book review singing alexandria

7/28/2019 Book Review Singing Alexandria

1/10

Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2007.04.57

L. Prauscello,Singing Alexandria. Music Between Practice and TextualTransmission. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Pp. 241. ISBN 90-04-14985-6.$146.00.

Reviewed by Liana Lomiento, University of Urbino([email protected])Word count: 5334 words

In her study, which began as a Ph.D. dissertation at the Scuola Normale Superiore ofPisa, Prauscello (P.) examines selected aspects of the Hellenistic transmission andreception of lyric (basically dramatic) texts originally conceived for musical

performance. She tries to reconstruct the different typological processes which seemto have governed the fate of the past poetic tradition in the new context of Hellenistic

performance. In the first section P. challenges a theory strongly supported by ThomasFleming and Christian Kopff, who see a close interaction, in terms of transmissionand reception, between Alexandrian editorial technique and texts provided withmusical notation: Alexandrian scholars would have systematically resorted to scores

provided with musical notation to break lyric and tragic texts up into metrical cola. At

the heart of this idea lies the "largely welcome decision" (P., p. 7) to reconsiderWilamowitz's long-accepted view of a complete separation, from the IV century BC,of the textual tradition and colization from any musical tradition. Although his thesisstill finds supporters, the emphasis given by Fleming and Kopff to the importance ofmedieval colometry "falls within a broader and well-grounded trend of currentcriticism, one engaged in showing the reliability and inherent consistency of themanuscript colization" (p. 7). Yet, however reasonable their basic principles, theircritical approach involves a more general reconstruction of the modes of production,transmission and reception of poetic texts that, in P.'s view, misrepresents the natureof a process whose true character seems to have been a intermittent interplay ofmultiple channels preserving continuity through diversity.

In Chapter 1 ("Alexandrian Scholarship and Texts with Musical notation", pp. 7-121),P. re-examines the ancient sources to verify the inner validity of the Fleming-Kopffworking hypothesis. A direct derivation of Alexandrian editing technique from scoreswith musical notation would suggest an uninterrupted relation between textual andmusical tradition, from the fifth century BC until at least the Ptolemaic period.Current scholarship is divided: Fleming and Kopff see an early symbiosis between

Lesetexte andBhnenexemplare, whereas Phlmann separates the merely textual

tradition from the scenic.1 Both representations, observes P., verge onoversimplification in attributing an implausible stability to the textual tradition,whose evolution would have been less straightforward. As against these rigid

patterns, P. outlines a richer picture, where the "true" mode of transmission of a textacross different periods seems to have been "its inner capability of being adapted tochanged performance practices without losing its own identity" (p. 5).

Page 1 of 10Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2007.04.57

17/06/2013http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2007/2007-04-57.html


2/10

The direct derivation of Alexandrian colometry from scores is suggested by anapparent correspondence between the phrase of the musical tempi, both vocal andinstrumental, and the rhythm indicated by verbal metrics. P. providescounterexamples, however: (1) isolated traces of metrical frames re-shaped accordingto the musical rhythm in the well-known phenomenon of free responsion in choral

and dramatic lyric, already identifiable in the classical age; (2) the use, attested in thescores, of the leimma as a marker of rhythmic pause or to increase the time value of a

syllable.2 She finds further evidence of "the lack of a systematically predictablecorrespondence between the metrical frame outlined by the text and the musicalrhythm of the actual performance" in Dionysius of Halicarnassus,De compositioneverborum. Particularly relevant here is the well-known passage in 11, 22-23 Auj.-Leb. where he discusses the opposition between spoken language and song. "Prosediction, he says, does not infringe or change the quantities of a noun or a verb but

preserves the syllables, the long as well as the short ones, just as it found them to beby nature. On the contrary, the rhythmike and the mousike change the time value ofthe syllables by shortening or lengthening them so that they are often converted onto

their opposites: in fact the rhythmike and the mousike do not adapt the time values tothe quantity of the syllables but the quantity of the syllables to the time values". Onthe basis of this and other passages (in my view less relevant to the problem of thecorrespondence between musical tempo and metrical rhythm, esp. 11, 19-21 Auj.-Leb. which provides examples of tonal mismatches between speech and song), P.concludes, weakly in my opinion, that the evidence examined cannot be assumed tosupport a normative use of scores in a determination of the colometry of lyric texts (p.28).

Fleming and Kopff support their thesis with another argument they consider essential,which rests on the considerable musical knowledge of Alexandrian scholars. In

particular, they draw attention to the evidence concerning Apollonius eidographos,who classified odes according to their musical mode (Et.Gen. AB s.v. eidographos =Et. M. 295, 53 sgg. Gaisford). P. is not convinced that Apollonius was able to classifyodes by mode simply because he could read music and had access to scores. P.wonders whether he even consulted scores. And would such scores, on theassumption of their availability, have reproduced the original Pindaric performance orwere they rearranged according to the different occasions to which they wereadapted? She concludes: "even if we were forced to suppose an exploitation of textswith musical notation by Apollonius ... the problem would remain of explaining whythis editorial criterion ... cannot be found elsewhere, that is not only in Pindar'sedition arranged by Aristophanes but also in other editions of lyric poets". She

suggests that the expression "being naturally talented" might involve "somethingdifferent from routine work" and could be taken to mean that Apollonius used hisown abilities to guess the right musical labels. This suggestion appears to be anexpansion of the well-known explanation proposed by Irigoin, according to whichApollonius would have done the work by identifying the musical genres from theindications in the verbal text. But the possibility remains that Apollonius wasunusually good at reading scores and did it more efficiently than others, thus

preparing the ground for his successors to recognize the lyric colometries. Nor is itclear why one should not look beyond Pindar and his tradition. The entries inEtymologicum Genuinum and Etymologicum Magnum apparently refer to every kindof literary compositions set to music: it is never stated that such a criterion wouldonly have involved Pindaric poetry.

Another indication of the great musical competence displayed by the Alexandrians is




3/10


4/10

according to the ancient music to which the lyric compositions had been set, hewould not be able to, ancient music being different from the modern one [...]. How,then, would someone be able to sing to the present music poems composed accordingto the ancient harmony?".

Heliodorus' comment hardly seems to admit scepticism: he is just stating that, withthe profound transformation undergone by music, ancient compositions cannot besung to the new music; what he apparently objects to is the widespread tendency tore-adapt or re-set -- which makes one wonder about P.'s claim concerning thecomplete disappearance of ancient music. While Melampus' argument is manifestlycounterfactual, Heliodorus' appeals to the radical changes produced by so manycenturies of evolution and not to the loss of the old music. Heliodorus'scholia seemsomehow to dialogue with Melampus': Melampus urges that, even if the old musicwere lost, the ancient lyric compositions should still be sung to the modern music,whereas Heliodorus rules this out, because of the great musical transformationsundergone in the intervening centuries.

Gentili and the reviewer have drawn attention to Cicero, Orator, 183-184,3 arguingthat the passage indicates a close link between the Alexandrian editorial colization oflyric texts and musical scores. In contrast, P. argues that the music referred to byCicero is not the soundless one of the musical notation on the written page but theone heard in contemporary theatrical performances.

P. does not take account of the relationship this passage bears to De comp. verb. 25-26, where Dionysius, in his consideration of the phono-stylistic and performativefeatures of literary texts, speculates about the intermediate status a poetical discoursecan have, between prose and poetry, when taken outside the colometric order given

by Aristophanes of Byzantium. By observing that cantu remoto soluta esse videaturoratio, Cicero, though not referring to the Alexandrian colometries when quoting theGreek lyric poets, seems to have the same phenomenon in mind. Cicero andDionysius both confirm that once it is removed from vivid musical performance, anddeprived of any explicit metric-rhythmic organization, poetry becomes hard to tellapart--acoustically too--from prose speech.

