ (9), C (a), P (bs), M (c’), Ο (6), 5 (c’), | (4), Z (e’), E 07) © (2), stand on such a hypothesis. E. K. Borthwick found a clue in ii 2 ᾿Ὑμητίτ-, bringing it into con-
and perhaps © (a’), are from the Hypolydian/Lydian scale system. As may be seen from the junction with two testimonia from Old Comedy about a holy fountain of Aphrodite on Hymettus
transcription, agreement of word accent and melody is sought, but there is divergence in two whose water helped women to conceive: KUZ1ov πήραν’ ἣ Πήρα χωρίον πρὸο τῶι Yantra,
instances.° ἐν ὧι ἱερὸν ᾿Αφροδίτηο καὶ κρήνη, ἐξ Fic αἱ πιοῦσαι εὐτοκοῦοι καὶ αἱ ἄγονοι γόνιμοι
The rhythmic notation employs the diseme, hyphen, stigme, colon, and leimma. Rhythmic γίνονται (PCG IV, Cratin. 110); τὸ δὲ πορνεῖον Κύλλου πήρα-ἔοτι γὰρ χωρίον ᾿Αθήνησιν
signs are most prominent in ii 6-8, where syncopated and unsyncopated iambic metra appear, ἐπηρεφὲο καὶ κρήνη (PCG ΠῚ 2, Aristoph. 283). Borthwick took our fragment to be the mon-
much as they are described in a treatise attributed to Aristoxenus.’ Besides x-U- there appear ody of a woman cured of her childlessness by the fountain, glorying in her offspring (ii 3), and
the syncopated forms‘ vu - and‘ uuu, even +. The triseme longs are indicated by a diseme calling upon the chorus to dance in celebration of her good fortune. The son of Ares (ii 2) would
leimma (A) following the note of the thesis. In one case (ii 6 πυροὸο) the diseme sign stands fit in if taken to be Eros (cf. Simonides, PMG 575), and so would the (lustration) torches (ii 6).
over the note itself instead of the leimma. The arsis, which carries the stigme, comes after the This all points again to satyric drama or comedy.’ Kannicht too holds to the satyric interpreta-
thesis, as in Aristides Quintilianus’ description (1. 17 p. 38. 5 W.-1.). It is similar in the Seikilos Ποη ὃ
song (no. 23), except that there the arsis is mostly syncopated. The fact that the melodic line does not precisely follow the original metre ("Apeac,
From the iambic character of ii 6-8 the first editors concluded that ii 1-5 were also to be ηὐτέκνησα ἐγώ), nor the word accents as faithfully as in nos. 20-1, led the editors to suppose
analysed as iambics, though Tumer recognized catalectic endings in the note-groups : MZ and that it was a late setting of an old text, a practice common in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.?
CO in ἢ 3-43 However, his proposal to treat those groups as triseme is not in accord with the The nature of the roll from which the fragment comes can only be conjectured. The harmonic
manner in which trisemes are notated in ii 6-8 (long leimma or three notes). It now appears that and rhythmical notation in the scanty remnants of col. i are compatible with their belonging to-
they represent the ends of trochaic tetrameters, the catalexes being left unmarked in the ancient gether with the text in col. ii. The gap above i. 1 suggests that that line was the beginning of the
notation. In our transcription we express them with a quaver pause. song. But it must remain an open question whether the roll contained a whole drama or was
some sort of anthology, like nos. 39-40.
po---—------------

' Winnington-Ingram (1959); Péhimann (1970), 126-9 (no. 38); the text also in Page (1962), no. 1024.
? Dale in Tumer (1959), 115 no. 2; Lloyd-Jones (1961), 21; Gentili (1961); 341, Borthwick (1963); Lesky ' The leimma after the M above tic precludes an analysis in trochaic measures (- τὸ = + ΞΟ, βίου).
(1964), 244, ? Cf. Soph. Ichneutai, TRGF IV F 314. 237 ff, 283 ff., 321 ff., 362 ff.; Eur. Cyel. 356-74,
> Kannicht (1981), 270-2, no. 681 (CATYPOD. > Cf. Aesch. Diktyulkoi, TrGF Ill F 46 a 18-20; Soph. Ichneutai, TRGF IV F 314. 32 ff.
* West 1 (1992), 12; 2 (1992), 310 ἢ, * Tumer (1959), 115; Lloyd-Jones (1961), 21.
* Columns of comparable width are found in no. 8 (12+ cm.) and nos. 41 and 44 (11+ cm.). Wide columns 5 In Tumer (1959), 115 n. 2.
are
typical of musical texts; many have even wider ones: see Johnson 1 (2000), 66-8. § Gentili (1961), 341; Lesky (1964), 244.
δ ii 5 μνημονεύςατ᾽, ii 8 μαινάδεο. 7 Borthwick (1963).
7 Pearson (1990), 36-38, 79 f. 8. Kannicht (1981), 271.
δ Turner (1959), 114. 5 Winnington-Ingram (1959), 115, 117.
124 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period No. 39 PAP. OSLO. 1413 a lines 1-15; b-f 125

No. 39 PAP. OSLO 1413 a lines 1-15; b-f First-second century AD

Bat ἘΞ ΞΞ 7. - - Ξ-- } =
᾿ I
Fr.a
& ee + =
} σῇ Ζί 1Z[ φαι- ὦ κτύτ-ποο ἀτρί
1 Ἰφαιωκτυπροοατρί 6.3
εἰξξ : :2 : ἣ: — ἢ ΠΙ͂ΝΕ
= 1 3 τ ;
t f ee
ἦ ¥ + — fe eS Ἶ =
w+ f —j |
2b il J7czZC CO COL |] X Ipe-pov [ἐὶν- <8>d-fplu-yov γέτφος ἐλθί͵ ει ο] βλ]έ-πε-ται
161 }?:00Z ZZ CO{ 1] ὁ op-#
δ ἃ
=t hh
2 4,
J
4,
—t
4
—k—t
=
\ ᾿
a
i :} 3
:f :ee =|
2a loepovi Jyodvxovvegocen
Ol... 1τι[0} f =e SS a
SS ———— |
T
3 Η Η ft
Ἴφετρον [é]y -< 8>d{ulv-xov yé- oc ΤῊΝ τι c] βλ]έ- πε-ται
3b ] Tat 1Z@’ Tf ΣΧ [ς
pbb bt ; re +5 — 1 : }
1 i Z O11 CO τ jo? Cf ] Of [ΕΞ
v]
ΞΈΞΕΕΞΞΞΕ ~_— —
ἘΞΕΞΞ ΞΕ ΞΘ ᾿
| —— ἱ
3a Ἰεπεταιφθιμενώνφαντί ]οματί, eel φθι- μέτνων φαν-τίάΪο - pot fEvep]- θεῖν
op Sy τὰ " : x
Jom 1 © ἐσ OC OzZ0 ὈΦΙΖΊΓ _— Ξ ΑΞ}
=F i ἘΞΞΈΞΡ
——S— — ΞΡ =
ἘΞ ==; ' :ἢ +t᾿ =|=
4 Ἱμιονυπί]τροχονιξειω []1δ [ φθιτμέτνων φαν- [τά]ο - pot’ [ἔνερ] - θεῖν
4
10 φιὸ Z| TX T1 [0] ΧΦΙ ΕΞ
SS
ΕΞ εξξεξξεξεασξξε- ΞῈ aS =
eS ΞΕ Ὲἐ-ΞΞ-ΞΞΞΞΞ
1
5 , Ἱνεπιποτᾳαμόνταα VL, ἸΔῈ]
ς ΟΣ Γ1[ ϑ ay >
Τ

] - μυ- ov ὃ - πἴὸ] τρο-χὸν Ι - ἔεί- οἷν] δῖ

1T A AKRA?A KOC? 1X TZ [] ε:3 : 5, . - τς — =
6 ]retareac YAVAKATAYNCEPAAOVOPVYLALTA, {] (ς- : : $e ee ἘΞ: - Ὁ
Ἱνὲ -πὶ πο-ταἮομν Τὰ - ἁνί-τα]λ[ο]ςολί
1 [
1¢ KEG K ολ ὁ Τ᾽ oOf,,,]TE ὁ CX TI iw 6 —
7 JppaxoceporevOapcertaAnpovignl,.. J] tfuera] Sapera’ pee τῇ t | Τ ha — t ea FF ht |
f " ἘΞ ti} tp = Ἐπ ΕΞ ΡΞ
t γ Ὁ Υ̓ t—"¥-—— σ' Ἐ-τ =$e]
aie-y]yctar φάστγατνα κα-τὰ yc ἔτβα- λον Φρύ-γι- αι
Notgtion 1 ἢ Winnington-Ingram (1955),37 2b]C Péhimann co Winnington-Ingram (1955), 31, 37 Ὁ
At 7 4, 4 iN
co pap. (for —’see no. 401. 16-18 and below p. 131) 2a?: ΦΟΖ Péhlmann (1970), 114, 2:7 Oz orc 7 OZ —— == ae tet = —— ΞΞΞΈΞΞΈΞΞΕΞΙ ΕΞΞΞΞΗ
Winnington-Ingram (1955), 31 3a] OZ West, Z Winnington-Ingram (1955), 31 4 ς Pohimann, ? Winnington- 7. 7[---ὡᾧἁὀὈὠὀ----ἰ- ἊἜ - ΤΣ -ἀ Ὁ oo oe See es bone ee ὃς iT —# {fT ἐδ Ἴ
, x ’ eT ἘΞ r
Ingram (1955), 32 | Winnington-Ingram (1955), 32, € Péhlmann (1970), 121 Ὁ West 2 (1992), 203, 311, 5 ta [1] cblp-pa-xoc ἔ-μο-λεν: θάρτσει, τλήτμων Δη[- ἡ] - ι- δά-μει- α
Pohlmann (1970), 114, [5] Winnington-Ingram (1955), 32 Z or [1] Z Winnington-Ingram (1955), 32 5 1X or
TY Winnington-Ingram (1955), 32 XO West, x? Winnington-Ingram (1955), 32 671 Winnington-Ingram
(1955), 2, >orZ West 7CX pap., C [ΚΙ Χοτς [ΧῚ K Winnington-Ingram (1955), 33.

1021 1 [
Frb 0 j.eveal Fr.c 0 J] δεινηῖ[ Text 1 φαιῷ or κρυ]φαίῳ or κνεϊφαίῳ Eitrem—Amundsen [= edd.] (1955), 4,8 ἀτρίυγετ- or ἀτρίυτ- (τ or γ0
or Ὁ edd., 4, 8, ἀγρ[ομένων Kakridis (1964), 5, ἀγρί[οβόαο Kannicht (1981),267 2Ἴφερον (p or y, 9 OF ᾳ)
1] Zz Ff }oc Ci edd., 4, 6, 8, @ or ς or t Kannicht (1981), 267 Ἰνοδύχον pap., }yod or Jnoy Kannicht (1981), 267, (ély<S>dyoxov
1 Jopaacal 1 J εμολεῖί edd.,4,8 ἐλθῖ. 1τι[ὁ] West (fr. atd), er@fedd.,4 3 βλ]έπεται or Emetatedd.,4,8 φαντάοματ᾽ [évep]-
θεῖν. West (fr. atd), φαντίά]οματία edd., 6, 10, φαντί[ἀ]οματ [ἄνω Kannicht (1981), 268 4 Béclyiov (μιον
2b]
2a]
Tz
CzL
f rather than 1 cov or Ἰγᾳιον) edd., 4, 8 £, δρόϊμιον Pdhlmann (1970), 121, ποιϊναῖον Kannicht (1981), 268
᾿Ιξείωϊ[ν] edd., 8 f£.,’I<1>Eetolv] Pohlmann (1970), 121 (see 1.5). δ οτᾳ [edd,4 5Ταά [vra]alole 02
edd., 4, 9, Ταά {,, Ἱνί[τ]ᾳλίοὶς Kannicht (1981), 268 6 αἴοχ]ιοται e.g. edd.,4,9 φρύγιαι better than οτύ-
γιαι edd., ὁ τάϊξειο, κοὐδεὶς Snell and Kannicht (1981), 268, λάϊθριοςδ᾽ ἡμῶν e.g. edd., 12 7 οὐμμαχος
For the position of fr. b-d see Ὁ. 128. Fr. d has been inserted at the right end of the lines 2 b-3 a above. edd., 2,6 δηΐ uperva] ᾿δαμεια΄ pap., edd., 5, 9, An{ ἡ] Péhimann (1970), 121.
126 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period No. 39 PAP. OSLO 1413 a lines 1-15; b-f 127

?CoO-COXAT
TKK OAT
FT ἢ ς ὁ
8 Ἰημωναγεβηδεπιφεγγοοαχιλλευοκαιγαρδειλαιτρω

ἢ
ai
1 kK? 12 ὁ Ξ δὴ ZZ 202 £2 € ZO In- pov dy-é-Bn
4

9 Ἰᾳαναγυμναπρολιπουοαικαμεγλυκεραβαινειφῳνη 7 4 9 y
ΕΞ+ t +t +———-t
[SSS SS t + Hag
ea ty ros
ee Chae ee
wat
|2-H
2 πΠἘππτχτιῖς
€ € BH &
Kai . yap
.
δει - λαὶ
x
Tpar-{ddec
᾿ we a . ~
10 1 ηχονδεςαφωσεπκιγεί Joxoinaca ἔφυγον gdc-yle-va γυμ- νὰ προ-λι-ποῦτοαι.
ΜΕ 4
fF = — ee =" nee =< : ᾿ Ξ =——" 3
il
17720
K AK? CM 1111] ΖΕ te
ΟἹ
— ΤFe
v Τ Τ re
cy —————
Ἰεοδεοποτικατεδί, 18.0, Jet Κὰ -μὲ γλυ-κετρὰ Bat-ver φῳ-νὴ
oi4-»_10 : μι ΜΝ
oooτ κατ τς Ee ——— τ = ::: :+: Ἴ++
Wz 2 Ce KI 1? [ $ ——————+ Ε Ρ συ4 ἘΞ -
Ξae ᾿ j
12 lagi ]vevveporl....., Itol ]j- xov δὲ ca-ac ἐ - πι-γείι- νώς -κΊω καὶ πᾶ- ca
ΙΖ € 20 ἢ lt εξ — ee ——
13 Ἰυρρονπελας [ |... 1 :Ἶ tt f Py
pt Y Le T Lé Ld
et
i T
+ἷ {|
J
- ν---ἰ

aig- vi- δί- alc, δεο-πό-τι, κατ-έ- δῖυ πάλιν] δ, [. Ἰςτη

JOXcoTS chlic zc FOr 371 ῸῚ
oft ;: " ᾿: ,: τ 12 ran
ht Ι᾿ S|1
14 Invaopatovavtoctvxyovel
lKa ie : :
————— —— 4 “
———
Ld v
τ τ Ὁ ἘΞ
ee παν
T

φάτος fh -λ]ιτᾳ - κίὸ]ν οὖν ἐ-μὶ [. Itoi

}?¢ 7
15 Ἰοιδα opt
ἢ.
ἢ t᾿ "} :} ᾿—e
13
᾿:in 1
ἘΞ ir :t 1
ee
Ο] : : Ft Τ —— ΞΡ Ξ- 4
Υ̓ ᾿ ' Ι|
Π͵ύρτρου πέ -λας {τ ννν,ς 11
Notation 8 or Ὁ οἵ J, GorC Winnington-Ingram (1955), 33 _ 9K ? West, X (or A) 1 Winnington-Ingram he 14 . a
opt ᾿ : : t t hy t' =
(1955),33 10 A Winnington-Ingram (1955), 37 ἀ Ὁ pap. , C Ὁ expected by Winnington-Ingram (1955), oa : :t :: tt t: +: i—— Τρ
==, re
f =ἢ
39f. for Winnington-Ingram (1955), 33 11 K or | Winnington-Ingram (1955), 33 12 YE? Ὁ] West, [Ez ο Iw ἀ- 6O-pa- TOV.
2 2] Winnington-Ingram (1955), 34 14 C or Ὁ Winnington-Ingram (1955), 34 co pap., co expected by
Winnington-Ingram (1955), 40. a ἘΞ
εῶΞ Ξ τττὴςἢ 7 x = + t 15.ϑ
| ἡ
Ke— a fe
{4 —— / Φ-- Ὁ :Ὑ- τ ft ‘f ": ft {—H
f rt
—
Αὐ- toc tw χὸν lv] xe lo- + δα
Fre 1 ].[ 1611
Fr. f 1 Ἰοτοῖ
ἘΠ 2%
2 j.atpol 1:.ϑὃΤ{
2 Ἰοιοῦυτί
ἸΣ zt ΜῈ
3 Ἰυοκιαϊί ]? 'cl
3 jevn [ Text 8 Jypov Kannicht (1981), 268 9 Τρῳ[άδεο ἔφυγον φάογ]ᾳνα Eitrem—Amundsen [ = edd.] (1955), 6
1:20 ὁ { -- 10/11 émryelivacxlo καὶ πᾶσα [χαρά μ᾽ αἱρεῖ e.g. edd., 7, 10, mac: α with v below final α pap. : πᾶσαι (?)
4 Jpeovl }coo [ edd., 9 f., πᾶσα with v.1. πᾶσι Kannicht (1981), 269 11 αἰφνιδίω]ο, δεοπότι, κατέδίυ πάλιν] e.g, edd., 10
4 Jo I 1δ Kannicht (1981), 269, Jo or Jp edd., 5,
Tyo edd., 5 13 Π]ύρρου edd., 12, Π]ύρρος Kannicht (1981), 269
ἃς rather than εογῦ edd., 5
πέλαο { edd., 12 ἔ,, πελάοίας or πέλαο
12 φάος ἡλ]ιᾳκ[ὸ]ν edd, 10 τὸ or

Fr.f Notation 2? pap.,ZorMor © or ?]~ Winnington-Ingram (1955),35 37 pap., Ὁ or P or C Win- [ὧν Dale (1957), 326 14 ἀϊν εἀά. (1955), 13 15 ],1Sa (p or p or 9) edd. (1955), 5, Εὐβ]οῖδα Kannicht
nington-Ingram (1955), 35. For the position of fr. e and f see p. 128. : (1981), 269.
128 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period No. 39 PAP. OSLO 1413 a lines 1-15; b-f 129

Pap. Oslo 1413, of unknown provenance, belongs to a smail collection of Greek papyri ac- The central subject of no. 39 is an epiphany of the dead Achilles. The shades in the under-
quired in 1933 from Professor Carl Schmidt in Berlin. It was published in 1955 by S. Eitrem, L. world become visible; Ixion and Tantalus are mentioned. Some Trojan women throw down their
Amundsen, and R. P. Winnington-Ingram.' E. G. Turner dated it between AD 80 and 120, while swords in fright. Deidameia is urged to take heart. On the appearance of Achilles the Trojan
the editors were inclined to put it somewhat later in the second century.” R. Kannicht has revised women flee. Achilles’ voice is heard before he sinks back down to Hades. A further vocative in
the poetic text from photographs,’ and M. L. West has published a new transcription of the mu- line 11, δεοπότι, addressed to Deidameia, shows that the hero’s apparition is being reported to
sic and discussed the setting.* The music has attracted less attention than the text. We are in- her by a subordinate. What is the dramatic situation? The first editors persuasively argued that
debted to Gunn Haaland for new photographs in which, in contrast to the original publication, Deidameia on Scyros is receiving news of an event at Troy concerning her son Neoptolemus,
the attempt is made to place the smaller fragments c—f and m in relation to the main fragment a. who is mentioned in line 13. The sword-bearing Trojan women must have been preparing to
Fragment a, whose right and lower margins are preserved, contains the lacunose remains of a murder him at his father’s tomb (a motif borrowed from Euripides’ Hecuba, where at Hecuba’s
section in anapaests (lines 1-15, = no. 39), with catalexis marked in five places, and then of a instigation they blind Polymestor and kill his children). The tomb had split open, giving a fear-
section in iambic trimeters, marked off from the first section by a wide space and by change of some glimpse into Hades, and Achilles’ ghost had come forth, frightening the would-be assas-
key (lines 15-19, = no. 40). The anapaestic section may perhaps end without catalexis, if the two sins away.’ The sensationalism of the story and the emotionalism of the speech suggest a post-
notes above ἴοι were not linked by a diseme and/or hyphen, in which case it is possibly incom- classical composition; so do the use of anapaests for a dramatic narrative, and the metrical tech-
plete.® nique of the anapaests themselves, in which sequences of four shorts are freely admitted.”
Of the twelve small fragments b-m, b-f can be assigned to no. 39 and j and m to no. 40.’ Neoptolemus also appears in no. 40, for in a Lemnian context the’ Ay1A[ presented in 18 must
Fragments b~e are linked to no. 39 by their use of the stigme and of the note 2, neither of which be he, Achilles’ son, not Achilles himself? But the occasion must be the expedition to fetch
is employed in no. 40. In fr. c and d, moreover, we see remains of double lines of notation which Philoctetes, and notwithstanding certain scholars’ attempts’ it seems impossible to combine this
can with some probability be identified with those in lines 2 and 3 of fr. a (see below); fr. d has with the proceedings in no. 39 as parts of one drama, even if a portion has been omitted between
line-ends, and can therefore be placed exactly, a little to the right of fr. a, 2-3, while fr. c must the two pieces.
belong somewhere to the left of fr. a, 0-2. As for fr. f, Winnington-Ingram attributed it to no. 40 No. 39 uses the notes 1X OTC OZAKIZ(eftggtabe’ ctl οἱ a’ e’). Apart from
because of ‘the clear absence of a diseme at 4, and in general the absence of rhythmical symbols the A, here rendered as c# 1’, these belong to the Ionian scale (7 X © C O K I Z) in modulation
in the first two lines’; in no. 39 almost all long notes are marked with disemes, and each arsis with Hypoionian (tetrachord T C O K) and Hyperionian (tetrachord ΟΖ I Z). Where the A is
with a stigme, whereas in no. 40 most of the longs are unmarked and there are no stigmai. But used, it probably represents the note a semitone below K, that is ογ΄, which might equally have
there is a clear stigme in line 4 of the fragment, and its suggested location to the left of fr. a lines been represented by Z. The composer perhaps used A because in the passages in question he was
16-19 seems ruled out by the spacing of the lines, which does not agree with that of 16-19 but in the Hypoionian tetrachord T C O K, in which the Hyperionian Z had no place, and he was
fits very well with 4—7 or 8-11 or 9-12. conceiving the note as “Κ᾽.
Text and notation are apparently in the same hand, though the notation is in paler ink, as is a The text is set to music in accordance with the word accents, but there are a few clashes of
correction in the text at line 7.5 At two places (5, 7) there is a gap in mid-word, evidently to leave varying degrees of severity.° Certain prosodic features are noteworthy: 9 γυμνὰ m'poartodcar,
room for the notation of melisms. In line 2 and towards the end of 3 an additional note series has and (at least according to the musical notation) 4 dx[4] τροχόν.
been written in above the first, presumably giving the composer’s second thoughts and thus im- The rhythmical notation employs the diseme, stigme, hyphen, leimma, and colon. In five
plying that the papyrus was his autograph.? Elsewhere certain notes have been cancelled without places (1, 8, 9, 10, 14) the leimma with diseme is used to mark catalexis. The leimma sign takes
others being substituted. an abnormal form, neither pointed as in nos. 27-8 and 38 nor rounded as in nos. 17-18, 42, 50--
The two texts were presumably not the melodist’s own."° As it is difficult to reconcile them as 2, and 59, but severely flattened, though in line 9 still recognizable as a lambda. Between the
parts of the same composition (see below), they are treated here as two separate items from an leimmata in 8, 9 and 10, and following that in 14, catalectic anapaestic tetrameters must be as-
anthology.
' Eitrem—Amundsen (1955), 10-20.
' Winnington-Ingram (1955), (1958), 7 £; see pl. 10. 2 Bitrem-Amundsen (1955), 8, 26. For anapaestic technique in classical drama cf. West (1982), 95; for the
2 Eitrem—Amundsen (1955), 4. popularity of anapaests in the Imperial period, ibid. 170 £. Cf. no. 44.
3 Kannicht (1981), 267—70 (F 680 a-c). 3 Eitrem—Amundsen (1955), 24.
* West 2 (1992), 311-14 (nos. 30-1 f.). 2 Cf. Borthwick (1956); Dale (1957), 325; De! Grande (1960), 49 f.; Kakridis (1964), 13 f.
* Borthwick (1956); Chantraine (1957); Dale (1957); Pighi (1959); Pappalardo (1959); Del Grande (1960), > Cf. Winnington-Ingram (1955), 46 f. Winnington-Ingram also considered the possibility that the A was in-
447-50; Kakridis (1964); Sifakis (1967), 76 f. tended to denote a microtonal interval below K; so too Del Grande (1960), 447. But the other explanation is prefer-
5. Chantraine (1957), 114. able.
7 Winnington-Ingram (1955), 61-4 (who, however, assigned fragment f to no. 40). § Lines 2b végoc, 5 ποταμόν 10 σαφῶς, 11 δεοπότι (unless to be taken as proparoxytone on the analogy of
® Bitrem—-Amundsen (1955), 1, 5; Winnington-Ingram (1955), 29. δέοποτα). (The prepositions ὑπίο] (4) and ἐπι (5, 8) are to be regarded as atonic.) For detailed discussion see Win-
5 Winnington-Ingram (1955), 56 f. nington-Ingram (1955), 71-3.
© See however below, p. 130.
130 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period No. 40 PAP. OSLO 1413 a lines 15--:9; g~m 131

sumed,' and it is possible that the whole passage from 8 καὶ γάρ to the end was in tetrameters, No. 40 PAP. OSLO 1413 a lines 15-19, g—-m First-second century AD
though the preceding part of the text cannot be fitted into this scheme. The arses of each metron
are marked with stigmai throughout, and almost every long note carries the diseme sign.
A long syllable is divided between three notes at line 2a (- χον), where the hyphen beneath
the second and third notes points to the rhythmization J JJ , and the last note anticipates that on
the following syllable. A short note is set to two syllables at 14 (tv) xév.
The three names Ixion (4), Tantalus (5), and Deidameia (7) are given extravagant melodic For the reasons for treating lines 15—19 of Pap. Oslo 1413 as a separate item, see above on no.
treatment. The initial long syllable is in each case prolonged to tetraseme length and spread over 39. The text of no. 40 begins on the same line as the conclusion of no. 39, after a vacant space of
several notes, and the other long ones are also treated melismatically.” In the case of Tantalus about eight letters’ width. It is in iambic trimeters, clearly demarcated by hiatus in 16 and by
(and perhaps Deidameia) the first vowel is written double, something'not done for normal mel- brevis in longo with hiatus in 18. A feature of some interest is that the final note or note-group of
isms after the Hellenistic period.’ After’‘Tao a space is left to make room for the associated mu- each trimeter is furnished with a triseme sign (16, 17, 18), which must signify some sort of fer-
sical notes. In Deidameia’s case there is a very wide gap between Anf and {μετὰ δαμεια΄; the mata.’ The singer must have made a slight pause between the verses to mark their boundaries;
note T to the right of the gap still belongs to An(n)-, and the intervening space must have been certainly he did not prolong the short open final syllable of ἠργάζετο to triple length, though the
occupied by other notes (some of them perhaps cancelled). In Ixion’s case the name had been accompanying instrumental note may have been sustained.
written without spacing, with the consequence that the seven notes allocated to it had to be Of the small fragments, m clearly belongs to no. 40 as it contains part of the lower margin,
crowded together. and it may in fact have stood directly before ἸΖεύο in line 19. Fragment j is shown to belong by
Has the musician imposed these distorted scansions on a text in which the names were in- its use of the Lydian note M (see below), though it cannot be located more closely. Fragments g,
tended to be scanned normally, or were they intrinsic to it? The octaseme Ixion is associated h, i, k, and | are appended here for convenience, but may equally well belong with no. 39.
with another piece of unnatural scansion ὑπὸ τροχόν. Was it originally ὅπὸ τροχὸν ᾿Ἰξίων, that The text begins with an apostrophe to Lemnos, the scene of action, and a reference to
is U~ UU - - -? The preceding word ἵμιον is difficult to reconcile with this hypothesis. Or did Hephaestus and his workshop. Then the speaker announces the presence of Neoptolemus. The
ὑπὸ τροχόν represent a resolved anapaest, with ᾿Ιξίων as a catalectic ending? In the next line first editors reasonably see in this the opening scene of a Hellenistic play about Philoctetes
Ταάνταλοο, as it stands, was apparently scanned - - u ὦ, which we should expect to be fol- which followed the Sophoclean version.”
lowed by a monosyllable such as 6v; without knowing what followed, we cannot say whether it The notes used are 1ROCPOMIZ(efgalbc’ ἀ΄ e’). This is the Lydian tonos, apart
might originally have been just a dactyl. Δηηϊδάμεια, with the lengthened first syllable, may from the isolated repeated O (,) in line 18, which is a Hypolydian modulation. The vocal range
have formed a catalectic period-end, if ἔμολεν' θάρσει constituted a metron, or, on the more is the same as in no. 39, though the key is quite different.
obvious colomeiry | οὐϊμμαχοο ἔμολεν: | θάροει, τλήμων |, it may have filled a whole metron Melody is generally in accord with word accent, with the possible exception of 19
with its final short overrunning into the next. Without the lengthening of An-, however, it is hard [ἐφοϊβήθηοαν (if the note above Bn is 1, not Z). At 16 (but not at 18) a vowel which metre and
to see how it would have fitted the metre, unless the final τὰ was irrationally lengthened, or ordinary pronunciation require to be elided is written in scriptio plena and furnished with its own
treated as brevis in longo in an acatalectic period-end. Overall the hypothesis of an original text note, which is in fact a ‘cadent’ anticipating the following note.®
with normal prosody seems to raise more difficulties than it solves. Perhaps after all the poet and The resources of rhythmic notation are employed sparingly. There are no leimmata or stig-
the melographer were the same man. mai, and the diseme sign is used only where a syllable is divided between two or three notes,
mostly in conjunction with the hyphen and in two cases also with the colon. The triseme sign is
used at verse-end, as noted above.
ὁ An estimate of the number of syllables missing to the left can be made on the basis of the iambic trimeters of
no. 40.
2 There are similar instances in nos. 17 (Ai[tJov) and 53 (Νηρεύο). Cf. West 2 (1992), 203.
> In fr. e Ἰρώωνί need not be an example of a doubled vowel, as it may be part of Τ]ρώων or ἡ]ρώων.
Wilamowitz (1921), 59 ἢ. 1, refers to manuscript spellings of εὐκλεεῖ, κελαινεφέει for -ξἰ in Pindar (Ol. 10. 85,
Nem. 2. 24, fr. 108 b3), but these are simply unmetrical corruptions. A sixth-century Christian hymn (Pap. Erlangen
1; Schubart [1942], 5), written without musical notation, shows several instances of doubled (mostly accented)
vowels, and this feature reappears in liturgical manuscripts of the thirteenth century (Gardthausen [1913], 419).

