The Orestes Musical Papyrus

Publish in



Please download to get full document.

View again

of 10
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
    Again the Orestes Musical Papyrus Author(s): Charles W. WillinkSource: Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica,  New Series, Vol. 68, No. 2 (2001), pp. 125-133Published by: Fabrizio Serra EditoreStable URL: 09-08-2017 07:55 UTC   JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a widerange of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity andfacilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at Fabrizio Serra Editore   is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica  This content downloaded from on Wed, 09 Aug 2017 07:55:32 UTCAll use subject to   Again the Orestes Musical Papyrus Charles W. Willink  Much has been written about the very early papyrus fragment of  Orestes 338-344 with musical notation 1. The most recent discussion  by Elena Marino 2 variously invites a riposte 3.  The argument of M.'s article can ben summarized as follows:  (i) that the fragmentary text of P. Find., with Solomon's modifi  cation of the editio princeps4, is to be read as attesting the  colometry  ... xaxoXo<pi)QO[xai  (#) u.ctT8QOc a?uxx c?c ? c9 ava?axxeuer  (#) ? u?yac ?X?oc ov u?vaioc ev ?poxotc, (#) ?v? ?? Xo?xpoc &c ne ax?xov fto?c  (#) xiv?^ac ?aiuxov xax?x?,ucev ?eiv?rv  Jt?VCDV (OC Jt?VXOD  (#) Xa?goic ?XedQioiciv ?v xv^aciv  (#) xiva y??y exi rc?ooc...  1 P. Find. inv. G 2315; for the date, circa 200 B. C, see E. G. Turner, Journ. Hell.  Stud. 76, 1956, 95-96.  2 Elena Marino, 11 papiro musicale dell'Oreste di Euripide e la colometria dei co  dici', in B. Gentili and F. Perusino (edd.), La colometria antica dei testipoetici greci,  Pisa-Roma 1999, 143-156. Reference is also made below to Th. J. Fleming, 'The Survi  val of Greek Dramatic Music from the Fifth Century to the Roman Period', ibid.  17-29.  3 I have discussed the textual issues previously in my commentary on Orestes in  the Oxford series (1986, 1989), pp. liv-lv, 137, 141-143; to which it appears that M.  has paid scant attention (making only two passing references to it, one of which attribu  tes to me a position which I expressly reject). 4 J. Solomon, Orestes 344-45: Colometry and Music', Gr. Rom. Byz. Stud. 18,  1977, 77. For the previous reconstruction, cf. H. Hunger and E. P?hlmann, Wien. Stud.  75,1962, 76-78; also (as cited by Marino) E. P?hlmann, Denkm?ler der altgriechischen  Musik, N?rnberg 1970, 78. Solomon's version is apparently favoured by Diggle (n. 10 below), but without discussion. This content downloaded from on Wed, 09 Aug 2017 07:55:32 UTCAll use subject to   126  C. W. Willink  The lineation of P. Find, is actually such that the notation here  schematically represented by the symbol (#) appears not at the begin  ning but always in the middle of a line, following the first of a pair of  dochmii ?. M. argues that it should not, however, be read simply as a divider between dochmiacs but rather as marking the beginning of a  new colon, as shown above. [With the same doctrine applied to the  editio princeps the colometry attested would be ^lax?rjoc... I ? peyote... I  ?v? ??... I xiv?^ac... ?XeOptoi- I civ ?v x?^iaciv (...) ]  Whether we should follow Solomon is considered further be  low.  (ii) that there is then less conflict with the colometry attested by  the medieval mss:  UXXX8Q0C aiua cac ? c' ava?axxeuei 338 xaxotaxp?QOum xaxotaxp?QOfxar 339 ? u?yac ?X?oc ov u?vutoc ?v ?poxotc, 340 ?v? ?? taxupoc (oc xic ?x?xou Oo?c 341  xiv?^ac ?aiuxDv xax?xXucev ?eiv v 342  ji?vcav (be Jt?vxou 343  Xa?ooic ?tadoioiciv ?v x?|iaciv 344  xiva y?g en jt?Qoc... 345  (iii) that the residual conflict between 339-338-340 in P. Find.  and 338-339-340 in the mss is to be resolved in favour of the former, the papyrus' text being accredited at once by very early date and by the associated musical notation. Both versions are taken as giving the  same sense ul lament your mother's blood which maddens you .  Given that interpretation (which M. defends), the erroneous transpo  sition of xaxo?,o(pi)QO^taL xaxoXoqp?rjojxai to follow rather than precede  the object will have been easy, as neither affecting the sense nor upset ting the metre, also as bringing xaxoXrjqr?QO^ai xaxoXoqr?QO^iai more  ? The symbol in fact resembles a wide Z with vertical middle stroke and a super scribed stigme. Whether or not it had some other/additional musical connotation, it  cannot be fortuitous that it occurs only at the end of a dochmiac measure, behaving thus  like a bar-line in a modern musical score. It is usually written on the line between words,  but in one place above rather than after the last letter of a word (doac). It is doubtful  whether that different placing means more than that scribe at first carelessly omitted to write the 'divider' before xtva^ac, and was thus forced to write it above the line between  the notations of pitch. This content downloaded from on Wed, 09 Aug 2017 07:55:32 UTCAll use subject to   Again the Orestes uMusical Papyrus 127  nearly into responsion with xa&ixeTeuopm xaOxxexeuo^iai in the  strophe 6.  There are several weak links in the chain of this argument.  (i) As things stand, the lines of text in the papyrus are indeed out  of step with acceptable colometry (aout of phase , as Turner put it);  most conspicuously so at  ... ava?jaxxeusi (#) o uxyacLoX?oc...  with hiatus (and sentence-end) in the middle of a line. But it strains belief to postulate ad hoc a colometric system in which new cola (in  cluding new ctlxoi) always by rule begin in the middle of a line  (ctixoc). The hypothesis that such a convention might have had value in a musical score written cfor performance' is not supported by any  argument of substance, let alone by evidence of such a convention  elsewhere. It is surely easier to believe that P. Find, simply gives the  dochmiac measures (and the superscribed musical notes) with an ap  propriate divider wherever two measures are written uno ver su. It may  descend from a ccolometrised' ancestor with more rational lineation. But it seems equally likely that it was lineated according to a conven tion whereby the dochmiacs were colometrised only in the sense that the end of each dochmius was shown either by line-end or by a c di vider' symbol between a pair of measures, the dividers thus analogous to the 'bar-lines' in modern musical scores, while also serving to artic ulate the (possibly unfamiliar) rhythm.  Dochmiacs are in many ways sui generis-, and in this ode the dochmiac units are notably self-contained (mostly demarcated by  word-end), and rhythmically somewhat uniform, in such a way as to  admit a variety of acceptable and less acceptable lineations.  One may speculate that the lost preceding verses in the papyrus  had been written in similar two-dochmiac lines as  doa?orv ce xov (#) jieXeov coi ?axQua  ?axQDct cufi?aAAei (#) jtoqedcov tic etc ?ofxov aXacxoQcov (#) xatoXoqpuQonai  xatoXoqpDQOjiat (xxL)  6 Cf. Kirchoffs transposition of 339, accepted by Murray, to follow 340; tempting  indeed on grounds of symmetry, but not giving an acceptable sequence of clauses. This content downloaded from on Wed, 09 Aug 2017 07:55:32 UTCAll use subject to
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks