Talk:Seikilos epitaph

Unititled

I created the score and midi using lilypond so that people who are more knowledgable on ancient greek music can write the actual article. If you follow the link to the score image, you will get the source code for lilypond if you want to make edits. You could also load the midi into a midi based editor or run it through the guido noteserver to get guido code to edit. Or leave me a message and I will fix any errors and reupload the files.

I've also heard media files on the web that have this melody set to chords, but I don't know enough to know whether the chords are accurate or supposition. If they're accurate, I'll add them to the files too.

--Chinasaur 21:39, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know--as far as current research shows--there is no reliable evidence for any kind of chordal accompaniment in any ancient Greek music. There is a bit of conflicting evidence about use of a drone (though it sure sounds good to play it with one) but even this is usually disputed. At any rate the tune chiseled on the stone is purely monophonic. Good work putting this up! Antandrus 21:54, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No reason to mention older compositions

I'm not sure why older compositions are mentioned? This is not an article on ancient musical compositions, but a specific composition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.43.213 (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why the conjecture of hypothetical Chinese music is included. It's not relevant to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.17.19 (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's irrelevant and it's clearly also a controversial claim. This article is not the place to expound on various hypotheses. So, two good reasons for removing it. Abvgd (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A more exact translation...

I've taken the liberty of giving what I think is a more faithful translation (especially with regard to "shine" instead of "dance and sing, be joyful").Ex0pos 22:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

hey guys! I was just wondering about the transliteration of the lyrics. It appears that they've been transliterated using the reconstructed Classical Attic pronunciation system. This seems a little strange to me, considering that the song is dated to the second or third century AD, and by this time most of the major phonological changes between ancient Attic and Koine Greek had already taken place. I think that the transliteration should look something more like this:

   Oson zis, phainou
   Miden olos si lupou
   Pros oligon esti to zin
   To telos o chronos apaitei

I'm hesitant to change it in the article without consultation, because I'm not sure if there's a specific reason it's been transliterated Classical Attic in the first place. Also,I've been studying and singing this music for about a year now - I'd be happy to make a short recording.

Byz 12:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes on both counts! It needs a recording, and your explanation looks good to me. By all means update the transliteration, and if you're willing to release a recording as public domain or GFDL that would be wonderful.

As far as I know the date of the stele is somewhat in doubt, with estimates ranging from about 200BCE to 100CE (unfortunately there was nothing to carbon-date; it was just a stone monument). Thanks! Antandrus (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

hey Antandrus!

I made a short recording - it's not brilliant, but it's decent. I've taken a few artistic liberties (including using the musical intro to Mesomedes' "hymn to the muse" as an opening riff), but nothing too far out of the box. The problem is, we really aren't completely sure how the music would have sounded - we can only make educated guesses. I'd certainly be willing to release it as public domain - I've converted it to ogg, but I'm not sure about how to upload it!

Byz 10:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Score error?

The score was written in modern-day D major, which is at odds with the midi tune, that appears to be in Aeolian mode (no C#). I wonder if there was a mistake. If so, it could be easily fixed by keeping the notes and change the key to C Major. Of course, the midi tune could be wrong... AlRomariz 01:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds right to me. Both the score and the MIDI tune are exactly the same, and correct. Remember it starts and ends on E. Both contained a C#. What exactly seemed not right? Antandrus (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. I don't know why I heard C natural (not sharp) yesterday. Sorry! Should I remove this entry? AlRomariz 15:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's in A Mixolydian, which contains the same notes as D major Stratman07 (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Greek text addition

I've added the greek text of both the song and the "statement".Had to change the style a bit to line by line original text-transliteration-translation.Punctuation used was the one of the already present score image.Any objections??? Thanatos|talk 01:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this really the oldest surviving?