' Pappalardo (1959), 223.

? Bitrem-Amundsen (1955), 21-5. For several attempts to make it part of the same play as no. 39 see above, p.
129, n. 5.
> Similarly in no. 38 ti 3. See West 2 (1992), 203.
ΟΝ
ῃ----
132 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period No. 40 PAP. OSLO 1413 a lines 15-19; g-m 133

PAP. OSLO 1413 a lines 15-19, g-m

Fr.a
pn σις : : ,
τς Pom Q Afp- ve καὶ κρα-[
15 on HVEKQUKP a a 16, — - al
2 f "ΡΞ δ΄ ee
vot τ vv a a at
j} cP M! M MP PCM 1 ὃ “Hear)-ctoc,
& -να - pet -Eac δὲ ὁ -μοῦ
16 Ἰςτοοσαναμειξαοδεομουαδα po 17 δὰ
- 5 55: : =, =|
]M Cc R 0 @9C Ρ ΜΜ ᾿ ὰ bal a
τνὴην
17 Ἱτεχνηνκαιπανταταοτοιχεια ex vn
"ΗΝ "
δ
— Ξ Ι -Ξ [ΈΞΩ͂Ξ
i
Ξ “ΚΞ: ᾿ Ξ
ΙμΜ MOM ἐΓΠΥΠΙΖΜΦΟῸΟ ΠΣ Ff t ¥ ᾿ 3
18 Ἰ οραγηργαζετοοδεοταχιλ καὶ πάνττα τὰ οτοι -χεῖ -αἱ
fa : 18 διὰ
ἸΜ:ΙΪΖΜΜμι Z1M Mf] : ἘΞ : SS SSeS
19 Ἰλγιον[ ]Cevcol,.. βηθποανθεριί ].6-péy ἠρ - ya - ζεττο.
oho Pa τ ΙΣΤ —

Notation for— lines 16-18 see no. 39. 2b and above p. 131 18 Z M Winnington-Ingram (1955), 34, 53
| —
ὅδ᾽ ect ᾿Ατχιλ
ft -
τ Οἰ[λέως---παῖς. - =
19 JM West, Ἴ Winnington-Ingram (1955), 2 Z or 1 West, 1 Winnington-Ingram (1955), 2. ' ες 19 ΡΩΝ _— oN
- Se
Τ ¥ Se Τ
i ἃ
[τῶι δ᾽ ἄϊλ-γιτ.ον Ζεὺς δίν ἐ-φο]- βή - On-cav Ge -οἱ.

. . Text 15 ¢pa|{tijpec Eitrem~Amundsen [ = edd. 1 (1955), 22, xp&|{trctov ‘Heatjetoly οέλας Winnington-
Fr. g Fr.i Fr, j Fr.k Ingram (1955), 25 16 “Hearletoc edd.,22 ἃ δα][ψιλῶο edd., 22, ἄδα [[οταὰ Kannicht (1981), 269 18 1 ὁρᾶν
, West, dopa’ edd., 23, Jo or le better than }y or Jt Kannicht (1981), 269 ᾿Αχιλβλέως παῖς edd., 24 19 τῶι
δ᾽ ἀήλγιον Ζεὺς e.g. West (fr. m +a), leytoviedd.,3 δίν ἐφο]βήθηοαν edd., 25.
]val 1.1 121 1. 1
1.1 1 ρῖ
Ἰν i
Frh δ [ Fr

Ixnl oY 10? 21
1....1

For the position of fr. g—m see p. 128. Fr. m has been inserted at the beginning of line 19.
134 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period No. 41 PAP. YALE CtYBR INV. 4510 135

PAP. YALE. CtYBR INV. 4510 Early second century AD

Col. i Col. ii
Col. i Col. ii
pt. —t ——o
1.
2 Ἰφασριτα vap- xtc ~cov ef
1a xo Cn 7 17 xpos ic : — ΠΞ ΕΞ ΤΕΣ Ξρεξς
lpapravapKiccove ᾿ --- Ξ
1 @ COOATO xé Of 19
3 1τὲ κρα-τή - co τό - ξα τὰ Ληΐτ- Ἰοατοᾷ παρ-θέτἵνος
δ.
Kexpatynca@toeEataan σασαπαρθεῖί ptt tt
Τ ἐπ
hk τ ΡΣ
—
ΕΠ Τ
τ =O
+
oes
is
τ
ε
=
ἐς
irt
| t
ἘΞ ΞΘ ΞΕ ΞΞΕΕΞ Ξε ΞΣΕΕΞΕΕΞΞ & mt = ms ra

o7 xX T7 W Jrac ἡ - 80 - vale
oo
Setakactarrsov ἢ ἢ τι τ τ πρὶ δὲ
SS SSS
ἸΧ ἜΙΧΞ -χφιχτὴβ [1] 7117 XP 5 joan καὶ γεύ -co-
VY
μαι οῶν[ νη -
3
tol
Ἱποδωνοωνασοϊζκλa] tacnéoval =e ee of" ~~ a 2——f
Jee ΞΞΕΞΞΕΞΕΞΞΞΕΞΞ -ΞΞΞΕΞΞΈΞΞΕΞΞΕΞΕΞ ee ~—¢
1¢ φ
Ἰτακαιγευοομαιοσῶν
Χ πι:71τ IK Ο ΚΙ Ζ: AZOL 6 Ἰρυχα pov -
3

τεῦ - co> μαι Mov - cr- κὰ

.

λα-λί
va tol δ ἐν <— = " ———+jEαν -
ἘΞ SS 5
2 3 : ΟΝ οἷο OAK raw y
Trap-O]é-ve to-Eo-xa - pi On-po-[kté-ve cat Khat- εἰ. pol
Ἰριχαμαντευοομαι μουοσικαλαλ[
4 ————— ΞΞῈ -- πὶ a τὸν 4
ee
f f = Ψ-
͵τφ CO} Ze Z i Ἴ AD ὃ Αἱ 14 T τὶ ; ἢ
8 hha τέμ - πε- α θη - po-[ Ho - ρο- μετ νη
levetoboxapnenpo οσοαικλαιειμᾳαί
Ὁ ἐν 4 =. =
- τ a - = ν =—— t 1Ξ 3}
]0c ὁ ὁ Φ:ιφὸφ HA αὖ Ζ|
Ἰατεμπεαθηρο μυρομενηῖ 9 Ἱπε-λά- your para - rAov [ ac ὄρ - νιο ἀλ - AGE
ῥ-ς τι τος ee ——— H+
1) α:ςὦὁ Ὁ :conce ὃ 27 :aAv[ ——— ἜΞΕ a ἘΞ = ΞΜ
WY ,
1[{[ᾳ«]π᾿ελαγουομαλλον ασορνιο αλλᾳί 10 Ἰπλή - co Bo- μὸν ἐ - ya yor νῇ ποτὶ

᾿Ἰχφὴ ΧΦ C xo Φὧο ΤΠ
10 Ἱπληοωβωμονεγῶ yovn rot

NB: Johnson = Johnson 1 (2000).

Text i 2 Metre implies Ἰφαριᾶ rather than Ἰφαρ ἴα ‘violets’ or id ‘arrows’ Neépxuccov considered but re-
a -- jected Johnson, 63 3 τόξα τὰ Anltoida West, 168 ἀταλῆζι χερί Johnson, 63 4 Omitted words added above the
Notation i 2 Ἴταῖμεσ than ® C7] West, C® Johnson, 60,61 i: T just possible 30 West, O Johnson, line 5 Probably continued with κλωΐ (κλῶνα δάφνης κατέχων West) 5-6 e.g. cv [ὑδάτων West τὶρίχα
61 4X West, O or C ? Johnson, 60 XT West, OT or ?T or 7 with iota added in text (αὐτο) Johnson, 60 Johnson, 62,64 7 παρθ]ένε West θηρο[κτόν-οτ θηροϊφόν- e.g. Johnson, 64,70 8e.g. θηρο[ϊτόκα, --ὥνόμα,
3 West, Z Johnson, 74 57 West, T or C Johnson, 61 63 West, 2 Johnson, 74 7ZC West, 2 Johnson, 61 -τρόφα, Bota Johnson, 64 9 πελάγουο or |xe λαγούο Johnson, 64.
(? perhaps = X or K) 10 “1 West, Z pap.
ii 3 napbé[voc Johnson, 62, 70 4 tac nSovale Johnson, 62, 70, εὐχάρι]ταςσ e.g. West Stal West (e.g.
ii 471: the stigme is faint and displaced to left, and may be stray ink 97 Z carelessly written, unless = Ξ was yélvntolr), gf or tol, tel, tol Johnson, 60 6 AL: or δ, 2, χ 7 pal West, y.[ Johnson, 60, 61 9e.g. λειμωνι-
intended. Ἰὰς West.
136 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period No. 41 PAP. YALE CtYBR INV. 4510 137

The papyrus, first published by W. A. Johnson,’ was acquired from a dealer in 1996 by the that the melism ends on O, which is the Ionian Mese. But there must have been at least one fur-
Beinecke Rare Books and Manuscript Library at Yale. Its original provenance is unknown. It ther note on the following syllable.
contains parts of two columns with the lower margin. A coronis at ii 6 marks the start of a new The papyrus is well furnished with rhythmic notation: diseme and triseme signs (not present
song. Whether ii 2-5 belong to the same composition as the lines in the first column is uncertain, over every long syllable), leimmata, dicola, hyphens, and arsis-dots. These last are of particular
but there is nothing against the supposition, and in what follows we will refer to i 1-10 and ii 2- interest, as they seem to show dactylo-epitrite verse rhythmized on a different principle from no.
5 as ‘the first song’. As is usual in the musical papyri, the text is laid out in wide columns 17. Here three types of syzygy or ‘bar’ (thesis + arsis) can be recognized: dactylic dipody
(though the exact column-width in this case cannot be determined), without colometry.” The -UvU- U0, choriamb -UU-, syncopated choriamb -U~. Thus there is variation between 4/4 and
script is assigned to the early second century AD. The musical notation was added by a different 6/8 time. But both fall under the ancient rhythmicians’ category ‘dactylic’, thesis and arsis being
hand. At i 4 this second scribe saw that some words had been omitted from the text, and he wrote of equal duration.'
them in above the line with their notation; the initial syllable of what followed, xAm, he erased at But some extraordinary rhythmic distortions are indicated. In i 3 the syllable cw seems to ac-
the end of the line but presumably reinstated at the beginning of the next (possibly with some- count for an entire syzygy, a triseme note in thesis and a triseme leimma in arsis. Does the
thing else before it). He made another correction at i 9. The text is written along the fibres. The leimma denote an actual rest, or is the syllable prolonged to hexaseme value? Such a prolonga-
back of the papyrus is blank. tion is unheard of hitherto. Yet in the next line again one word-final syllable, δῶν, is assigned a
The verses are lyrical in character. Those in column i, with their mentions of flowers (2) and triseme thesis and triseme arsis. In what follows, οῶν @- should be another syzygy, and -cw δὲ
perhaps inspiring fountains (5-6), may perhaps recall Antiphanes’ criticism of contemporary τὰ Καοταλί- another.’ But even if the two notes with leimma over G- add up to triseme length,
dithyrambists, quoted above, p. 38. The metre appears to be dactylo-epitrite (see below), which the two over c@v, in the absence of a leimma or triseme sign, do not. We should bear in mind
would be compatible with a fourth-century source. The music, on the other hand, being diatonic that in setting an old text to new music, the composer may not have interpreted the rhythm in the
and melismatic, is not likely to be much older than the papyrus itself, and may have been newly same way as it would have been interpreted originally.
composed. The allocation of time-values in homosyllabic note-groups is not always clear. Where there
The notation is Ionian. The melody in the first song moves mainly in. the octave 1X ® C OK are two notes with a triseme sign over the second (i 4 δῶν, 5 and 6 μαι), we follow Johnson’ in
\Z(eftgabc# d’ e’), with some use of the chromatic Lichanos T (aj). It goes down perhaps to interpreting the rhythm as J) J. In the opposite situation, three notes under a diseme (and over a
7 (ὦ at i 5, and rises to A (/#’) at the end (ii 5); in the opening lines of the second song A appears hyphen; i 6 tev, ii 5), Johnson’ assumes triplets, perhaps rightly, though usually in the papyri the
frequently, as does the still higher note Ὁ (ρ΄). pattem J JJ is notated.® The instance at ii 5 poses a special problem, being part of the nine-note
But the first song also employs some much lower notes. In i 4 there are drops to 3 and W (G, melisma notated IK O ΚΙ Z:AZO. The. hyphens under IK and ΚΙ should signify that the first six
B), and two lines later there is a more sustained plunge into the bass register using the notes K 4 notes are GD Π adding up to two disemes, while AZO is another diseme (whether taken as a
3 O W (E# F# G A B), extending the total compass of the piece to just over two octaves—wider triplet or as J7).
J The total value of the melisma then will be hexaseme, thé syllable νη being
than in any other known document of Greek music, and going lower.’ This descent is associated protacted to three times its natural length, unless we suppose that in this flourish the time-values
with the words Ἰριχα μαντεύοομαι, and the very low notes were presumably judged appropri- are shorter than usual .
ate to the mention of prophecy. Did some seers prophesy in a basso profundo? Virgil uses re- In most cases the melodic line respects the word accents, but if the readings are correct there
mugit of the Sibyl’s voice as it resounds through her Cumaean cave as she prophesies, possessed are clashes in i 2 (if lpapia), 4 cév and KactaAtdov, and 7 παρθἼ]ένε.
by Apollo;* in Greek, however, the verbs λάοσκω and κλάζω, applicable to prophets, suggest
rather a high-pitched screaming tone.
The division of some long syllables between three notes (i 4, 6) and of a short one between ' Cf. Aristox. Rhythm. 2. 30 ff. with P. Oxy. 2687 ii 3 ff. (Pearson (1990), 16-18, 37 f.).
two (i 9) marks this music as belonging to the so-called florid style. But the extent of the mel- ? If so, the arsis-dot accompanying the note over cw is erroneous.

isma at the end of the song (ii 5) is a major surprise: the syllable vn, probably the penultimate > The similar combinations in i 9 and 10 may be interpreted either as .) J or as FJ.
* Johnson 1 (2000), 78 f. “
syllable of the text, is set to no less than nine notes. Until recently no instance was known of a 5 Johnson 1 (2000), 80.
syllable being spread over more than three notes. Then an example with six notes appeared (no. 6 West 2 (1992), 203.
57, third century). Now we see that more extravagant melisms were known at a somewhat earlier
date. Here, at least, it is a special feature marking the end of the song. It may be worth noting

' Johnson 1 (2000); see below, fig. 17, p. 151.

? On column-widths in musica! texts see Johnson 1 (2000), 66-8.
> The widest compass found otherwise is a twelfth. See West 2 (1992), 274.
* Aen. 6. 99; cf. 49-51 maiorque uideri | nec mortale dflata est i quando | iam propiore dei; 77-
80.
 138 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period No. 42 PAP. MICHIGAN 2958 lines 1-18 139

No. 42 PAP. MICHIGAN 2958 lines 1-18 Second century AD

ρ-ἢ
—h#
eet ποτ - Ὁry —᾿ ΞΕ ΞΞΞ ᾿ ΞΞΞ ΞΞΟΞ πατι-
[:Ξ je i ἘΞ Ξ ΕΞ Ξ ΒΚ
% 1 εἴ... A.@ φίλ - τᾳ - τ' [oli - xe- τῶϊν οὐ
J? AZN OU 1 2? Ι [
δὲ
p+ ; “---ρ τα σ᾽κ- - ς ω- : ΄— ἢ
1 JET. J] Q MIA TATE [ JIKETQ { = Ft
= ᾿ = por
——— ——s {—* — Ι

1A A Χ ιζὃ Zz AIL 2 B. ἀϊ-τίὰά]ρ τίς εἴ ποτ ἢ τί - νος vé - ον [θά-λ]ος;

2 IT{ 1. TICE! MOTH TINOC NEO [J]. f δ ἐ — Β — > f{——_§—-f-—» —— oe
EG = ! — ΕΞ —— ΞΕ Ξ — ἘΞ
? €)] %
2A 6b σσ ἃ 2 F [ 122 3 B. nai-Goly τ) ἢ πῆτι» τά - δὲ ἐ
λέ- γεῖς =A. ποτία τα]
[, ἴον
3 INTE.].T! TAAEAETEIC TMOTIA TA] [ἸῸΝ Ae @.
oN
yt baal a ra
rN

i i$ 7 —f fe ; al
a= —_ i ————+ —
1 5 σὴ ὃ BL δ) zz 27 %
4
‘
τὶὸςν
,
πξ -λαο
,
πάντηςι»ο᾽ Ὀρές-ττα,͵
"ἫΝ
μοο uk]. 9
4. 7.πῈ AAC ΠΑΝ ΤῊ CO..ATA.MOC IK[.]..0 δὰ
fH ceo gePe, Se - Κρ
- μι ἢ
12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101 ΞΞΞΞΞΕΞΞ- a a a Sa ΞξΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΕΞΕΞΞΞΞΞΞ:ὃ:ὃΞΞ.ἐ-ὅΞΞΞΕΞΞ eee ee ἢ
12 13 14115 1617 18 19 ΟἹ “ “ La Lé

5 IN@ © ABDAILZEZIACICA OD 5
_o4 A a ON
ie a παν q
122727AC UZA bo 2 F EG: a ἢ
Ο
6 1 ...Q IATA TE * 6 ] B. ᾧ φίλ - τὰ - τε
mont
JA DAL 2 oe eee -- 5 τ
Z DAZA OZil J27L]A & A SS SS ee ἘΞΞΞΕ Ξ μέτα ' Ιἱξ ᾿ t+
7 ] TQICA NEI [ITA [...]JC OPACON OPA 1 jot’ ἀν - εἶ - πα [πῶ]ς, φρά -οον φρά
- [σον
1Zi 2 AA Zit 42 ZT & Bb ? ρὲ. x —᾿
8 ἸΏΝ ETENEOH CQT[ JHPIA TIC NOCTO
τίς νός - το [ς
1 A A AZ 7H ἴΖ 17 1 Az A -ρ NO a o> m™~
9 JFHC AEYPO MOI EM{[ ] MANE! CHC
>) 9 Ἰγῆς δεῦ
τ - pd por Α. ἐμ [1] φα-
ervel - ene

Text Ἰ1]εῖ͵ 1. ᾧ φίλτατ᾽ [olixeté[v cb Kannicht (1981), 272, μηδΊξν, 6 φίλτατε, [elixe τῷ [θυμῷ] Pearl
(1965), 182 2 ἀϊτ[ἀ]ρ Kannicht (1981),272 xotn or ποθη pap., τίς εἶ not’ ἢ τίνος veo{ 1, [Ρεδ (1965),
Notation 22 or Z Pearl (1965), 182 JAI pap., Al or Al Pearl (1965), 182 182, νέον [θάλ]ος West 3 παίζωϊν τίι} ἢ τί West, τι] ἢ πῆι» Péhlmann, Incl} ἡ Pearl (1965), 180, Jeytl, τι
32/1 pap., ZA Pearl (1965), 180
46? Koenen, Ὁ Pearl ZWest Kannicht (1981), 272, τ]ῇ τ[α]φῇ Pohimann (1970), 130 ον West, Jet Kannicht (1981) 272 41], πε Podhl-
Sno. 4°‘ Pearl (1965), 180: read as part of no. 3, Ὁ, and no. 5, A Péhlmann
mann, ] ye Pearl (1965), 180, tloy πέλαο πάντῃ Péhimann (1970), 130 c’ Ὄρξς-τα West, co, ate (or Ata),
(1970), 130, perhaps: West πο. 12/13 /\ Winnington-Ingram (1965), 188, ΤᾺ Péhlmann (1970), 130 no. 18
® West, Z Péhimann (1970), 130, 2 Pearl (1965), 180 πο. 19 ® pap., * Pearl (1965), 180 6 JAC UZAD West, or yn Kannicht (1981), 273 εἰ and πα (ἀνεῖπα ?) West, @ and ]pOa{ Pearl (1965), 180 [πῶ]ς West
12 [Α Ὁ Pearl (1965), 180, 183 Ξ pap., Z Pearl (1965),18 7 DAI or DAL Pearl (1965), 183 2 2. Péhimann, φρά | [cov Pearl (1965), 183, φρά | [cw Kannicht (1981), 273 8 wy Pearl (1965), 180, or ὡς Kannicht (1981), 273
A ? Pearl (1965), 180% West, I Pearl (1965), 180 8 Z| Péhimann, Zi Pearl (1965), 180 9 Ζῇ pap, ZN vécto | [c West, véct or νόστος Pearl (1965), 183 9 Iync Pearl (1965), 180 εμί West, éu{oi? PéhImann, εκ
Pear! (1965), 180 perhaps [Ζ [2} [ pap. , Pearl (1965), 183.
140 ΙΝ. Fragments from the Roman Period No. 42 PAP. MICHIGAN 2958 lines 1--18 141

23 a * a — —_
y+ i —— ft—} + —e— + th} eo
= + 3: a Ses eee eee ees eee ΓΞ
er
*—— 5:
—
ὉΞ
] Zin ὃ | zich
[ Jt 1 ZZ2Z2ZA 10 Tanc
10 TAHC AIAA ZON AILJAAZONQCTONEY. Β. 8t- 3a - Eov δί - δα -ἔον, ac τῶν εὖ
δὰ
= δae f 7 Pe ee oe ᾿
σ΄ 5.6 eae
τ-ρ--- Oa -
oe ᾿Ξ: ————_——— [ΞἘ-=}
ΞΕΞΞΕΈΞΕΈΞΞΕΈΞΞΞΕ Ξ- σξξξεῦ
1.111 OA GB eovva G7 ΑΖι ALA Φ =
1 1.11. OY KEC TA EA πτού τερΨψις Ἢ 1.[{1 οὐκ ἔοτ ἁ- ἐλ - πτου τέρ- ψις
ww
ft —z Μf + 1
1Z? o 11 Ξ:ΞΞ ΤΞi
- tf ¥ i +—}
= ft ΤΣy
12 ἸΟΥΓΊπροὸς EYN[ ITACL 12 A. &]-vovlc] xpdc εὖ - vo- [οὖν] - tacl

1? 2ANUZA ZIL2 OL ]2Zz Ζ ΝΞ: δὲ pe ee σὺ a

= ee ΞΞΞΈΞΞΞΡ — i 4 ———— [--ἘΞ-Ξ
13 ἸΑΛΛΟΔΑΥΜΕ ΤΙ ECTIEY[L JAEL JTPOCHMET[ 13 aA - 20 8 αὖ μ᾽ ἔ- τι ἔ - σπευ- δε, ἴπα]ς - poc ἡ μεγῖ
LAY © Z2e6eUAGC[ ὃ. 9 pj» _ _, __#._, 5. yg lg eg
14 LAIZOYKANEIAEIHN TAAT[ JAPONTA
14 cu<v>. Bode ἂν εἰ - Sei - ἣν τά - δίε πῖαρ - ὄν - τα
M1 ot tar ἘΓΕῚ : --Ξ
15 |. BOCEMTIOFI —5 ——-
f E y = iΗ
15 θάϊμ - Boc ἐμ - πο - εἴ. Α.
Ic iz I ι Zl ©
Ι΄ |. CONTE OACMENQN ΓΕ a —— "
ἘΞ Ξβ ΕΞ ΞΞΞΈΞΞΞΞΞΗ
} A Ad Ale & ΘΌΓ 1115 A 16 γι εοῶν πε- pac - μέ - νῶν
iN
B
os“ a
17 ]TONAIFIC@OYAEFEIC
TOL ιται ἿΝΑΙ] =p-}-——» —-» <4 a a 7
τς ΓΞ +=" ᾿Ξ -ΞΞ -- i =
120. 1A BA! ZU JA Ot ὦ 1. Jrov Αἱ : -
;
γίο - θοὺυ λὲξ - γεῖς; τῶϊιν πάν]: τᾷ [ἐν al
᾿
18 Ἰςκ A TH TOION OOBHOEICAEIMA{ he ΄- e =—™ “
a + { { .-Ξ:- ΤΞ »-- + -— t Ty
= i P {ΞΞΞ:Ξ--ΞΞ ἘΞ ἘΞΞΏΞΞΞΕΞΞΕΘΒ ——-
18 ἢἰς κ - τῇ A. ποῖ - ον φο- βῃ - θεὶς δεῖ - μα;

Text 10 Anc οἵ xnc Pearl (1965), 183, φῃο West "α΄ δι Ἰδαξον pap. ev, Pearl (1965), 180, ev or better ee or
ν Koenen 11 [],, West, ] et Pearl (1965), 183, ] ης Kannicht (1981), 273, εὖ [[γενῶν σωτηρίας eg. West
Notation 10 Ζί pap., 7 Pearl (1965), 180 Cf Pdhlmann, 2Ζ Pearl (1965), 180 first Z Koenen 11 a a, τέρψις | [ἡδίων βροτοῖς Snell in Kannicht (1981), 273 12 ] oul Inpoc evv [,, Ἰτας West, 1 Ἰπρος νῦν
oz, AZi pap., Ὁ ἡ, OZ, Adi Pearl (1965), 180 12 ]Z? Pdhimann, } ? ? ? Pearl (1965), 181 2). Péhlmann, Ὁ (end of writing) Pearl (1965), 186 13 ἄλλο δ᾽ αὖ μ' ἔτι Pearl (1965), 184 εὐπευΐ Ἰδείπαϊτροσημεγ West,
Pearl (1965), 181 3 ΖΑ West, OAA Pearl (1965), 181 2 Pearl (1965), 181 y?Z West [2 West ecrevde mpocnpe. [ Pearl (1965), 181, προσημετί Koenen 14 1.1 pap., 1τι or Icu (e.g. Sct’ ἔτι) Kannicht
(1981), 273, lev<v> West τάδ[ε π]αρόντα Pearl (1965), 181,184 15 θάμβος or βλ]άβος Pearl (1965), 184,
14 Ae West, A @@ Pearl (1965), 181 80 West, ©? Pearl (1965), 181 15 121 pap., 101 Pearl (1965), 184
or ᾳ better than 4 Kannicht (1981), 273, παρόντα | [νῦν τὰ δεινὰ θάϊ]μβοο Snell in Kannicht (1981), 273,
Al West, AZ “Pearl (1965),
1 181 16 JC PéhImann, J}? Pear! (1965), 181 pap., Pearl (1965), 181, Z Pohimann παρόντα! [δ᾽ οὖν ὁρῶν ce West 16 yle West 17 Αἰγίοθου or Αἴγιοθ᾽ οὐ (or οὗ) Winnington-Ingram (1965),
(1970), 132 17 8 pap., δ Ῥδαπιαπη (1970), 132 2. Ὁ Ῥδμιπιδηπ, Ὁ Pearl (1965), 181 18 AU pap, 7A 0 187, λέγειο (better than λέχος) Kannicht (1981), 273 18 ]cx« tm Pearl (1965), 181, 184, Je κράτη West, Ie
Pearl (1965), 181. ~ κρατῆι Péhlmann, δυ]ςκρατῆ Kannicht (1981), 273.
142 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period No. 42 PAP. MICHIGAN 2958 lines 1-18 143

Pap. Michigan 2958, edited in 1965 by O. M. Pearl and R. P. Winnington-Ingram,' was found with iambic trimeters throughout, except for the first δίδαξον in 10 and the @ φίλτατε in 6,
with a group of dated papyri from Karanis. The hand would suggest the mid second century AD, which both seem to be extra metrum.' Parallels, with interjections, imperatives, and other emo-
and this dating is confirmed by a somewhat later account written on the verso.? R. Kannicht re- tional utterances scanning as an iambic metron or bacchius, occur especially in Sophocles.” A
vised the poetic text from photographs,” and M. L. West has published a new transcription of the similar extra metrum word or phrase should perhaps be postulated at the beginning of line 7, if
music of lines 1-18 (= no. 42).* We have re-collated the papyrus with the help of the high- Ἰτῶι at the beginning is the end of the first metron of a trimeter. Verse-end is indicated by hiatus
quality digital images which are now available on the Internet;> Ludwig Koenen examined some and/or brevis in longo at 6, 9, and 13.> We have other examples of tragic trimeters set to music in
difficult readings on the original. nos. 40 and 56. The setting of a dialogue, however, is unique, and raises the question whether a
The right-hand side of a column is preserved together with the right margin. As usual in mu- single performer took both parts or two singers collaborated.
sical papyri, the poetic text is written in a wide column without regard to verse-division.® There The notes used in the vocal melody are the Hyperionian series ΦΞ [ΖΑ Ὁ © ( ς΄ α΄ ε΄ f#' ξ΄
is a tendency to leave spaces between word-groups (3 before and after ταδελεγειο), single a’). The additional line of notes between 4 and 6 contains also C (a) and possibly a chromatic N
words, and occasionally syllables (11 α ελ πτου), with the notes or note-groups placed over the (c#’). The first editors saw in addition four symbols from the instrumental notation (nos. 5, 6, 12,
gaps, as is done systematically in nos. 8, 17-18, 46, 50, and 55. This means that the number of 13).* But study of two transcripts and a photograph which the editors kindly sent to P6himann in
letters lost in lacunae can only be estimated as a maximum, as the gaps may have contained 1964 enabled him to read the symbols in question as the vocal notes A Ὁ and | A. The obscure
spacing as well as lettering. traces which the first editors counted as their no. 4, if they are not a colon, may be taken as parts
Line 5 consists of musical notes only, probably added after the rest of the text, as they are ap- of no. 3, a Ὁ with a high extension, and no. 5, an A. No. 6, another U, is squashed very flat in
parently written with a sharper pen, and lines 4 and 6 are no further apart than 9 and 10. Lines comparison with the pointed one at no. 3; this flat form occurs repeatedly in P. Oxy. 2436 (no.
15-17, on the other hand, are written closer together than the rest, as if the original intention was 38), and both forms appear side by side in no. 42. 11. These readings yield a melody in the same
to write 16-17 without music. Between lines 18 and 19 there is a line with no writing, but 18 key as the rest, apart from the doubtful note N.
ends with an incomplete iambic trimeter, and the five or six syllables needed to complete it very How this melody relates to its surroundings is difficult to say. Instrumental interludes in other

ee ee
likely stood in the Jost left-hand portion of the apparently blank line. vocal scores (nos. 3, 11, 14-16) are written in instrumental notation; those papyri, however, are
The failure to use the rest of that line may be explained by the hypothesis that what follows some four hundred years earlier. Instrumental notation could even be used for vocal music, as we
(19-26 = no. 43) is a separate item, as the first editors conjectured. This is supported by the fact see from no. 21. Here, perhaps, we have the converse: an instrumental interlude in vocal nota-
that the key changes from Hyperionian to Hypolydian. Other differences between the two sec- tion, an interlude which cannot have its place between lines 4 and 6, as the trimeter beginning
tions, such as the absence from no. 43 of the diagonal divider (see below), are of doubtful sig- after the πέλας with leimma in line 4 and ending with the notes ??7AC in line 6 cannot be split
nificance, as there is much less text available for comparison. But it is likely enough that we up. The interlude therefore was meant to follow the emphatic @ φίλτατε. Perhaps the writer no-
have to do with two items in an anthology of the same sort as that represented by the Oslo papy- ticed that after this extra metrum interjection there was not enough space for the interlude. So he
tus (nos. 39-40) and others, and we present them separately as nos. 42 and 43. squeezed it in between lines 4 and 6.
No. 42 is a dramatic dialogue, almost certainly between Orestes,’ newly retumed to Argos, There is close agreement of melody and word accents, with circumflexed syllables being set
and an old retainer who does not at first recognize him but, on discovering his identity, rejoices. to falling melisms in 7, 13, 15-17. The only apparent clash is in 17, where the natural reading
The source may be a post-classical tragedy similar in subject to the Choephoroi and the two Αἰγίοθου, if the notes are rightly read, suffers a fall on the accented syllable. To avoid this Win-
Electras. Changes of speaker are indicated in two places by a large, bold diagonal divider (14, nington-Ingram suggested the possibility of articulating Αἴγιοθ᾽ οὐ or Αἴγιοθ᾽ οὗ.᾽ But this
18). In literary papyri similar oblique strokes are used to mark off cola or sense units.* It may be would seem to involve a breach of Porson’s Law, and in any case an address to Aegisthus is hard

eee
conjectured that the apparent verse-ends in the short lines 6, 15, and 16 also coincided with to reconcile with the situation as reconstructed.
speaker-changes and that the remainder of those lines was left blank for that reason. Assuming Rhythmical notation is not used with any consistency even in the clearly legible portions, and
the loss of five to seven syllables in the left-hand portion of each line, the metre is compatible we must reckon with the possibility of error. All the usual symbols appear: diseme, triseme, hy-
eee phen, colon, stigme, leimma. The diseme is not used on all long notes. In groups of two or more
notes it is placed indifferently over the first or last or over two together.®
' Winnington-Ingram (1965).
---------

