Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 September 2015
The papyrus numbered 59533 in the Catalogue Général of the Cairo Museum is a mere scrap (13 cm. × 12 cm.), on one side of which is written a fragmentary text with suprascript musical signs:
The writing is along the fibres, that is to say, on the recto if the scrap originally formed part of a roll; the verso is blank; and the papyrus has been folded horizontally. The right-hand and the top seem to be the original edges of a sheet or roll; the left-hand is clearly defective, and though the bottom edge may be the original edge of a sheet, it is not the bottom of a roll. The writing is carried to the extreme right-hand edge, without a margin. Below the text there is some scribbling which seems to have no particular significance and is probably to be taken as a probatio pennae rather than as a signature.
2 For the evidence, see New Chapters in Greek Literature (Second Series), pp. 149–50.
3 Sir W. M. Ramsay, who discovered the inscription, writes in a letter: ‘As to date, the form of letters offers no evidence. It might be of almost any time after the second century B.C. was at end; the terminus ante quem cannot be stated. It was not done in a period of universal deterioration except by some very distinct personality, standing apart and alone. … As you say, the date first century A.D. is a mere guess; there is no reason why the stone should not be of that date, and no reason why it should not be 60 B.C. or 150 A.D. or later. There is something about the spirit of this epitaph that smacks of the first century in Rome, but such a person as Seikilos is quite elusive, and apart from his time and surroundings.’
4 See Wessely, K., Mitteil, aus der Samml. der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer, Vol. V (1892), p. 67Google Scholar: Die prächtige Schrift des Orestfragment erlaubt gewiss es in die Zeit des Augustus zu setzen.
5 For Heracleotes see Bell, H. I., ‘A Musical Competition in the 3rd Cent. B.C.’, in Raccolta di Scritti in onore di Giacomo Lumbroso (1925), pp. 13–22.Google Scholar
6 Professor Schubart writes: Die Spuren deuten auf 
(darüber Rest eines Bst., vielleicht 
), 
ist zur Not möglich.
7 If ἐτἀρων and its rhythmical implications were accepted, we should note the curious coincidence that all the musical fragments—this new one and the Delphic Hymns—which have no metrical symbols in their notations would be paeonic.
8 As parts of two dochmii, we might interpret the first line as: 
or as: 
and the second line as: 
It would, however, be difficult to continue the second line on this basis.
9 Our fragment is too mutilated for any restoration to be proposed with confidence. However, the following reconstruction, based on the rhythmical parallel of Euripides (with catalexis in the fourth line), may indicate the sort of context from which the fragment came:
This might be translated as: … he would act unjustly. These then (are) the things for which in supplication I raise my voice … whom I address in prayer, as I am forced to my knees in the dust.
10 The sign Τ in the second line was examined by Professor Schubart, who agreed to the reading, but added the note: auch υ möglich.
11 The sign Χ is conventionally used to indicate the raising of a note by a quarter of a tone. ¥ is not a diatonic note in the Phrygian.
12 Harm. p. 63 M.
13 Harm. p. 23 M.
14 Similarly, if the sign Κ at the end of line 2 is to be interpreted as a Phrygian enharmonic note, it will be identical with diatonic Λ; and consequently we should have no option but to take Λ itself as enharmonic to avoid an otiose duplication of signs.
15 In the diagram the space between the dots represents one twelfth of a tone.
16 In the enharmonic genus 
has the value 
one and a quarter tones above 
In the diatonic it is identical in pitch 
with the Phrygian note, 
17 Professor Schubart suggested ϵυ instead of Ο; but of that he was very doubtful, and on musical grounds such a reading seems out of the question.
18 In the enharmonic genus 
has the value 
and is not identical in pitch with the note 
19 In all four 
the sign I also has an enharmonic value, one quarter of a tone above 
20 This second leap is beyond suspicion; for 
is written very clearly and there would be insuperable difficulties in emending it to 
(an instrumental note = C, which does not appear in the Phrygian or Hyperphrygian and would in any case be an otiose duplicate of the sign 
) or to 
(which appears only in Dorian 
) or to 
(which the scribe had already written twice without faltering).
21 Mr. Battiscombe Gunn's careful copy of the sign shows that the bar extended to the left-hand vertical stroke and beyond the right-hand stroke of the 
and that there was a little circle in the top left-hand corner of the letter. The sign 
is found in some 
as an instrumental note (= F), in others as a vocal note 
Among the latter 
is the Ionian, which is one of the four involved in the modulation I suggest at 
Perhaps that modulation was a permanent one and the piece continued in the Ionian 
to the end. The bar at the top can scarcely be the diseme mark. It is also unlikely that the sign is a combination of 
and 
or that it was intended to be 
Since this article was in type, Mr. Edgar has written to me as follows: “When I was staying in Cairo this winter, I re-examined the musical papyrus and made the following notes: l. 2: The vestiges of the first two letters suggest 
but the reading is very doubtful. The last letter seems to be either a rather large 
or an 
l. 3: The first letter is uncertain, but 
seems quite possible. So I do not think your transcript requires alteration.”