I'm not an expert but is this really the "oldest surviving example of a complete musical composition"? What about Hurrian Song which, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurrian_song, is "the oldest surviving complete work of notated music, dating to approximately 1400 BC". Podoherty (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Hurrian page says that it is only 'nearly complete'. --Gwern (contribs) 17:09 19 April 2011 (GMT)

MP3 with vocals

The MP3 link (http://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/Sound_files/SEIKILOU_WDH_2006.mp3) is broken and I can't find it in the Internet Archive or anywhere else on that site.

Googling the filename, I found http://www.mediafire.com/?jintmzijttn which currently works; listening, it's definitely the Seikilos epitaph (comparing it to the MIDI in the article) and the lyrics sound like the Greek, so it seems very reasonable to assume that that is the same MP3. Should we link the MF page or someone's copy on Dropbox or something? --Gwern (contribs) 17:11 19 April 2011 (GMT)

Euterpe

The article says that the tombstone and the epigrams were dedicated from Seikilos to his "(most probably) wife, Euterpe.", because "Seikilos Euterpei" means "(from)" Seikilos to Euterpe". However, Euterpe is the name of the Greek muse of music. So, perhaps Seikilos dedicated the musical composition to music itself, and not to a woman... Corbeaufreux (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Well one could say that anything is possible;but,heck, it's a tombstone...;-)

Google for "seikilos epitaph" and select books.When text is mentioned I think that most authors say that it's a dedication to his wife.Morevover one claims it's not a dedication but that the Euter[] is a patronym;I guess that would mean it's Euter[pou] (genitive) instead of Euter[pei] (dative).Guess anything is possible however improbable...

By the way I've added []s to show that the last syllable is missing(from what I understand and have read, I've never seen per se).Thanatos|talk 00:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That's my understanding too ... scholarly opinion is pretty unanimous that it was dedicated to his wife. Antandrus (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, on the links of this page, i read 2 books wich clearly states Euterpe was probably his father or for his father, and that he probably camed from a family of musicians. http://books.google.com/books?id=5kzYwVosDUMC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA79#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=jVud8Fz6wTMC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA88#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.191.108.56 (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

On the one hand it certainly depends on whether the missing part would read Euterpei or Euterpou;the former is sing.dat. of fem.nom. Euterpe, a female name that I think is very common(see e.g. the Muse), the latter probably sing.gen. of masc.nom. Euterpos which I don't think is that common or anyway that commonly attested.BUT on the other hand you're right,the book you've cited(whence the patronymic possibility I've cited before) reads Euter[pou] citing this book which seems more specialised in epigraphy and reads cεικιλοcευτερ(που) ζη { (then citing Marx 1906;google books preview doesn't allow me to see the bibliography thereof to further research this, to find out what book this refers to). Someone with access to complete clear pictures or view of the stele and to the relevant bibliography, if possible hard copies of the books, needs to research this more...Thanatos|talk 01:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Glad this has been brought up already. Euterpe may well have been a relative, but as Euterpe is specifically the muse of music as opposed to the other arts the muses represented severally, I think it's at least likely enough to merit a mention if speculation about unknown family members is getting one, sourced from books or not. Euterpe was fairly well known as a deity; it seemed like an obvious omission to me as soon as I saw the mention of possible family and not even a note regarding the muse, given that the article's subject is a song. 98.228.185.4 (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Anonymous Browser

Kindly provide a serious source pointing to Euterpe herself so that we can see whether it's possible or worth mentioning. Thanx... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions

It also seems possible that the person commemorated by the stela was fond of music, in which case might they have been nicknamed "Euterpe" or "Euterpes"? Or, more simply, it could mean "Σεικίλος Εὐτέρ[πης] "Seikilos of Euterpe", that is, "Seikilos, dedicated to Music". Not sure if this would be a culturally-acceptable byname, but if so, the line might be the composer's name. We really don't have enough context to parse this. Unless the railway story is true and someone wrote down/traced the text before it was flower-pot-optimized, or recorded the find site properly, and we re-find that record, which seems unlikely if it hasn't been done already... Your could probably couldn't get any additional constraints on the burial location from geochemistry. HLHJ (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Quo Vadis