2 Pearl (1965), 179.

3 Kannicht (1981), 272-5 (Fr. 682 a/b).
4 West 2 (1992), 314 f. ' So Kannicht (1981), 273.
* www.hti.umich.edu/collaboratory/gagos/img/2958.html. ? See West (1982), 78 with n. 4. For the anticipation of the following word cf. Phil. 785 f., 787 f., 804 f.
5 For the width of colums in musical texts see Johnson 1 (2000), 66-8. 3 The mid-line hiatus at the speaker-change in 14 may be emendable with a movable nu if the first letters are 1οι
(dative plural or verb ending).
7 Kannicht (1981), 273; West 2 (1992), 315. Pearl (1965), 185, had thought of Agamemnon.
* Winnington-Ingram (1965), 188.
* Tumer ap. Pearl (1965), 186 n. 2, cited Pap. Berol. 9771 (Eur. Phaethon), Pap. Oxy. 1019/2948 (Chariton),
Pap. Strasb. WG 304-7 (Eur.). In Pap. Oxy. 413 (Charition mime) the strokes must have a different purpose. For
5 Winnington-Ingram (1965), 187 τι. 2.
oblique strokes as dividers in musical notation see nos. 49, 53-4, 57; West (1998), 82.
§ Winnington-Ingram (1965), 190 f.
»------
 144 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period
No. 42 PAP. MICHIGAN 2958 lines 1-18 145

What looks like a triseme appears in many places.' In some of them it could be taken as a
ligature of the normal diseme bar with an arsis-point over it, but this explanation does not seem No. 42 arranged in iambic trimeters with supplements
possible in line 11, 15, or 17. In 11 the bar is clearly bent upwards at an oblique angle, as in no.
39/40, and there is an arsis-point in addition. In 15 and 17 there is a bar with point, and the
oblique extension is added as a separate stroke. In 11 and 15 the sign stands over hyphenated A. = Opéctne, B. = Οἰκέτης
two-note groups: as Winnington-Ingram notes, it is a question whether a triseme can be so
placed, and what it will signify.’ It cannot be accidental that all the instances except the second
and third in line 11 occur at trimeter-end: we found just the same phenomenon at the ends of 6 φίλτατ᾽ [olixetGlv οὐ πατρώιων ἐμοί.
trimeters in no. 40,2 and it must represent a rhythmical convention followed in trimeter settings

WP
at this period, a fermata or rallentando at the end of each verse. The two residual instances, on ἀἸτί[ἀ]ρ tic ei ποτ᾽ ἢ τίνος νέον [θάλ]ος;
the long syllables of &éAxtov in 11, both of which have melisms, must be taken as marking an ΓΑγαμέμνονοο. Β. παίζωϊν tl] ἢ πῆτι» τάδε λέγεις;
agogic distortion to which the composer subjected this word for greater emotional effect.

PP
The question is bound up with the use of the leimma. This appears especially at verse-end (4, πότ. (Ἐς Jovi toy πέλαο
3?, 9, 10 twice, 11), always with stigme, sometimes following a note marked as triseme, some-
times with its own diseme bar. In these cases it presumably signifies a pause; there may be no
significance in its presence at some verse-ends and absence from others.’ The other places where B. ᾧ φίλτατε (following line 5: instrumental interlude)
it occurs are in lines 1, 3, and 13. In 1 and 13 it is an element in melisms on the circumflexed (interjection extra metrum)
words ὦ and αὖ, and presumably represents a lengthening, not a pause: AZN Ξ 2 ,ANUZ=
J J . In 3, where the leimma is appended to a single triseme note in mid line, its’significance is x—-vu Ἰτῶι ο᾽ ἀνεῖπα. [πῶ]ς, φράοον epalcov,
obscure. τοίων ὑπ᾽ ἐχθρ]ῷν ἐγένεθ᾽ ἡ οωτῃρία;
The hyphen is recognizable in many places, including two where a syllable is set to three
notes (7, 11), the rhythm to be interpreted as 1 Flor JZ 1. Im at least two other places (9; 11, 10 tte νόοτος [--χ —U—] yfic δεῦρό μοι
perhaps twice; perhaps 7) the hyphen links two notes set to a short syllable; as in nos. 39/40 and
ἐκ [tijc] φανείοης [Λοξίου ποτ᾽ ἐντο]λῆσ:
59, this is to be understood as JJ]. Often, however, the hyphen is absent, even in places where
the papyrus is clearly legible. δίδαξον,
The colon is certainly attested in 16, preceding two unhyphenated notes set to a short syllable:
δίδαξον, ac τῶν εὐϊγενῶν οωτηρί]ας
these are again to be interpreted as J]. There may be another example in the ‘song without
words’ of line 5. οὐκ Ect’ ἀέλπτου τέρψιο [ἡδίων βροτοῖο.
The employment of stigmai is only intermittently intelligible. In line 2 we can recognize iam-
15 A. ξέϊνου[ο] πρὸς εὐνο[οῦν]τας [ἐκκλέψαοά με
bic metra pointed ὦ -- U ~. But often, especially before and after the leimma sign (which is al-
ways pointed), there appear accumulations of pointed notes such that error must be assumed. τροφὸς Κίλιοο᾽ ἔσωσεν ἄλλο δ᾽ αὖ μ᾽ ἔτι
Thus in 4 we find four consecutive stigmai and in 11 five. On the other hand, from line 13 on
ἔσπευδε, [πα]τρὸο ἡ μεγίαοθενὴς ἀρά
they become noticeably rarer (as does the leimma). They cannot, therefore, be relied upon for
guidance as to the metre. οὖν θεοῖο ἅπα)ςιςν». Β. οὐκ ἂν εἰδείην τάδ[ε:
No. 42 is a combination of peculiarities: iambic trimeters set to music (see nos. 40, 43 2), π]αρόντα [δ᾽ οὖν ὁρῶν ce, θάϊμβος ἐμποεῖ.
’ change of speaker indicated by oblique strokes (line 14, 18) or new line (line 15, 16), interjec-
tions extra metrum (line 6, 7 ?, 10), and last not least an instrumental interlude in vocal notation 20 A. [θάρσει νυν, ὡς φίλων γ]ε οῶν πεφαομένων.
(line 5), which was meant to be sung between two extra metrum interjections (line 6, 7 2). Such a
Β. [κίνδυνός ἐστι. A. μὴ] τὸν Αἰγίσθου λέγεις;
complicated structure is best understood by an arrangement of the supplemented text in trime-
ters, as follows: Β. τῶ[ι πάν]τᾳ [ἐ]ν α[ἰχμῆι, καὶ οτέφει φρουραῖ]ς κράτη.
Α ποῖον φοβηθεὶς δεῖμα; [Β. θάνατον ἐκ ςέθεν.}
‘ Lines 6, 9, 10, 11 (three times), 15, 17, 21; discussed at length by Winnington-Ingram (1965), 190 ἢ
? Winnington-Ingram (1965), 191.
3 See above, p. 131. ΄
* Note that it does not appear anywhere after line 13, although there are four identifiable trimeter-ends in 15—
18.
 146 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period No. 43 PAP. MICHIGAN. 2958 lines 19--26 147

No. 43 PAP. MICHIGAN 2958 lines 19-26 Second century AD

f —
] ὦ Z[]9]z2 O OF 0? t i β =f a p—F ss == e "

19 JC! Q TITINE Tl TO [ΟΝ 19 [6 νη] -οι- ὦ - τι, τίν᾽ ἔ -πι τό -[πῖον

=. : +
Jc Ο © ΞΙ = = f “- - ἢ
22 ἸΑΓΝΩ MHN ΠΑΤΙἔ 20 Ja γνώ - μὴν πατί

1¢ Rn if) zit 9 = Ξ,
21 J.NOC CA QC TOT
“21 1 - νος ca - φῷς tof
1] Φ ¢ Erp? OC[ $ + Τ T
22 JON TAPOC ΚΙ. 1. ΚΟΝ Αἱ SS —— —
“22 lov πά - ρος κίᾳτ᾽ οἷ - κον af
1920 2 21772 «f ΄-᾿
23 J. H TON KAKIC. TON [ ἢ + YJ τ --τ-- 7 Τ

1 2 1 Q¢ oC ξ[| 3 1 ἢ τὸν κά - κιοῊ - τὸν [

24 JPCQN HA ΘΕ TO! ΓΗ͂Ι 4 coo ‘

]® C€ O20 O Φ oO Ἣν. 24 |p -
τ
cov
=
RA - Oe
——
ποῖ yiiic
25 1. ΤΑΥ͂ TA TAP ΔΙ
p —_
= + »— » ΙΝ
ΪΖ [ξ1
25 J ταῦ - τὰ γὰρ δ΄
2 J... «ον
p- =

Ὡς 1... -

Notation 19 fo) pap., Ὁ corr. Péhlmann ® PohImann, }?[ Pearl (1965), 181 . Oz West, 2 Pearl (1965), 181 Text 19 [6 νη]ριῶτι, tiv ἔπι τό[π]ονΐ Pohimann (1970), 134, το [, Joul Pearl (1965), 181 20 zat, Pearl
21 R pap., R Pearl (1965), 181 Ω West (A possible), © Pearl (1965), 184 22 © Péhimann (1970), 134, D pap. (1965), 184 22 κίάτο]ικον Péhimann (1970), 134 23 «uc Pearl (1965), 182, Koenen 24 novyn Pearl (1965),
Ὁ pap., € Pearl (1965), 182 OC PéhImann, OC Pearl (1965), 184 23 © West, O Pearl (1965) 182 Z Péhl- 182, novyap Koenen, ποῖ γῇϊο Pohimann (1970), 134, ef. Soph. Trach. 984 25] PéhImann, Jc Pearl (1965),
mann, 2 Pearl (1965), 1383 70077 West, cv Ὁ PoéhImann (1970), 134 24 _? Pohimann, © Pearl (1965), 182 182 ταυτία]α pap. ὃ West, δοῖ πᾳ Koenen, ope. Pear! (1965), 182.
oc West, OC Pearl (1965), 182 25 € or O Pearl (1965), 182,184 © Péhlmann, O Pearl (1965), 182 0020
or O0?20 Pearl (1965), 182, 184.

The metre looks iambic or trochaic, but the hypothesis of iambic trimeters (as in no. 42) can-
not be confirmed. The melody uses the Hypolydian note-series R OC OZIZUO(fgabe' α΄
For details of the papyrus, and the reasons for treating lines 19-26 as a separate item, see
ε΄ 8΄ a’). There is close agreement of melody and word accents, with the exception of the rising
above on no. 42. No margins are preserved in this portion of the text. The subject matter is quite
melism (if correctly read) found on ποῖ line 24. Rhythmical notation is confined to sporadic
unclear. Dialogue may be suggested by questions in 19 τίν ἐπὶ τόπίον and 24 ποῖ yiilc. Some-
disemes, with a triseme plus leimma in 21 probably marking verse-end; a couple of hyphens; and
body seems to ask a female islander ([ὦ vn]cudtu) about the particulars of the place. Perhaps no. a few stigmai. A noteworthy melism of four notes (if correctly read) is found on ταϑίτα) line 25
43 is again (see no. 42) the beginning of a tragic prologue. (cf. nos. 42 line 7, 49 line 4, 57 line 2).
᾿
148 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period No. 44 PAP. OXY. 3704 149

No. 44 PAP. OXY. 3704 Second century AD

Fr. 1- Fr. 1!

Fr. 1- Fr. 2+
Γ —— =
i"
1 Jad 1f Υ "

Ina [J] evn “2 Ἰέβαᾳλίλ]

ὁ οὐ - ναι
- μος ἐ - pl 2 ἡμετλέταγ δεν
- δρώ τοη, ἐκ δίὲ
153 CC J? 7 ρ-ξ---α
ἢ.
ν.- ὍΣ. a.α΄
[53
Ὁ-
1
ff
δ."
— gp ge -ι
ΜΆay
<= i= i — 5<> = +}—t} ἢ ΓΞ ΕΞ ἘΞ 25 —F- ἱ- ΞΕ Ξ αὶ
2 LE. leBeal locuverpocepl a \
yt
2 , ᾿ , ᾿
--ρ-ΞΕΞΞσε
,
3 Jese-vey-e,, ἀἁ -νό τμωι χε τρὶ of 3 Jie δίς ὧν γε- νέ - tm γε-γα- μη - μέ -νονί
wi zZzmroeczit oo
fy
oe τον δ
δὲ
he
ι΄
+f}
4
— 5
avopoxepral ——— Ὁ & a js
4 νας Ἔ -ρι- νύτων οὐκ ἔτνο - τί 4 ἐ]ξ οκο-πέ-λων ἐξ - & θοτρεν gol
1 ?o0-
€Z 2 ZIT
1.1. vacepetvvavovKevod 4 a4 ef ε “—_#
—— 4 ye pt
ἘΞΞΞΞΈΞΞΞΞΙ ᾿Ξ +
—
ΕΝ

Fr. 3-
71111 2421 21 ξ| 51] οὐ φότνιτον θῆ -ρα τι - τί 5 Ἰζι-κε-λῶν ἐξ ἄν - tpalvl ἦλ - θεῖν
1I....]J ,ovgoviovenpatia At
=Fs =fos
δ.8 δ ἢ ft f
Lay

J .otavl[ 8 : te - - Ἐς
= = Τ..}- Ὁ-- -Ρ t = ι : ©
}] Φ δ:ο 2107 "6 Jou - ov φει- οά - pe-voc δ 6 πρηϊς-τὴρ ἢ τυ - φὼς ἢ οκη[π-τός
Jovovgercapevocdl JA [
Ἰαξεμί
N
JA Al
1:
Ww

NB: Haslam = Haslam 1 (1986).

Fr. 11
Fr. l> Notation 3A West, Zor Ὁ Haslam, 43 next note possibly 2 West, O Haslam, 43 Cor c 4 ©
Jaropl West, C Haslam, 43 52 West, Z Haslam, 43 [ West, Z[ Haslam, 42 6 [Ὁ] West (small note), [1 Haslam,
42.
Po Z[ 1 171 Text 2eBaAlA] West, eB, Haslam, 43. ὁ ούὔναιμος ἐμ[οἱ Haslam, 43.
Ἰμελεαγδενδρωοηεκξδί
] [ Fr. 2!

1272/2 iZ1202 1 270 1Z{ Fr. 23 Text 2 Κύπρι Haslam, 42 (as the line is not filled out).
Ἰιδιωγενετηγεταμημενονί Joa [

19 ΖΣ € ZAM i 1 Of 1 [ jPon[ Fr. 3 Notation 1A West, ? Haslam, 44 3 A[ West, ΑΓ Haslam, 44.

Ἰξοκοπελωνεξεθορενφοί J.alf. lecal

Fr. iL Notation 3 I Ζι West, 7 lor ? z Haslam, 43 ὦ West, Ὁ Haslam, 43 42M 7 O° West, MN? Haslam,
] Moo
δ᾽ :[] Zl i? 7 43. [West,? Haslam, 43 6 [ West, 2{ Haslam, 43.
IerxerAavetgavipoal
maeel Jevexevl
Text 3 ἰδίωι γενέτηι γεγαμημένον Haslam, 44 6 πρηϊοτὴρ ἢ tupac ἢ σκηίπτόο Haslam, 45.
1 52 hE 0 ONG] 127 Ὁ
Ἰεστηρητυφωσποκ [
Fr.24 Notation 2]? West, J??? Haslam, 44.
150 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period Fragments of the Roman Period

These three fragments, two of which have music on both sides, were published by M. W. FIG, 17: Pap. Yale CtYBR Inv. 4510 (see above no. 41, p. 134-7)
Haslam in 1986, and M. L. West has presented a new transcription of fr. 1.' He has recollated the
papyrus for the present edition. A lower margin is preserved in fr. 1 (both sides), and apparently
a right-hand one in fr. 2->. The writing is assigned to the second century, with the musical nota-
tion perhaps added by a different hand. It is not clear whether the scraps come from a codex or a
single sheet. If the latter is the case (as is perhaps more likely), it is possible that all the frag-
ments belong to the same composition. At any rate they are all in the same notation-key and
register, and the texts on the two sides of fr. 1, at least, are linked by metrical and thematic
similarities. The content appears to be mythological, with narrative tenses in fr. 1L 4—5, but also
some possible indications of direct speech (fr. 1 2 gp [ot?; fr. 2 2 Κύπρυ..
The notes represented are DC OZIZAUO'3'I' (gabc'd e’ f# δ᾽ δ’ ε΄ d’’),a segment
from the Hyperionian scale and one exharmonic E (f#’Y with a wide compass (an octave and a
fifth) and an exceptionally high pitch register: only no. 17, which is a soprano setting, goes
higher. At fr. 1 4, over the syllable pe, we find a horizontal dash instead of a note; similar
dashes appear in no. 48, line 3. In both places they appear between successive notes of the scale
(0-C =g-a,;E-~A=f' —f#), which suggests the possibility that the dash signified either a
passing-note of intermediate pitch’ or a portamento glide from the one pitch to the other.
There are several melodic leaps of a fifth or more, sometimes contrary to the word accent.’
There is not much division of syllables between two notes, but in three places a short (and ac-
cented) syllable is so divided (fr. 1> 6, 11 3 twice). These melisms are, as usual, marked indif-
ferently by dicolon or hyphen. Long notes are often but not always marked with a diseme. In fr.
1) 4-6 there are several diseme leimmata which evidently denote pauses; leimmata also at fr.
1-- 3, 242.
The metre of the fragments is generally consistent with anapaests, a popular metre in the Ro-
man period.’ Only fr. 1- 4’ Ep.vbev appears to conflict with this, but Haslam observes that it
might be scanned u--, as at Eur. 1.7. 931, 970, 1456, in spite of the fact that vom is set to two
separate notes.° The diseme rests marked by the leimmata at fr. 11 4—6 each replace the first
biceps of an anapaestic metron, a phenomenon seen also in no. 59. The placing of stigmai is
partly but not wholly in accord with an anapaestic analysis.

' Haslam 1 (1986), with photographs; West 2 (1992), 316.

* The absence of © (a’) is probably fortuitous.
* In no. 48 this would involve quarter-tone intervals. See also p. 20.
“ Fr. i> 3 ἀνόμοι, 4°’ Ἐρινύων; 1ᾧ 4 οκοπέλων, if the notes are rightly read.
5 West (1982), 170-2.
5 Haslam 1 (1986), 42.
152 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period No. 45 PAP. OXY. 4461 153

No. 45 PAP. OXY. 4461 Second century AD

Col. i Col. ii

] 222.5020 Of
16 Io - ta -porel
1 1 τοιᾳοφυχηγοοᾳν͵ τδοί —f—

} ue E? iz 2 2071 e——-
a As
pH
2 ] λει ελλησιμεχρινυνμῖί Hl torge gv xnyoc ay δοῖ
-Φφ-.
ἢ. ρ΄ 1 ry
——-
] ἐς ὀξφΦι
3 le p8ovovcayodol ° 2°EA-an- ct péy-pr νῦν pl

] ®R[JORIT RI $— bf ——— hy
e— a ot
ΟἹ t
4 11: Ἰτινα εὠνεγδικῳΐ 3. φθο-νοῦτοαν ov δαΐ

11 o CLI? ΜΉ
5 }rortepol δεκαρποφθοροῖ

YP Coot E 471 ΖΓ. I is is K t ——

e ry Ῥ } |T ἘΠ ἢ
6 Jotagorcl evdsoul Ἱνπολυ [ 2
Ἂν
es
Ἂν
—a
--
&
4 Ti- va @e-Gv ἐκ-δι-κῳί
1ν ΟἹ M O10MM [ —_h
7 Jono [ ταί Ἰγαιογίεροπί im5 =
—— =
oS rs
Ls

161 22729, IME 5 δὲ καρ-ποφ-θό-ροΐ

8 18x01 τοῖς, Jarch ΟἹαῖ --ὃ

6
1259} if Ui % 6. ei- 0 -plJv πο-λυ-κί

Ὁ AL =p t : =z
{t a ryLa os a
ΤΣ
9 μημεξί
7 tal lyov-oy ἱ- ετ-ροπί
[

2
10 [
------
-
Τ f ἘΞΑ ΣΘΕ
dvi
2} Τ

9 Μή wee

Notation i 6]? perhaps C ti 1 Stigmai may be lost above the first, third, and seventh signs 5 ]?: like a
Z but with the bottom stroke zooming up as a long rising diagonal, above which is a stigme 2[: compatible with
the tip of another M 6 The Ε is uncertain. Then something similar to the Z-diagonal described at 5, again with Text i 6 e.g. K]potagore, Jo τάφοι(ο) ii 1 to: possibly τὰ : y unlikely 2 “EAAnct μέχρι νῦν
stigme; then possibly E 7 Of | only a foot turned to left (P etc. are also possible) 8 Above At, perhaps Z or TT 3 φθονοῦσαν οἶδα (οἶδαο, οἴδαο᾽) or οὗ δ᾽ a-, etc. 4tiva θεῶν ἐγδικῳί, Le. ἐκδίκ- 5 δὲ καρποφθόροί
9A:orhalfofM 10 prima facie Y. 6 Possibly πολυκίαρπ-ὀ 7 ἱεροπίοι-, ἱεροπίρεπ-} 9 Ef: B may be possible; μή μ' ἐξί, μή με BL?
 154 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period
No. 46 PAP. OXY. 4462 155

First published by M. L. West;' see there for photograph and more detailed notes on the text. No. 46 PAP. OXY. 4462 Second century AD
The fragment seems to consist of separate excerpts. The beginnings of new excerpts are marked
at lines 4 and 9 of col. ii by ecthesis and by wider gaps separating these from the preceding lines.
In the space between the text of 8 and the notation of 9 there seems to have been further writing,
possibly a heading or subscription.
Not enough of the poetic text is preserved to establish the nature of the pieces, though ii 9
Fr. j
looks like a dramatic plea of some sort, and ii 4 (τίνα θεῶν ἐκδίκω[ν ‘which of the avenging
gods’?) would suit the same type of composition; both lines are beginnings of excerpts. ii 1-3
(end of excerpt) may have been in iambic trimeters, provided that the v in 1 is short (which will 1921
1 7. το
tule out ψυχήν). The scansion of μέχρι in 2 is ambiguous, but the stigmai imply that the word is
divided between thesis and arsis, i.e. the first syllable is long. ] Z'0' O20" ovr ye .——
The separate excerpts are notated in different keys. The preserved notes in col. i 2 are com- :
patible with Hyperionian, Lydian, or Hypo- or Hyperlydian, those in i 6-9 with Hyperionian or 2 Jecl.Jo «o ch. φουμῖί 2 Ἰεοῖ 1 ὦ xédc-pe conf
Hypolydian; those in ii 1-3 are Hypolydian; those in ii 4~8 are Lydian; those in ii 9
are Ionian or
Hyperionian if the second note is read as A, Lydian or Hyperlydian if it is read as M. AH are 1)
4 2
diatonic.
2 iz « SSS
3 lv θος τερπεα Aal 3. Ἰνθὸς ἀ-τερ-πέτα λαΐ
These statements are sutject to the caveat that unfamiliar note symbols appear at i 7 and
ii 4,
in each case a vertical with a stroke branching up to the right from its foot. Though not similarly jy
made, both are perhaps to be identified with the symbol |, rather resembling a modern quaver 12 Γ ΕΣ. 2. [ [SSS
with a long tail, which appears six times in no. 56 and which is hard to equate with any of the 4 lo af Tver τὰ [ "4 lo af Avorn
signs listed by Alypius. The same sign now appears also in no. 49, i 4. The prevailing key in pt '
each case is Lydian or Hypolydian. West’s suggestion that the sign represents K must be aban-
doned as neither musically nor palaeographically satisfactory. Inverted A remains a possibility 5
1 1. ἃ a SS
Jor ον], yovi 6 Ἰού-ρα-ν - ὶἂν aL
but would still involve musical anomalies. The problem awaits a more convincing solution.
The identifiable notes of the fragment fall in the range 6-α΄. The preserved sequences are too ps
short for tonal centres to be identifiable. The widest intervals that appear are the falling fifths in ΙΖ 1 A sit —
ii 7 and (if Lydian) 9. The only division of a syllable between two notes is at ii 2 νῦν. It is 6 Jov pa vi av .λί 7 Ἰαττο α -γ[]ε, eal
marked with the double point preceding the notes; the leimma following the Z indicates the pro-
longation of that second note in the group, i.e. the rhythm [1]. : ] A ZZ [
The normal principles relating melodic line to word accent appear to be breached at least in ii 7 lot. avije θᾳί
3, where the last syliable of φθονοῦσαν is on a higher note than the accented syllable.
Application of the stigme is not perspicuous throughout. In i 6 (double-short rhythm) and ii
1-3 (iambic) it marks the arsis (in the ancient sense of the up-beat), as it is supposed to, but in ] Af JA [
8 Jof].ovl 101 1
the following lines, where the metre is obscure, no recognizable pattern emerges. In these lines
diseme symbols are used on at least some long notes, whereas in the preceding excerpts none is
to be seen.
Fr.1 Notation 2 The dashes marking the higher octave are mostly lost; clearest on the O above xo. Above cv
what looks like ἃ Γ with a short stem and a Jong crossbar bent down at the end. The same symbol appears to recur in
' West (1998), 83-5. line 4. As Γ [5 alien to the key, an alternative interpretation must be sought. The only possibility seems to be J, that
2 West 1 (1992), [5. is | with diseme attached at the side; there is an example presenting a similar appearance in the manuscript C of no.
25, over Δήλιε (see pl. 5). However, no disemes are preserved in these fragments otherwise 3Z uncertain both
times 4 The first Z uncertain 5A:orA 6Z, the first |, A, and Z all uncertain. Above the punctuation point, |
surmounted by a long rising diagonal mostly to the right, and above that a stigme.

Text 2. Apparently c [8] or cld] ὦ xécpe, cd (or od) 3 The notation points to a vowel after ]v@oc; ἀτερπέα
likely 4 Above νοι what looks like Aq at a lower level than the musical notation 5 Perhaps Jatov ἄγων δοὺ-
ρανίαν.
156 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period No. 46 PAP. OXY. 4462 157

Fr. 2 Fr. 3 Fr. 5

of 12[
1 Je νοι 1 Ix, [ω} Lp jlel 1 ] νί

] ΧΙ 1.2 [ [ 151
2 JL.
γα tel 2 Nene fo yl. eoeul 2 jou
]2[]OA sf Al © 11
3 Jov 5 [ 3 ha xv θο col 3 Ἰχί
] A AST ] [
Fr.5 Notation 1 and 2 Traces, readings doubtful.
4 Ἰν κί ]α dul 4 ] ἶ

AA! [ yoo f[
5 le οὐ τί 5 ]εν o dor af
First published by M. L. West;’ see there for photograph and more detailed notes on the text.
ΤΙ Five exiguous fragments, in all of which only three or four complete words can be identified. It
is unclear whether more than one composition is represented. For the most part the syllables are
spaced out from one another to make the allocation of notes clearer. Between words there are
sometimes wider spaces, and in one case (fr. 1. 6, possibly also 5) there is a low point in the
Fr. 4 middie of these spaces; this perhaps corresponded to a metrical or syntactic break. Syllable-
spacing is also found in nos. 8, 17/18, 42/43, 50, and 55. The musical notation may be in the
same hand as the main text.
Fr. 1. 2 suggests verses of a philosophical or religious cast. The vocative (ὦ) κόσμε is paral-
1{ΌὉ-Ἐ ΤῸ leled in Marcus Aurelius (4. 23. 1) and a couple of times in the poems of Gregory of Nazianzus.
1 Je ec αὖ Arcl The key in these fragments is the Hyperionian. The notes come from the range b# - bit’. This
; pt i—— is a higher tessitura than the average, corresponding closely to the νητοειδὴο τόποο φωνῆο de-
]:Z0AB0B0 [ —— 5---Ξ- fined by Anon. Bellerm. 64.? A tenor voice was called for.
2 [κει vocdse τ]ανί “2 Ἱκεῖ: νος δὲ τὰ vI There is a possibility that vowels stand in hiatus in fr. 1. 2 (before ὦ, and again after κόομε if
od not οὐ followed), 1. 4 (ife.g. xeTlyo αὖ), and 2. 5. In some other musical papyri of this period
we find instances of vowels which would normally be elided being set to a separate short note
and accordingly written in scriptio plena: nos. 38 ii 3, 40. 16, 49 ii 3.
Melisms are usually marked by means of the hyphen (ff. 1. 2, 6; 2. 1, 4, 5; 3. 3); in fr. 1. 6
Fr.2 Notation 2No sign ofanote overva Xuncertain 3 ]?[: the hooked top of tall ascender, e.g. O there is also a double point, and in fr. 4. 2 perhaps a double point alone. The diseme sign occurs
5 The Z uncertain. only doubtfully (see above on fr. 1. 2), and the stigme only sporadically.