Two further crucial points of the Fleming-Kopff reconstruction are 1. that theLycurgan copy of Attic drama was provided with musical notation, indeed theoriginal notation (Ps.-Plutarch, Dec. or. vit. 841F); 2. that the Alexandrian editions of

poetic texts actually derived their authority and reliability directly from the Lycurgan

copy, as suggested by Galen, ad Hippocr. Epid. III (XVII. 1, 607, 4-14 Khn); thecorrectness of the colometric articulation would be guaranteed by the concomitantpreservation of the original score. P. expresses two reservations: 1. believing in theexistence of an 'original' musical score seems to rule out any musical re-setting; 2.this hypothesis relies heavily on two main turning points, the Lycurgan copy made inAthens (330 BC) and the Alexandrian editions, whose guiding principle is not asomehow inherent and atemporal inalterability. She guesses that the State-secretary inthe pseudo-Plutarchan passage might have the role of reading aloud the authorizedverbal text so as to prevent actors' interpolations; and that this official copy did notnecessarily have to include original musical notation (p. 73). As regards Galen'stestimony, P. makes it clear that, though Athenian 'official' copies of the threetragedians' works, perhaps the Lycurgan copy itself, must have reached Alexandriaand become fundamental documents for the grammarians, it is still not explicitlyattested that these copies were provided with the original musical notation (p. 78).




5/10

However, if the reason Lycurgus imposed adherence to an official master copy tosafeguard against modifications of all kinds, how do we know the preservation ofmetre and melody was not intended as well? Surely the preservation of suchelements, indispensable as they are to the architecture of theatrical poetry, must haveseemed as desirable to Lycurgus as that of the verbal text itself. Admittedly it is not

entirely clear to us what an "original musical score" was at all: in all likelihood it didnot include the detailed melodic design, but only essential indications concerning thetunes (sometimes the rhythm) of the piece. However, by conjecturing that the mastercopy did not include musical specifications, P. does no more than add a furtherelement of uncertainty to the matter.

P. then questions other aspects of the Fleming-Kopff main thesis. First of all, theclose relationship between Alexandrian colometric articulation and musical scoresseems to be refuted by the physical layout of most of the musical papyri, usuallywritten inscriptio continua--to say nothing of the possibility of musical and rhythmicresetting.

In claiming that Fleming-Kopff (and Gentili-Lomiento) misleadingly link thecolometries to the bare physical layout of musical papyri, P. misses the point. They

just argue that the scores (possibly reproducing the original musical design) couldhave been an important basis for the grammarians to articulate the colometries. Ifcolometry is something strictly related to the book, one should not properly speak ofcolometric function in a score, but a score could offer helpful clues to catch themetrical outline as originally conceived by the poet.

Secondly, Fleming-Kopff lose the opportunity of regarding musical papyri as apotential source of textual (then colometrical) variants (attested in both the

papyrological and the medieval traditions of tragic texts) for the Alexandrian editions.On this subject P. insists that there is no reason to exclude a priori that thegrammarians resorted to the musical scores they occasionally happened to possess,nor that they ignored these copies carrying musical notation as textual evidence.Indeed in the very few cases in which we can compare these scores with themanuscript tradition, musical papyri, besides providing in some cases variaelectiones, show also peculiar divergences. It is in these idiosyncratic divergences thatwe ought to look for any possible evidence for the different degree of rhythmic andtextual re-adaptation to which lyric texts intended for performance may besusceptible. As regards P.Strasb. W.G. 304-307, "a lyric ... anthology of the thirdcentury BC which, although not provided with musical notation, was neverthelessconceived for performance", P. criticizes the reviewer, who, having noticed in this

papyrus a disposition of the text comparable to the layout of other musical papyri,conjectures its straightforward derivation from a musical score.

