^{page 302 note 1} Barrett, Cf and Page, in Lyrica Graeca Selecta (O.C.T.), 264.Google Scholar The permutation-cycle of triads and papyrus columns shows that nearly 400 verses (or a multiple thereof!) separated Geryon's death in fr. 4 ii from his speech contemplating it in fr. 13.

^{page 302 note 2} 632 is forty years after the date for Alcman (apparently a floruit) given by the Suda (cf. eand. s.v. ∑τησίχορος τοις δέ ). 556 is the birth of Simonides, fixed by a statement of his own. The dates are probably Apollodorus’, see Jacoby, , Apollodors Chronik, 197 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 302 note 3} Sappho und Simonides (hereafter SS), 233 ff.; R.-E. s.v. Stesichoros. Wilamowitz's unattractive hypothesis that there were two early Stesichoruses has perhaps led to undue neglect of his treatment of the evidence. Twelve years later he wrote: ‘Dass Stesichoros, der Verfasser der berühmtesten Gedichte, selbst Orestie und Helene, der Lokrer war, der im Peloponnes lebte, jünger als Ibykos, wird mir immer sicherer. Gerade die Analyse der Sagen scheint es zu fordern. Darauf, dass dieser Ansatz, der dem antiken Glauben widerspricht, sich auch heute nicht ohne starken Widerspruch durchsetzen würde, war ich gefasst. Aber durchsetzen wird er sich schon’ (S.P.A.W. 1925, 46 n. ═ Kl. Schr. v (2). 61 n. 1). The prediction has not so far been fulfilled.

^{page 303 note 1} Arist. Rhet. 1393^b8, Conon 26 F 1. 42; Diog. Bab. ap. Philod. Mus. p. 18 Kemke (SVF iii. 232. 31 Arnim).

^{page 303 note 2} Iambl. VP 215 ff.; cf. Tzetz. in Hes. Op. p. 16 Gaisford (1820)

^{page 303 note 3} Wilamowitz's emendation of ύέτης in the Suda. All other names for Stesichorus’ father begin with Eu-.

^{page 303 note 4} Not as a Crotoniate, as Wilamowitz says. On the origins of the document see Burkert, W., Weisheit und Wissenschaft, 94 n. 40.Google Scholar

^{page 303 note 5} Bowra, Cf, Greek Lyric Poetry ², 241.Google Scholar A Pythagorean writer called Ibycus (Ath. 69 e) is usually emended away, and probably rightly. (The name Ibycus had occurred in 57 f.)

^{page 303 note 6} But Antipater's claim that ‘Homer's soul made its second home in Stesichorus’ breast according to Pythagoras’ account of nature’ (Antip. Thessal. 74 Gow-Page, A.P. 7. 75) is an autoschediasm.

^{page 303 note 7} Fr. 752 P.; cf. O.T. 660. In El. 62–4 οί σοøοί may well include Pythagoras, cf. Burkert, op. cit. 136–41. Sophocles’ friend Ion of Chios was certainly interested in Pythagoreanism. Elsewhere (fr. 582) Sophocles made the sun the chief god of the Thracians. But this might be an echo of the Bassarai of Aeschylus, where a sun-worshipping Orpheus may have appeared in Thrace (fr. 83 Mette; Linforth, , TAPA lxii [1931], 11 ff.Google Scholar is sceptical); and Aeschylus’ Orpheus might be the Orpheus of Pythagorean fancy.

^{page 303 note 8} Plut. Aem. Paul. 2. 1, Numa 8. 9; Festus p. 22 L. Casaubon conjectured it for Μάρµακος as the name of his father in D.L. 8. 1. Detienne, M. Cf, Rev. hist. rel. clii (1957), 142Google Scholar; Burkert, op. cit. 395 n. 114.

^{page 303 note 9} Conon 26 F 1. 18; Paus. 3. 19. 11–13 (‘the Crotoniates and Himeraeans say’); Hermias on Plato l.c.

^{page 303 note 10} So Dunbabin, T. J., The Western Greeks, 359 f.Google Scholar; according to another line of argument, c. 580–570 (Bicknell, P. J., Phoenix, xx [1966], 294–301).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 304 note 1} See Wil. SS 233. Plato: Phaedr. 244 a. Wilamowitz infers from ps.-Plut. de mus. 7 that Glaucus of Rhegium too called Stesichorus a Himeraean; Maas is more cautious.

^{page 304 note 2} To those listed by Lobel in his introductions to P. Oxy. 2617 and 2619 add ίαρός Mel. 185. 3, 2359 ii 6; πέποσχ(03B1;) Mel. 261 (also in Epicharmus); ποταύδη Mel. 264, and perhaps similarly πίτνη 2803 fr. 11. 1; ὠραν- 2360 i 3; γαµέν 2618 fr. I ii 9?; єĭµєιν 2619 fr. 13. 5 (also in Epicharmus); αὐτєι 2619 fr. 47. 8. In Mel. 184. 2 παγᾰς is now uncertain, see Lyrica Graeca Selecta, 264.

^{page 304 note 3} Lobel says it is ‘neither Homeric nor Doric, so far as is known’. It is now found in a papyrus of Hes. Op. 210, however (Maehler, , Mus. Helv. xxiv [1967], 64Google Scholar), and it has been suspected that Homeric κρєίσσων is an Atticism of the tradition. Cf. Chantraine, , Gramm. hom. i. 256.Google Scholar Sicilian Doric had κάρρων (Epicharmus, Sophron, ps.-Pythagorica).

^{page 304 note 4} Oldfather, R.-E. xiii. 1281 ff., 1359 f., collects the evidence, but needs to be read critically. Cf. Wil. SS 238.

^{page 304 note 5} The date of the is uncertain, but not later than the fifth century, since it was known to Charon of Lampsacus (262 F 4) ap. Paus. 10. 38. 11. According to Charon it was composed by one Carcinus of Naupactus, but Pausanias claims that it was generally ascribed to a Milesian. Bergk conjectured that this was Cercops, who was also named as alternative author for the Hesiodic Aigimios; cf. the testimonia in Fragmenta Hesiodea, 151.

^{page 304 note 6} Arist. fr. 565, Philoch. 328 F 213. Eratosthenes will have been aware of the chronological difficulty, and perhaps eliminated Stesichorus from the story for that reason. A variant made Stesichorus the son of a daughter of Hesiod (Cic. Rep. 2. 20, apparently); this too will be a chronological expediënt (Mommsen, , Rh. Mus. xv [1860], 167Google Scholar). We do not know what Alcidamas’ version was. If it involved the birth of Stesichorus, he may have postponed that from the section of his Museum that the Certamen draws on to a later one on Stesichorus.

^{page 305 note 1} Cf. the importation of the bones of Orestes , and Bowra, op. cit. 112–15.

^{page 305 note 2} Cf. my discussion in Zeitschr. f. Pap. u. Epigr. (hereafter Z.P.E.) iv (1969), 146–9.Google Scholar

^{page 305 note 3} Dopp, E., Quaest. de marm. Par., 1883, 47.Google Scholar

^{page 306 note 1} Geryones, in relation to Stesichorus, is the subject of a detailed study by Robertson, Martin in CQ.xix (1969), 207 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 306 note 2} Cf. Z.P.E. iv (1969), 149Google Scholar; C.Q. xx (1970), 208.Google Scholar

^{page 306 note 3} See the charts in Ginzel, F. K., Spezieller Kanon der Sonnen- und Mondfinsternisse für das Ländergebiet der klass. Altertumswissenschaften und den Zeitraum von 900 v. Chr. bis 600 n. Chr., 1899.Google Scholar

^{page 306 note 4} Cf. Wilamowitz, , Textgesch. d. gr. Lyriker, 33 n. 2Google Scholar; Bowra, op. cit. 242 f., 252 ff.;Z.P.E. l.c.

^{page 307 note 1} See Proclus quoted below, p. 308, and Hephaestion p. 64. 24 Consbr.

^{page 307 note 2} Wilamowitz, Textgesch. 7; Timotheos, 92.

^{page 307 note 3} Mel. 697. (The sources give αὐτις or αὐ τ⋯ν, but αὐτє must be right, cf. Stes. 193. 9 and the Aristophanic prelude on which the scholiast quotes the ‘Terpander’, Nub. 595 ⋯µøί µοι , which does not construe and can only be explained as a quotation of a stereotyped formula.) The fifth century is suggested by the metre (cf. Fraenkel, E., Kl Beitr. i. 215 n. 1Google Scholar) and by the function attributed to øρήν (cf. Sim. 519 fr. 35b. 10, Pind. P. 6. 36, pae. 4. 50, Aesch. Th. 966, Mel. adesp. 955).

^{page 307 note 4} Timotheus, Pers. 237, however, credits him with a ten-stringed lyre.