Text 4Arforgl Eg. κ[λ]αδί, κ[ρ]αδί[α(-), xfpladyl(-op-).

' West (1998), 86-9.
? As restored in West 1 (1992), 35.
Fr. 3 Text 3 Most likely 5}uccyxv0" dca: or ὁ (6) ca- 5 ὁδοιπίορ-.

Fr. 4 Notation 11 uncertain, only a trace of a foot.

ee

Text 1 ἐς αὔλιοίν or αὐλις[μ - ete. 2 Apparently (é)]keivoc δὲ τὰ vi.

—~— oe
be
158 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period
No. 47 PAP. OXY. 4463 159

No. 47 PAP. OXY. 4463 Second-third century AD

12 12C{
1 Ἰδηοωλεί cs ——— pX CX ΦΧΊΧΊΙ
- 1 lene ὦ - λεῖ 10 JAoconotepovce| Ξρ ee ee ee πτππ ὡς
jot Zz ft —— ΞΞ- οἰ ΞΞ ΞΞ-5ΞΞ-ΞΞΞΞΞ-ΕΞΈ ἘΞ
2 Inctpacovl ὦ ἔξ = = Ic O10 οοιοηᾷ “ 10 Ἶλος ὁ
: πο-τε
—
Μοῦ - cal

TD hostess -ἐτ᾿ τοὶ

= 2 -μ]ήοττρα covl Η Ἰκολακευωπλας[ pth τ >
IZ © COG a Ρ ,
3 Ἰδωκεριφυς ἘΞ — a a κοτ- λα -κεύ
- ὦ TAGE
12 27 XdC0c-0f Ν “
3 “J Sox’ Ἔ τρι - φύ-[ληι 12 Jnpacic, δειξων[ δ "--.--[ ——
12{1 2 70¢ ΟἹ as | -ΞΞ ===
4 Ἰπαιδαοποτεβακχί ἀξ — ἙΏΞΞΩΞΞ _ ΝΕ 12 In- μα οι ς Set
- ξων
ΕΝ 4 Ἱπαῖδάσ πο - τε Βάκ- χίαι
Ἰφος X CHI ee
15 6B wf phe 13 Ἰνοθι [Jol: dent = Se
Ἐκ. Ων 13
~~
Woo
5. ἸῳΠμαινασαγανῖ = —- Ξ-ΞῈ-ἰ & [J oll δὲ nf
5. Ἰμαι-νὰς ᾽Α - γαύτ[η
22229229 44 -᾿
6 Ἰγοιοαθρηοονομμαοσιν[ A 14 1.1 Ἵντο ᾳφροδιτί SSS eS
ἢ
"Δ + { T
ἘΞΞΞ ——— κτΙ Κ Ρ ( --1
"15 Inpat-cw - πὸ pop-oalic
JO OC CEHZ 21 10Ὸ 2? A AZ: 2[
lo - yne οφρα - γὶς
7 Joynecepayetcxvpel van 15 Ἱπραιςινυπομορφαί

=z anal 7 oo ἘΞΑ ΄
WZ 21:2 Con 8 to] &- της E- pac
8 1]. ξοτησερῶο [

9 Ἰρωτικαογραφας [

Notation 10 Above the bar over the second Φ is a small but distinct device resembling a square spiritus
asper (Ὁ
and then a stigme 1! The bow of the is abnormally low; the diseme bar (if that is what it is) comes where the
Notation 3C[: or Of 4ΦΟ: ΦΟ is possible 2[: possibly ® 5 Above the second and third U there is a bracket- bow would be expected 12 The two Zs uncertain O[ could be ΑΓ 13 ΚΦ uncertain 15 The first A uncer-
like device 7 The apparent double point after Z may be the ends of a short vertical stroke. tain, with unexplained marks above. The line above A Z kinks up at the end and resembles
the triseme sign as
formed on nos. 11, 23, 40, 42-3, 53; see discussion by Winnington-Ingram 2 (1965), 190 ἢ; Péhlmann
(1970),138.
Text 1 Gdelce or ὥλεϊτο, preceded by a patronymic? 2E.g. Κλυταιμ]ήοτρα cov [Αἰγίοθωι; or ‘Ynep-
μ]ήοτρα, less likely Μ]ήοτρα 3 δῶκ᾽ Ἐριφύίληι 4 παῖδάο ποτε Βάκχίαι 5 μαινὰς ᾿Αγαύξ[η 6 ἄθρη- Text 10 ὁπότε (or 6 note), then pov or ἐμοῦ or ἐμοὺς or Movedlv (μουοωζιδ-, etc.) 11 οὔ ce] κολακεύω
οον ὄμμασιν 7E.g. πημ]ονῆο, ἡδ]ονῆς, καλλ]ονῆς, μ]όνης, ᾿Αντιγ]όνης or Jov ἧς σφραγίς, then some part of πλαοίτοϊῖς λόγοις or the like? 12 ] ἡμᾶς or ἤμαοι, -ἥμαοι, then possibly ce δείξω or -wv (or δ᾽ εἴξω, etc.)
κύρω or κυρέω 8 τ]ρξότηο "Epac 9 ἐ]ρωτικὰς γραφάο. 15 E.g. λαμ]πραῖοιν, λυ]γραῖοιν, ὑ]γραῖοιν (or -αἷς iv’), and ὑπὸ poppatic.
160 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period No. 47 PAP. OXY. 4463 161

First published by M. L. West;' see there for photograph and more detailed notes on the text. case of ("E)pwc it does point to the latter. In the other instances (4, 13), however, it seems to link
Two lines (6 and 9) are accompanied by no musical notation. They are written with normal all three notes.
spacing from the preceding lines, while the other lines are widely spaced to accommodate the The double point occurs in 7, 11, 12, and twice in 15. In 11 it appears before the third and
notation. The notation was evidently written in after the text and by a different, more flamboyant most elaborate of three successive melisms, and in at least three of the other four instances it is
hand; its owner appears to have been well accustomed to the notation and to have known what preceded by a melism, though we cannot be sure that another followed. At the beginning of 15
he was doing. what precedes it is lost, but only one note is visible after it, where the long (circumflexed?) syl-
We cannot tell whether the fifteen lines are all from the same composition. There are refer- lable would certainly support a melism.
ences to mythical femmes fatales in 2-5, to Eros in 8, and to Aphrodite in 14; there is an impera- The leimma occurs only in 11, where it serves to indicate the prolongation of the second note
tive in 6, and an apparent first-person verb in 11, suggesting a dramatic scena. The metre is het- in a three-note melism, i.e.
erogeneous: there are dactylic phrases (3—5), iambic ones (6, 7[?], 8-9), and some lines with The meaning of the bracket-like sign linking two of the verted omegas in 5 is obscure.
sequences of three or four shorts (10, 15).
The notation-key is Hyperionian. The compass is from e to g’, though the two highest notes
are least used. The most frequent note is C= a; it also has the feel of a tonal centre. Next in fre-
quency is ®, the note a tone down.
Line 9, where is no notation, may mark a division between two sections of the music. There
are fewer high notes in the second section and more low ones. Semitone progressions occur only
in the second section; in the first (and in the second too to some extent) they are repeatedly
avoided by jumping a note in the scale, giving the interval of a minor third.
Downward octave leaps appear in two places, and there are several other leaps of a fourth,
fifth, or sixth. A feature pointing to a relatively late date of composition is the division of certain

...-....-.-...
short syllables between two notes (in 8 τοξότηο Ἔρως, and perhaps in 7 κυρεῖ) and of certain
long syllables between three notes (4 Baxy[, ὃ “Epwc, 11 xAac[). In the last instance, if the
word was some part of πλαοτόο, this treatment may have been expressive. The cases of Baxy[
and “Ἔρως may be related to the phenomenon observable in certain other musical papyri (nos.
17, 39, 53) that mythological names are on occasion subject to especially elaborate melismatic
treatment.’
Another late feature may be the tendency to flout the rules relating melodic line to word ac-
cent. So far as we can judge, the accent is respected more often than not. But the upward leap on

ee
-Η]ήοτρα (2) goes clean against the accent; in 10, if ὁπότε is the right articulation, the accented
syllable is set on a lower note than the two others; and in 5 μαινὰο ‘Ayan, while there is no
conflict between the melody and the accents, the phrase breaches the principle that after an oxy-
tone word (where there is no grammatical pause) the melody does not fall again until after the
next accent.
The stigme occurs in places, but is not used consistently to mark the arsis, being absent in

ce
some places where a sequence of four or five syllables and the accompanying notation are well
preserved. Where it does appear, our ignorance of the rhythm precludes understanding. In gen-
eral the diseme appears not to be used for single notes corresponding to a long syllable. It (and
the triseme, if rightly seen in 15) may be seen on some but not all melisms (8, 11, 12, 13, 15; so
perhaps in 3). It seems also to occur with notes above certain short syllables (10, 15).
The hyphen, which takes the form of a long, straight, rising dash below the note-signs, is used
with most but not all of the melisms. Where the melism contains three notes, the position of the
hyphen below two of them ought to indicate whether the rhythmic value is [JJ or JJ, and in the
re

* West (1998), 89-93.

? West 2 (1992), 203; above, pp. 59, 130; below, p. 178.
162 IV, Fragments from the Roman Period No. 48 PAP. OXY. 4464 163

No. 48 PAP. OXY. 4464 Second-third century AD First published by M. L. West;’ see there for photograph and more detailed notes on the text.
Lines 3 ff. are separated from 1-2 by a gap and written with a different pen; they presumably
represent a different text. This is confirmed by the notation: that in line 2 belongs to the Ionian
or Hypoionian key, but that in 3-8 to the Hypolydian. This seems to have been another manu-
script containing musical excerpts.
The notes preserved from the second excerpt fall within the octave f-f'; the other went at
1 li least a semitone higher. Intervals included a falling fifth at or near the end of the first excerpt,
and a rising fourth and a falling seventh in the second. There seems to have been a melism on the
last preserved syllable of the first excerpt, In the second we see no melisms, but two clear cases
JI KA O?[ —— ἘΞ ΚΞ
2 Ἰλεπωπατραοί ἘΞΞΙ of notes marked as triseme (4, 6). The rhythm is obscure, and the stigmai do not help to elucidate

a
2 βλέ-πω πά -tpacl it.
4 The melodic line is in harmony with the accents of the three or four recognizable words.
1- -ξε-- δ ῷ
a we m Ἢ
τοπίτ τῇ ΤΥ Τὰ t
—at a a ¥ Yr

3. Ἰομορονπαρανομί 3. Ἰκμοτρον πὰ -ρα yo-pl

ΠῚ i
1 West (1998), 93-5.
0 Zoe SL ἘΞ 2 ES
4 Jovietncex f 4 Ἰοὺ δώ - τῆς επί
δ Π ΗΝ

ῃοῷ οΖι SSS

5. Jovoicrucpac τί 5. Ἰοτνοιο πι- κρας τί
ΠῚ i 4

1¢dRO cf = =
6 J ειγευμεῖ (ylyeoul 6 Jevyeppel.ἵν ¢e-ovl
4A

7
OoἸωνιοῖ, 1 ἯΙ
ΟἸμφοί
——Ἰὼ - νυ τ οἷ cole - gol
. ᾿ , --ς

8
121 22
je orel..¢.ylovdl
12 1 SSS
8 Je λα “rel. ΟἹουτί

ΤΊ

Notation 3 Τῆς significance of the horizontal bars is obscure, but they are placed like note-symbols and similarly
furnished, where appropriate, with diseme and stigme. Similar bars appear in nos. 4 (see p. 20), 44 fr. 1 > 4. One
might imagine the bar being an abbreviation for ‘same note as previous’, but if so, one wonders why it is not used
more often, as repeated note-sequences are frequent in the musical texts |
410: E is also possible. Z is uncertain.
There is too much damage for any stigmai to be visible |
7 O very faint and uncertain 8 The apparent stigme |
over the second Z is not certainly ink 72: the tail of another Z?
i
|
Text 2 β]λέπω (or a compound) seems likelier than 1λὲ πω. The melodic fall on πατραοί favours πάτρας as
against πατράοίι 3 δύ]ομορον παρὰ νόμίον, παρανόμίως) 4 Jo: @ possible; e.g. pelvdatyc, Ἰουδω τῆς, Jov
δώτης 5 lov οἷς, μ]όνοις, (-)ylévorc, π]όνοις, etc., then πικρὰ, -ἀς, -ᾶς Ι
6εῖ y εὖ, ἐπ]είγευῦ 7 Eg.
λειμ]ωνίοξι colugolit-, ‘Eauclovicl οὐ]μ Φο[ίβωι. ἰ
|
\
|
|
164 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period No. 49 PAP. OXY. 4465 165

No. 49 PAP. OXY. 4465 Second—third century AD First published by M. L. West;’ see there for photograph and more detailed notes on the text.
The lines in the two columns are not in alignment, and the fact that the musical notation in col. i
is alien to the key employed in col. ii suggests that different compositions may be represented.
In ii 2-3 it seems that a woman relates how, with reluctance, she buried a certain male,
Col. i Col. ii
perhaps on a (rugged) shore, in which case he had presumably been cast up drowned. This may
be a mythological situation based on Euripides’ Hecuba: Hecuba speaking of her son Polydorus,
12 2? 1 eit treacherously murdered by Polymestor and cast up ἐπ᾿ ἀκταῖο.
1. Jvatep{Jucayn [ The notation in col. ii is Hyperionian, but the M at i 4 indicates a different key there, probably
δ. ΓΞΞῚ
Lydian; the theoretical alternatives, Dorian, Hypodorian, Phrygian, and Hyperphrygian, are
Ι ᾿ ΕΣ OC/242 2 SS nowhere attested among the post-Hellenistic documents, whereas Lydian is common.
2 εΥγ. tacaexovcal 2 én ἀκ- τᾶς ἀ- é-Kov-cef The preserved notes in the Hyperionian part lie between the limits a and f#’. (The singer is
— ’ therefore a man, although the song is or includes a woman’s lament.) The lowest of these notes,
2 Ι | ΟΟΖΙΣῸ 7 : ΞΞ--π C =a, appears to be the tonic. Several times (ii 3, 4, 5, cf. 2) we see the melody rising from this
3. θαψαεκεινονκί 3 θα - wa ἐ - κεῖ- νον κί note in two or three steps and then descending again to it. The note a fifth above, Z = e’, provides
ρ ἢ ἘΞ: 35 3 “ a secondary focus.
30 4J =
cCfurz, 8 ;2= —— Melisms are of the more advanced type, with short syllables divided between notes in ii 3 and
4, and the final vowel of ἔϊθαψα given its own note instead of being elided. Rv/fv in 5. is
4 ψατοθανατουμί 4 Wa τὸ θα νά - τοῦ μ
apparently set to four notes, an exceptional extravagance; the four signs are divided two and two
ML Lb ft +
SSEt. ἘΞΞΞΞΞ- by a double point. The double point is used normally in 3, but omitted with other melisms. Two
4 5 . ς σοξοςοι Ἔξ : of these have the diseme instead (2), but this again is not used consistently.
πηλῦποι 35 μνον ἣν vel 5 τμνον ἣν τφί Melody and accent show some correspondence, but if ἐπ᾽ ἀκτᾶο is read in ii 2 there is at least
ft one discrepancy. The reading of the second note in ii 4 as U also looks suspect from this point of
13 ? --
Yost 9 ——-
ἜΞΞΞΞΕ view.
5. Jee. 6 ουνκτειναιθῖ 6 ovy κτειτναι Of
δ.

1γ΄ 9 5ΖΖτ ΞΘ " West (1998), 95-7.

ς 21 =
wee XVOVE 7 πηνπικραγαί 5.7 τπὴν πὶ - κρὰν αἱ

Notation 1 40 the second and third signs see above, p. 154 5An apparent Z with, sitting on top, a
sinuous upright (as tall as &, but differently formed), through which runs a long rising diagonal 6 Two long rising
diagonals.

ii 1 Above [}v perhaps the top left of A with triseme over it; or all partof Ὁ 3 Between | and C two marks,
possibly interpretable as C: On the edge what looks like the start of a diagonal rising from over κί 4 A diagonal
from over the first τ, and under it an obscure sign, possibly © 7: possibly Aor Z 5 The C’s in this line all seem
to have a small hook at the top 6 Above vv the tips of a tall sign, perhaps Z.

Text i 48)xnd0 ποι (ποῖ, xor-), or πη Avot? 6 The last word perhaps ixvovc or χνοῦο.

ii 1 ἀϊνωτέρ[ο]υο2 &]lvw φέρ[ο]υσα not suggested 2 ἐπ᾿ ἀκτᾶς may be a possible reading. Then ἀέκουοα
[-.. ἔθαψα ἐκεῖνον 4-6 If the slanting mark above the note C at the beginning of 4 is a diseme, -ψᾶτο (or -ya
70) is implied. Then perhaps θανάτου ploipav...norAdb]pvov, ἣν ὃφ-... οὖν κτεῖναι (κτεῖναι, κτείναιθ᾽)
7 χύϊπην πικρὰν :
166 IV. Fragments from the Roman period No. 50 PAP. BERLIN 6870+14097 (1-12) 167

No. 50 PAP. BERLIN 6870+14097 (1-12) Second-third century AD

opt } t+ — Se ee ee
Φ ς 020 O :OCf{ 112 C
——
ΟἹ
- ᾧ.-
- νΞ-- ν-
τ ΠΡ
ΕΞ Ξ ΕΞ Ρ -»-Ξ- -ΞΞΞΞΈΞΞΕΞΞ ΕΞΞΞΕΞ-τ Ὁ ;
]
| ὑπ ᾿ ᾿
1 TALAN Q TAI A N(.. JIP]JPQ NE Παι- ἄν, ὦ Παι- ἄγ, [xalip’ ὦ - ναῖξ κτῆ- top Πὺ - θοῦς]

2 TON
C
AA
:ἰΖ
ΛΟΥ
Z
TEP
8
TIE!
[AOA
TAC [
AL a
fof", eg
ΕΞ α
ΞΞΞΞΞΞΕΕΞΞΙ τε
3
ὃ tov Ad - λοῦ τέρ- πει téc [ἀμ - φι- κλύοττας αὖ - Ἰλῴν,
wi «Τὶ κν
2.2 Ζ τοϑῦ DA ἡ [ ΕΞΞΞΞΞΕΞΞΞΕΕΞΞΕΞΕΞΕΞΕΞΕΞΞῈῈ eee 4 σις -
——
f : = i : ἘΞ ΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΕΞΞΞΞΕ -ἘΞΈΞΞΕ ν |
3 AQ N KAI AE] ΝΑΙ ZAN OOY[
καὶ &{e}i- var Sdv-Oov [γᾶς coy - KAn-por Tep-pu-~) λῶν
‘AO MZ (4) :DAl 3 [ —
hu «-
——_—
«>
»-
“Ὰ
τσ = τ
5 '
= ἘΞ ΞΕ ere —————— |
4 AQ NTA TA! TICMH NOfT —al T
Ι
T
'
T
———— T T Τ T
ἘΞ '
ma - yoi τ' ‘Ie pm- νοῦ καλ-λικ - pd-voo TI Et [pa]- ta:
[ cn 2:17 I ςς [ p-# Ly = ΒΕ 6 ,
5 EY[ J]TA TTA A N OCMOY CAT SS
ΟῚ T Η —l Τ 7
eS T Τ Τ

Παι - ἄν, ὃς Μού - caltc κύκ - Aw τᾶς Ἵπ-που] κρά-ὀ νας

Ζ cn ZA Ke) Ζ ΖΙ [
o4 ~~ -»-- ᾿}— ἢ
6 ΚΡΑ ΝΑ ΟΥ ΜΝΩ N Ε ZAP { oh}
e—— — τ ᾿ τ
ee Se
5) SSS} = Fo
ὁ ἐς ἰδξηφ Ζ ke a
ὕμ - νῶν ἐξ- ἄρ -ἴχειε κα- Adv ἀν -δεί]- Eac ow - von,
7 ZAC ΦΩ NA N OC TYP Bi
ἘΣΞΞ _—
1:Ξ:----- ΞΕ ΞΞΞΕΞΕ
oe ΞΕΞΞΕΞΞΞΗ
ὃ ff :
Θ΄ ὃ κ΄ς
re <>-—
= a —
A ZI i ZN z : [212 ‘ ὃς πῦρ βίαλ- λού- οαις ἀμφ᾽ αἴγ - λαν]χαί
- tare οτέ - ψας
8 ΧΑΙ ΤΑΙ C CTE ΨΑ C AA TOY [
———— +
ἐξ ἘΡ---- ἘΞ f t t
- f- +
- τ
t |
5. Ἐ---ἰ
-
ἐς τ + Ft ]
[ο ξΖΟύ 1 Τὴ z 8 ϑ
Λα - τοῦϊς τι- μῷ- ρῶν
a
ἧι
>
- Eac céc]
~
μα-τρὸς
Η͂ ΄
Ad -βαν-
9 MA TPOC AQ BA NKAH AQ NAT[
—
—O-#
᾿ΕΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞ:
e Ἢ
Ξ ΞΗ
4
ΞΕ ΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞ ἘΞ
4 ῃ ᾿
Ξ: ΞΈΞ
4 4
Ξ Ξ ἐΞ -ΞἐΞ-
1
ἘΞ
͵ 10
-----Ε---τεη j
a

10
ceno C TQ
1 ZEY
2 C AA
# ΔΟΥ
i ΧΕΙ
ἀπ [
f
KAN δὸν ἀΐφ- θαρ-
}
toc παῖδ᾽ dun-
i
t
ic- χει τὸν Aa- τοῦ]ς,
AB oN a Wo
Geet f—e—- = o ἘΠ τ ΞΡ ae Ἐν ra
IZ" Al TZ z :12 Ϊ [ ea {ΞΞΞ-
Τ
ἘΈΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΕ T
ΞΞΈΞΞΞΕἘΞΞΕ Ξ- raΞ5
T Τ Τ T
ra
Τ
Ἐ--ρ
ἘΞΞΈΞΕΞΞΘ ἴα
= =|
11 ΓΑ Ν ΤΩ CA C EN BQ AOIC ZA[ τῶι Ζεὺς δαι- S0v- χεῖ [οτιλ-πνὰν ἐξ - ψ- αὐ αὐ] - γάν,

OCA
Ag oN Κα ii ἢ " ᾿ 1 4 ἢ 12 ἢ
ΕΞ -»--το-- α-- σα - Ft : ἢ
ἧς oa t tt 1.----ἰ-- Ὁ = = i = = = -—F a Ἢ
12 ΠΟΙ t
‘ τῶν γᾶς ἐν Bo - dove Ealv- θοὺ τίκτ-τον -ται καρ] - mot.

Notation 2 [:] suppl. Péhlmann (1970), 94 37? West, 7 ὦ Péhlmann (1970),94 4:4 Wagner (1921) 258,
Text 1-]2supplements e.g. West: 2 adjAdv Reinach (1919), 13 Τβίάλλειο αἴγλην Wagner (1921), 265
B A Schubart (1918), 766 ᾿ τὸ Péhimann (1970), 94, ? Ὁ Schubart (1918),767 6. first Z Wagner (1921), 259, Z
10 [οτιλπνὰν ἀλλάξας αὐ]γάν Burkert 11 ElavOoi τέλλονται καρ]ποὶ Reinach (1919), 13.
Schubart (1918), 767 7¢ Wagner (1921), 259, © Schubart (1918), 766 8:1 Mountford (1929), 153, ? | Schu-
bart (1918), 766 11 first : 1Z Wagner (1921), 260, - [Z Schubart (1918), 767 second : IZ Péhlmann (1970), 94, 1 παι(άν) in ἔκθεοισ, paragraphos above πίαι) 4A West, δὼ Schubart (1918), 767 Sevl 1] West, κρ or Kv or
12 Schubart (1918), 767. κι Schubart (1918), 766 11 Gal West, E[ Schubart (1918), 767.
168 TV. Fragments from the Roman period No. 50 PAP. BERLIN 6870+14097 (1-12) 169

This stately Paean is preserved as the first of the musical items collected in Pap. Berlin 6870.' of no. 50 consists of twelve long syllables, which have the following rhythmical values:
In 1992 it was augmented by the attachment of a small additional fragment at the upper right- *u-u)++---+-u A! By using only long syllables the poet gave the paean a slow tempo ap-
hand corner,” contributing seven extra letters or letter traces to the poetic text and three associ- propriate to ritual solemnity.? The initial line shows a syncopation-variant on the standard
ated musical notes. As in the two instrumental excerpts (nos. 51-2), the music is wholly diatonic. scheme, the third and fifth syllables being tetraseme instead of the second and fifth, with the
This points, together with the melismatic style characteristic of the Imperial period and the consequence that ὦ is divided between thesis and arsis.> After the fifth syllable of every period
elaborate rhythmical notation, to a date of composition not much earlier than the manuscript. A there is regular caesura. Rhythmical variety is achieved by dividing some syllables between two
second-century date is most likely. The poet of the Paean is unknown. There is no reason to con- notes (many of the tetrasemes between three notes), and by splitting the hexaseme syllables at
nect it with the archaic Paean of Tynnichos of Chalcis, as A. Bélis has proposed.’ There is only the end of the period in different ways (lines 5, 6,9: d. , lines 11, 12: dd, lines 4,7, 10: JJ.
JJ. d,
one fragment of Tynnichos (εὕρημά τι Μοιοᾶν: PMG 707), which is incompatible with no. 50 line 8: sd).
because of its metre and dialect. Periods composed entirely of long syllables, implying a slow and solemn tempo, are found in
The upper and left-hand margins of the papyrus are preserved. The longest lines have a width hieratic poetry from the Archaic period on. Aristides Quintilianus recognizes several different
of 16. 5 cm. (lines 2—10) to 19 cm. (lines 1, 11). The right half of the text is lost. The amount metres composed of long syllables, among them the cxovSetoc μείζων (uv ἰὴ) and the παίων
missing’ can be estimated only roughly on the basis of the metrical reconstruction (see below). ἐπίβατος (- : - - +).* The first of these might, one would suppose, be capable of realization as
The first line of the Paean is marked as the beginning by a paragraphos and ἔκθεοιο; the final a ‘greater dactyl’ or (U = ~) or a ‘greater anapaest’ (“ ~ τ). Wagner applied such a dactylic
word ran over from line 11 to line 12, the rest of the latter line being left blank. The text is writ- analysis to the Paean, dividing each period into four bars with a preliminary upbeat, and com-
ten without division of verses, which often end in mid line, but with spaces between most sylla- bining the hexaseme catalexis with the following upbeat to make an octaseme bar (J. J).5 The
bles to accommodate notes and groups of notes.” period then appears as the half-speed equivalent of U|-UU|-UUG|uuGO| —. From a
The melody is in accord with the word accents with few exceptions.® The notation-key is Hy- metrical point of view, however, this is unparalleled: lyric dactyls may have an anacrusis and
perionic. The notes occurring are D C OZIZAU CG (gabe' α΄ ε΄ ΚΞ κ΄ a’). The text consists catalexis, but never resolution of the princeps.®
entirely of long syllables. However, as the careful rhythmical notation shows, there is contrast M. L. West’s anapaestic analysis, ἢ 3. | = =u | + = - - | = + u |], is recommended by the
between shorter and longer time-values, some of the syllables being prolonged to double or even pattern of the words, the regular caesura after the second anapaest (i.e. the first anapaestic met-
triple length. The arsis-points enable us to analyse the bar structure satisfactorily, and it is appar- ron), and the fact that the omission. of the initial ‘short’ has parallels in ionic and anapaestic lyric
ent, as H. Abert recognized, that the macron (-) above certain notes and note groups here signi- from Classical and Imperial times.’ On the other hand it involves dividing the hexaseme catalec-
fies not diseme but tetraseme value: as the syllables are all long, the unmarked notes are already tic syllable of every period between measures. It seems that the text was composed in ‘greater
disemes.’ Groups of two or more notes are bracketed together by means of the dicolon preceding anapaests’, but the musical setting used a rhythmical pattern (ῥυθμοποιία) that is more con-
the group and/or the hyphen beneath it. The leimma is confined to the catalectic verse-ends, veniently represented by Wagner’s dactylic bars, which our transcription tentatively adopts.
where it must be interpreted (with Th. Reinach) as a lengthening of the preceding note, since in Attempts at supplementing the lacunae can at least start from a calculation of the number of
lines 4, 7, 8, and 10 a further note follows it, and in lines 6, 9, 11 the leimma is written before the syllables to be restored, but are subject to no control in respect of the number of letters, because
final consonant of a closed syllable (6: κράναπο, 9: λώβαῆν, 11: αὐ]γάην). R. Wagner argued the spacing required for the notation, as we can see from the preserved portion, varied unpre-
that in the cases of lines 4, 7, 8, 10 the leimma lengthened the following note, a view which soon dictably. Many of the older proposals for supplements are ruled out as having too many or too
encountered objections from J. F. Mountford. few syllables.® In line 1 G. B. Pighi took the projecting Παιάν, ὦ Παιάν as an isolated epipho-
The composition consisted of eleven catalectic periods. As nine periods (lines 4-12) end with nema and assumed the loss of a whole line after it.’ But this would far exceed the presumptive
a leimma, we may suppose a leimma at the lost end of line 1 and the damaged beginning of line width of the column. The supplements we have printed are of course merely exempli gratia, to
3 too. By the addition of the leimma the last syllable of every period becomes hexaseme. Wag- convey an idea of the Paean’s singular rhythmical form. Regardless of supplements the structure
ner, by arranging the lines around the catalectic verse-ends with leimma, had already found the of the Paean is obvious: periods 1-4, 5-8 and 9-11 are set off as stanzas. Perhaps a twelfth pe-
rhythmical pattern of no. 50, which recurs clearly in no. 51, an instrumental piece: every period riod is lost, which should have ended with an undivided hexaseme like periods 4 and 8.

' For the history of the discovery of this papyrus, its state of preservation, dating, and contents see above on ' Wagner (1921), pl. Ia.
nos. 17—18, p. 58. 2 CE West 2 (1992), 155~6.
? See above, p. 58. > Cf. Wagner (1921), 279.
3 Bélis (1998), 80 n. 15. For Tynnichos see Kappel (1992), Pai. 4. * West (1982), 55 £.; 2 (1992), 155 f.; Aristides Quintilianus 1. 15 (35. 12 f. W.-L), 1. 16 (37. 7-12 W.-L).
* On column-widths in musical texts see Johnson 1 (2000), 66-8. 5 Wagner (1921), 278 £, pl. La.
5 Division of syllables is found also in nos. 8, 17-18, 42-3, 46, 55. § Snell (1962), 25 f.
6 The exceptions are: 1 the second Παιάν, 5 Sc, 11 γᾶς. 7 West (1982), 125 (Euripides), 139 (Timotheos), 171 (no. 59), 172; 2 (1992), 155 £, 317 f.
7 Abert (1919), 317. 5 For discussion of supplements see Pighi (1943), 174-202; Heitsch (1961), 169 £.; West 1 (1992), 14.
5 Reinach (1919), 18; Wagner (1921), 274-6; Mountford (1929), 159 n. 5. ° Pighi (1943), 197 f.
170 IV. Fragments from the Roman period
||
No, 51 PAP. BERLIN 6870 (13~15) 171

No. 51 PAP. BERLIN 6870 (13~15) Second—third century AD as in no. 50,’ Therefore the leimma in no. 51 must be a real pause, not a lengthenin
Ϊ g of the pre-
| ceding note.
Ι In line 13 a leimma concludes the first period; the second, mostly lost, ends at
the beginning
| of line 14, and traces of the catalectic group that closes the third are identifiable
later in the same
|| line. At the start of line 15 stand the deleted signs C ὦ, which G. B. Pighi was
no doubt right to
interpret as the end of the fourth period, repeated in error? The fifth period lacks four
symbols at
133 CFUFY CF<}<:< CCF ENK? [10] the end. Of a possible sixth period nothing remains. The lines of notation, their
| according to the above scheme, did not extend so far to the right as in the Paean.
length calculated
12345 678 9 10 1112 1314151617 |
| Only the pointing of notes 3-5 of the first line contradict the scheme, perhaps in
consequence
14 FARM ΓΙ FY Ce <VK< EVE [14] of a scribal error. In line 14, where a group of notes is cancelled, Pighi recognized a
dittogra-
12 3 45 67 8 910111 2 16
131415 | phy.” Above the tenth note ¥ a K has been added; the group is to be interpreted as ¥ K,
analo-
gous to the hyphenated groups at lines 14. 14-15 and 15. 7-8. —
15 [Οὐ] WZ ΜῈ V< EX | It remains to explain the symbol 3, which always stands between two identical notes
53 <: < Cl277Al [414] | and
which appears also in the second instrumental fragment (no. 51,
12 3456789 10 1} 12 13 | 13. 8~9 and 15. 10-1 1; no. 52,
21. 8-9). H. Abert and Pighi thought it might be the note 3. But apart from
| the fact that the
| rhythm in those passages will not accommodate an additional note, in the third instance
(line 21)
Notation 13, 344 coni. Pohlmann (1970), 98, “4 Pap. 4 F Schubart (1918), 768, F Wagner (1921), pl.Bo the note 4 is melodically inappropriate. The symbol must therefore have articulatory
δ. signifi-
West 1 (1992), 13, s¢ Schubart (1918), 768 8/9} Wagner (1921), 260, + Schubart (1918), 768 16 Κ ? Péhlmann cance, with no time value of its own. Th. Reinach and Wagner are no doubt right
to take it as a
(1970), 98, K Wagner (1918), 260 14, 2-3 (CF 4] Pighi (1943), 203 344 FIFIC (a suprascript above the form of staccato-sign, referring to F. Bellermann’s Anonymus, δὲ 2, 9-10, and 91-2.5 The trea-
cancelled signs 2-3) Pohlmann, ["+C Schubart (2918), 768, West 1 (1992), 14 10/11 K added above x, which Ι tise distinguishes κομπιομόο, for which it gives the symbol +, and μελιομόο, for which
means ¥ K PéhImann (1970), 99 16 N West 1 (1992), 13, A Pighi (1943), 203 15, 7/8 E< Péhimann
it gives
(1970),
98, ΓΞ Schubart (1918), 768. | f.° The meanings of the terms can be inferred from the writer’s explanation by means
zation syllables, He renders F + F by twvtw, F f F by τώννω, while in § 86 the legato
of solmi-
| is expressed as twa. We may accordingly interpret κομπιομός as staccato and μελιομός as
group FC
| half-
| staccato.’ In the Anonymus’ examples the symbols are placed between pairs of identical
— , , notes,
ΞῈ: ἘΞΞΕΞΞΞΕΈΞΞΞΕΞ
oe ΞΞΞΈΞΞΕΞς 6΄ τ Ἐ“ΞΡ--
- ΞΈΞΕ- [ΞΕ ΞΕ τας — Ι = and this agrees with the use of the } in the papyrus. The left-facing symbol itself does
= Ι
= ptt Ϊ
fΙ ἘΞΕ
= not coin-
cide with any of the shapes given by the manuscripts of the treatise, so that there remains some
uncertainty as to whether staccato or half-staccato is intended. But there can be no doubt that
the
—p-#
opt —{—ἢ ι | symbol represents a link between notes, alternative to the hyphen, and not a further note.
ΞΡ —- ctω:-ν'- ee
—™
Ξ| ἘΞ
Se σ- 9 κ- ΠΕ Ξ-α
-Ἔν-- :——S ='
ae
= |
Abert wanted to find another } in the cancelled note-group in line 14, but Wagner saw that
|
ϑ
14 ' this was wrong.’ Finally, there is a + between the notes written above 14. 3-4. It cannot well bea
note, as there is no hyphen. Nor is the Anonymus’ κομπιομός appropriate, as it stands between
ρει.
os
ὅσ α, Ὁ ο΄. ς΄ , 0.τι ᾿ ,᾿ ᾿ =
Ϊ
unlike notes. It may be a deleted note?
oo =
= ΕΕΞΕΞΞΕΞΞΕ
ΞΞΞ Ε ΕἘΞΞΕΞΦΞΞΨΞΈΕΞΘΗ ΞΕΕΞΕΞΕΞΕ ᾿ ΞΞΞΈΞΞΕΞΞΞΗ
ἘΞ ᾿ :᾿ ——|
Ss |
| In key and metre the fragment appears closely related to the Paean. It cannot, however, be
] intended as an accompaniment to it, since it had at most six periods as against the Paean’s
| eleven. As in no. 50, the transcription adopts Wagner’s dactylic bars.

This instrumental fragment is indented in relation to the Paean by the equivalent of two sylla- |

bles. Like the Paean, it is notated in Hyperionic. The preserved note-symbols are! | ‘ See above p. 169.
<ENZM(ef#gabe' α΄ ε΄ π΄ g a’). As R. Wagner recognized, the rhythm is also the same
4F C Kx | 2 Pighi (1943), 203.
|
5 Pighi, ibid.
as in the Paean.' Here too we find catalectic note-groups with a leimma, which enables us to de- Ι
limit the periods. But as the instrumental notation unaccompanied by text occupies much less | * Abert (1919), 321; Pighi (1943), 204, 219 f.
space, complete periods are preserved. The scheme that emerges is ~u~~u~*~---"u A, which | > Reinach (1919), 26, Wagner (1921), 269.
δ Variously formed in the manuscripts; see the apparatus of D. Najock’s edition ad loce.
corresponds exactly to that deduced for the Paean. There are no note-signs following the leimma | 7 On Greek solmization cf. Westphal (1867), 477-80 (incorrect symbols on account of inadequate knowledge
of the manuscript tradition); West 2 (1992), 265.

' Wagner (1921), 277 ἢ West 2 (1992), 319. | 5 Abert (1919), 321; Wagner (1921), 269.
> Abert (1919), 322; Wagner (1921), 269.
|
]
|
|
pe
172 IV. Fragments from the Roman period No. 52 PAP. BERLIN 6870 (20-2) 173

No. 52 PAP. BERLIN 6870 (20-2) Second-third century AD lines appears as -+-==.s--+u+u. The group - M can take the place of either -- - or u, implying
that the leimma here represents an actual pause, not a lengthening of the preceding note.
The peculiar distribution of arses and theses can be understood, as E. Péhlmann pointed out,
in the light of Aristides Quintilianus’ description of the παΐων ἐπιβατόο, a paeonic foot com-
posed of five longs instead of five shorts: παίων ἐπιβατὸο ἐκ μακρᾶς θέσεως καὶ μακρᾶς
dpceac καὶ δύο μακρῶν Bécewv καὶ μακρᾶο &pcewc, that is, -~~~-.' The sequence above
20 VAMAXMZ\<ZE< “et < 27[ can be analysed in terms of the related measure -~-~~ and its inversion ~-~-->. Where two
12345
678 9 101i 12 13 14 15 16 disemes are combined in a tetraseme, an arsis-point over one of them naturally disappears: hence
the variants u+-*+ and L+u. These two lines, then, are to be divided into bars of five disemes
21. :EVn<M:KMZ4PZM\
OV «Π| each. As the pointing shows, the notator (like Aristides) analysed this greater pacon as ἃ com-
12345 678 91011
12 13 14 15 pound of 2 + 3 or 3 + 2, just as Bacchius and the Mesomedes scholiast do with the normal
paeon.’ But in the normal paeon there is only one alternation of thesis and arsis.? The double
2 MKMAZAZNANOCVZM AT alternation in no. 52 confirms that the paeons here are of the half-speed variety, and that (as in
12 345678 910111213 14 nos. 50 and 51) the shorter and longer notes are to be taken as diseme and tetraseme, not
monoseme and diseme.
In line 21 Péhimann (1970) saw a different rhythm and marked off bars of four disemes,
Notation 20, 8\ or [\J or ἢ West 1 (1992), 14, [\J Schubart (1918), 766, 768 16 7 West 1 (1992), 13 21, 15 ---+-+; he had to suppose misplacing of an arsis-point over the sixth instead of the fifth note.
Ε West 1 (1992), 13, © Pohimann (1970), 104. However, there is no particular difficulty in the assumption that the rhythm here too is paeonic,
as in the preceding and following lines. We have only to suppose that the first two notes of the
first bar stood at the end of line 20.*
Before any attempt was made to decipher the notation of the Berlin papyrus, W. Schubart
wrote: ‘Wir haben also Ausziige oder Proben vor uns, und der Zweck der Niederschrift liegt er-

me
sichtlich nicht im Text, sondern in der Musik. Es sind Beispiele etwa aus einem Handbuch der
Musik, vielleicht auch nur fiir einen bestimmten Zweck aus einem solchen Buch ausgeschrie-
ben’. A retrospective glance at the four pieces can only confirm his opinion. The Paean (no. 50)
mit
ΝΗ.

ad

and the Ajax fragment (nos. 17-18) have nothing whatever in common in respect of their con-
“Th

tent. The latter is the older of the two by some way, as the metre, the disagreement of melody
and word accents, and the implied strophic form indicate. In metre as in notation-key it stands
apart from the other three pieces. The Paean repeats the same period eleven times with minor
rhythmical variations, and respects the accents. The first instrumental fragment repeats the
Paean’s notation-key and metre, while the second, though different metrically, is in the same key
and the same spondaic tempo.
All four items are of some rhythmic interest, and one might refine Schubart’s hypothesis by
This second instrumental piece is indented like the first, and again notated in Hyperionic. The
conjecturing that they were taken from, or designed to accompany, a rhythmician’s treatise of
preserved notes are αὶ “ΓΤ λ Z WK (τ΄ d’ εἰ f#t’ δ΄ a’ 8). The rhythmical symbols of nos. 50 and
the sort that we know from a third-century papyrus, possibly of Aristoxenus, in which lyric ex-
51 reappear, as does the staccato-sign } of no. 51, here between two notes Z. There are no prob-
amples are quoted as texts but without notation.’ In this case the rubric ἄλλο would make good
lems of reading, as this portion of the papyrus is well preserved. But the rhythmical interpreta-
sense, and it would be unnecessary to speculate further about possible connections between the
tion of the fragment presents difficulties.
vocal and the instrumental excerpts.
R. Wagner offered a transcription which, as J. F. Mountford noted, failed to take due account
of the hyphens and arsis-pointing.' H. Abert’s and G. B. Pighi’s transcriptions suffer from mis-
interpretation of the colon and the staccato-sign.? Mountford postulated negligence on the part of ' Arist. Quint. p. 37. 7 W.-L; Péhlmann (1970), 104 f.
the scribe as he approached the end of his task; but the exact correspondence of rhythm and ? See pp.104, 113 n. 1.
pointing in lines 20 and 22 makes the assumption of error unlikely. The basic scheme in these 3 See West 2 (1992), 140.
* West 2 (1992), 321.
> Schubart (1918), 764.
' Wagner (1921); Mountford (1925), 176 n. 1.
δ Pap. Oxy. 9 + 2687; Pearson (1990), 36-44, 77-86.
? Abert (1919), 318, 321, 324; Pighi (1943), 220, 242 (pl.).
174 TV. Fragments from the Roman Period No. 53 PAP. OXY. 3161 recto 175

No. 53 PAP. OXY. 3161 recto Third century AD NB: Haslam= Haslam 1 (1976).

Notation 3QorQ West 4C orZand“lor|Haslam,59 5 [or ἢ Haslam, 59 6 C or Z Haslam, 59

11 }X or} West CXXC West, CXXC Haslam, 59 13 ΟΙ or Cf Haslam, 59.
Fr. 1
Text 3] cw Haslam, 58, or ],em West
I Zz [ —— ν 276 £. 6not εἰ Haslam, 59
4 διοίοειν ci. Haslam, 61, Δίοιοίολιν and vop[oic(.) Kannicht (1981),
7 OavelivHaslam,61 9 Ἶχᾳλε or Jade West Bor ἣ or ἡ (rather than βοηὴ)
Ἰετρεαμενῖ & = a Haslam, 62 12 ἄπαις or] α παῖς Haslam, 61, or νἱάπαιο West.
᾿ 1 Je - τρετα pevl
1271 Zz ft pa
Fr.2. 1-10
lea δρυμῶν of
19 οφοψῆηφι 12. ?[
διῇ —
lcm θεὼ nxl ett
ἘΞ - β<r
—— ——
1 Ἰ υτυφ͵ [ ft Tr 7 τ
ΕΙΣ ᾿ΞΞΞΞΞΞῚ —}
3 lem Ge - & ἡ - χί j® XOf 3 hep - BG
et i Gai f [ple-ya-al
Ictdtotcctvevvonl δ. n 2 J1.1.0..1] vv At a 1
&fF αἰ }}——#ΚΞ a ᾿» = 2;

Ἰζη Φ ς ὁ of 4 Jo, δι τοί - οεῖν ἐν νομί PRE ΙΖ ΖΙ a

3 kapBol Jeyaal
Ipn texvov ελθεἶ " 4 4 hs ο΄
# τt =: 4}+} Ξ- Ὁ —ty=
a

10 :οῦ GOAL ΞΕ ot
᾿Ἰςησὺ 6 ὃ ὁ ΖΙ Τ
oe

5 lpn τέκ - νον ἐλ - θεῖ 4 lp aedovl 5. J.vev τητσεῖ

Ἰνγτινιταυτα rAaAe Ϊ
ts ft
7 ~— 1
++ Ho tf
1Z δὶ Inecet
% 6 lv τίνι tad-ta AcAE [ 5 1.γωντησεῖ δὰ ἢ
Ἰριουνεμοιτοθανεἰ
—— 5 “ κ- ἢ
ne
S ¥ p—t
il ¢c OB σι 6 1.0[ ce 7
me- τὰ so. tov
lexvovepovar [ ° 7 Ἰρι cov ἐ- pot τὸ Ga-veliv
δi: -n gl? 7 CCl 3: Ξ- ==
YPZ20iZB1z 7 7 Ἰτᾳφυτονί 8 1.
i

1, ᾳλεβοη ἢ φθεγξί 8 τέκ -vov é-pov atl ως ρ ἢ “

lan Ἰς % AZOCT = ——- *
21 σήϊζη Ζ Zz 17“
ott
a
L
et
1-
—
Τ
ae
f
Τ 8 ]. wf * 9 ],@- cor
10 Ἰεωνφωνήνταχα [ 9 Jorde Bon, ἢ φθεγξί
Ad “.
1? Z NE
IX ἐχχοσ 9 ]l.@car [
Jtnpeve [ 10 τῶ oo - viv τά - xa f 10 ] καθωοςκί
pt — —
NB: Haslam = Haslam 1 (1976).

lanatre [ ΕΝ j Τη- ρεύο

Notation 3K orO Haslam, 59 4:0 ἢ West,?0 ὦ Haslam, 59 5.1] Haslam, 59, Jl or 1Φ West 9ZorZor
U West.
Ἰσολσι st κα οἱ τῷ :
pe a
pe
1.κιτΤΠςὨἹτραπονί Text 3 ταρβῶ [pleyaAlwc, -a, sim. Haslam, 61 4 φα- or Φα- Haslam, 61 10 καθώς (prose) Haslam, 61: or
13 ligt ta-govt τκάθω Cx[vp- West.
176 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period No. 53 PAP, OXY. 3161 recto 177

Fr.4
Fr. 2. 11-17
1 ] δη[ 11 πνί 1. ΟἹ δ:
518
PZ) Σ ΠΧῚ z [
Ὁ cz
ΞΞΈΞΞΞΩΣΞΕΞΞΕ
Ἱπό - ca φῴτ-μᾳ-τα,
πό -οα nyev [
12/13 ἸΧϑεκυρονμί 2 mocacopatanxocanvenv| ᾿ .
1{ J μολεδηΐιδί Δ a

15. ] petaynval Ly. A= 5:--[Ξ:..--

JOOZ 2Z O70CCZ Of £ = F :
16 1 tovaxrrdal 3}8ov...... γηρευςγεκῦυς 3 Bey . Ν τ ρεὺς yéxorcly
8 i ,
]0 φζόξηφ © ENIATZ (

Sc

ΗΝ
ἫΝ

ul
au
= S55 |

hs

ν
ἥν
"
~~
]®:0C[]?[ 4 Ἰ͵ωοον͵ φηῃηνμετανηρειδωνί[ 4 Ἴιν ταφὴν με-τὰ Nn -pet- devi
17 Jovi 17 lo - wl ta — | - <a Ad
ZO 0 O:0CZ
17? E ZF SSS =
NB: Haslam = Haslam 1 (1976). | 5 71εκκηνηπιογεμυρομηνί 5 len vir i ov ἔτμυ- -ρότμηνί
|
Text 11 Anlidépero ? Haslam, 61 13 ] cxvpov { Haslam, 59, X° Cxbpov pl West 14 ἔϊμολε Δηϊδίάμεια WO 2-0 5: pte
Haslam, 61, μόλε δ᾽ ἦν τί Kannicht (1981), 278 15 οἵ μεγατηνλί West, μετατηνλί Haslam, 59 16 ᾿Αχιλλίεῖ- | 6 | etetntenac. [ vievrncaxol $= — — ΞΡ -ΞῚ
ov sc. παῖδα sim. Kannicht (1981), 278. ᾿ . 6 ἴοι - yn - οα - xl
|
Ϊ
p21? 2.0 Z of 94
| 7 ne ᾳφονερχενί & ΞΕ
"4
β
2
| Ζ οζ τ᾽ ἢ Ta. τάτφον ἔς - χενί
Fr. 3 | 8 1... φςυνενηχετομροιτογχί = a <2 -
———— ᾧ ΞΈΞΞΞΞΞῚ
WO 02% ΦΟΙ 1.2} | 2 ς 6/30 fit] 71 81. . φῦ τνετ νή τ χε -τό μοι τὸν xf
Ἰφαπωλεσενδιαγυναικᾳ |
| 9 1 κατᾳαπυρ. 218 [ ΞΘρὲ =
2 ot
joc? ©9020 ὁ ὁ Φ |
Ἰοιτοπαριοσαπολοιτοκρισιο | Pp 2? onz [ 9 J... κα- τὰ πῦρ' εἰδ[
| 10 1, ὐγποελλί δ 8
|
Notation 111 or Φί West. Ι
᾿
1c .epool
lo
Φ Z[ 10 1. οὖ γῆς
- van ate
Ἐλ-λίάδοο
|
i Ae i

i
| PL —
12 ; ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ 11 1. eBo-ef
δ «. κ |
ΚΞ = f -ρ τ fs » τ"ἢ Ι
Φ ere, ‘ Ξ | NB: Haslam = Haslam 1 (1976).
1 Ἰς ἀ-πώ - λε- σεν δι-ὰ γυ-ναῖ-κα |

SS =
| Notation 2172 Haslam, 60, or JZI West 2 x West, O 9 2 Haslam, 60, 310 Ο 22 Z West, J? 5.2 Z O ? Has-
ρ ἢ — ἾΞΞΕΣ ἘΞ, t——+ |
= — ee 2c 2 ΠΣ > lam, 60 70C C Zo West , Z0C (or Ὁ) ¢ ς 2[ Hasiam, 60. 5 ji Z West, yi Haslam,60 : OC West, O
| Haslam, 60 6 Zl ® ra) West, ??? Haslam, 60 7Z West, ὦ or Ξ Haslam, 60 10 O & West, O Z (or 2) Has-
2 ἀπόλ]οι -τὸ Πάτριο, &- πό- λοι - τὸ κρί τοις | lam, 60 11C ‘Haslam, 60, perhaps [a West.
|

| Text 2 Ἰπόςᾳ coyata, πόσα πγεύμίατα Haslam, 61 3 véxvelt(v) Kannicht (1981), 278 4 ταφήν Haslam, 61
Text 2 ἀπόλ]οιτο Haslam 1(1976), 61. |
7 τάφον Ecxev Haslam, 61 10 y or t Haslam, 60.
\
|
|
ἰ

pe
178 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period No. 53 PAP. OXY. 3161 recto 179

These four fragments, published by M. W. Haslam,’ are written in a late third-century hand The stigmai do not give much assistance in elucidating the metre. There are some possible in-
(the same, apparently, for both text and notation). There is occasional spacing between words. stances both of -Uu+uu (fr. 1. 6; 2. 7; 3. 2) and of -UU+ (fr. 1. 7-9), for which see on no. 41;
More music is on the verso, but in a different hand (see no. 54). The texts were re-edited without but there is much that does not fit into these patterns. Dactylic or anapaestic movement prevails,
the notation by R. Kannicht.? T. J. Mathiesen discussed the music, and M. L. West made new but lines such as fr. 3. 1 and 4. 2, 5, are clearly something else. A short-vowelled closed syllable
transcripts of the better-preserved portions of frs. 1 and 4.3 He has recollated the papyrus for the is treated as long before initial vowel at fr. 1. 8 ἐμόν and, one would suppose, at fr. 3. 2 Πάριο.
present edition.
The verse is dramatic in nature. Frs. 2 and 3 and probably 4 are set in the context of the Tro-
jan War; fr. 1 may belong to the same composition, although the only mythical reference recog-
nizable in it is to Tereus. A lament of Thetis for Achilles is suggested by fr. 4. 4-5 and perhaps
fr. 1. 7-8. Deidameia is probably brought in in fr. 2, possibly in the context of Neoptolemus’
departure for Troy.*
Kannicht observes that the use of πνεύματα for ψυχαί (fr. 4. 2) may indicate a late compo-
sition.’ That it was in tragic form is evident in fr. 2, where a lyric portion is followed by a head-
ing or character-name AH[ (Deidameia?), four lines of what were clearly marching anapaests®
without music, with paragraphoi before and after, and perhaps the marginal note X° (Xopod),
and then more song. This may suggest that we have to do with something more continuous than
just a selection of tragic arias. On the other hand we should hesitate, in the absence of any re-
mains of iambic dialogue, to assume that the fragments come from a complete copy of a tragedy.
The existence of complete texts of tragedies bearing musical notation has yet to be established
(though cf. the commentary on no. 5, p. 25).

ee
The melodic notation is Hyperionian: 7 1X OC OZIZAU def#gabec α΄ ε΄ ft g),
with perhaps an Ionian K (c#’) at fr. 2. 3. If the low notes are correctly read (fr. 1. 4; 2. 7; 4. 3),
the total range extends over an octave and a fourth. Besides there are several leaps of a sixth or a
seventh. There is some agreement of melody with word accents, but clashes in fr. 1. 3 (unless
θέω), 5 τέκνον, 10 φωνήν; 4. 2 πόοα (twice), 4 ταφήν.
The usual rhythmical signs are used: diseme, leimma, dicolon, hyphen, stigme. An oblique
stroke is used as a separator at fr. 1.2, 3, 11; 4. 9. The second syllable of Nereus’ name at fr. 4. 3
receives special melismatic treatment, with four note symbols (the last two apparently the same)
and a tetraseme above. Probably the syllable was prolonged to double its normal length, a phe-
nomenon for which we find parallels with proper names elsewhere.’
There is at least one case of a long syllable in pausa divided between three notes (fr. 4. 9),
and three cases of a short syllable divided between two (fr. 2. 4; 4. 4, 5). In several places a note
or note-group of diseme value is followed by a leimma, which sometimes coincides with word-
end, so that it could signify a pause, but in other cases does not, and must there be understood as
prolonging the note. At fr. 1. 3 (if rightly read) it occurs after the oblique stroke and before the
first note over the word ἦχί; here it must surely denote an actual pause, corresponding to the gap }-------~------- we
left between the words.

' Haslam 1 (1976) and pl. VI (omits the left side of fr. 4, which was not at first identified).
2 Kannicht (1981), 276-9 (F 684).
> Mathiesen (1981); West 2 (1992), 322 f.
* Cf. no. 39.
* Kannicht (1981), 277; but contrast his note on the following page (on F 684. 34).
§ Recognized as such by Kannicht (1981), 276.
7 No. 17. 17; 39. 4, 5, 7. See West 2 (1992), 203; above, pp. 59, 130.
180 TV. Fragments from the Roman Period No. 54 PAP. OXY. 3161 verso 181

No. 54 PAP. OXY. 3161 verso Third century AD Fr.3 Notation 12 West,K Haslam,67 202 OC:OZ West, OK OC :0? Haslam, 66 3 C (above ε) West,
K Haslam, 66 K, perhaps IC or 1Z West.

Text 1 leaA.c West, lc we Haslam, 66, Jeb@ ¢ Kannicht (1981), 279 2 ᾿Αξλίου Kannicht (1981), 279, ᾳθ-
Arov Haslam, 66.
Fr. 1 Fr. 3

i 1 Kal ΠΟ | | Ost Φ O21%

l.ertovavd [ 1 Ἰεᾳλιοωγενοοῳφπεροῦνί These fragments are written on the reverse side of those printed as no. 53, in a different hand
and the other way up.' On frs. 2 and 4 only scattered traces are visible and no transcription is
1? Φ x al } Φ :02 0¢:0207Of possible.’ After fr. 1 line 11 empty space; fr. 3 line 4 ends with a coronis. The text may again be
1, τόδηννοἱ tragic, but references to Persians and Lydians show that the subject matter was different from no.
2 Jo πα tpocgedArtovne f[
53. Anapaestic metre may be recognized in fr. 3. 1 and 4, perhaps in the whole fragment if
17 nf j o:cOC [{ ]? K [
βαοιλέα be scanned υὐ-- in 3 (only one note is visible over ex); there are no stigmai.
The notation is prevailingly Ionian. Notes identified are 1X © C OK I (e ft g a b οἱ 47),
k.v..- [ 3 ] βαοιλεᾳαῖί. J pev
with Hyperionian 2 (c;’) in fr 3. 1-2. There is little rhythmic notation to be seen apart from di-
IK OK C Kp o cola and the oblique dividers in fr. 3. 1-2. In three places in fr. 3. 2-3 short syllables are divided
1.0 3} Of
between two notes.
lo... vel 4 ly cotaOpnenenr
Melody appears to be in accord with accent in fr. 3. 1 ἅλις, yévoc, 2 πατρὸο ᾿Αελίου, but in
2 :Xof JL 1192} 1 Περοῶν the circumflexed vowel is set to a rising figure, and in 3 βασιλέα, if we read the notes
Ἰανιλιδῳν aright, the highest one is on the second syllable.

' Publications as for no. 53 (Kannicht (1981), 279 f., Ε 685); recollated for the present edition by West.
] of ? Fr. 2 has traces of line-ends. On fr. 4 a Lydian note Ris visible, followed by |.
Ἰταλυδωὼν tal
17 A ὃ
1,90 τα rv SL

Io K φ δῖ t
ἵψεται κωμοῖ 2 ma-tpdc°A- ε- AL- ov nel
ρ-ἢ ᾿ τ
} 3} ἶ
].@r activ οἷ ΕΗ 3 Ba-ct-
ΞΗΝ Aéal,], - pov
}¢.0 [ ἫΝ +5
4
t Τ
Π
a Py ra
ft ra t ἘΞ κι i
10 lpoxtoal t 7
ly καττὰ - Opn- νή - cnr
}Oc [
11 kapuivl

NB: Haslam = Haslam 1 (1976).

Fr. 1 Notation 1]or7 or Ηδβίαπι, 67 “Ἴ εθὶ 11 © C West, "Ὁ Haslam, 67.

Text 9 πατρ]ώιας e.g. Kannicht (1981), 280 (but note spacing) 10 χει)ροκτυπί or Jp ἐκτυπί Kannicht (1981),
280.
182 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period No. 55 PAP. OXY. 3162 183

No. 55 PAP. OXY. 3162 Third century AD The notation is Lydian and Hypolydian: the notes C O Z| ZE (a ὃ ς΄
α΄ δ΄ f’) are Hypolydi-
an, while M is the Lydian ο΄ associated with P (6). Ρ is not certainly
attested in the fragment,
though a possible reading in lines 4 and 6. The only melism is marked
with dicolon and diseme
(2). Stigmai are for once used clearly and consistently, marking out trochaic
metra on the pattern
~u-x. This is the converse arrangement to that recognized by Aristides
ῥ χ Quintilianus, who states
that the first half of the trochaic metron was the thesis and the second half the
It Ζ [ τ —- ¥ arsis.!
The word ἐξέπεμψε (6) is set with its accented syllable on the highest
1 Je te O a I 1 Je - te OL-a-of note, and so too is
παραῦυτά (4) if accented oxytone rather than proparoxytone. In the case
of twv (2), similarly,
accent and melody can be in agreement only if it is oxytone, 1.6. the end
of a word such as κοι-
10 2] O 1 ΞΕ ΞΞΞΞΞΕΈΞΕΞΞΈΞΞΞΡ
μι t

τών.
2 1. τῶν vo &f 8.2 1. τῶν vo - Ef

mM i Gd Mf oe =
—— ' Arist. Quint. 1. 17 (p. 38.4 W.-L.). Similar inconsistencies occur with the
in the iambic and paeonic metres: West 2 (1992), 137 n. 21, 140.
ancient orderings of thesis and arsis
3 lo tne πο θενῖ ὁ Jo me xo- Gevl

4)
μὲ
πα pav ta
Zt
καλ[
_—————
<= f pt} t
4 ἣν πα - ραῦ - τὰ KaAL-A
JE —E E—E EE €E f{
5 Inp yap ov «xv ρι οὔ vf oe f — ΞΈΞΞΞΞΞ ἄξξξξθ vot
$ Rad τ al x. ~ on oe

ii ἢ ;
imi ὁ- ¢2 ὁ 5 πατ]ὴρ
ρ yap οὐ Kv-pet covi
᾿
6 loc e be wep wel Ξpa f2 ———
= a aes =
ἸΣΤΠΖΣΜ [ 6 Joc ἐ - ξέ- πεμ - wel
7 ley al πον —,
ce 1, ἐν δί

NB: Haslam = Haslam 2 (1976).

Notation 2]Oorj®Haslam,69 4]!or®orP Haslam, 69 6 ὦ rather than P Haslam, 69.

Text 1dylete Siaclove. g. Haslam, 69 2 in view of the spacing e. g. νύξ[ε or voélt, not νύξ West 3 ὁ δεο-
π]ότης πόθεν or better γένοιτ]ο τῆς ποθ᾽ ἕνίεκα e.g. Kannicht (1981),280 5 πατ]ὴρ or μήτίηρ and κυρεῖ for
itacistic κυρῖ Haslam, 69 ουν[ηγόρου e. g. West.

This fragment was published by M. W. Haslam together with the preceding items.’ Text and
notation are written by the same hand, which is dated to the mid third century. As in some other
musical texts,” the syllables are spaced out, the accompanying note being written above the last
letter. The nature of the text is unclear.

‘ Haslam 2 (1976), 67-72 with pl. VI. Cf. Mathiesen (1981), 20 with fig. 4; Kannicht (1981), 280 (F 686, text
only).
2 Cf. nos. 8, 17/18, 42/43, 46, and 50.
 Ι
184 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period
|| No. 56 PAP. OXY. 3705 185

No. 56 PAP. OXY. 3705 Third century AD | different styles.’ M. Huys finally put the matter on a new and wholly unexpected
footing by
| identifying the verse as a line from Menander, Perikeiromene 796 It comes
from the dialogue
between Pataecus and Glycera in which he discovers that she is his daughter. He
|
is asking her
MENANDER, Perikeiromene 796 what her foster-mother had told her of the place where she had found her; it
| turns out to corre-
spond to the place where his baby twins had been exposed. His question in 796
| may therefore
have had an emotional tone.
\
The notation is Lydian, with an admixture of Hypolydian in 2 and 4. It
1 b ΖΓ! Ζ ΜΙ ᾿ J
|
makes use of the pe-
culiar and still unexplained note-symbol |, found also in nos. 45 i 7, ἃ 4, and
τοῦ δὴ τόπου τί μν[ημόνευμά cor λέγει 49 i 4 (all Lydian
| or Hypolydian). Apart from this, the notes represented are the Lydian C PMIZU (α
δ, ς᾽ α΄ ε΄
| 51 with the Hypolydian by-way O 5 (δ, c’) as an alternative to P M. If there was any
2 ML ZI ΜΖ Iz 0! z0[ difference
| in pitch between M and 2, we cannot determine what it was; in 2, at any
rate, the switch from M
τοῦ δὴ τόπου τί μνίημόνευμά cor λέγει | to Z is sufficiently accounted for by the progression to O, though in 4 some other factor
| must be
involved.
3 M PM OP Cf | Each version has either one note per syllable (1, 3) or two (2, 4). In 4 the second
τοῦ δὴ τόπου τί μνηϊμόνευμά cor λέγει | note of each
pair is an anticipation of the first note of the next. Each version except 1 starts on the
| same note;
| all except 3 have a similar melodic contour, related to the word accents. The exception
4 ML LZ Zb b2 Ξ| is a sur-
᾿ prising one, with the unaccented second syllable of τόπου assigned a note a third higher
[τοῦ δὴ τόπου τί μνημόνευμά cor λέγει] than
| any other in the fragment,’ and the interrogative ti set relatively low. As in other pieces
ti(c)
i tends to be set notably high,* we are tempted to suspect that a mistake has been made
| and that
the Ὁ should have stood over the tt.
1 We should not have expected iambic dialogue of Menander to be set to music, even though
| this appears sometimes to have been done with tragic dialogue in the Roman period. If we
| had
| found a continuous piece of Menandrian dialogue with musical notation, we should
have been

||
δ “ι. obliged to believe it. What this papyrus offers, however, is clearly something
different. It seems
possible that the intention was to illustrate different ways in which an actor might
speak the
ϑ
2 verse, the musical notation being used in an attempt to describe speech intonations. Apart
| from
the one instance of Ὁ, which we have suggested may have belonged to the interrogative τί,
co ft Ι the
i - ~— 2 a notes are confined within the compass of a fifth; it will be recalled that Dionysius
iϑ ἱ ὶ 7 Ϊ i of Halicarnas-
| sus gives this as the interval by which the melody of speech is measured.5
3
δ “, Ζ “>
Ι
ee |
( τ West 2 (1992), 324.
8
4 τοῦ
ν᾿
δὴ
,
τό - που
,
τὶ
, , [2
μν[ημόνευμά cor λέγει;
.
I 2 Hnys (1993), 30-2.
i ° Haslam’s reading of the note as U seems to be correct. It is written in a similar way in no. 53.
| * Nos. 4. 9; 6 fr. 45. 3; 42. 2, 8: 53 fr. 1. 6.
| ° Dion. Hal. Comp, 58-9 διαλέκτου μὲν οὖν pédoc ἑνὶ μετρεῖται διαοτήματι τῶι λεγομένωι
διὰ πέντε ὡς
It is doubtful whether this should be classified as a musical text, but it is in any case of some | ἔγγιστα, καὶ οὔτε ἐπιτείνεται πέρα τῶν τριῶν τόνων καὶ ἡμιτονίου ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξὺ οὔτ᾽ ἀνίεται
τοῦ χωρίου
interest. The same iambic trimeter' is written out four times (perhaps more in the original) with | τούτου πλέον ἐπὶ τὸ βαρύ.
different intonations. The first editor, M. W. Haslam, hesitantly suggested a liturgical purpose, ;
while A. Bélis saw it as a model exercise by a teacher of melography who incorporated in each
|
line a deliberate technical error, so that his students should see what not to do.? M. L. West made ᾿
another transcription, with the suggestion that the alternative settings were designed to illustrate |
|
|
' Although nothing is left of the fourth line of text, the similarity of the note-placings and of the melodic line to |
those preceding makes it very probable that it was indeed the same verse. |
2 Haslam 2 (1986), 47 f.; Bélis (1988), 53-63; cf. Haslam (1988), 139 f. |
|
|

5»
186 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period No. 57 PAP. OXY. 4466 187

No. 57 PAP. OXY. 4466 Third century AD birth of Apollo, or, according to an attractive suggestion by John Rea,
a hymn to the Nile, refer-
ring in line 1 to the rising of Sirius.
The notation is Lydian; the compass extends from F to ξ΄ or (if A is correct
in 7) to bs’. The
tonal centre appears to be a. There is—again, if A is correct—a downward
octave leap in 7, and
if δαιμόνων is preferred to δαῖμον ovl, it is a leap contrary to the accent.
§— 4 | -ΞΞΞῈ-Ξ Melody and accent
CC OC SSS SS agree in 1, 3, 4, 5; whether they do so in 2 depends on the interpreta
tion of (-)terpea(c).
1 vocaxtel 1 -voe ἀκ - τί[ς Short syllables are divided between two notes in 4 and 6. But this is as nothing
compared with
ae “NB the spectacular melism on (-)teipea(c) in 2, where tet- is distribute
d over six notes and pe- over
three, the voice tumbling down a whole octave in the course of singing
EYLee six-note group is divided three and three by the double point.
these two syllables. The
2 τειρεαοξ [ 2 ter - pe- ace [

ἐς Τί SSS
3 Kactoyol ὁ 3 καὶ οτα
- yolv
Ss 3 FS} - τι
® C:cPCL SS
4 atpvyetovl 4 ἀτ- ρυ- yé- tovl
6 4 λ
OI 2M { a
5 εβλύυσενβί 5 EB- Av-cev Bl
Ξ:- ἘΞΞ- -ὰ
[IP PEL ἘΞ —
6 ) poceray[ 6 - ρος ἐπ᾽ ay
ρ. 6 ~
7
Poe ot
Satpovi levi
5.7 ὅδαι-
ΞΞΞΞ-Ξ
μό-γῳνϊ

2 1 ILI If
Notation 2 Two diagonal lines rising from τειρεαο, one starting above the first ε, the other above a, divide the
mass of note-symbols into three groups, corresponding to the three syllables. The readings in the first group are
uncertain apart from the double point and the ΡΟ 7 First, possibly ἃ ?: possibly ©.

Text 1 dxtilc or ἀκτῖ[ν-, preceded e.g. by “Ymepiolvoc or (J. Rea) Κυϊνὸς 2 Most likely teipec or -te1-
péa(c) (ἀτειρέαο, noAvterpéac) 8 καὶ οταγὼϊν 4 ἀτρυγέτου SéBAvcev 7 δαιμόνων rather than δαι-
μον[]ὼν 5-7 e.g. βΙαθυχαίταο δ᾽ ἔκθορε κοῦ]ρος ἐπ᾽ ἀγίλαὰν χθόνα,] δαιμόνων [δὲ πᾶς Laxncev χορός
(West); or 7 δαῖμον 6 ΝΙεῖλε3 (Rea).

First published by M. L. West;' see there for photograph and more detailed notes on the text.
The fragment seems to be hymnic in character; it might have been a paean, with mention of the

' West (1998), 98 £

188 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period No. 58 PAP. OXY. 4467 189

Third century AD Notation 271 might also be taken for Z 32: like ! with the remains of a small circle at top left
No. 58 PAP. OXY. 4467 SThe 7 un-
certain 6 TX: less likely TK.

Text lovAiov? 2 The melism over λυΐ implies a long syllable; -που AD- slightly more probable than a com-
pound in xovav- 4Ἅ4-ῶὧν ἀπὸ γίαϊΐηοῦ The melodic line, however, might favour anxoyl δ χερῶν seems likely
J] {Ci
6 “Og]iovoc, ‘Ynepliovoc? T7évBvOoic 8 tar ἐν ὕδατίι, or ὑδατίόεντι βερέθρωι, or something of the
1 J ov] τουχί sort 9 Dative adjective ... Ἰόλοντο θαϊνάτωι, or ἐν δίναις ἀπ]όλοντο θαίλάοσοηοῦ 10 Probably τὸ οχοινίον.
a
1ΠΠἼΠΤΧΙ = : SS
2 Ἱποῇυλυϊ 2 Jnov λυΐ First published by Μ. L. West;' see there for photograph and more detailed notes on the text.
Lyric, perhaps mythological in content. Three lines (1, 10-11) are without musical notation; 10
ptf 0... is separated from 9 by a wider gap than normal, and may represent the beginning of a separate
1. 2AX[ — text. The same perhaps applies to 1, unless it is the first line of the column.
3 Ἰ, ποντί 3 1πὸν τί The notation-key is Hypoionian, which is uncommon. The notes extend from e to Ji’; the
ρ ἐκ .-« melody seems to move mainly in the lower part of this range, up to ὁ. f# seems to be a tonal
HZAZ i centre. If 9 is read as Ἰόλοντο, the melody moves against the accent in that verse.
4 Ἰ. ὠναπογί 4 ]ev ἀ- πὸ Υ] The hyphen is used for melisms in 2 and 6. Use of the diseme and stigme appears sporadic.
The leimmata with stigme in 3 and 7 signify prolongation of the preceding note to triseme value,
ὁ ἐντὶ -- τ ,
as for example at nos. 27. 7, 9, 14, 18, 19, 22; 28. 3, 10, 13 and 38 ii 6-8.
1. T2777 an
5 Ἰιλήοχερὼ [ 5. 71ιλης χε - pdyl
᾿ Bah 9. κΚ τ ph 1 West (1998), 99-102.

ΤΡ ptt ὁ ς Κ +

7 ye mee 7 ἴεν Bv- θοῖο ef

ἐνβυθοιοε

IX TC OC X[ ci 8 rar ἐν ὕ- δα-τίι
8 Ἰταιενῦδατί pat

ae SS
JOKKOf Ὡς 7ο- λον τὸ θᾳῖ
9 Τολοντοθᾳΐ we

j [ ἐπ Jef
10 J οὐχοινιον [

11 Ἰθενδιηνποί

ἸΊΧΟΧΙ
12 Jel
 190 IV, Fragments from the Roman Period No. 59 PAP, OXY. 1786 19]

No. 59 PAP. OXY. 1786 Third~fourth century AD

= ===

Tl
1 μέλπωμεν ὁ -μοῦ πᾷ - carte θεοῦ
[ 127779? 299 fj ΕΖ inFY i tΤ iΤΥ
1 [-3l-Jopovnacartedeon " tiat c

λό - γι- pou Sel

FE Jet
[ ]
λογιμοιδεῖ!} Claerv..ivl.. J ye
— i
f 5
| er HF
es ee oa ee ee ee | 4

2 Sh ~ tS
- ὦ —

[ } 72 ΤΣ δφόφηφZi ἴ oO aa ya
—{j——h
ra
ee
Τ
2 [-28-] vtav ἢ ὦ CLYATO ΤΤ

Abt
‘4 τ

na
3)
μηδ᾽ dic - τρὰ φα- EC - φό - pa xl. Ge -
zztiioy qt of
undactpagaecpopaxl, Ite ee : ——= fe
=‘ :: t ——s——+
ΞΘ ἘΞΞΞΞΞΩ =
3 [οθων, ἐ[κ]λειπίόντων] plizai πνοιῶν, πηγαὶ] πο - τὰ - μῶν
{ ἸΖ i :ZE εξ 7S
f
3 []}θῶν [real Ip --13-lrotapov
πᾶ - car ὑμ- νούν - τῶν δ᾽ ἡ- μῶν
iNn® ΞΖ] Φιξ R | εῶεξ:- -- -Ξ ᾿ a
pF 7 -f - - -Ἐ-ἘΞ 1 a -ΞἘ-Ξ-
Ε ΈΞΕΞΞΕΞΞΡΞ ee πε
υμνουντωνδημῶν ἰ
et 53:
ΞΡ ἘΞ =ἘΞΕΞΞ . —_— ἘΞ |--Ξ
4 [nla
; τς Ἶ ι.- a = rt
- τέ - pa χυι-ὸν χἄ-γι -ὄν πνεῦ -μα πᾶ- car δυνάτμεις
[1 ὁ Φοκ oc 692:7 ZAW S02? ὁ | $—
2 ae ra ra rd oo?
Kes ——— τ - π΄ - α iNΙΝ

4 [πὶᾷτερα χυιον χαγιονπγεῦμα παφςαιδυναμεις 2 7 t — a ΕΞΕΞΞΕΞΞΕΞΞΈΞΞΕΞ

St ΕΞΞ---
fF Καὶ -σ-Ξ- Ὁ
ἐ- πι- φῶ - vobv- τῶν ἀ - μὴν ἃ - μήν. κρά-τοο ai - voc
i
οο O01 jf ZiEz
Zi lz 2 2% ξ ὁ | κ.ῇ--
bt .—F—
τι
ἘΠῚ t
N ᾿}
επιφωνούντων αμην αμην κρατοσαινος t eet ee ——s
{5 ΤῈ
κ΄ α΄ oa
oe ee Ἔν » ΓΣ
Ξ ——
Ἂν t
Ξ-
i
— v Lé
5 [ἀ- εἰ καὶ δό - ἔα θε- 6] Slo - tii-
] [pul μό - vor
Ϊ ..β- fo poe
7 RE 1: OCRO C:COzZ ZIZi 1 0z¢ ΕΚ ——
ἘΞΙ
—
πρ
ΞΕ - ἘΞ Ρ -Φ-
᾿ΞΞΞΕΞ-
Se -ν 9
———
Ε΄! - ΕΞ ΚΞ’ -- 5
ἘΞΞΞΕΞΗ͂
ΞΞ Ξ- ΞΕ

|I
----.: 4 —
168 loti nip pover πᾶν - τῶν α- Ya - θῶν a - μην
C
- μῆν

! Text τδε[] (Jovy West,o.0.. 1. Jepl,... Hunt (1922),24 2 πρ]υτανήῳ or jv τὰν ἠῶ Hunt (1922), 24
Notation
| Ε, [ob τὰν δείλαν ο]ὐ τὰν ἠῶ Reinach (1922), 13, οὐ νύκτα υ-, ο]ὺ τὰν ἠῶ West, [ἔχει ἀντ οὐρανίων ἁγίου
1? ? Péhlmann (1970), 106, perhaps twice a hyphen Wagner (1924), 202 ??West 2 TE Wagner | πρ]υτάνεω Del Grande (1923), 174, [ἔχει πρὸς ἐπουρανίων ἁγίῳ οελάων πρ]υτανήῳ Pighi (1941),
214 f.
(1924), 202, 208-9, 2 Hunt (1922), 24 rox) ζφ West, O® co Hunt (1922), 24 3:02 Wagner (1924), 203, : 1 i
Hunt (1922), 24 Z| Hunt (1922), 24, ΖῚ Wagner (1924), 208 f. 40 West, C Hunt (1922), 24 ΦΖ Hunt |
(1922), 24, D Z Wagner (1924), 208 f. : 2? West, 1? Hunt (1922),24 |
ἢ ΖΦ pap. explained as ἢ Z ® © by
|
Winnington-Ingram (1955), 81? West, 5 Hunt (1922), 24, O Wagner (1924), 203 | Wagner (1924), 203, |
Ὁ Hunt (1922), 24 20 Wagner (1924), 203, ZO Péhimann (1970), 106, © Hunt (1922),24 5? R { ] West, Ὁ δίωτ)ῆϊρι) μόνῳ Hunt (1922), 24 £., [δόξ᾽ εἰς αἰεὶ βαοιλῆι θεῷ] Reinach (1922), 16, «κ»αῖνος [δόξα τε θεῷ]
R © Wagner (1924), 204, :€ © Hunt (1922), 24,
|} Del Grande (1923), 174, [νῦν xeic αἰῶναο. ἀμὴν ἀμήν Wagner (1924), 208.

4
 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period No. 59 PAP. OXY. 1786 193
192

; The parallels with Synesius lead us to expect anapaestic systems. The arsis-pointing is
The papyrus, published by A. S. Hunt and H. S. Jones in 1922, gives us five lines from a con-
sistent with this assumption, maintaining the pattern UU- or ~- down to 4 πνεῦμα. One ex-
Christian hymn to the Trinity, written around the end of the third century AD on the verso of a
traordinary feature is the appearance in two places of acephalic anapaestic metra,! marked by a
list of grain deliveries from the first half of the century.' It is oriented at right angles to the recto
diseme leimma (2 ἢ οιγάτω, 3 N ὑμνούντων). Another is the scansion of πατέρα χυϊὸν
text, using the height of the original sheet to accommodate lines whose length, approximately 30
χάγιον πνεῦμα (4) as four anapaests, Procrustean prosody imposed on the poet by the need to
cm., is exceptional even for a music manuscript.’ The right-hand margin is preserved. The left
use the doxological formula.’
half of the first three lines is lost, but the fourth line is complete save for one letter. From the
The remaining section, from 4 πᾶσαι, is also to be scanned as anapaests, But here, as Rein-
beginning of the fifth line only the notation remains. This was the last line of the hymn, as is
ach and Pighi saw, the pointing has suffered a displacement by one position, from arsis to thesis,
shown by a gap after the final word equivalent to about eight syllables.
so that UU~ is written instead of UU-.? Winnington-Ingram found the explanation.’ The leimma
The notation is Hypolydian, using the notes Βὶ (92, Φ (g), C (a), O (0), Z (ce), | @), Z (€), E
before πᾶσαι, though marked as diseme, must in fact be taken as tetraseme in order to maintain
(Γ 5), and the rhythmical symbols macron (diseme), leimma + macron, stigme, hyphen, and co-
the anapaestic rhythm; it should have been written N. But the scribe continued his pointing series
lon.
mechanically forward on the assumption that it was a diseme, thus throwin: everything out of
Numerous scholars have contributed to the restoration of the gaps in the text and to the metri-
phase.
cal and rhythmical analysis of the hymn. Wilamowitz identified the metre as anapaestic, despite ° see
Pighi’s supplement in line 3 created another difficulty: it suited the available space, but gave
certain irregularities, and pointed to a parallel for the content in Mesomedes.? W. Crénert ob-
an anapaest too few, forcing Pighi to postulate an additional tetraseme pause before qi ὑμ-
served the hymn’s close affinity with Synesius.* In his hymns too the world falls silent for the
νούντων.ἢ The alternative supplement ἐ[κ]λειπίἝόντων] ῥ[ιπαὶ πνοιῶν, πηγαὶ] notapév®
praising of God,’ a motif also found in nos. 21 and 26. Several attempts at supplementation on
avoids this unattractive shift, while incorporating the cessation of the winds as a further charac-
this basis came from C. Del Grande.® H. Abert assessed the importance of the discovery for the
history of church music.’ Th. Reinach endeavoured to advance understanding of the text by res- teristic element of the cosmic stillness topos.’
In line 5, above the initial lacuna in the text, there are musical notes corresponding to three
toration.® R. Wagner, with Hunt’s help, checked the readings of the original edition and was able
anapaests. We expect formulae from the doxology that starts in line 4. Of the supplements pro-
to improve on them in some places.’ His hypothesis that the central part of the hymn, from
οιγάτω (2) to πνεῦμα (4), was dactylic, was refuted by K. Miinscher and N. Terzaghi.’® G. B.
posed, only Pighi’s aivoc [ἀεὶ καὶ δόξα θεῶι} fits the rhythmic pattern presupposed by the
notation.
Pighi followed Del Grande’s supplements and arrived at a metrical scheme that avoided the
Restorations of the long lacuna at the beginning are divided over the interpretation of 2
change from anapaests to dactyls and back again.'' E. J. Wellesz attempted to separate the hymn
Jutavne. Reinach, assuming that the hymn should have a Doric dialect colouring
from all other documents of Greek music, deriving it from Jewish or Syriac hymnody and fin- similar to that
of Synesius’ anapaestic hymns (he read παγαίΐ for πᾶσαι in 3), ingeniously supplemented od
ding connections with early Byzantine hymns.'’? R. P. Winnington-Ingram put the metrical-
rhythmical interpretation of the piece on a firm footing and, against Wellesz, stressed the close τὰν dethav, old τὰν ἠῶ. One must then punctuate after ἠῷ and suppose that the subject of
cryat is understood from something preceding. To connect it with what follows (‘Nor let the
kinship between its notational technique and that of the Greek music fragments.'* M. L. West has
stars be silent ...”) would be stylistically awkward, and it would mean rejecting the motif of the
shown that the text and the melody too can be fully accounted for from Hellenic models.'* He
has recollated the papyrus for the present edition.” cosmic stillness in favour of a universal chorus, which apart from anything else would weaken
the antithesis in ὑμνούντων δ᾽ ἡμῶν. The point is that the praises of God by the faithful will ring
' Hunt (1922). out amid the rapt silence of the cosmos, and the Heavenly Host? will chime in with the doxology
2 On column-widths in musical texts see Johnson 1 (2000), 66-8. Hunt, on the other hand, though with some misgivings, assumed πρ]υτανήῳ, written for
3 Wilamowitz (1922); Mesomedes (no. 26). πρΙυτανείωι." As Synesius calls God &ctpev πρύτανιο, one might admit πρυτανεῖον with the
4 Crénert (1922), 398.
5 Synes. Hymn. 1 (3) 72-94 εὐφαμείτω αἰθὴρ καὶ γᾶ ... ἱερευομένων ἁγίων ὕμνων, 2 (4) 28-50 γᾷ οιγάτω
ἐπὶ cotc buvore, cf. Mensching (1926); West 1 (1992), 48-50.
6 Del Grande (1923), (1931), 450-5, (1960), 469-72. ' Recognized by Pighi (1941), 207.
7 Abert (1921), (1926). 2 Cf West 1 (1992), 51.
> Reinach (1922), 22 f.
® Reinach (1922).
9 Wagner (1924). * Winnington-Ingram (1955), 80 f,, 84 £
'© Miinscher (1925), Terzaghi (1925). 5 Pighi (1941), 215.
π Pighi (1941). A text of the hymn with Pighi’s supplements, but without the musical notation, is printed by ; ct sues. i ® ne eck] Prom. 88 £.; Soph. Ant. 137.
Heitsch (1961), 159 f. see ney snes
ἢ 65. af Ὁ) 78 oe , 2 (4) 38; Orph. . Arg. 4 1008; ; Lucian
(4) 38; i Podagra 129; ; Aristoph.
Ari Thesm. 43; 5 Eur. Ba. 1084; :
12 Wellesz (1945), (1962), 152-6.
13 Winnington-Ingram (1955), 75, 80 f,, 84 f,, 86 ἢ. 5 Reinach (1922), 13. In fact parallels in Synesius (1. 345; 2. 5; 3. 21; 5. ἠώ x
4 West 1 (1992), 47-54. stand for ‘day’ and that the complementary term should te νύξ, e.g. οὐ νύκτα 2 ofa na, "We (or Ge) should
15 Bor the musicological literature B. Stablein’s comprehensive bibliography of the hymn up to 1955 is to be 5 Cf. above, p. 192 n. 5.
consulted: cf. Stablein (1955), 1057, 1062. ΄ '° Hunt (1922), 25.
194 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period No. 60 PAP. MS. SCHOYEN 2260 | 195

metaphorical sense of ‘centre, chief place’;' a city’s prytaneum contained its sacred fire-hearth.” No. 60 PAP. MS. SCH@YEN 2260 Third-fourth century AD
However, the double false quantity is highly suspect (especially in view of Synesius’ correctly
scanned mptavic).’ The articulation Jv ταν na is also favoured by the spacing between these
letter-groups in the papyrus, which is lexical spacing, not syllabic. Neither restoration yields a
proper correspondence of melody and accent, though there are clear examples of divergence
elsewhere in the hymn: 3 ποταμῶν, πᾶσαι (if not παγαΐ), ἡμῶν, 4 ἅγιον, ἀμήν, 5 ἀγαθῶν,
ἀμήν. If these difficulties could be overlooked, a supplement such as Pighi’s [ὅσα κόομος | ἔχει ρ ἢ as
πρὸο ἐπουρανίων ἁγίῳ οελάων π]ρυτανείῳ οιγάτω might have some chance of hitting the } 5 Ὁ ΞΈξΞΞΞΞ Ξ Ξ ΕΞ ΞΕ
sense of the original, if not its wording. The same holds good for E. Péhimann’s anapaestic 1 hpovecavl 1 Ἰυρον - ave
cento’ for the lost beginning: [C& πάτερ κόομων, πάτερ αἰώνων" μέλπωμεν] dpod.’ _ $$ i i> f.
] AD 08 OT ΞΕ ΞΕ :
2. Ἰνονδολογί Ὅ2 ρον δό- λον!
' Synes. 1 (3) 34, cf. 2 (4) 181 νόου πρύτανισ; Plat. Prot. 337d αὐτὸ τὸ πρυτανεῖον τῆς copiac (of Athens),
cf. Theopomp. FGrHist 115 F 281; Aristid. Or. 13. 179.
? Sch. Pind. Nem. 11. 1. Wagner (1924), 218 τι. 34, cited Didym. Alex. (39. 5890 Migne), who compares πρυ- oO Oog τ
τανεῖα with εὐκτήρια, houses of prayer. 3 Jaxovodel
3 Ἰα- χον ὁ δεῖ
3 If the poet wrote πρυτανήῳ, it might be preferable to suppose that he scanned it normally and that this was a
catalectic line, with an additional pause to the one marked before οιγάτω. The double notes above the first two
4
JZ DAI
—
=p} — yp «( ο-
syllables would still be possible in this text, but the diseme signs would be an error of the scribe. ———— Ρ
* Pighi (1941), 214; Synes. 2 (4) 32 f. εὐφαμείτω dco Kdcpoc ἔχει. 4 3
5 Péhimann (1970), 106 f.
§ Synes.-1 (3), 266 f. FIG. 18: Pap. MS. Schayen 2260
7 Clemens Alex. Paed. 3. 101. 3, line 59.

Notation 12:perhapsO[ 4 }Z or jz All rather than AZ{.

Text 1 ἑαυϊτούο or -&c? 2 Jy rather than Jp; e.g. ἤρτ]υον 3 εἰ rather than φί.

This fragment, formerly in the Issa Marogi Collection in Jerusalem, was acquired by Mr
Martin Schgyen for his manuscript collection in 1996.' It is to be published by Rosario Pintaudi
in a volume of Schayen papyri. Meanwhile Mr Schayen has kindly given permission for us to in-
clude it in our corpus.
There is little clue as to the nature of the poetic text apart from what look like narrative ten-
we ses. The notation is Hyperionian. The preserved notes extend over just an octave: OZ1ZAU@
Ο΄ (ὁ ς΄ α΄ ε΄ f#’ ε΄ a’ b’), Even within its brief compass the fragment shows clear signs of the
florid style: short syllables are divided between two notes in 1 and 2, and there was a three-note
melism in 4. δόλον in 2, if rightly read as a complete word,’ is against the accent.

' See ,,The Schayen Collection“ at www.schoyen-net.