My conjecture is in fact an attempt to explain the puzzling horizontal dashes withinthe lines. If we assume that the long lines in the scores have to do with the musical(and metrical) periods, a natural consequence would be that in our papyrus, the

presence of horizontal dashes and/or the line-ends, would reproduce the long lines inthe antigraphus, which may be the original score conceived for performance, andhence endowed with musical notation. One must admit, with P., that even if it were

possible to verify this assumption, a layout allegedly reproducing metrical-melodicphrases would not necessarily be a copy of the original musical design rather than of

a re-setting. As Fassino has rightly claimed in a recent study,4 we should basicallydistinguish, at least as regards the theatre, between two paths of tradition. The one,




6/10

official and more stable, could have been that of the re-performances taking placemostly in occasion of the official festivals in Athens, where, apart from minorvariations, the re-performed texts presumably kept their own (textual, musical)identity. The other and more flexible path, that of the re-uses -- of re-setting and re-adaptations (in anthologies, parodies, pastiches), is certainly (in various degree) less

respectful of the original. Indeed, as the work of P. and Fassino has suggested, thescanty remains of ancient scores we possess seem at any rate not to belong to the firstcategory.

A comparative analysis of musical papyri and epigraphic evidence allows areconstruction of some of the dynamics of re-setting and re-adaptations, well provedfor Hellenistic entertainment practice in various forms, such as conversion to song ofmetres originally conceived for spoken or recitative delivery, or astrophic and/ormonodic re-performance of originally choral (and strophic) lyric. Some epigraphicevidence situates these isolated phenomena of rhythmic and even textual re-shaping

and re-arrangements in the context of Hellenistic performances. The focus is on SIG3

648B (Satyros of Samos, 194 BC) and SEG IX 52c (the so-called Themisoninschrift,first half of the second century AD), which exhibit performative dynamics present inP.Vind. and P.Leid as well. The first allows us to observe the virtuoso practice of

performing monodically tragic texts originally conceived for spoken delivery. In theinscription it is said that Satyros, having won the pipe-player's contest, offered Apolloa performance consisting of an "aisma meta chorou Dionysus and kitharisma fromtheBacchai of Euripides". P. endorses the Winnington-Ingram interpretation,according to whichDionysus and kitharisma from the Bacchai of Euripides works asan apposition detailing in a more precise way the content of the previous genericaisma meta chorou. Satyros would be performing a "song with the ancillaryinvolvement of a chorus, that is, he would be singing the parts of Dionysus and

performing a kithara accompaniment from Euripides'Bacchae" (p. 107). If this is thecorrect interpretation of the inscription, Satyros' performance should cover at leastthose passages fromBacchae containing an exchange between Dionysus and theChorus, that is the scene following the secondstasimon (vv. 576-641), in other wordsnot only passages already conceived to be sung but also lines that were originally to

be spoken or delivered in recitative.

A number of scholars believe, however, that the kithara-solo refers to a purelyinstrumental performance separate from the previous song (aisma). If this were theright hypothesis, we should concede that the "kitharisma from Euripides'Bacchae",in order to be identifiable as such, had somehow to reproduce the original music of

theBacchae.

5

In the second inscription, Themison is honoured by the Milesians for having been"the first and only one to set by himself to his own music Euripides, Sophocles andTimotheus". Interpreting (correctly, as it seems) the expression heautoi poiein ti asmeaning the same as the classical expression aph'heautou poiein ti, P. infers that inthe II century AD the 'original' music of the three great champions of the past poetic

tradition was already beyond recovery and that their texts were mere reading texts.6

This inference could be deceptive, and Themison's inscription does not necessarilyjustify such an implication. The inscription could simply allude to the magnificent

talent displayed by Themison in rephrasing, in a way parodying, the three greatauthors' tunes, and the implied assumption would be that the original songs werewell-known to the audience, who could therefore appreciate his skill.




