TY - JOUR

T1 - Citharodic Nomos and Prooimion

AU - Алмазова, Нина Александровна

PY - 2024

Y1 - 2024

N2 - A citharodic performance typically included a πρooίμιoν that preceded a νόμoς. Theoretically, there are three possible options: a prooimion (1) was an inseparable introduction to a specific main part; (2) was not performed independently, but could precede various main parts; (3) was an independent piece. Most evidence points to option 2. Standard circumstances of performance must have stereotyped the subject matter that appeared in the introduction, so the proem became an autonomous song that could precede any narrative part, and even be performed independently (if there were no agonistic connotations and transitional formulas). Pseudo-Plutarch’s notions of ancient citharody (De mus. 1132В–С; 1132D; 1133B–C) are interpreted as follows: a proem addressed to the gods was a citharode’s own composition (hence ώς βoύλoνται, despite its formal character and epic metre). It was immediately followed by a nome, whose epic narration could be either original or taken from Homer and other poets and set to music according to one of melodic patterns systemized by Terpander. Terpander’s proems likely offered two proofs of this theory: they ended with a formula of transition to another song, which itself did not follow. Apparently, the option to use someone else’s poetry in the main body led to the practice of writing down the proems without the subsequent nomes, so that they were seen as independent works. It is likely that Pseudo-Plutarch’s source was referring to minor Homeric hymns, since they correspond perfectly with the information that we have about citharodic proems.

AB - A citharodic performance typically included a πρooίμιoν that preceded a νόμoς. Theoretically, there are three possible options: a prooimion (1) was an inseparable introduction to a specific main part; (2) was not performed independently, but could precede various main parts; (3) was an independent piece. Most evidence points to option 2. Standard circumstances of performance must have stereotyped the subject matter that appeared in the introduction, so the proem became an autonomous song that could precede any narrative part, and even be performed independently (if there were no agonistic connotations and transitional formulas). Pseudo-Plutarch’s notions of ancient citharody (De mus. 1132В–С; 1132D; 1133B–C) are interpreted as follows: a proem addressed to the gods was a citharode’s own composition (hence ώς βoύλoνται, despite its formal character and epic metre). It was immediately followed by a nome, whose epic narration could be either original or taken from Homer and other poets and set to music according to one of melodic patterns systemized by Terpander. Terpander’s proems likely offered two proofs of this theory: they ended with a formula of transition to another song, which itself did not follow. Apparently, the option to use someone else’s poetry in the main body led to the practice of writing down the proems without the subsequent nomes, so that they were seen as independent works. It is likely that Pseudo-Plutarch’s source was referring to minor Homeric hymns, since they correspond perfectly with the information that we have about citharodic proems.

KW - Ancient Greek music

KW - Homeric hymn

KW - citharodic nomos

KW - prooimion

UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/3ad02af4-04e6-37c6-9540-da7393131b49/

U2 - 10.21638/spbu20.2024.101

DO - 10.21638/spbu20.2024.101

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 4

EP - 18

JO - Philologia Classica

JF - Philologia Classica

SN - 0202-2532

IS - 1

ER -