https://ebookmass.com/product/music-text-and-culture-in-
Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...
Saviour Gods and Soteria in Ancient Greece Theodora Suk Fong Jim
https://ebookmass.com/product/saviour-gods-and-soteria-in-ancientgreece-theodora-suk-fong-jim/ ebookmass.com
Ancient Women Writers of Greece and Rome Bartolo Natoli
https://ebookmass.com/product/ancient-women-writers-of-greece-androme-bartolo-natoli/
ebookmass.com
Self-Cultivation Philosophies in Ancient India, Greece, and China 1st Edition Christopher W. Gowans
https://ebookmass.com/product/self-cultivation-philosophies-inancient-india-greece-and-china-1st-edition-christopher-w-gowans/ ebookmass.com
Beautiful Nightmares (Fortuna Sworn Book 4) K.J. Sutton
https://ebookmass.com/product/beautiful-nightmares-fortuna-swornbook-4-k-j-sutton/ ebookmass.com
Bayou
https://ebookmass.com/product/bayou-beloved-lexi-blake/
ebookmass.com
Conservation of Tropical Coral Reefs: A Review of Financial and Strategic Solutions Brian Joseph Mcfarland
https://ebookmass.com/product/conservation-of-tropical-coral-reefs-areview-of-financial-and-strategic-solutions-brian-joseph-mcfarland/
ebookmass.com
CUSTOM AND ITS INTERPRETATION IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW Panos Merkouris
https://ebookmass.com/product/custom-and-its-interpretation-ininternational-investment-law-panos-merkouris/
ebookmass.com
Nanotechnology: A Very Short Introduction Philip Moriarty
https://ebookmass.com/product/nanotechnology-a-very-shortintroduction-philip-moriarty/
ebookmass.com
The Use of Force in International Law: A Case-Based Approach Tom Ruys (Editor)
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-use-of-force-in-international-law-acase-based-approach-tom-ruys-editor/
ebookmass.com
https://ebookmass.com/product/echo-unbound-echo-power-trilogybook-3-anna-durand/
ebookmass.com
MUSIC,TEXT,ANDCULTURE
INANCIENTGREECE
Music,Text,and CultureinAncient Greece
Editedby TOMPHILLIPS and ARMANDD ’ ANGOUR
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries ©OxfordUniversityPress2018
Themoralrightsoftheauthorshavebeenasserted FirstEditionpublishedin2018 Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2017955710
ISBN978–0–19–879446–2
Printedandboundby CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
Preface
ThisvolumeoriginatesinaworkshopthattookplaceinJune2013, andaconferencethattookplaceayearlater.Wewouldliketoexpress ourgratitudetotheJohnFellFundformakingtheseeventspossible, andtoJesusCollege,Oxfordforprovidinganatmospherecongenial todiscussion.Thespiritoflivelydebateandco-operativeengagement thatpervadedthosemeetingshascarriedthroughtheprocessof preparingthevolumeforpublication,andweareverygratefulto thecontributorsfortheirpatienceandefficiency.GeorginaLeighton andCharlotteLoveridgesteeredthevolumethroughthepresswith attentivenessandskill,andthe finalproductwasconsiderably improvedbytheeditorialinterventionsofTimBeckandAlbert Stewart.Numerousotherscholarlyconversationshaveinformed thevolume,butweareparticularlyindebtedtoEmilyDreyfusand PaulineLeVenfortheircommentsontheintroduction,andtothe readersofthepressfortheirsuggestionsabouttheshapeandsubstanceofthebookasawhole. A.J.D. T.R.P.
Oxford October2016
ListofFigures ix
ListofAbbreviations xi
ListofContributors xiii
Introduction:Music,Text,andCulture1 TomPhillips
PARTI.INTERPRETATION
1.EpicentricTonalityandtheGreekLyricTradition17 JohnC.Franklin
2.TheMusicalSettingofAncientGreekTexts47 ArmandD’Angour
3.WordsandtheMusician:Pindar’sDactylo-Epitrites73 TomPhillips
4.MusicinEuripides’ Medea 99 OliverThomas
5.Mesomedes’ HymntotheSun:ThePrecipitation of Logos inthe Melos 121 SteliosPsaroudakes
PARTII.THEORY,RECEPTION,CONTEXTS
6.HearingtheSyrinxinEuripideanTragedy139 NaomiWeiss
7.LyricAtmospheres:PlatoandMimeticEvanescence163 Anastasia-ErasmiaPeponi
8.AristotleonMusicforLeisure183 PierreDestrée
9.SoundsYouCannotHear:CiceroandtheTradition ofSublimeCriticism203 JamesI.Porter
viii Contents
10.DisreputableMusic:APerformance,aDefence,andtheir IntertextualandIntermedialResonances
(Plutarch Quaest.conv. 704c4–705b6)233
AndrewBarker
Bibliography
ListofFigures
1.1.Oscilloscopereadingsoftwotonesatunison,the3:2 ‘fifth’,the 4:3 ‘fourth’,andsoonthroughthe9:8wholetone(Gk τόνος).21
1.2.GraphicrepresentationoftheMesopotamiantuningcycle UETVII74.23
1.3.EpicentricarrangementoftraditionalGreekheptachord, accordingtoAristotle.26 DrawnbyBoLawergrenandoriginallypublishedin B.Lawergren(1998) ‘DistinctionsamongCanaanite,Philistine, andIsraeliteLyres,andtheirGlobalLyricalContexts’ , Bulletin oftheAmericanSchoolsofOrientalResearch 309,41–68.