2 δολομί (e.g. δολόμ[ητιο) may also be a possible reading.
-------
»
196 IV. Fragments from the Roman Period No. 61 PAP. MICH. INV. 1250 197

No. 61 PAP. MICH. INV. 1250 First to third century AD from the Lydian systems but with modulation into Hypophrygian in the last line. The diagram
below shows the relationship of the different tetrachords used, with the shared notes that facili-
tated modulation from one to another. (Notes not attested in the fragment are bracketed.)

1 721 21 Hypolydian K s“ <

1 23
δ ¢ a@&
0 ——— Fhe heh te tt.
2 Mm“ 27 W<KH277E
OC? {ΞΞ- : =
Lydian F ¢C oO 17 < EC U Zu
1234 5678 2
g4 ὃ (c’) Af ff gia
o wee > — π-- παν
3 Kx“: «}0} ἢ ὧμ.«Ε-ἰ ἘΞ ΕΞΞΞΈΞΡ ΕΓ ἘΞ a a
Hypophrygian HF 1 "ΘΕ ς ὦ < V N Ζ WU Hyperlydian
12345 678910 ὃς ἢ
ῶ ὦ f g ai δ te ff ga
ae Pa
4 νμν «ΖΕ: Z[ ee a a -α-- τ βο πε διa
1234567891011 Ἐ Γ᾿ The notes in line 2 are Lydian; line 3 begins in Hypolydian, but after the short lacuna is back
in Lydian; line 4 begins in Hyperlydian and modulates into Lydian, the sixth and seventh notes
5 «μος FRI Ὁ = i SS ΞΞΕΞΊΞΕΙΞΙ being common to both scales; line 5 begins in Lydian and can be read as Lydian as far as note 8,
12345678910 1] SS SSS but the two lower notes that follow are Phrygian/Hypophrygian, and in fact notes 5-8 are com-
mon to Lydian and Hypophrygian.
The distribution of stigmai, together with the occasional dicolon (3. 3) and diseme (5. 3, 5),
permits a clear analysis of the rhythm.’ It is in triple time, with a single-note thesis and a two-
Notation 2.7 perhapsaleimma 2.8 1? note arsis. The space after 5. 10 suggests the end of a ‘line’ of music on the thesis-note. There
are usually three notes to the bar (ὁ ὁ .b), but we also encounter J] ὁ ὁ (3. 3-5, 4. 10-11) and J
+ (5. 34 and 5-6, approaching the end of the ‘line’).

This is one of a group of papyrus fragments acquired by the Michigan Library in 1922 from
Sir William Flinders Petrie. It has a demotic text (apparently an account) on the back, and was ὁ Johnson 2 (2000).
itself put down as ‘demotic?’ until in 1998 Paul Heilporn recognized it as Greek instrumental
music. Its publication is due to W. A. Johnson, to whom we are grateful for making it, and his
treatment of it, available to us at an early stage.' The papymus is available on the internet.”
The fragment comes from the foot of what was probably the first column of a roll. Johnson
estimates that perhaps between seven and thirteen lines may be missing above, while noting that
these need not all have been devoted to instrumental music; we know from the Vienna and Ber-
lin papyri (nos. 15/16, 17/18, 50-2) that vocal and instrumental pieces may alternate on the same
page. The column may have been considerably wider than the 8 cm. portion preserved.’ No
closer dating of the papyrus than ‘first to third century’ is possible, as neither the instrumental
notation nor the demotic text on the other side affords a palaeographic foothold.
The piece uses a wide range of notes, fourteen in all, with a total compass of one and a half
octaves. It was clearly written for a sophisticated instrument, whether an elaborate aulos or a
many-stringed cithara (or harp), and a professional performer.’ The note-symbols are mostly

' Johnson 2 (2000); forthcoming.

2 ftp://ftp.hti.umich.edu/staff/sooty/
35 See Johnson 1 (2000), 66-8, for the great width of columns in musical papyri.
* Johnson 2 (2000).
 ABBREVIATIONS 199

ABBREVIATIONS Die Musikforschung.

Nachrichten der Gesellschaft der Wissenschafien zu G6éttingen, Phil.-
Hist. Klasse.
L’Antiquité Classique. Néoc ᾿Ελληνομνήμων, Athens.
"Apyaosoyixy ‘Evnyepic, Athens. Neue Jahrbiicher fiir Antike und deutsche Bildung.
Archiv fiir Musikforschung. Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, ed. W. Dittenberger, Leipzig
Archiv fiir Musikwissenschaft. 1903-5.
Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu G6ttingen. Poetae Comici Graeci, edd. R. Kassel and C. Austin.
American Journal of Philology. Poetae Melici Graeci, ed. D. L. Page, Oxford 1962.
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts, Athenische Ab- The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, edd. B. P. Grenfell, A. 8. Hunt, E. Lobel et al.
teilung. Revue Archéologique.
Acta Musicologica. Paulys Realencyclopidie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft.
Anthologia Palatina. Revue des Etudes Grecques.
Beazley, J. D., Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters, 2nd ed., Oxford 1963. Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica.
Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists. Religionsgeschichiliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten.
Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique. Répertoire International des Sources Musicales XI: Ancient Greek Music
Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London. Theory. A Catalogue Raisonné of Manuscripts by Th. J. Mathiesen, Mu-
Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift. nich 1988.
Bursian Jahresberichte iiber die Fortschritte der klassischen Altertumswissen- RAM Rheinisches Museum.
schaft, begr. von K. Bursian. RIGI Rivista Indo-Greca Italica di Filologia, Lingua, Antichita.
ChrEg Chronique d’Egypte. RMI Rivista musicale Italiana.
Cem Classica et Mediaevalia. RMus Revue Musicale.
cQ Classical Quarterly. RPh Revue de Philologie.
CR Classical Review. SAWW Sitzungsberichte der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in
CRAI Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles- Wien, Phil.-Hist. Klasse.
Lettres. Schriften Kénigsberg Schriften der Kénigsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft, Geisteswissenschaft-
CVA Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. liche Klasse. ᾿
DLZ Deutsche Literaturzeitung. SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum.
EA Epigraphica Anatolica. SHAW Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-
FBSM Forschungen und Berichte, hrsg. von den Staatlichen Museen, Berlin. Hist. Klasse.
FdD Fouilles de Delphes. SO Symbolae Osloenses.
FGrHist Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, ed. F. Jacoby. SPAW Sitzungsberichte der PreuBischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Ber-
GrGr Grammatici Graeci, Leipzig 1878-1910, edd. R. Schneider et al. lin.
GRBS Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies. IrGF Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, edd. B. Snell, R. Kannicht, and Ste-
GrRF Grammaticae Romanae Fragmenta, ed. H. Funaioli, Leipzig 1907. fan Radt, Gottingen 1971 ff.
HbAW Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, begr. von. J. v. Miiller. VS Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, ed. H. Diels, Berlin 1922“.
IG Inscriptiones Graecae, Berlin 1873-1939; ed. minor 1913 ff. WIA Wiirzburger Jahrbiicher, Neue Folge.
JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. WS Wiener Studien.
JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies. ZfMWw Zeitschrift fiir Musikwissenschaft.
LZB Literarisches Zentralblatt. ZPE Zeitschrift fir Papyrologie und Epigraphik.
MGG Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Allgemeine Enzyklopddie der
Musik.
MPER Mitteilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer.
MPhL Museum Philologum Londiniense.
MSD Musicological Studies and Documents.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 201

BIBLIOGRAPHY Burette, P. J., “Dissertation sur la mélopée de l’ancienne musique’, Mémoires de littérature de
l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 7, 1731, 261-319.
Cemy, M. K., ‘Das zweite vertonte Fragment aus Euripides’, Listy filologické 109, 1986, 132—
BIBLIOGRAPHIES, CRITICAL SURVEYS 40.
Chailley, J., La musique grecque antique, Paris 1979.
Fellerer, G., ‘Zur Erforschung der antiken Musik im 16.-18. Jh.’, Peters-Jb. 42, 1936, 84 ff. Chantraine, P., [review of Winnington-Ingram (1955)] RPA 31, 1957, 113 f.
Buchholtz, H., Bursian 5, 11, 1877, 1-33 {1873-77}. Christ, W., Metrik der Griechen und Romer, Leipzig 1874, 71879.
Velke, W., Bursian 6, 15, 1878, 149-70 [1878]. Colin, M. G., see Reinach 1909-13.
Guhrauer, on Bursian 9, 28, 1881, 168-82 [1879/80]; 13, 44, 1885, 1-35 [1881-84]. — ‘L’auteur du deuxiéme hymne musical de Delphes’, CRAJ 1913, 529-32.
Jan, C. von, Bursian 28, 104, 1900, 1-75 [1884-99]. Comotti, G., “Words, Verse and Music in Euripides’ Iphigenia in Aulis’, MPAL 2, 1977, 69-84.
Graf, E., Bursian 31, 118, 1903, 212-35 [1899-1902]. — Music in Greek and Roman Culture, Baltimore and London 1989.
Abert, H., Bursian 37, 144, 1909, 1~74 [1903-08]; 48, 193, 1922, 1-59 [1909-21]. Cougny, E., [ed.] Epigrammatum Anthologia Palatina II, Paris 1890.
Fellerer, G., Bursian 61, 246, 1935 [1921-31]. Cronert, W., [review of POxy 15, 1922] LZB 73, 1922, 398-400, 424-27.
Winnington-Ingram, R. P., ‘Ancient Greek Music 1932-57’, Lustrum 3, 1958, 5-57. Crusius, O., ‘Ein Liederfragment auf einer antiken Statuenbasis’, Philologus 50, 1891, 163-72.
Mathiesen, Th. J., A Bibliography of Sources for the Study of Ancient Greek Music, Hacken- — ‘Zu neuentdeckten antiken Musikresten’, Philologus 52, 1893, 160-200.
sack/N. J. 1974 ( Music Indexes and Bibliographies, 10). — ‘Die delphischen Hymnen’, Philologus 53, 1894, Supplement.
Neubecker, A. J., ‘Altgriechische Musik 1958-86’, Lustrum 32, 1990, 99-296. Dain, A., Traité de métrique grecque, Paris 1965.
Poéhimann, E. (1995), 1627-31 [1932-94]. Dale, A. M., The Lyric Metres of Greek Drama, Cambridge 1948, 71968.
— [review of Winnington-Ingram (1955)}] JHS 77, 1957, 325 f.
Daux, G., Delphes au IF et au I” siécle depuis l’abaissement de l’Etolie jusqu’a la paix romaine,
MODERN AUTHORS CITED BY NAME AND YEAR ALONE Paris 1936.
Del Grande, C., ‘Inno cristiano antico’, RIGI 7, 1923, 173-9.
Abert, H., ‘Der neue griechische Papyrus mit Musiknoten’, A/MW 1, 1919, 313-28. — see Giani.
' — ‘Kin neuentdeckter frithchristlicher Hymnus mit antiken Musiknoten’, Z/MW 4, 1921, 524-9. — ‘Intorno ai papiri musicali scoperti in Egitto’, ChrEg 6, 1931, 441-55.
— ‘Das alteste Denkmal der christlichen Kirchenmusik’, Antike 2, 1926, 282-90. — Espressione musicale dei poeti greci, Naples 1932.
Akkeren, A. van, ‘Muziek van Euripides’, Hermeneus 55, 1983, 259-71. — ‘Nuovo frammento di musica greca in un papiro del Museo del Cairo’, Atti del IV Congresso
Amundsen, L., see Eitrem. internazionale di papirologia, Firenze 1935, Aegyptus Pubblicazioni, serie scientifica, 5,
Bélis, A., ‘Un nouveau document musical’, BCH 108, 1984, 99-109. 1936, 369-82.
— ‘Interpretation du Pap. Oxy. 3705’, ZPE 72, 1988, 53-63. — [ed.] Ditirambografi, Testimonianze e frammenti, Naples [1946].
— ‘Les deux hymnes delphiques ἃ Apollon’, in: Corpus des inscriptions de Delphes, vol. IU, —‘La metrica greca’, Enciclopedia classica Il vol. 5, fasc. 2, 133-513, Turin 1960.
Paris 1992. —— [review of Péhimann (1960)] RFIC 93, 3, 1965, 69-72.
— ‘Un Ajax et deux Timothée’, REG 111, 1998, 74~—100. Devine, A. M., Stephens, L. D., The Prosody of Greek Speech, Oxford 1994.
— Les musiciens dans l’antiquité, Paris 1999. Di Benedetto, V. [ed.] Euripidis Orestes, Florence 1965.
Bellermann, F., Die Hymnen des Dionysius und Mesomedes, Berlin 1840. Diehl, E., [ed.] Anthologia lyrica graeca Il, Leipzig 1925, 71942.
—[Ed.] Anonymi scriptio de musica, Bacchii senioris introductio artis musicae, Berlin 1841. Diggle, J., [ed.] Euripides Phaethon, Cambridge 1970.
Bergk, Th., [ed.] Anthologia Lyrica, Leipzig 71868. — {review of West (1982)], CR 34, 1984, 66~71.
Biehl, W., Textprobleme in Euripides Orestes, Gottingen 1955. -- “Notes on Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta vol. 2 (Adespota)’: Miscellanea Papyrologica
Bliimel, W., ‘Inschriften aus Karien I’, ΕΑ 25, 1995, 35-64. I, (Papyrologica Florentina, 19), Florence1990, 149 f.
Bonefas, S., ‘The Musical Inscription from Epidauros’, Hesperia 58, 1989, 51-62, pl. 14. Doutzaris, P., ‘La rythmique dans la poésie et la musique des grecs anciens’, REG 47, 1934,
Boswinkel, E., Pestman, P. W., Textes grecs, démotiques et bilingues, Papyrologica Lugduno- 297-345.
Batava 19, 1978, pl. 1. Diiring, I., [ed.] Die Harmonielehre des Klaudios Ptolemaios, Géteborgs Hégskolas Arsskrift 36,
Borthwick, E. K., [review of Winnington-Ingram (1955)] CR 6 (70), 1956, 211—13. 1930.
— ‘The Oxyrhynchos Musical Monody and Some Ancient Fertility Superstitions’, AJPh 84, — Ptolemaios und Porphyrios tiber die Musik, Géteborgs Hégsskolas Arsskrift 40, 1934.
1963, 225-43. Edgar, C. C., Catalogue général des Antiquités Egyptiennes du Musée du Caire 90, Zenon
Browning, R., [review of Heitsch 1963] CR 13 (77), 1963, 158-60. Papyri 4, Cairo 1931.
202 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY 203

Eitrem, S., Amundsen, L., Winnington-Ingram, R. P., ‘Fragments of Unknown Greek Tragic Papyrussammilung der Osterreichischen Nationalbibliothek’, WS 75, 1962, 51-78.
Texts with Musical Notation’, SO 31, 1955, 1-87 (pp. 1-29: The Text, by 5. BE. and L. A., pp. Hunt, A. S., Jones, H. S., ‘Christian Hymn with Musical Notation’, POxy
15, 1922, 21-5.
29-87: The Music, by R. P. W.-L). Huys, M., ‘P.Oxy. LIII 3705: A Line from Menander’s ‘Perikeiromene’ with Musical
Notation’ >
Fairbanks, A., A Study of the Greek Paean, Ithaca 1900. ZPE 99, 1993, 30-2.
Feaver, D. D., ‘The Musical Setting of Euripides’ Orestes’, AJPh 81, 1960, 1-15. Jammers, E., ‘Rhythmische und tonale Studien zur Musik der Antike und des Mittelalters’,
——‘A New Note, Omega, in the Orestes Papyrus?’, AJPh 99, 1978, 38-40. AMF 6, 1941, 94-115, 151-81.
Fell, J., [ed.] Arati Solensis phaenomena, Theonis scholia, Eratosthenis catasterismoi, alia, Jan, C. von, Jahresbericht: ‘Die griechische Musik II, Die Excerpte aus Aristoxenos’,
Philologus
Dionysii Hymni, accesserunt annotationes in hymnos Edmundi Chilmead, Oxford 1672. 30, 1871, 398-419.
Fischer, W., ‘Das Grablied des Seikilos, der einzige Zeuge des antiken weltlichen Liedes’, — ‘Die Handschriften der Hymnen des Mesomedes’, NJb 36 (60), 141, 1890, 679-88.
Amman-Festgabe 1, Innsbruck 1953, 153-65. — ‘Anonymi’ Nr. 5, RE 1, 1894, 2326 f.
Furtwingler, A., Hauser, F., Reichhold, K., Griechische Vasenmalerei, Munich vol. I, 1901, vol. — [ed.] Musici scriptores Graeci, Leipzig 1895, repr. Hildesheim 1962.
II, 1909, vol. IIE, 1932. —f[ed.] Musici scriptores Graeci, Supplementum, Melodiarum reliquiae, Leipzig 1899, repr.
Galilei, V., Dialogo della musica antica e moderna, Florence 1581, 71602. Hildesheim 1962.
Gardthausen, V., Griechische Palaeographie Il, Leipzig 71913. — [review of Reinach 2 (1896)] BPhW 17, 1897, 167-69.
Gentili, B., [review of POxy 25, 1959] Gnomon 33, 1961, 331-43. Immisch, O., Agatharchidea, SHAW7, 1919.
Gerstinger, H., ‘Bericht tiber den derzeitigen Stand der Arbeiten an den Papyrus Erzherzog Johnson, W. A., “Musical Evenings in the Early Empire: New Evidence from a Greek Papyrus
Rainer’, Atti del IV Congresso internazionale di papirologia, Firenze 1935, Aegyptus Pubbli- with Musical Notation’, JHS 120, 2000, 57-85: = Johnson 1 (2000).
cazioni, serie scientifica, 5, 1936, 305-12. — ‘A Michigan Papyrus with musical Notation’, BASP 37, 2000; forthcoming: = Johnson
2
Giani, R., Del Grande, C., ‘Relazione melodica di strofe e antistrofe nel coro greco’, RFIC 59, (2000).
1931, 185-206. Jones, H. S., see Hunt.
Gombosi, O. J., Tonarten und Stimmungen der antiken Musik, Copenhagen 1939. Jourdan-Hemmerdinger, D., ‘Un nouveau papyms musical d’Euripide (Présentation provisoire)’,
Gould, J., Lewis, D. M., see Pickard-Cambridge, A. W. (1968). CRAI 1973, 292-302.
Gronewald, M., ‘241. Anonymes Achilleus-Drama’, in: Kélner Papyri vol. 6 (Papyrologica . — ‘Le nouveau papyrus d’Euripide: Qu’ apporte-t-il 4 la théorie et A I’histoire de la musique?’ in:
Coloniensia, VII), Cologne—Opladen, 1987, 1-25. Les sources en musicologie, Paris 1981, 35-65.
Guarducci, M., Epigrafia Greca, Rome, vol. 1, 1967, vol. 2, 1969, vol. 3, 1974, vol. 4, 1978. Irigoin, J., Histoire du texte de Pindare, Paris 1952.
Hagel, S., Modulation in altgriechischer Musik. Antike Melodien im Licht antiker Musiktheorie, Kappel, L., Paian, Studien zur Geschichte einer Gattung, Berlin-New York 1992.
Frankfurt/M. et al. 2000. Kakridis, P. J., ‘Frauen im Kampf’, WS 77, 1964, 5-14. ᾿
Haslam, M. W., ‘Texts with Musical Notation’, POxy 44, 1976, 58-67, Pl. VI-VII: = Haslam 1 Kannicht, R., ‘Chartae Musicae’, in: TrGF 2, Gottingen 1981, 264-80 (= No. 678-86).
(1976). Koller, H., “Die Parodie’, Glotta 35, 1956, 17-32.
— ‘Text with Musical Notation’, POxy 44, 1976, 67-72, Pl. VI: = Haslam 2 (1976). — Musik und Dichtung im alten Griechenland, Berne—-Munich 1963.
— ‘Text with Musical Notation’, POxy 53, 1986, 41-7, Pl. IV, Vi: = Haslam 1 (1986). Koster, W. J. W., Traité de métrique grecque suivi d’un précis de métrique latine, Leiden 1936,
— ‘Text with Musical Notation’, POxy 53, 1986, 47 f., Pl. II: = Haslam 2 (1986). 1966.
—— ‘On POxy. 3705: A Clarification’, ZPE 75, 1988, 139 f. —— ‘De studiis recentibus ad rem metricam pertinentibus’, Mnemosyne Ser. IV, 3, 1950, 21-53,
Heichelheim, F. M., ‘A New Aeschylus Fragment?’, SO 34, 1958, 15-18. 127-57.
Heinemann, O., Die Handschriften der Herzoglichen Bibliothek zu Wolfenbiittel IX, Wolfenbiit- Larfeld, W., Griechische Epigraphik, Munich *1914 = HbAW 1,5.
te] 1913. Lambros, S., ᾿Ανέκδοτα ἀρχαῖα ποιήματα, VH3, 1906, 3-11.
Heitsch, E., ‘Die Mesomedes-Uberlieferung’, NGG 1959, 3, 35-45. Lesky, A., Die tragische Dichtung der Hellenen, Gittingen 71964.
—— ‘Drei Helioshymnen’, Hermes 88, 1960, 139-58. Longman, G. A., “The Musical Papyrus: Euripides, Orestes 332-40’, CO 12 (56), 1962, 61-6.
~~ [ed.] Die griechischen Dichterfragmenie der rémischen Kaiserzeit, AGWG 3, 49, 1961, 71963. Lloyd-Jones, H., [review of POxy 25, 1959] CR 11 (75), 1961, 17-21.
Henderson, J., ‘Ancient Greek Music’, in: The New Oxford History of Music 1, London 1957, Maas, P., Epidaurische Hymnen, Schriften Kénigsberg 9, 5, 1933.
336-403. Marrou, H. 1., ‘Les fragments musicaux du papyrus de Zénon, Musée du Caire No. 59 533’, RPA
Hermann, G., De hymnis Dionysii et Mesomedis, Programm Leipzig 1842 = Opuscula VIII, 13 (65), 1939, 308-20.
Leipzig 1877, 343-52. — ‘Melographia’, AC 15, 1946, 289-96.
Horna, K., ‘Die Hymnen des Mesomedes’, SAWW 207, 1, 1928. — Histoire de l'éducation dans l’antiquité, Paris 71950, German tr. Freiburg-Munich 1957.
Hunger, H., Péhimann, E., ‘Neue griechische Musikfragmente aus ptolemaischer Zeit in der Martin, E., Trois documents de la musique grecque, Paris 1953.
204 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY 205

Ponimann, E., Griechische Musikfragmente, Ein Weg zur altgriechischen Musik, Nuremberg
Marx, F., ‘De Sicili cantilena’, RhM 61, 1906, 145-8.
Mathiesen, Th. J., ‘New Fragments of Ancient Greek Music’, AMI 53, 1981, 14~32. ᾿
— see Hunger.
— Ancient Greek Music Theory. A Catalogue Raisonné of Manuscripts (RISM ser. Β, 9, Munich — ‘Der Peripatetiker Athenodor tiber Wortakzent und Melodiebildung im Hellenismms’,
1988). WS 79
1 366, 201--13 (Donum natalicium Albin Lesky): = Péhimann 1 (1966).
Mensching, G., Das heilige Schweigen, Giessen 1926 = RGVV20 (2). — on
‘Ein neues
neu grechis
griechisches
2 (1966),
Musikfragment
gment der Wiener
i Papyrussammlung’,᾽ Hermes 94, 1966,
Merkelbach, R., Thiel, H. van, Griechisches Leseheft zur Einfiihrung in Paliographie und
Textkritik, Gottingen 1965.
— Denkmiiler aligriechischer Musik, Nuremberg 1970.
—Stauber, J., [edd.] Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, vol. 1: Die Wesikiiste — ‘Die ABC-Komédie des Kallias’, RAM 114, 1971, 230-40.
Kleinasiens von Knidos bis Ilion, Stuttgart—Leipzig 1998.
Mitsos, M. T., ‘Iepdc buvoc ἐξ ᾿Αοκληπιείου᾽ Ἐπιδαύρου, AE 1980, 212-16. — [review of Najock (1972)}, MusF 28, 1975, 482 f.
— ‘Die Notenschrift in der Uberlieferung der griechischen Biihnenmusik’, WJA 2, 1976, 53-73
Moens, P. W., De twee delphische hymnen met muzieknoten, Utrecht 1930.
— Einfihrung in die Uberlieferungsgeschichte und in die Textkritik der antiken Literatur. vol 1:
Monro, D. B., The Modes of Ancient Greek Music, Oxford 1894.
Mountford, J. F., ‘Greek Music in the Papyri and Inscriptions’, in: Powell, J. U., Barber, E. A.,
Altertum, Darmstadt 1994: = Pohimann 1 (1994). oe
~ Fesischnit i ” spatanten Sammelhandschriften’, in: Orchestra. Drama, Mythos ‘Bithne
New Chapters in the History of Greek Literature I, Oxford 1929, 146-83.
ἌΌΥΥΣ
estschrift Dottenaan?
fir Hellmut (99
Flashar, ed. by yA A. Bier!
Bierl, P. P. v. v. Méllendorff,
Mé S. Vogt, Munich
ic
—‘A New Fragment of Greek Music in Cairo’, JHS 51, 1931, 91-100. 1994, ᾽
‘Greek Music: The Cairo Musical Fragment’, in: Powell, J. U., New Chapters in the History
- “Griechenland A, Antike Musik’, MGG 2nd ed., Sachteil, vol. 3, 1995, 1626-76;
of Greek Literature ΠῚ, Oxford 1933, 260 f. 1705-9
— «Νοίαθοπ, Il. Ante MGG 2nd ed., Sachteil, vol. 7, 1997, 283-9: 417. ᾿
Miilier, W., ‘Euripides-Fragmente auf Papyrus’, FBSM 6, 1964, 7-13. ᾿
— ‘Gattungen musikalischen Fachschrifttums i ᾿ in: J icher
Miinscher, K., ‘Zum christlichen Dreifaltigkeitshymnus aus Oxyrhynchos’, Philologus 80, 1925,
Literatur in der Antike, Tiibingen 1998, 2539. 51. Henn int δδιπμηβεη, wissenschapiicher
209-13.
Najock, D., Drei anonyme griechische Traktate tiber die Musik. Eine kommentierte Neuausgabe Poland, F., ‘Technitai’, RE V A (1934), 2473-558.
Poljakov, F. B, Die Inschriften von Tralleis und Nysa (Inschrifien Griechischer Stddte
des Bellermannschen Anonymus, Gottingen 1972. aus
Kleinasien, vol. 36, 1, 1), Bonn 1989.
—[ed.], Anonyma de musica scripta Bellermanniana, Leipzig 1975.
Norsa, M., La scrittura letteraria greca dal secolo IV A. C. all’VII D. C., Florence 1939. Powell, I. U., [ed.] Collectanea Alexandrina, Oxford 1925.
Peau, C., ‘Quelques échantillons papyrologiques de musique grecque’, ChrEg 5, 1930,
Oki, H., La musique grecque antique, Yokohama 1979. 278-
Page, D. L., [ed.] Poetae Melici Graeci, Oxford 1962.
Raasted, J., ‘Seikilos’ Gravskrift’, Foredrag til Dansk Selskab for Musikforskning
Palisca, C. V., [ed.] ‘Girolamo Mei, Letters on Ancient and Modern Music to Vincenzo Galilei 6. 12. 1967
(unpublished). ΜΝ
and Giovanni Bardi’, MSD 3, 1960.
Ramsay, W. M., ‘Unedited Inscriptions of Asia Minor’, Nr. 21, BCH 7, 1883,
Pappalardo, V., ‘Alcune osservazioni sulla notazione ritmica greca e sul suo impiego in relazi- 277 Γ΄.
Reinach, Th., ‘La musique des hymnes de Delphes’, BCH 17, 1893, 584-610.
one al papiro di Oslo N. 1413’, Dioniso 22, 1959, 220-34.
— ‘La musique du nouvel hymne de Delphes’, BCH 18, 1894, 363-89.
Pearl, O. M., Winnington-Ingram, R. P., ‘A Michigan Papyrus with Musical Notation’, JEA 51,
— ‘L’hymne ἃ la Muse’, REG 9, 1896, 1-22: = Reinach 1 (1896).
1965, 179-95.
-- ‘Deux fragments de musique grecque’, REG 9, 1896, 186-215: = Reinach 2 (1896).
Pearson, L. {ed.], Aristoxenus, Elementa Rhythmica, The Fragment of Book IU and the Additional
— ‘Hymnes avec notes musicales’, FdD ΠῚ 2, 1909-13, 147-69 and 332, n. 1 (A.
Evidence for Aristoxenian Rhythmic Theory, Texts, Intr., Transl., Comm., Oxford 1990. Colin).
—— ‘Nouveaux fragments de musique grecque’, RA 5, 10, 1919, 11-27.
Peek, W., [ed.] Griechische Versinschriften 1: Grab-Epigramme, Berlin 1955.