7/10

Chapter 2 ('The Euripidean musical papyri', pp. 123-183) examines in detail P.Vind.G 2315 = Eur. Or. 338-44 and P.Leid. Inv. 510 = Eur. I.A. 1500?-1509, 784-793, theonly surviving Euripidean papyri with musical notation.

Phlmann and West, who offer the most recent edition of the Vienna papyrus, claim--

correctly in P.'s view--a "non-colometric reconstruction of the lineation". Here P.discusses Marino's recent essay which, relying on Salomon's reconstruction of the

physical layout of P.Vind.,7 argues for a close relationship between the Alexandrianand musical tradition. P. rules out Marino's hypothesis that the sign 'Z' would be acolometric sign, and endorses West's suggestion that 'Z' would be an instrumentalsign. In addition, the fact that the papyrus' text diverges in two cases from themedieval manuscripts seems to suggest a process of transmission involving morefluid inner dynamics (p. 160).

West's reconstruction, however, is not incompatible with the thesis, recently proposedby Willink, of a double criterion for lineation, i.e. the 'Z' sign and/or the line-end, in

order to divide the dochmiac measures.8 If in view of these criteria we reconsider thecomparison between the layouts in P.Vind. and in codices B and P together with thelayout implied in the metrical Scholia, it emerges quite neatly that the sign 'Z' musthave been somehow linked to the metric-rhythmical patterns, and that at l. 7 the signwas probably absent, if we accurately compare it with the medieval tradition.

P. gives much importance, at ll. 5 and 6, to the instrumental signs singling out thesyntagm (l. 343), and assumes that they suggest a rhythmic re-adaptation, probably by a Hellenistic performer, of into a syncopated iambic trimeter. What is interesting here is the text of the

scholium for which Marino postulates a

direct derivation from a musical score virtually exhibiting the same notationalclusters. P. convincingly argues that thescholium intends to explain the expression from a plain syntactical point of view, in the sense of a sentence

parenthetically uttered (an exclamatory genitive, p. 152), and syntactically separatefrom the main clause.

In fact, Marino's thesis of a single path of transmission from P.Vind. to the medievalcopies seems in this specific case to be refuted also by the very state of thetransmitted colometry, which totally ignores the instrumental signs on either side ofthe expression in the score. The words are isolated byinstrumental notes; P. takes this to indicate the antiquity of the grammatical

explanation concerning the parenthetical exclamatory genitive (p. 153). Her claim isnot inconsistent, in principle, with Marino's hypothesis, according to which thescholiast had such a score before him. All in all, it seems easier to believe that agrammarian was influenced by a score than that a musician took account of an eruditecommentary. Nor is the possibility that the scholiastic explanation could have beenconditioned by the score in contradiction with the assumption that the Alexandriangrammarians resorted to the scores to detect the song metrical outline.

A less uncertain instance of re-adaptation in P.'s survey is offered by P.Leid. inv. 510.P. rules out at the end of l. 10 the reading dakruoenta// once suggested by Jourdan-Hemmerdinger and accepts as certainly correct the reading dakruoenta ta-//(nusas)

proposed by Van Akkeren, which would constitute an exception to the tendency,otherwise observed, to making line-end coincide with word-end. The possibility ofsuch a correlation (line-end = word-end, i.e. colon- or verse-end) in the scores is




8/10

therefore ruled out by P. on the basis of the non-observance of this criterion at l. 10.

One could admittedly suppose that this exception in our fragment, if Van Akkeren'sreading is the right one, is a mistake, especially considering the "puzzling" l. 7, a veryshort line, 46 letters long, where, P. must recognise, line-end coincides exactly withverse-end. "There are no easy explanations for such an exception", she concludes (p.170). A further puzzling case is l. 8, which at 62 letters is very long. Anyway, it isright to be cautious, especially considering l. 5, where the layout does not seem totake account of the change of speaker, unless by an internal indication in the gap.Moreover, if ll. 5-6 (1504-1509) were not conceived to be sung and the copyist hadwritten down the musical notation only of the parts to be performed monodically, asFunghi suggests (P., p. 181, fn. 201), every consideration concerning the layout ofthese lines would also lose its force.

Chapter 3 ('The 'other' paths of the song: Theocritus' Idyll 29', pp. 185-213)investigates a further typology of literary re-appropriation enacted by the Hellenistic

performance culture, that leading from song to reading and, presumably, to recitation.

Theocritus'Idyll29, in aeolic pentameters, is selected by P. as a fitting instance. Inparticular, it is the only idyll which consciously takes up a metre entirely neglectedoutside Sappho and Alcaeus. Also the subject-matter displays an intentionally archaicand archaising content, reducing to a minimum features and developments peculiar toAlexandrian poetry. Through the analysis of the relationship between the syntacticstructure of the poetic text and its rhythmic-musical frame, P. tries to verify how suchan explicitly declared formal adherence to the past lyric tradition can be aware ofitself and reflect its own performative distance from the model (namely, the absenceof music).

The focus is, in particular, on the correspondence between sense-break at the end of a

syntactic segment and metrical pause at period-end. This serves to check to whatextent this recurrent melodic pattern may have influenced the syntactic structure ofthe phrasing at that very crucial boundary represented by the end of one (distichal)strophe and the beginning of the next. As regards Sappho's aeolic pentameters andgreater asclepiads, in the second and third books of the Alexandrian edition,Hephaestion provides evidence of their distichal strophic structure. In P.'s opinion,the two-line strophic pattern underlying such poems should certainly entail a

performative counterpart as well, in the sense that it should most likely mean that themelody accompanying these strophic couplets repeated itself, with a limited set ofvariations, every two lines.

It is somewhat surprising to find that the existence of a performative counterpart ofthe colometries, which has been in principle ruled out by P. as regards theAlexandrian editions of choral lyric, is then admitted for the Alexandrian metricallayout of Lesbian odes.

P. then investigates whether the syntactic articulation of Lesbian odes composed ofseries of aeolic pentameters and greater asclepiads reveals an underlying tendency tocoincide with a distichal strophic structure. The result is that a systematic coincidence

between syntactic structure and distichal scansion cannot be found. A parallel surveyof the Alcaic tradition offers similar outcomes. This lack of correspondence favoursan ongoing alternation and variety of the poetic rhythm without compromising the

strophic nature of the poems themselves. The recurrent nature of the musicalaccompaniment, P. plausibly infers, was a sufficient aid for orienting the audience toan understanding of the strophic structure in performance. Moreover, in Theocritus'




9/10

Idyll29 P. discovers traces of a strophic (distichal) inner organization. A closeexamination of the overall distribution of enjambments reveals a consistent regularagreement between syntactic structure and distichic scansion, inasmuch as all theenjambments to be found in the poem invariably occur at the end of the odd lines.The only instance of enjambment at the end of an even line appears between ll. 28-29

(p. 210). P. concludes that Theocritus' evident consistency in structuring distichicallythe textual and syntactic frame is inherently 'unfaithful' to the true poetic practicedisplayed by Sappho and Alcaeus' poems in aeolic pentameters, which tend to avoid amechanical coincidence between strophic unit and syntactic structure. The reasonshould be sought in the different nature of the modes of performance and reception ofthe poetic text. In Lesbian monodic lyric, conceived for an actual performance, thestrophic unit was probably underlined above all by the recurrent melodic pattern.Quite differently, when the 'old' traditional literary genres became obsolete and couldnot be reproduced any longer in the renewed Hellenistic microcosm, the only toolsTheocritus could still rely on to re-create without music the distichic frameunderlyingIdyll29, are those ofmtrique verbale stylishly cooperating with the

syntactic articulation of rhetorical cola.

P.'s valuable investigation throws new light on a particular aspect of Hellenisticperformance culture, and more generally on the modes of transmission, reception andre-vitalization to which tragic and lyric poetry of the past have been subjected. Theanalysis of P.Vind. G 2315 and of P.Leid. inv. 510, while confirming the existence ofless univocal routes of reception and transmission, enriches our picture of the textualand musical tradition. Therefore, whereas the scanty remains of scores we have offerimportant evidence of the Hellenistic practice of re-use of classical poetry, we shouldnot consider them so representative when we think of the Alexandrian grammariansworking at their editions. On the other hand, it confirms that some points ofintersection between the traditions ofBhnenexemplare andLesebchermustcertainly have existed, even if we cannot trace them back to standardized protocolsonce and for all. The general feeling is that P.'s study does not explain the problem

behind the Fleming-Kopff hypothesis: How can colometry not have been determinedby music? For we now know, from the latest papyrological findings, that colometrybegan before the Alexandrian grammarians' activity. Even if P. insists that "aphilological faith in the original score, as regards the performative aspects, seems tohave been quite rare already in the archaic period" (p. 104, fn. 334), it is noteworthythat she admits the "relevance" of the transmitted colometry for the constitutio textusof lyric and tragic songs (p. 81 f.). What kind of 'relevance,' unless we ascribe it tosome relation between metrical frame and music? One has to concede it: "theappealing hypothesis" of envisaging scores as the missing link between Alexandriancolization and textual theatrical tradition still "continues to raise a heated debate" (p.4).

Just two errors to correct. First, at p. 186, fn. 2 the observation: "That ancient Greekswere perfectly aware of the 'perverted' nature of this phenomenon (i.e. the practice ofinnovating the past poetic tradition by converting lyric verses in iterated stichicseries) [...] is clearly shown by Heph. 58, 16 ff. Consbr. (in particular referring to the

pherecratean [...])" rests on a misunderstanding. What Hephaestion intends here issimply that the pherecratean as a measure is not a truestichos, i.e. a trimeter or atetrameter, but a colon, i.e. a dimeter. Nonetheless, he says, when they are repeated inseries, it is customary to call them improperlystichoi. Second, at p. 210, a further

occurrence of enjambment in Theocritus'Id. 29 is found between ll. 16-17, where the

protasis is at l. 16 and the apodosis at l. 17.9




10/10

HTML generated at 13:31:50, Friday, 03 April 2009

[For a response to this review by L. Prauscello, please see BMCR2007.05.14.]

Notes:

1. E. Phlmann,Denkmler griechischer Musik, Nrnberg 1970.2. Cf. also Aristides Quintilianus p. 38, 28 ff. W.-I. Cf. Prauscello, p. 13, fn. 22.3. B. Gentili-L. Lomiento, 'Colometria antica e filologia moderna', QUCC 69, 2001,

pp. 7-22; iid., Metrica e ritmica. Storia delle forme poetiche nella Grecia antica,Milano 2003, p. 10.4. M. Fassino, 'Avventure del testo di Euripide nei papiri tolemaici', in Tradizionetestuale e ricezione letteraria antica della tragedia greca, Atti del Convegno Scuola

Normale Superiore, Pisa 14-15 giugno 2002, Amsterdam 2003, 50-56.5. An extended doxography at p. 106, fnn. 339-341.6. According to the interpretation of Latte and Tabachovitz, cf. p. 112, fn. 360.7. E. Marino, 'Il papiro musicale dell'Oreste di Euripide e la colometria dei codici' in

B. Gentili-F. Perusino, La colometria antica dei testi poetici greci, Roma 1999, 143-156.8. C.W. Willink, 'Again the Orestes' musical papyrus', QUCC 68, 2001, 125-133.9. I am very grateful to Alexander Afriat for having revised the English text.

ReadLatest

Index for2007

Change GreekDisplay

ArchivesBooks Available for

ReviewBMCRHome


book review singing alexandria

Documents