1.4. ‘Recomposition’ ofSappho1,illustratingepicentrictonality andaccent-melodyinconjunctheptachordE-F-G-A-Bb-c-d.39
1.5.Didymus’ chromatic γένος,expressedinmatrixshowingratios betweenallstringpairs,withdecimal figuresreplacedby resonant/epimoricratios(3:2,4:3,5:4,etc.)whereapplicable.43
5.1.MelodicdiagramofMesomedes’ HymntotheSun.131
ListofAbbreviations
CBSCatalogueoftheBabylonianSection,UniversityMuseum, Philadelphia.
CEG P.A.Hansen(ed.), CarminaEpigraphicaGraeca (Berlin,1983–9).
DAGM E.PöhlmannandM.L.West(eds), DocumentsinAncientGreek Music (Oxford,2001).
D-KH.DielsandW.Kranz(eds), DieFragmentederVorsokratiker, I–III(Berlin,1974).
DrA.B.Drachmann(ed.), ScholiaVeterainPindariCarmina,I–III (Leipzig,1903–27[reprintedStuttgart,1997]).
FGrH F.Jacobyetal.(eds), FragmentederGriechischenHistoriker (Leiden,1923–).
K-AR.KasselandC.Austin(eds), PoetaeComiciGraeci (Berlin,1983–).
LfgrELexikondesfrühgriechischenEpos (Göttingen,1979–).
LIMCLexiconIconographicumMythologiaeClassicae,I–VIII(Zurich/ Munich,1981–99).
LSJH.G.Liddell,R.Scott,H.S.Jones,andR.Mackenzie(eds), A Greek–EnglishLexicon (ninthedn,Oxford,1940).
MSG K.vonJan,ed. MusiciscriptoresGraeci:Aristoteles,Euclides, Nicomachus,Bacchius,Gaudentius,Alypius (Leipzig,1895).
PEG ABernabé(ed.), PoetarumepicorumGraecorumtestimoniaet fragmenta I(Leipzig,1987).
PMG D.L.Page(ed.), PoetaeMeliciGraeci (Oxford,1962).
PMGF D.L.PageandM.Davies(eds), PoetarumMelicorumGraecorum Fragmenta (Oxford,1991).
SEGSupplementumEpigraphicumGraecum (Amsterdam,1923–).
S-MB.SnellandH.Maehler(eds), PindariCarminacumFragmentis (Lepizig,1984,1989).
TLGThesaurusLinguaeGraecae (UniversityofCalifornia,1985–).
TGrF R.Kannicht,S.Radt,andB.Snell(eds), TragicorumGraecorum Fragmenta,I– (Göttingen,1971–2004).
UETUrExcavationTexts(London,1928–).
VATVorderasiatischesMuseum,Berlin(VorderasiatischeAbteilung. Tontafeln).
WehrliF.vonWehrli(ed.), DieSchuledesAristoteles:Texteund Kommentar I–X (BaselandStuttgart,1969).
ListofContributors
AndrewBarker isEmeritusProfessorofClassicsattheUniversityof Birmingham.Hehaspublishedeightbooksandnumerousarticleson ancientGreekmusicandmusicaltheory,andistheFoundingEditor ofthejournal GreekandRomanMusicalStudies.Hewaselecteda FellowoftheBritishAcademyin2005.
ArmandD’Angour isAssociateProfessorinClassicsatOxfordand FellowandTutorofJesusCollege.Heistheauthorof TheGreeksand theNew (Cambridge,2011),andhaspublishednumerousarticleson ancientGreekmusicandpoetry.HisongoingprojectaimstoreconstructthesoundsofancientGreekmusic.
PierreDestrée isaFNRSResearchProfessorattheUniversityof Louvain.Mostrecentlyhehasco-edited TheBlackwellCompanionto AncientAesthetics (2015),and Plato:Symposium ACriticalGuide (Cambridge,2017).
JohnC.Franklin isAssociateProfessorandChairofClassicsatthe UniversityofVermont.Theculturalhistoryofancientmusichas beencentraltohisresearch,muchofwhichhasfocusedonthe interfacebetweenearlyGreeceandtheNearEast(culminating recentlyin Kinyras:TheDivineLyre,2016).
Anastasia-ErasmiaPeponi isProfessorofClassicsatStanford University.Shewritesonissuesofaestheticperceptionandjudgement, ancientandmodernlyricpoetry,Plato,dance,andtherelationship betweentheverbalandthevisual.Amongherpublicationsare FrontiersofPleasure:ModelsofAestheticResponseinArchaicandClassical GreekThought (Oxford,2012)and(aseditor) Performanceand CultureinPlato’sLaws (Cambridge,2013).
TomPhillips isSupernumeraryFellowinClassicsatMertonCollege, Oxford.Heistheauthorof Pindar’sLibrary:PerformancePoetryand MaterialTexts (Oxford,2016).Hiscurrentresearchfocusesonlyric poetry,Hellenisticpoetry,andancientscholarship.
JamesI.Porter isChancellor’sProfessorofRhetoricandClassics atUCBerkeley.Histeachingandresearchfocusesonmodels
ListofContributors
ofaestheticsensation,perception,andexperienceinancientGreece andRome.Hismostrecentbookis TheSublimeinAntiquity (Cambridge,2016).
SteliosPsaroudakes isAssistantProfessorofAncientHellenicMusic intheDepartmentofMusicStudiesoftheNationalandKapodistrian UniversityofAthens.Heteachesandresearchesintheareasof ancientmusictheory,notation,scores,andorganology.
OliverThomas isanAssistantProfessorinClassicsattheUniversity ofNottingham.Heistheauthor,withDavidRaeburn,of TheAgamemnonofAeschylus:ACommentaryforStudents (Oxford,2011). HisresearchcurrentlycentresonGreekhymns,andheiscompleting acommentaryonthe HomericHymntoHermes forCambridge UniversityPress.
NaomiWeiss isAssistantProfessoroftheClassicsatHarvard University.HerresearchfocusesonancientGreekperformanceculture, especiallytheatre.Sheistheauthorof TheMusicofTragedy:PerformanceandImaginationinEuripideanTheater (forthcoming)andis currentlyco-editingavolumeonarchaicandclassicallyricgenres. xiv
Introduction
Music,Text,andCulture
TomPhillips
Thisvolumeaddressestwoissuescentraltothestudyofancient Greekperformanceculture.The firstisthenarrowbutmethodologicallyproblematicquestionoftheroleplayedbymusicinperformed poetry.Thesecondisbroader:howdidtheancientsunderstandthe relationshipbetweenmusic,poetry,andperformance,andhowdid reflectiononmusicrelatetootherareasofancientintellectuallife? Whilethesecondhasreceivedconsiderableattention,the first,despiteitsobviousimportance,remainsthinlyformulatedandlittle understood.Thereareobviousandintransigentreasons,bothinstitutionalandevidential,forthisinterpretativeblindspot.Perhaps moreclearlythananyotherareaofscholarshipthestudyofmusic inancientGreeceexemplifiesboththebenefitsandtheproblemsof increasingscholarlyspecialization.Recentyearshaveseenscholars produceworksofgreattechnicalsophisticationthathavevastly increasedourunderstandingofancientinstruments,modalsystems, andmusicalscholarship,1 andyetthedifficultyofthematerialthese worksaddresshasmeantthatmusichasgenerallyremainedsomethingofaclosedbooktomainstreamliteraryscholars.Formidable evidentialproblemsalsobesetthoseinterestedintherolemusic playedinperformanceculture,especiallyinthearchaicandclassical periods.Whileinscriptionsandpapyrifurnishconsiderableevidence
1 Seee.g.West(1992b);Barker(2007);Hagel(2009);Creese(2010).Foran accessibleoverviewofancientmusicologyseeBarker(2014).
2 TomPhillips
formusicalcultureintheHellenisticperiodandbeyond,2 ourevidenceforthemusicofHomer,thetragicandcomicchoruses,andthe choralgenresofthesixthand fifthcenturies,nottomentionthe variousformsofmonodyandpopularsongs,isforthemostpart exiguous.Asaresult,ithasbecomeascholarlytopostopairan emphasisonmusic’simportancetoperformancepoetrywith acknowledgementofourignoranceofitsworkings.3 Ontheother hand,thesocial,ritual,andpoliticalcontextsofpoeticperformancein theclassicalperiodarebetterrepresentedinourevidence,andgreat advanceshaverecentlybeenmadeinstudyingperformance ‘inthe round’,asaphenomenonthatintersectswithvariousothersocial factors.4 Thesocialenvironmentsinwhichmusicwascomposed, performed,listenedto,anddebatedareconsequentlymuchbetter understoodthantheywereagenerationago.5 Oneimplicationofthis volume,however,isthatclassicalandarchaicpoetry,andtheancient sourcesthatbearonit,stillhavemuchtotellusabouthowmusic workedinthearchaicandclassicalperiods,eventhoughinterpreting theevidencerequiresaprecariousmixtureofimaginationand caution.
Acentralaimofthechapterscollectedhereistomakeconnections betweenmusicologicalscholarshipandtheissuesthathavetraditionallyconcernedstudentsofancientliterature.Especiallypressing inthisrespectistheneedtodevelopabetterunderstandingof howmusicandtextscombinedinperformance,anditisthisto whichtheessaysinthe firsthalfofthevolumearelargelydevoted.6 The ‘music’ ofourtitleandtheuseof ‘music’ intheseopening remarksgoesagainsttheterminologicalgrainofrecentscholarship
2 OnHellenisticandlatermusicalscholarshipseee.g.Prauscello(2006).
3 Seee.g.Gentili(1988)31.
4 ForclassicalchorallyricCalame(2001)isfoundational;morerecentlyseee.g. Kowalzig(2007);AthanassakiandBowie(2011);Fearn(2011);KowalzigandWilson (2013).OntragicchorusesseeespeciallyGagnéandHopman(2013);forresponsesto choralcultureinPlatoseePrauscello(2013a),andtheessaysinPeponi(2013a).For musicalculturemoregenerallyseeMurrayandWilson(2004)andYatromanolakis (2011).
5 Cf.Csapo(2004)ontheNewMusic;Power(2010)onthehistoryofcitharodia.
6 Forotherrecentmovesinthisdirectionseee.g.Wilson(2005);Hall(2006) 288–320;Goldhill(2013);Phillips(2013);Gurd(2016):seefurtherPorter(this volume)217n.36.Nooter(2012)analysestheshiftsbetweenspokenandsung utteranceinSophocles;ontheroleofsoundinpoetry,lookingespeciallyatthe voice,seeButler(2015)82–7.
onperformanceculture,whichhastendedtogrounddiscussionof ancientmusico-culturalphenomenaintermssuchas μουσική or μολπή 7 Themanoeuvreofemployingtheseancienttermshasthe valueofhighlightingtheculturaldifferencesbetweenancientand modernmusic,especiallyasregardsthe ‘seamlesscomplexofinstrumentalmusic,poeticword,andco-ordinatedphysicalmovement’8 thatcomprised μουσική inancientperformanceculture.Ouruseof ‘music’ isnotmeanttosignalamoveawayfromconsideringmusical elements(thesoundsofinstruments,vocalmelodies,etc.)aspart ofperformancetotalities,butrathertorecalibratewhatanalysisof themusicalelementof μουσική entails.Apersistentconcernofthe firsthalfofthevolumeistoisolatephenomenasuchasmelodyand rhythmandconsiderthemasdistinctiveevidentialstrands,enabling themsubsequentlytobeintegratedintomoreholisticanalysesof performance.Thismorediscretetreatmentof μουσική enablesthe distinctivenessofmusicalelementstoemergemoreclearly,butit alsopromotesgreaterattentiontohowtheverbalandthemusical interact.
Thisterminologicalchoiceandtheinterpretativemanoeuvrethatit reflectsareparalleledincontemporaryreflectionontheuseofmultiplemediainartworks.Discussionsofmediality thepropertiesand qualitiesofthemediainwhichartworksareconstructed has addressedvariousartisticphenomena.Aparticularconcernhas beentheelucidationofrelationsbetweendifferentmediawithina singleartwork.Anothersubjectoffocushasbeentheformalfeatures ofonemediumbeingtransposedintoorreworkedinanother.9 Verbaldescriptionsofmusic,andtheadoptioninnovelsofstructuringdevicesborrowedfrommusic,havereceivedconsiderableattention.10 Inonesense,discussionofsuchinteractionscorrespondsto whatclassicistshavelongbeendoingintheirtreatmentofphenomena suchasecphrasis,butthespecifictermsinwhichthesediscussionsare framedalsopromptustoreconsiderthewaysinwhichwethinkabout therelationshipsbetweenmediainartworks.
Oneoftheanimatingprinciplesofstudiesonmedialityisthe ‘recognitionthattheartsandmediashouldnotbestudiedintheir
7 Seee.g.MurrayandWilson(2004).
8 MurrayandWilson(2004)1.
9 Definedas ‘transmediality’:foradiscussionseeKattenbelt(2008)23–4.
10 Cf.Wolf(2002)23–5fordiscussionandfurtherreferences.
4 TomPhillips
ownhistoricaldevelopmentsandwiththeirownrulesandspecifications,butratherinthebroadercontextoftheirdifferencesand co-relations’ 11 Thismirrorstosomeextenttheemphasisonamore contextuallygroundedapproachtoarchaicandclassicalGreek poetry,whichhasemphasizedthatpoetryisnotatypeoflanguage thatbelongstoitsownseparaterealm,butneedstobeseeninrelation toritualpractices,socio-politicaldiscourses,andtheplasticarts.Yet inemphasizingboth ‘differencesandco-relations’,thestudyofmedialityprovidesa(necessarilyprovisional)frameworkforaddressing boththecombinationanddisaggregationofmediawithinanartwork.12 Worksthatincludeorarerealizedthroughmultiplemedia canbeanalysedintermsofthe ‘fusion’ theycreate,13 butcanalsobe understoodascreatingmedialinteractionsthatchangethesignificanceofindividualmedia.14 Crucially,anintermedialapproach resistsconceptualizingartworksintermsofacriticalprogramme inwhichthesemanticispositedastheprivilegedmodeltowhich musical,rhythmical,andothern on-verbalaspectsofanartwork aresubordinated,atendencywhichhasbeencommonincritical writingfromantiquitytothepresent. 15 Inattemptingtodojustice totheshiftingmultifariousnessoftherelationshipsbetweenmusic andtext,semanticsandprosody,thechaptersinthisvolumeshare thefocus,ifnotalwaysthelanguage,ofmedialitystudies.They highlightinstancesofmusicandrhythm ‘ imitating’ orreinforcing semanticcontent, 16 buttheyalsoexploremomentsatwhichtexts’
11 Kattenbelt(2008)20.
12 ForaconciseoverviewofdifferentrelationsbetweenmediaseeKattenbelt (2008),andformoreextendeddiscussionWolf(2002).Particularlygermanetothe concernsofthisvolumearethecommentsofWolf(2002)17on ‘intracompositional intermediality’,whichhedefinesas ‘adirectorindirectparticipationofmorethanone mediumofcommunicationinthesignificationand/orsemioticstructureofaworkor semioticcomplex’.Forfurthertheorizationontherelationsbetweenwordsandmusic andfurtherreferencesseetheessayscollectedinBernhart(2012).
13 Wolf(2002)20.
14 Cf.Kattenbelt(2008)25,using ‘intermediality’ toreferto ‘co-relationsbetween differentmediathatresultinaredefinitionofthemediathatareinfluencingeach other’.Such ‘redefinitions’ maybemoreorlessradicaldependingonthenatureofthe mediainvolved:KattenbeltcomparesKandinsky’ s Bühnenkompositionen,inwhich theinterplayofartsincludedwithinthewholewasgroundedintheirperceived independence,withWagner’sconceptionofthe Gesamtkunstwerk inwhichmusic wasgivenprimacy.
15 SeefurtherPhillips(thisvolume)74–9.
16 Seee.g.thechaptersbyD’AngourandPsaroudakesinthisvolume.
auditorydimensionsassert,orareunderstoodashaving,adistinctive autonomy.17
Whencombinedwithtraditionalphilologicalapproaches,theconceptualtoolsprovidedbytheorizationaboutmedialitycanenablea moregranularanalysisofhowwordsandmusicinteractinpoetic texts,buttheyarealsoripeforextensioninthelightofthemedial complexitiesofparticulartexts,asAndrewBarker’sdiscussionof ‘potentialintermediality’ inPlutarchdemonstrates.18 Equally,media theoryfurnishesreaderswithacriticalidiomthathasgreatertypologicalthandescriptiveorinterpretativeresources.19 Thisishighlightedbythefactthattheproblemof findingadequatevocabulary withwhichtoregistertheemotiveeffectsandinterpretativechallengescreatedby ‘multimedial’ artworksisespeciallypressinginthe caseofancientculture.Inadditiontothechallengeoftranslatingand understandingancientaestheticterminologyandintellectualframeworks,20 wealsohavetograpplewithourrelativelackofrelevant acculturation.Acontemporaryreaderofapoementitled ‘BobDylan’ s MinnesotaHarmonicaSound’ canbeexpectedtohaveanintuitive graspofthesubjectderivedfromfrequentencounterswiththemusic, mentionofwhichwillusherin,forsuchareader,asetofmemories andpersonalassociationswhichinflecttheirparticipationinthe poem ’simaginativeworld.21 Whenreadingancienttextsinwhich musicplaysapart,weareatbestlessfamiliarwiththerelevant parallelphenomena,andatworstalmosttotallyinthedark.The soundsoftheaulos,theshapeofrhythmicalphrases,andthetonesof voiceemployedinsingingaboutintenseemotionalexperiences
17 FortheformerseeespeciallythechaptersbyPhillipsandThomas,forthelatter thosebyPeponiandPorterinthisvolume.
18 Pp.249–55.
19 Thediscussionof Stimmung byPeponi(thisvolume,esp.167–8,172–4)exemplifiesthis.AsconceptualizedbyPlato,the Stimmung oflyricpoetryismultimedialin thesenseofbeingcreatedbyprosodyandthedynamicsoftheindividualvoice.What makesthis Stimmung distinctiveinitsphilosophicalcontext,however,isnotits multimedialaspectpersebutitsproductionof ‘atmospheres’ thatarebothallpervasiveandindeterminate,andPlato’sresponsetothecriticalproblemthese atmospherescreate.
20 SeeD’Angour(thisvolume)48;Phillips(thisvolume)74–81.
21 LachlanMackinnon, TheJupiterCollisions (Faber&Faber,2003).Thepoem itself,however,makesnoexplicitreferencetoitstitularsubject.Thisobliqueness opensupvariouswaysofconstruingtherelationshipbetweenthe ‘sound’ inthetitle andthepoem’ssoundscape,dominatedby ‘thewindthatseemedtobealways blowing’ andthewhistlingoffreighttrains.
wouldallhavecontributedpowerfullytotheexperienceoflistening toaEuripideanchoralode.Ancientreaders,eventhoseofperiods fairlyremotefromEuripides’ owntime,wouldhavebroughttoa readingofthesameodeamuchgreaterfamiliaritywiththese phenomenathantheirmoderncounterparts, 22 forwhomtheypose ascendinglycomplexproblemsofreconstructionandinterpretation. Wecanneverhopetohearancientpoetryastheancientsdid.Butin scrutinizingtheeffectscreatedbyinteractionsbetweenmusicand text,thechaptersinthe firsthalfofthevolumeaimtodeepenour understandingandimaginativeengagementwiththisaspectof poetry,aswellastoconnecttheseinteractionswithwiderinterpretativequestions.
Althoughtheydonotattempttoofferanoverarchingtheoryofthe relationshipbetweenwordsandsounds,thesechaptersshareafocus onthetwo-waynatureoftherelationshipbetweenmusicandtexts. Thevolumebeginswithanessaythatexaminesthisrelationship againstahistoricalbackdropthatreachesbacktothethirdmillennium BC.JohnFranklinarguesthatthetuningsystemtheGreeks appliedtothelyrederivedultimatelyfromAssyrianandBabylonian models.Franklintracksthis ‘epicentric ’ model,whichusedthecentralstring(μέση)asthebasisfordeterminingthetuningsofthe othersthroughthearchaicandclassicalperiods,and findssignsofits influencepersistingintolaterantiquity.23 Aswellasbeingrichly suggestiveformelodizationinthearchaicperiod,Franklin’sexplorationoftheepicentricmodeldemonstratestheeffectsofmusical practiceonotherculturalactivities.24
Despitethevariationsinthecontexts,genres,andcommunicative strategiesoftheprimarytextsunderdiscussioninthenextfour chapters,abasicdynamicrecurs:asArmandD’ AngourandStelios Psaroudakesdemonstrateindetail,musicaffectshowindividual wordsandphrasesareunderstood,whiletheverbalstructures in fl ecthowtheirmelodies,rhythms,andinstrumentalaccompanimentaffectlisteners.Aswellasallowingaricherappreciationofthe formalstructuresofthetextsunderdiscussion,thisapproach
22 SeealsoBarker(thisvolume)251–2onthechallengesancientreadersfacedin conceptualizingdescriptionsofmusicalperformances.
23 Seee.g.pp.44–5onPlutarch’streatmentofthelyre’sboundarystrings(lower, middle,andupper)asMuses.
24 Seeesp.pp.43–4.
enhancesourunderstandingofmusicalaffectivity.Rhythmsand musicalphrasescreateandparticipateinsmall-scaletextual effects,25 buttheculturalassociationsofindividualinstruments andmelodicformsenablemusicalaccompanimenttoaffectinterpretationinawaythatisallthemoretellingforbeingformally distinctfromthetexts ’ verbalcontent.Dependingonthecontext oftheutterance,musicalaccompanimentcanplayacrucialrole indirectinglisteners ’ interpretationofethical,psychological,and politicalissues.26
Anotherfeatureofthesechaptersinformedbyafocusonthe medialdistinctivenessofperformancepoetryistheirexaminationof theboundariesbetweenmusicalandnon-musicalelements.Onthe readingofPindar’sdactylo-epitritesadvancedinChapter3,rhythmis apowerfullyaffectiveelement,butalso ‘signifies ’ inwaysthatarenot readilygraspableintermsnormallyappliedtoverbalmeaning.27
Similarly,OliverThomas’sinterpretationofthe Medea showsthat musiccouldcontributetothecharacterizationofchoralutterance andactasavehicleforimplicitauthorialcommentonthechorus’ s propositionsandarguments.28 Allfourchaptersenvisageauthors composingmusicallycomplexworksthatpresupposeahighlevelof criticalsophisticationamonglisteners,andentailmodesofunderstandingalerttoboththedistinctionsandcontinuitiesbetweenthe musicalandverbalelementsofperformancepoetry.Assuch,these analysesillustratewhatcanbegainedfromthemanoeuvreoutlined aboveofuncoupling μουσική andmusic.Atthesametime,theirfocus onphenomenainwhichsoundandsensecombinealsohighlights boththeimportanceandtheprovisionalityofthecategoricaldistinctionsemployedbyancientandmoderncriticism.
Aswellasofferingnewwaysofthinkingaboutthetextsinquestion,theapproachesexploredinthesechapterscontributetolarger andenduringlydifficultquestionsaboutmusic’sontologyandfunction.Thinkersancientandmodernhavedebatedtheroleofsoundin
25 Ontheroleplayedbyrhythminframingresponsestopoetryseee.g.Thaut (2005)5;London(2002)532–3;Prauscello(2013b)258–9.Fordiscussionofrhythm inancientGreekpoetryseeEdwards(2002),esp.62–98;morerecently,seetheessays inCelentano(2010).
26 Cf.Kramer(1990)269–70onmusicas ‘aparticipantin,notjustamirrorof, discursiveandrepresentationalpractices’,withthefurtherdiscussionofScher(1997) 14–15.
27 Phillips(thisvolume),esp.89,95–7. 28 Seeesp.pp.112–18.
chaptersfocusonhowancientphilosophersandliterarycritics respondedtothetheoreticalissuesposedbytheconjunctionsof musicandtext,whileothersexamineaspectsofmusic’sbroader culturalsignificanceandtheinfluenceofmusicologyondisciplines suchasliterarycriticism.Foralltheirvariationsinsubjectand methodology,however,thesechaptersconveyavividsenseofthe intellectualchallengesmusicposedtoancientaudiences(andreaders). Inantiquityasmuchastoday,musicwasafeatureofeverydaylife, andyet(insomeofitsforms,atleast)hadacapacityfordisturbing anddelightinglistenersinwaysthatstrainedconceptualcategories. Onefunctionofthisvolumeistodrawoutcontinuitiesandcontrasts betweenancientandmoderntheorizingaboutandexperienceof music;identifyingcontinuitiesinhowmusicisconceivedanddebated isameans(albeitprovisional)ofbridgingtheculturaldividethat separatesusfromantiquity.Equally,wecansometimesidentifysimilaritiesinmelodicpracticebetweenancientandmoderntextswhich suggestthattheresponsesof(atleastsome)ancientlistenersmaynot havebeenverydifferentfromtypesofresponsewithwhichweare familiar.33 Butinhighlightingcontextualandintellectualdifferences betweenantiquityandtoday,thevolumealsoenablesamorefocused understandingofwhatmadeancientmusicalculturedistinctive.
Thetrafficbetweenmusicandtextspivotsaroundafundamental tension:despiteitsmimeticcapacities,music’ssignificational resourcesdifferfromthoseofalanguage.Althoughmusiccanbe conventionallyorcriticallyframedasarepresentationalmode,the natureofitsfunctionissuchthatitalwaystendstowardsexceeding determinationinpurelysemanticterms.34 Atthesametime,however,
33 Cautionisofcourserequiredinguardingagainstprojectingourownassumptionsaboutsuchpracticesbackontoantiquity,buttheformalparallelismsareoften suggestive:seeD’Angour(thisvolume)61,71–2forcontinuitiesbetweenthegenerationofaffectthroughmelodicshapeinancientandmodernmusic.
34 Thishasoftenbeenphrasedintermsoftheresistanceofmusicalexperienceto beingcapturedinlanguage.Seee.g.ShepherdandWicke(1997)143,whoarguethat ‘musictheoryandmusicanalysisarequitedifferentanddistinctinthecharacterof their thinking fromthecharacterofmusical experience.Theycannot “reachout” to musicalexperienceinanyconvincingorusefulmanner’;seealsoJankelevitch(2003) 71–6,102–3.Cf.howevertheremarksofCook(2001)189–90.Gurd(2016)addresses thisproblemfromadifferentanglebyexaminingthetensionbetween ‘noise’ and ‘sound’ inGreekpoetics,theformerbeingtheirreduciblymaterialelementthat alwaysthreatenstooverruntheconstraintsimposedbytheformalsystemswhich producethelatter.
itisopentobeingmarkedbyverbalmeaning.35 Thisdialogue,in whichmusicbothinvitesandresistsaccommodationtothesemantic,36 isinpartaproductoftheconditionsinwhichmusicisproduced.Whenanaulosisplayedduringatragicchoralode,an invitationtoconjoin,oratleasttorelate,soundandsemanticsis inscribedintothestructureoftheperformance.AparticularlycomplexinstanceofthisrelationshipisthesubjectofNaomiWeiss ’ s essayonthesyrinxinEuripides’ choralodes.Drawingonadistinctionelaboratedincontemporarysoundstudiesbetweentheactual soundsmadebyinstrumentsandhowthesesoundsareimaginedby listeners,Weissshowsthattheauloscouldmomentarilyrepresent thesyrinx,allowingEuripidestomobilizetheculturalassociations ofbothinstruments,andthetensionsbetweenthem,foravarietyof dramaticends.
WhileWeissfocusesonhowsound-makingisrepresented,andon theinterpretativeframeschoralodesprojectforthemselvesbymeans oftheserepresentations,otheressaysexplorehowinteractions betweensoundandmeaningareinformedbythedifferencesbetween theircommunicativemodes.Theseinteractions,withtheirpotential forturbulenceanddisruptionaswellasforthesensoryreinforcement ofsemanticcontent,arecrucialtowhattheancientstermedmusic’ s ‘ethical’ dimension.Music’scapacitytoexpressemotionsandto engenderemotionalresponseshasbeenacentralconcernofancient andmoderntheory.37 Yetwhilemodernmusicologistshavetendedto focustheirattentiononformalquestionsrelatingtowhat(ifany) emotionalorconceptualcontentmusiccanconvey,38 theemphasisin
35 Cf.e.g.Kramer(1990);Cook(2001)178–9.
36 Cook(2001)187–8suggeststhat ‘theinstabilityofmusicasanagentofmeaning’ derivesfromthefactthat,althoughmusiccanexpressnuance, ‘thenecessaryinterpretativedecisions’ forjudgingsuchnuancearenotgivenbythemusicitself.This positioncanbecomparedwithPeponi’sremarksonPlato(thisvolume,174–8);for furtherdiscussionseePhillips(thisvolume)87–9.
37 IssuesofemotivenessandethicalforcearecentraltoPlato’sremarksabout music:seee.g. Rep. 410a–412b,423d–425a, Lg. 653c–660d.
38 Debateaboutmusicalemotivenessiscloselyconnectedtoquestionsaboutits representationalfunctions.Themodernbibliographyonthissubjectisvast.FoundationalisHanslick(1974)(firstpublished1854);hisargumentshaveoftenbeentaken toholdthatmusicisapurelyformalsystemwithoutrepresentationalcapacities, butseetheremarksofCook(2001)174–5.Cooke(1959)understandsmusicasan emotivelanguagewithcertainbasicconstituentswhoseemotionalresonancepersists throughdifferentinstantiations.Forresponsestothis,seeDavies(1994)25–6with bibliography.
ancientthinkingisfrequentlydirectedattheconsequencesofmusic’ s effectsonitslisteners.PartofPlato’sresponsetothisproblemisthe subjectofAnastasia-ErasmiaPeponi’sessay,whichtracesatension betweensemanticsandmusicalaffectivitythatrunsthroughPlato’ s discussionoflyricpoetryinthe Republic andthe Laws.Peponiargues thatPlato’sprivilegingofthesemanticelementisinformedbyanxiety aboutthetendencyofrhythmicandharmonicfeaturesofsuchpoetry tooverwhelmtheverbal.OnPeponi’sreading,Platoisparticularly sensitivetolyricsong’scapacitytobringaboutscenariosinwhichthe non-representationaldimensionsofpoeticperformancecometo predominate,creatingatmospheresandmoodsthatthreatenthe mimetictransparencyonwhich,onPlato’sview,theefficacyof validpoeticcommunicationdepends.Hisdecision,inthe Laws,to includemusicinthecategoryofthoserepresentationalartsthathave aprominentvisualcomponent(τέχναιεἰκασταί)canthereforebe seenasanattempt,notentirelysuccessfulintheoreticalterms,to control ‘thenon-representationalpotentialof melos’39 bysubordinatingittoaschemainwhichsignificationandmimesisaresovereign.
PierreDestréetracksaverydifferentresponsetotheproblemof music’sautonomyinAristotle’sthinkingabout ‘musicforleisure’ . Ratherthanattemptingtoconstructamedialhierarchyinwhich musicissubordinate,Aristotlearguesthatmusiccanbeenjoyedasan activitypursuedinleisure(πρὸςτὴ
ῇ διαγωγήν),40 whichis anendinitself,insofarasthistypeofmusicis ‘anactivitythroughwhich our “theoretical” intelligenceexercisesitspower’ . 41 AndrewBarker’ s chapteronPlutarch Quaest.conv. 7.5focusesonsimilarissuesinthe intersectionsofmusicaltheoryandperformancecultureintheSecond Sophistic.IndiscussingPlutarch’saccountoftheaulete’sperformance, andtheresponsesthatitoccasions,Barkerarguesthatheusesthestory tostageadialoguebetweencompetingwaysofconceptualizingmusical performance,usingPlatonicandAristotelianintertextstoguidereaders’ understandingoftheissuesatstake.Thischapterexemplifiesasociotextualapproachtotherepresentationofmusicthathasgreatlyilluminatedtheinterpretativeconditionswithinwhichancientlisteners operated.42 InexplicatingtheintertextualsophisticationofPlutarch’ s narrative,Barker’sreadingshowsthatmusicalperformancesstill
39 Belowp.177.
40 FordiscussionseeDestrée(thisvolume)183–4.
41 Seep.201. 42 Wilson(1999)isexemplary.