a.
Philios, Ὁ., ᾿Αρχαιολογικὰ Ἐὑρήματα τῶν ἐν ᾿Ελευοῖνι ᾿Ανασκαφῶν, AE 3, 1885, 169-84; — ‘Un ancétre de la musique d’Eglise’, RMus 3, 1922, 8-25.
—La musique grecque, Paris 1926.
pl. 8,1.
Robert, L., Etudes Anatoliennes, Paris 1937.
Pickard-Cambridge, A. W., The Dramatic Festivals of Athens, 2nd edition revised by J. Gould
—Le Sanctuaire de Sinuri prés de Mylasa, 1° partie: Les inscriptions grecques (Mémoires de
and D. M. Lewis, Oxford 1968. ᾿
Pighi, G. B., ‘Ricerche sulla notazione ritmica greca, L’inno cristiano del POxy 1786’, Aegyptus l'Institut Frangais d’Archéologie de Stamboul, VII), Paris 1945.
Romagnoli, E., ‘Nuovi frammenti di musica greca’, RMI 27, 1920, 274-313.
21, 1941, 189-220.
Ruelle, C. E., see Wessely.
— ‘Ricerche sulla notazione ritmica greca, Le composizioni vocali e strumentali del PBerol. Inv.
Schefold, K., Die Bildnisse der antiken Dichter, Redner und Denker, Basel 71997,
6870’, Aegyptus 23, 1943, 169-243.
Schlesinger, K., The Greek Aulos, London 1939.
— ‘Ricerche sulla notazione ritmica greca, Il testo tragico con notazione musicale del POsl inv.
1413 (Π p)’, Aegyptus 39, 1959, 280-9. Schréder, O., [review of Thierfelder (1919)] BPAW 40, 1920, 350-3.
206 BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY 207
— [review of Wagner (1921)] BPRW 42, 1922, 321-4. Vogel, M., Die Enharmonik der Griechen I, Diisseldorf 1963.
—Nomenclator metricus, Heidelberg 1929. Wagman, R. S., Inni di Epidauro, Pisa 1994,
— GrundriB der griechischen Versgeschichte, Heidelberg 1930. Wagner, R., ‘Der Berliner Notenpapyrus’, Philologus 77, 1921,
Schréder, St., ‘Zwei Uberlegungen zu den Liedern vom Athenerschatzhaus in Delphi’, ZPE 128, 256-310.
— ‘Der Oxyrhynchos-Notenpapynus’, Philologus 79, 1924,
1999, 65-75. 201-21.
— [review of Martin] Gnomon 27, 1955, 213~14: = Wagner 1 (1955).
Schubart, W., “Ein griechischer Papyrus mit Noten’, SPAW 36, 1918, 763-8. — [review of Gombosi (1939)] Gnomon 27, 1955, 111-15: = Wagner
~—Die Papyri der Universitétsbibliothek Erlangen, Leipzig 1942. 2 (1955).
Wegner, M., Das Musikleben der Griechen, Berlin 1949.
Sedgwick, W. B., ‘A Note on the Performance of Greek Vocal Music’, CeM 11, 1950, 222-6. Weil, H., ‘Nouveaux fragments d’hymnes accompagnés de notes
Sicking, C. M. J., Griechische Verslehre, HbAW2, 4, Munich 1993. de musique’, BCH 17, 1893,
569-83.
Sifakis, G. M., Studies in the History of Hellenistic Drama, London 1967. — ‘Un nouvel hymne ἃ Apollon’, BCH 18, 1894, 345-62.
Smyth, H. W., Greek Melic Poets, London 1900 (New York 1963). Wellesz, E. J., ‘The Earliest Example of Christian Hymnody’
Snell, B., Griechische Metrik, Gottingen 1955, 41982. , CQ 39, 1945, 34-45.
—~A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography, Oxford 71962.
Solomon, J., ‘A Diphonal Diphthong in the Orestes Papyrus’, AUPh 97, 1976, 172 f. Wessely, C., Antike Reste griechischer Musik, 22. Jabresbericht des
— ‘Orestes 344-45: Colometry and Music’, GRBS 18, 1977, 71-83. K. K. Staatsgymnasiums im
3. Bezirk Wien 1890, Vienna 1891, 16-26.
—— ‘The new musical fragment from Epidauros’, JHS 105, 1985, 168~-71. — ‘Papyrus-Fragment des Chorgesanges von Euripides Orest 330 ££
Spyridis, Ch., To ἐπίγραμμα cto δαχτυλίδι tov Eserovo, Thessalonica 1990. mit Partitur’, MPER 5,
1892, 65-73: = Wessely 1 (1892). .
——O ‘ABak tov Λαυρίου, Archaiologia 47, 1993, 65-72 (with English summary). —~Ruelle, C. E., “Le Papyrus musical d’Euripide’, REG 5, 1892, 265-80:
— Ἕνα apyaio poveuxd επίγραμμα από to νηοί της Aepiac (Θάοου), in: International = Wessely 2 (1892).
West, M. L., ‘Two Notes on Delphic Inscriptions’, ZPE 2, 1968,
Meeting on Music. Music and Ancient Greece, 5-15 August 1996, Symposium Proceedings, 176.
— Greek Metre, Oxford 1982.
Athens 1999, 169-94. —— ‘The Singing of Hexameters: Evidence from Epidauros’, ZPE
Stablein, B., ‘Frihchristliche Musik’, MGG vol. 4, 1955, 1036-64. 63, 1986, 39-46.
——[ed.], Euripides, Orestes, Warminster 1987.
Tertzis, Chr., [ed.], Ὁ Avovicioc tov Bellermann, Diss. Athens (to be published). — ‘Analecta Musica’, ZPE 92, 1992, 1-54: = West 1 (1992).
Terzaghi, N., ‘Sul POxy 1786’, Studia graeca et Latina, Turin 1963, 670-5 = Raccolia di scritti —-Ancient Greek Music, Oxford 1992: = West 2 ( 1992).
in onore di Giacomo Lumbroso, Milan 1925, 229-34. — ‘An Alleged Musical Inscription’, ZPE 93, 1992, 27 Ε: = West 3
Themelis, D., ‘Zwei neue Funde altgriechischer Musik aus Laureotike und aus Pelion’, MusF 42, (1992).
—— ‘Texts with Musical Notation’, POxy 55, 1998, nos. 4461-67, pp. 81-102.
1989, 307-25. — ‘Sophocles with Music (?). Ptolemaic Music Fragments and Remains of
— ‘Eine antike Musikinschrift aus dem
Sophocles (Junior?),
Heiligtum des Herakles Pankrates’, MusF 47, 1994, Achilles’, ZPE 126, 1999, 43-65, pl. ΙΧ ΧΗ. ᾿
349-64, Westphal, R., Metrik der Griechen; vol. 1: Griechische Rhythmik und Harmonik,
--Μουοική επιγραφή and τη Meccivn, in: International Meeting on Music. Music and Leipzig 71867;
vol. 2: Griechische Metrik, Leipzig 71868.
Ancient Greece, 5.-15. August 1996, Symposium Proceedings, Athens 1999, 163-7. Wilamowitz, U. von, [ed.] Timotheos, Die Perser, Leipzig 1903.
Thiel, H. van, see Merkelbach. — Griechische Verskunst, Berlin 1921.
Thierfeider, A., ‘Ein neugefundener Papyrus mit griechischen Noten’, Z{MW 1, 1918, 217-25. — [review of POxy 15, 1922] DLZ 43, 1922, 313-17.
— Pian. Tekmessa an der Leiche ihres Gatien Αἴας, nach einem Papyrus mit griechischen Noten Wille, G., [review of Koller (1963)] Gnomon 37, 1965, 641-50; cf. Gnomon 38,
bearbeitet, Leipzig [1919]. 1966, 640.
— Musica Romana. Die Bedeutung der Musik im Leben der Rémer, Amsterda
m 1967.
Tiby, O., La musica in Grecia e a Roma, Florence 1942. Williams, C. F. A., “Notes on a Fragment of the Music of Orestes’, CR 8, 1894, 313-17.
Torr, C., “The Music of the Orestes’, CR 8, 1894, 397 f. Willink, C. W. (ed.), Euripides, Orestes, with intr. and comm., Oxford 1986.
Tumer, E. G., Minor Unidentified Texts, Nr. 231, The Hibeh Papyri 2, 1955, 152. Winnington-Ingram, R. P., Mode in Ancient Greek Music, Cambridge 1936.
— ‘Two Unrecognised Ptolemaic Papyri’, JHS 76, 1956, 95-8. — see Eijtrem (1955).
— see Winnington-Ingram (1959). : — ‘Ancient Greek Music 1932-57’, Lustrum 3, 1958, 5-57.
— Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World, Oxford 1971, 2nd ed., revised and enlarged by P. J. — Tumer, E. G., Winnington-Ingram, R. P., “Monody with Musical Notation’,
POxy 25, 1959,
Parsons, BICS Supp!. 46, London 1987. No. 2436, 113-22.
Tumer, R. L., ‘A Note on the Word Accent’, CR 29, 1915, 195 f. — [review of Koller (1963)] CR 15 (79), 1965, 193-5: = Winnington-Ingram | (1965).
Van Leeuwen, J., Aristophanis Thesmophoriazusae, Leiden 1904. — see Pearl (1965): = Winnington-Ingram 2 (1965).
Vincent, A. J. H., Notices sur trois manuscrits grecs relatifs ἃ la musique, Notices et extraits des Zeusta, L., Kleinasiatische Personennamen, Prague 1964.
manuscrits de la bibliothéque du Roi 16, 2, Paris 1847. Ziebarth, E., [ed.] Aus der antiken Schule, Bonn 71913.
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS INDEXES

1. GENERAL INDEX

accent and melody 1, 10 f., 16 f., 21, 25, 35, 39, 42, colometry, absent from musical texts 7, 15, 20, 73, 85,
46, 50, 58, 72, 90, 110 ἢ, 114, 122, 129, 131, 142
137, 143, 147, 150, 154, 160, 163, 165, 168, 178, colon (double point), see dicolon
181, 183, 185, 187, 189, 194, 195; falling tone on
FIGURES IN THE TEXT column-width in musical texts 20, 58, 73, 85, 122,
circumflex 31 f., 143; rising 50, 72, 147, 181;
136, 142, 192, 196
prepositions atonic 129 n. 6
1 Eleusis inv. 907 (No. 1, p. 9) conjunct tetrachord, see Synemmenai
Achilles 129, 178
2 Munich inv. 2646 (No. 1, p. 9) coronis 20, 28, 31, 38, 136
Aeolian key 32
3. Munich inv. 2416 (No. 1, p. 9) cretics 20 f., 72 f., 85
4, London inv. E 171 (No. 1, p.9) aeolic metres 72, 85
5 Pap. Zeno 59533 (No. 8, p. 43) Aeschylus’ Ajax plays 58
6 Pap. Vienna G 29825 a/b recto (No. 9, p. 47) dactylic metre 46, 179; ‘greater dactyl’ 169; dactylo-
Ajax tragedy 58, 173
7. Pap. Vienna G 29825 a/b verso (No. 10, p. 47) epitrite 58-60, 136 ἢ; ‘dactylic’ in rhythmicians’
anapaests 21, 46, 128-30, 150, 178 f., 192 f.; ‘greater terminology 137
8. Pap. Vienna G 29825 c (No. 11, p. 51) anapaest’ 169
9-11, Pap. Vienna G 29825 d-f (Nos. 12-14, p. 53) Deidameia 129, 178
Andromache 50
12-13. Pap. Vienna G 13 763/1494 (Nos. 15-16, p. 55) diagonal stroke, see diastole
anthologies 123, 142, 154, 163, 173
14. Epidaurus SEG 30. 390 (No. 19, p. 61) dialogue texts 142-4, 146
15-16. Mylasa inv. 3 (No. 22, p. 86) apokrota 110 n. 5, 113
diastole 15 f., 46, 50, 53, 55, 142, 178, 181, 186
17. Pap. Yale (CtYBR) inv. 4510 (No. 41, p. 151) Ariphron’s hymn to Hygieia 114
diatonic 1, 25, 46, 50, 55, 73, 136, 168; ‘soft/tense
18. Pap. MS. Scheyen 2260 (no. 60, p. 195) Aristonoos 72 ἢ. 4
diatonic’ 38 f.; see also chromatic
Aristophanes, note symbols added in a 15th-c.
dicolon 51, 87, 122, 120, 131, 137, 144, 150, 154,
manuscript 5
157, 161, 165, 168, 178, 181, 183, 192, 197
Aristoxenus (? P. Oxy. 9 + 2687) 173
Dionysius (writer on music) 5, 106-8
la Pap. Hibeh 231 = British Library pap. 2996 (No. 7) arsis-points, see stigmai
diseme signs 15, 51, 55, 59, 91, 110, 122, 128-31,
1b Copenhagen inv. 14897, squeeze (No. 23)
Athenaios (author of first Delphic Paean) 71, 85 137, 143, 150, 154 ἢ, 157, 160, 165, 178, 183,
Copenhagen inv. 14897 (No. 23)
189, 192, 197
AR WN

Venetus Marcianus app. cl. VI 10, f. 205 verso (Nos. 24—28)

OANA

Venetus Marcianus app. cl. V1 10, f. 206 recto (Nos. 24-28) Bacchius 106, 108, 173 dithyrambs 38, 46
Parisinus Coislinianus gr. 173, f. 222 verso (Nos. 24-28) bass register 136 dochmiacs 15 f., 42
Neapolitanus gr. III C 4, f. 82 verso (Nos. 24-28) Bellermann, F. 5; his Anonymi 118 Dorian key 15, 40
Neapolitanus gr. ΠῚ C 4, f. 83 recto (Nos. 24-28) Berlin papyri 58 doxology 193
Venetus Marcianus gr. 994 (318), £. 228 recto (Nos. 24-28) boys’ choir 71
Venetus Marcianus app. cl. VI 10, f. 197 verso (Nos. 32-37)
brevis in longo 73, 85, 130 f., 143 ecthesis 58, 107, 112, 122, 154, 168
Se

Pap. Oslo 1413 am (Nos. 39-40)

_

Byzantine hymns 130 n. 3, 192 education, musical 119

eisthesis 122, 170, 172
SOURCES cadent 131 enharmonic genus 1, 16, 20 f., 25
Callias’ ‘alphabet’ tragedy 17 n. 4 Euripides: Hecuba 129, 165; Iphigeneia in Aulis 18~
Frontispiece: 1: courtesy of the Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Papyrussammlung, Vienna; 2: courtesy of the
cartonnage 14, 25, 38 21; Meleagros 123; Orestes 10-17
Papyrologisch Instituut of the Rijksuniversiteit at Leiden. ;
choriambic dimeters 85, 104, 112 exharmonic notes 39, 42, 73, 109, 129, 150
Figures in the text: 1: BCH 108, 1984, fig. 2 a; 2: Furtwangler (1909), pl. 105; 3: Furtwangler (1909), pl. 64; 4:
courtesy of the British Museum, London; 5: courtesy of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo; 6-13: courtesy of the Christian hymns 130 n. 3, 190-4
Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Papyrussammlung, Vienna; 14: AE 1980, fig. 1; 15~16: Robert (1945), pl. 1; 17: chromatic genus 1, 16, 25, 40, 46, 50, 55, 73, 136, fermata at verse-end 131, 144
courtesy of the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale; 18: courtesy of Mr Martin Schayen. 143; ‘tense chromatic’ 38; chromatic and diatonic
Plates: ἴα: courtesy of the British Library, London; 1b: BCH 18, 1894, pl. XII; 2: courtesy of the Nationalmuseet tetrachords combined 38 f., 46, 50, 73, 84 Galilei, Vincenzo 5, 106 n. 3
Kgbenhavn; 3-4, 8-9: courtesy of the Biblioteca Nazionale di 5. Marco in Venice; 5: courtesy of the Bibliothéque chromaticism 1, 39, 42; see also exharmonic notes glyconics 21, 72, 85
Nationale in Paris; 6—7: courtesy of the Biblioteca Nazionale in Naples; 10: courtesy of Universitetsbiblioteket i citharodes 38; citharodic sphragis 30, 38
Oslo, Papyrus collection. :
 210 INDEXES
INDEXES 211

Hermione 50 leimma 59, 61, 111, 122 f., 129, 137, 144, 147, 150, ‘Platonic’ harmoniai 15 Technitai 71, 91
heterophony 15 f. 154, 161, 168-71, 173, 178, 189, 192 £. portamento? 150 Tecmessa 58 f.
hexameters 61 Limenios 71-3, 84 f. prayers 73, 85 tempo 169, 173
hexasemes 137, 168 £. Lydian key 15, 32, 40, 46, 50, 53, 84 £, 104, 109, prophecy, deep-voiced 136 Terence 5
hiatus 73, 85, 131, 143, 157 118, 122, 131, 154, 165, 183, 185, 187, 197
prosodion 72 f., 85 Tereus 178
high note for tic 21, 36, 185
prosody, abnormal 129 f., 150, 179, 193 Ε΄ tetrasemes in proper names 59, 130, 178; in spondaic
Horace manuscripts with neumes 5 Marcello, Benedetto 5
psalmody 1 metre 168 f., 173; tetraseme leimma 193
horizontal bar for note-sign 20, 150, 162 marginal notes and signs 51, 57 f., 60, 173, 178
pyknon 20 f., 73 Thetis 178
Honmasia 5, 114 Mei, Girolamo 106 n. 3
Pythais 70-2 Timotheos 28, 58
Hymettus 123 Meleager 123
Python 84 Tityos 84
hymns: to Asclepius 61; to Hygieia 114; to Isis, μελιομός 171
tonal centres 160, 165, 189
Physis, Sundial 104; to Nemesis 100-3, 106-15; melisms 1, 15, 55, 59, 128, 130, 136, 150, 157, 160 ζ΄,
to the Nile? 186; to Sinuri 87; to the Sun 96-9, quarter-tones, see intervals tonguing (wind-playing technique) 8
163, 165, 178, 183, 189, 195; four-note 147, 165;
106-15; to the Trinity 192-4 six-note 187; nine-note 136 f. quavers, divided 123, 131, 150, 160, 165, 178, 181, tragedy 25, 42, 46, 50, 53, 58, 129-33, 142-7, 178,
Hyperaeolian 20, 59 185, 187, 195 181; choral odes supplied on verso of papyrus roll
melody and accent, see accent and melody
Hyperionian 61, 87, 129, 142 £, 150, 154, 157, 160,
25
Mesomedes 92-115
165, 168, 170, 178, 181, 195 rhythmicians 137, 173 transcription conventions 7
modulation 50 f., 73, 84 f., 131, 197
Hyperlydian 84, 154, 197 triplets 137
Μουοική, ἡ (corpus of music theory) 114 £.
Hyperphrygian 25, 38, 40, 73 Sappho painter 8 trisemes 51, 59, 91, 111, 122, 137, 144, 160, 163,
Mylasa 87
hyphen 59, 87, 91, 122, 129-31, 137, 144, 147, 150 satyric drama 50, 123 164, 189; at trimeter-end 131, 144, 147
>
157, 160 f., 168, 172, 178, 192 scholia, metrical and rhythmical 104, 106-8, 112-14 trochaics 59 f., 183; tetrameters 122
Neoptolemus 50, 129, 131, 178
Hypodorian 25, 32, 38, 40 scriptio plena 50, 123, 131, 157 trumpet-call 8
neumes 5
Hypoionian 129, 163, 189 Seikilos 5, 91, 122 Tynnichos of Chalcis 168
notation, little regarded in antiquity 1, 11
Hypolydian 50 f., 55, 84 f., 87, 104, 113, 122, 131, separator stroke, see diastole
—articulatory, see κομπιομόο, μελιομόο, stigmai vase painting 8
142, 147, 154, 163, 183, 185, 192 silence of cosmos at divine epiphany 192 f.
—vocal: barred notes 25, 35, 42 £.; Chromastrich 42; Virgil manuscripts with neumes 5
Hypophrygian 38, 50, 197 Sinuri 87
octave stroke 59, 155; historical development 55
hyporchema 73, 85 Sirius 186 vowels written double 15 f., 31-3, 39, 44, 46, 50, 72,
~—thythmical 59, 110, 122, 137, 168
solmization 8, 171 130; in Byzantine liturgical manuscripts 130 n. 3
iambics 59, 72, 119; syncopated 122: iambo- Sophocles 143; Achilleus 25, 38; Philoctetes 131
oblique stroke, see diastole
choriambic 50; iambic trimeters 128, 131, 142-5, women’s roles sung by men 20, 59, 165
soprano register 59
147, 154, 184 Γ΄ Orestes 142; see also Euripides word division in papyri 142
oscillating melody 39 speech intonations 185
improvisation of melody 28
spondaic metre 113, 168 f., 173; cnovSeioc μείζων
instrumental notes in vocal texts 15, 19, 21, 51, 55, 169 Zarlino, Gioseffo 5
1431 paean 186; of Aristonoos 72 ἢ. 4; Berlin Paean 166—
Spondeion scale 73 n. 3
interjections extra metrum 143 f. 71, 173; Delphic Paeans 5, 62-85
spuria 5 ἢ
intervals: quarter-tone 7, 25 n. 3, 129 n. 5, 150 5, 3; % paeonic rhythm 20 f., 42, 104, 113; παΐων ἐπιβατός
169, 173 staccato-sign 171 f.
tone 38, 42; wide 21, 39, 150, 154, 160, 163, 178,
paragraphos 20, 28, 31, 38, 58, 72, 85, 107, 168, 178 i stichometry 42
187
pentatonic progression 39, 73, 160 stigmai 15, 20 f., 51, 55, 59 f., 91, 119, 122, 128-30,
Ionian key 90, 129, 136, 154, 163, 181
performance practice 1 137, 144, 147, 150, 154, 157, 160, 163, 168, 171-
3, 178 f., 183, 189, 192 £., 197
Jewish hymnody 192 Phemios 91
strophic composition 10 f., 16 £, 42, 46, 58 f.
pherecrateans 21, 85
sylable-spacing 7, 142, 157, 168, 182
key signature written in text 28, 44, 46, 48, 50 Philoctetes 129, 131
syncopation (rhythmic) 111, 169
Kircher, Athanasius 5 Philoxenus 38
Synemmenai 73, 84 f.
κομπιομόο 171 Phrygian key 15, 38 £, 46, 73, 197
Synesius 192-4
pitch 1, 7, 150, 157; see also bass register, soprano
Syriac hymnody 192
Tegister
212 INDEXES

2. PASSAGES FROM AUTHORS PLATES

Antiphanes fr. 207. 7-9 PCG II: 38, 136 Ennius, Ann. 451 Sk.: 8
Aristides Quintilianus 1. 9: 15 , Euripides, L.A. 784 ff., 1500 ΞΕ: 18-21
— 1, 15-16: 169, 173 — Or. 140-2 ~ 153-5: 10 f.
— 1.17: 183 338-44: 12-17
Aristophanes fr. 283 PCG Hf 2: 123 Menander, Perikeiromene 796: 184 f.
Aristoxenus, Harm. 2. 51: 38 f. Pindar, OF. 10. 85, al.: 130 n. 3
Cratinus fr. 110 PCG IV: 123 Ptolemy, Harm. 1. 15, 2. 14-16: 38 f.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, De comp. verb. 58-9: 185 Virgil, Aen. 6. 49-99: 136
63-4: 10 f., 17

PL. 1b: Copenhagen inv. 14897, squeeze (No. 23)

214 PLATES PLATES 215

shag

he.
ony
ibs
τρῶν
ἔτ

PL. 2 Copenhagen inv. 14897 (No. 23) PL. 3 Venetus Marcianus app. Ὁ cl. VI 10, f. 205 verso (Nos. 24-8)
216 PLATES PLATES 217

κῳ αὶ ς ee e Mae
. > anna ano bs an penaiesh nica
Shey ἀφ ὦ Rea e
set # Saul Sonnetwe Pues be tper ὧν pvr
(Rene a en © ς
K pai é miacope Βρυσῶν avonsian τί τε τρῶν:
f & oO ¢ at mm
wal ondt pain τὺ τα, ἀπ fa ER TRE we
Be hae tac
λλταω ripe Dale πρῶ8.
La
εὔμερεῖς veeaie μάμνοο αἱ peaten ie

Re boast τῶ παβοῖ te τὰ καὶ Iploe

- =
κ αὐ wore
a .

oUPEA
TM AGIA py. ἀχιᾧ 9 ὁτζοι του ape
“Ὁ ΕΞ i
μεσλειγδιοὸ εἴ μος Baty 4 οὐθοκδῖκερ σεκό pas εὖ
Wy ae RS ἢ α’
oxtecue "Ba ptt av ἀπὰς
~E A,
δ ΕΟ ΩΝ
᾿ fie οἴει σεηϊλωνε Deluge,
ἀεύ σία οἷν δὲ τὐλλόλα edpoue,-
Swe piveny δύ ψείρ Have py Fetus madepod
οὐοῦρ πρὶν her
CU de maAsTp usa aay: “rest eb κι Φυϊλύσαν-
τδίνμ fox"ἢ πύου Mbpro ρουοἷν ἐπέρα Wephy- ;
σοϊκάνχορος ώδουκ κα πολύμτου ΣΎ ΟῚ

ppemem geared Noy: perBaisi map vy. ndpe> ; ΄

(hou κὰ τὲ πρροῖδὲ sory λΐν εὖ οἵ ον Kreps ude:
oye. πον ες
λευκῶυχσωῦ σύς MIM pT eee: ἔδυνύτα
ξὲ τε διυδος topiven”
sale ot
: STARA OY κι peve λύωπους :
+
. nw. . ta +
Pr “ὁ Ares ea Bove, we. Ko ie rita δῦ amee De,
᾿ : ἃ κοϊφεφούνοωδο ΠΩ τ οὐ ἢἐπραονορυρον ants ἊΝ
ἐλ ova a ὕβρῦ 30% Bestioys” PEARS HEV ὐγρὶ ᾿ς ύνης.

ents oa Ratyeapn. Prov

mese mavaedh Galen. |.
a ovat haber ‘Bau’ yee ; πιωρούμῖνον δὲ χα, kn ἵνα ἢ
aN δ αν eta τὰ Reader male
Pid oited audigy
πεῖν: ινυοὐηρηδοζεύέ:.
sty i “pee Ξ Peter, apt e τΣῈ

PL. 4: Venetus Marcianus app. cl. VI 10, f. 206 recto (Nos. 24-8) PL. 5: Parisinus Coislinianus gr. 173, f. 222 verso (Nos. 24-8)
218 PLATES PLATES 219

5) . 5 - ἀρ ho ΒΤ τα
vp? a ν ; τ

rye ewe δι βρὲ © ἄς μὰν ἀν δ, Ἂς an

οὔ ᾿ βάσπολν δὲ exe ou: πῶ omδ beim tN arwe
&
«το $35.3
- Sach Roce τυ ain opi Tecan Sarg Ton See fn
Ne Mae Ade ἡ fa er Aas 412%,
eon εὐ λμελψερων ἐζωτθναναντο Nail υγοράη.
p "
ah ἂν «ἃς Ἢ we 4 5h 4.» ἢ Ἵ
AN
τ onesie ἀπ λῶν φοιμμθλνβν πόρον ἀξ ; B
bs: cai HAA ae Fp PE EZ,
γλω ὼ dt ans
ae Polbe fy λρένον Sound aA
- ἀυέταία v4 δος ες 18 BCS ὥραν
PR OO Sareere ν acer raberpaadt eave Cate
ἀπκροδιο βοκοεξοι ἐν δῶν. ra WS aposere μεμεσί a ,

Wepre ᾿
SC bbakdgecntaiscles
ΠῈΣ
τ:
aw

eer
LEG

cE tem
ah

Negev Siepkron Fiteseeded aon

Po PEP
: Brevrer.
any Hepdalgasien dR tineines
wire

‘ he
Soak,
ce
λδροτωλέρ
Lf po
ενώ φρῥ τα,
AE RAR
t ὃν Ra fed μεῖς κω ουλι Hoy leper tage, ᾿ ΓΕ

Ν
Sg 5.
beh εβδριορ ᾿ς Ὡς
Og βι'ετομάλετρεις. Wetton ete ES EE ES
at at ek a SO ι ἀκ 6 δ ae
when Roo ῥα Acro rE. :
fe A Dada ἃ ARG, Mean
μὲ mse Be Boat dani ln
Ε- Υ̓ τὰς

” nash tu
a elnedpon dees
, ja
te ae
τὰν AEΝΗ Sb pene’ σε wercapys Coa

PL. 6: Neapolitanus gr. III C 4, f. 82 verso (Nos. 24-8) : PL. 7: Neapolitanus gr. 1Π C 4, f. 83 recto (Nos. 24-8)
221

.-

aed Ν ἐς OD
- . Ν
ἷ ᾿ : Ὁ μι Ν εἶ id
""
Τὰ ἱ Ἐν
‘
Roe
- ΓΕ ἡ eG
Fo
τ ἦν Ἐν Δ τ
Ee
& B 3
cn Τ&
* eo πο ΡΣ oP ae wd ft
, } cad π᾿ q F eb & SE ἊΝ
> to a
; δος Ga
197 verso (Nos. 32-7)

Maye Fo,
rae

4 any ee
i
vag

“ie ἀπ
F oF F
eres δότε

Ε
as

SP TS
PL.9 Venetus Marcianus app. cl. VI 10,
PLATES

(8~pZ ‘SON) 03092 8727 1 (SIE) 766 18 SNUBIOIEIA] STIAUAA, 18 ‘Id

nme : Rdat det. pon hd rm py -am 20 301 γα . ἐΆρρ ον ote | dodte tn J7e¥ Re ce: Sp dodg ides
reneged inert id δυο dod Lego nmaLanmia 3 (hot. tet : ap reap agiiso vi 3a + pitied
“ng Jra.cos p dapat egret 9a Πα αὐτο Ged eH ETE EWN ponnendeds abrrt dat 0} ρὸν ἀν οι
bre Aas KoH aletr. 9 ob pA «hd bert det of bp tain > what tuys Xow devgrynedaias i ath ra}
et γσι
:
Wg sue deat. pp saegny SX Ak
7 “ἢ
mac IIs desss lpr eo bX - ἀρ Ὁ ποιεῖν Xo dtedeo pan
“dimly BoA 9 dake pede :Ages-ed Ques dda vere ἐς, 2 ἐστον νάνι
spi ἐλ f 4 «
wp rene ἐν Weed ag Pag ULE ne Om ee ke νοι
ve mdgeerrisendp
3 derkank phot ienall. + on digest Cp 004on here Apres odivges dowXa συγγἷὰ ᾿ Ap oust
at ποι
PLATES

* crt ra hb “- .
:
a ;
agra ye bry dent 23:2 datden Avda ᾿ ἐμαρψεδ 291 ρα φρο! ἐνόραυοκνήκας ρει, USied
"os cap he dire vet rrrdek ioe + Pop dX opr mgdauiorr ne acon τ πο abe 3α 9 ϑεθοχ rig jes
|i Ahod τ, radaeedgg sags rh κα, ἐδονζν 1 mee ε θεν
Ldrvipdatmdglerdeeneynite
«
doch oa nate Yas ἢ aves Aalet Cd hue hat σαςsqpe
ΞΔ μαι nda gq Vell ορλόν yo Ὁ ΡΥῊ urn
mw! : ovaries sodgrte\Gn se aseragonX . : “βασι φερ βζαα oto fs Ἂ ὑφραψγνμμεγσοΔεν wa pwpsoi aged
L nara genie abe p09 «Τοῦ .: erat. HYD -orarev on is dyn vod oP. Apdo ser! Doddlode tb rH
τοιεγεώκο ρλαίνναι ποϑάρο ‘ir fedlte rem dat. ἠαθλ τ τ
Με] τ Sele
sdeng atdo | fo »θφιχε
: Kou ab 56 ἄτέδν ote torr th adeu. obAr Cp tae κα 1.3}. Vag rdasmato’ i eeegpat rm ip ose
wiupr ten: -minbdagoedrdp aurea A LOVER? Ap
sAgetan dine Rm giv od donor Conan
25,6» me:
a «. ᾿ΆΧάφεσον2UVING A DRI oe. Cory v aN
pir ἐστ
onere poner
agh\f b
i*

L 2 oboe
9593Ὡς THe MONIT Pb
220
222 PLATES

PL. 10: Pap. Oslo 1413 a—~m (Nos, 39-40)