^{page 308 note 1} A similar function is fulfilled by the âlâpa which precedes the performance of a râga in classical Indian music. Cf. Bake, A. in the New Oxford History of Music, i. 212 f.Google Scholar

^{page 308 note 2} A hymn to various gods, in hexameters followed by a verse D — D — e — (Stob. 1. 1. 31 a+b) is regarded as a late citharodic prooimion by Wilamowitz, , Timotheos 91 n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 308 note 3} Clement quotes a fragment of the Little Iliad in Aeolic or Doric form (12 Allen): could his source have used a citharode's text? One Zopyrus of Magnesia, and Dicaearchus, said that the Iliad ought to be read in Aeolic (Vita Romana p. 32. 25 Wil.): because showed that Homer sang? Elegiacs too were probably coloured Doric when sung, cf. Eur, . Andr. 103–16.Google Scholar

^{page 308 note 4} Plut. apophth. Lac. 238 … . prima facie refers to Terpander's own compositions. Cf. the notice of Xenocritus’ poems on p. 306 above.

^{page 309 note 1} Ath. 620 c. Cf. Wil. SS 239 n. 3.

^{page 309 note 2} A ‘Stesichorus the citharode’ appears with an ‘Aeschylus the aulete’ in Suda s.v. (‘fort. Aelian.’ Adler): ours? Cf. Vürtheim, , Stesichoros’ Fragmente und Biographie, 109 n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 1} Suda s.v. νόµος. Alcman applies the term to the characteristic songs of different birds, Mel. 40.

^{page 310 note 2} Mostly from ps.-Plut. 4, 7, 29, 33, Pollux 4. 65–83, Hesychius, and the Suda.

^{page 310 note 3} ἔλєγοι is an aulodic nome, ps.-Plut. 4.

^{page 310 note 4} Apollod. ap. Hesych. s.v. παριαµβίδєς , are citharistic nomes designed for aulos accompaniment, Epicharmus fr. 109, Pollux 4. 65, 83, Phot. s.v. παρίαµβοι. It should be noted that for Epicharmus ἲαµβοι is a genre that may include anapaests, cf. fr. 88, with Kaibel, C.G.F., p. 87.

^{page 310 note 5} Pind. O. 1. 102.

^{page 310 note 6} The aulodic (ps.-Plut. 4) is apparently alluded to at the beginning of Pindar's second dithyramb:

The ancients found here a reference to Lasus’ asigmatic ode; and there is a connection. The explanation of Lasus’ fastidiousness is given by Aristoxenus (fr. 87 W.) ap. Ath. 467 a: the s-sound was σκληρόστοµον and , i.e. it was not conducive to distinct hearing of the words against the pipe, because the pipe was too like it. Pindar is saying that in the traditional dithyramb in the aulodic the s did not come out true from men's mouths, it did not live up to its promise, because of the pipe accompaniment. His new dithyramb has quite a different sound, justified by a vision of a Dionysiac rite among the gods, with drums, κρόταλα, and wild cries.

^{page 311 note 1} There is a possibility of extensive agreement in rhythms, and so perhaps in melody, between the strophe of the Iliu Persis and that of the poem (Helen?) represented in P. Oxy. 2735 fr. 1: Z.P.E. v (1969), 145Google Scholar. But see R. Führer, ib. v (1970), 15 f., for other reconstructions.

^{page 311 note 2} Z.P.E. l.c. Führer in the article just cited brings valuable modifications to the metrical scheme of the Iliu Persis. See further Z.P.E. vii (1971), 262.Google Scholar

^{page 311 note 3} Cf. Ar. Ran, 1348; Henderson, I. in the New Oxford History of Music, i. 368 f., 393 f.Google Scholar

^{page 311 note 4} Mel. 543. 9 κνοώσσєις (if that is the right reading, and if it is not a genuine uncontracted form) and 587 πύυρ show a prosodie division of a long syllable which may have gone with a melodie division, but was not necessary for it (by later standards) and does not entail it. It would not be surprising if Simonides occasionally did something that later became Standard; Mozart has the occasional crashing dissonance.

^{page 312 note 1} Hence the preservation of ancient accentuations down to Alexandrian times. Cf. Wackernagel, , Kl. Schr. 1094 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 312 note 2} We gather from Aristophanes (cf. p. 309) that all Aeschylus needs to turn his songs into citharodic nomes is a bit of tophlattothrat between the periods.

^{page 312 note 3} See Korzeniewski, D., Gr. Metrik, 12 and 129 f.Google Scholar

^{page 313 note 1} Cf. also Alc. 130, Sapph. 94.

^{page 314 note 1} People often assume that ῥαψẉδός meant a reciter of fixed texts as opposed to the earlier, Creative poet. That is certainly what rhapsodes were in Plato's time and earlier, and ῥαψẉδέω came to mean ‘recite’; but ‘stitcher of song’ implies the formulaic technique of creative poets. Another thing that is often forgotten is that epic composition in the traditional style flourished unabated well into the fifth century. The real change to ‘pen-poet technique’ did not come when epic poets first took up pens; it came after Panyasis, with Choerilus and Antimachus.