I think it's noteworthy that the melody is used as the basis for Nero (Peter Ustinov)'s song in the film "Quo Vadis". Unfortunately, I hdon't have a citeable quote, only this video: Youtube Perhaps somebody knows where to look for information to back this up... -- megA (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I found a reference. --Error (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

MIDI

I don't understand why the sound sample is using equal-temperament which didn't exist at the time. Angry bee (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

12-tet is actually a fairly good approximation of the ptomelaic scale. However, I honestly don't know how the people who wrote this down knew the scale that was being used or approximated it in 12-tet, as the article doesn't go into their methodology.108.131.77.13 (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

People who know their music please help. Please check new score-lyrics-image below.

I've just created this (using this image-file-score that is already used at this article):
.
Is it valid, correct?Are the lyrics correctly placed under the notes?
Please help! Btw that means replying in English or even Greek; not in musicolingo.I'm not a musician... Thanx!Thanatos|talk 14:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. At least, it corresponds to the text-underlay given in the Historical Anthology of Music where, however, the Greek is rendered in Roman transliteration. There is also a minor difference in the rhythmic interpretation of the last three notes, but this does not matter. I hope this is not too much musicolingo.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the quick reply.

Is this difference due to me placing the text at a wrong place or due to the score used being different from the one(s) inside the books-sources? If it's the former please tell me whereto to put the text so that I can fix the image, upload it etc.If it's the latter I've already noticed the difference in the scores between this and the cited sources(as symbols the meaning of which I don't (semantically) understand but the form of which is different); as I've already explained here and at the image-file summary, I've made this using the available herein (wikipedia-wikicommons) score(s)(copy/paste image,add/align text,etc) not the scores per se of the books-sources.As for the books using a transliteration, I may add this in the future.Let me first fix this and let's worry about the transliteration then.

Or put in another way it's time people learned Greek again!!! :D

Thank you, again!

P.S.I would happily use a score that would be faithful to secondary and tertiary more "serious", more official, sources, cause I don't know whther this score is correct, valid; but this is the only available to use score(2 such scores are available at wikicommons;both are as far as I can see the same).Thanatos|talk 09:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops forgot something very troubling to me: What I myself find very problematic is splitting esti to es-ti when the syllables in Greek are commonly e-sti. The latter is what this does too, rightly so impov.I've done this split following Documents of ancient Greek music (Apollo's lyre does the same) but I find it very wrong in a philologic sense...Thanatos|talk 10:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: I've now changed the image to reflect this: es-ti -> e-sti. Thanatos|talk 10:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The difference in rhythmic interpretation has nothing to do with the text underlay. The last three notes all set a single syllable, but there is some disagreement whether they should all be the same length (as shown here), or whether the first two should be faster, in order to create a stronger sense of closure. The transcription in HAM (Historical Anthology of Music) gives two sixteenths (semiquavers) and a quarter (crotchet) instead of the three eighths (quavers) in this version. As I said, the difference is inconsequential for your purposes. The authoritative scholarly source is Pöhlmann and West's 2001 collection, to which you refer, which has this link in the article. The rhythmic interpretation there is the same as in the example here. The syllable break of e-sti should be done according to the rules for Greek, of course. I am ignorant of Greek, and so can have no opinion at all. For what it is worth, the HAM breaks it as "es-ti", perhaps because to an English speaker it looks correct this way. We have a similar problem with Japanese words, where ts is regarded as a single sound, and therefore a word like satsuma really should be broken "sa-tsu-ma", though we often see it done (incorrectly for Japanese, but perhaps correctly as an English loan word) "sat-su-ma". On the other hand, Pöhlmann and West use a different form of the letter sigma in their transcription, and break the word as "es-ti". Since they are both eminent scholars of the language, perhaps there is a difference here between Classical and Modern Greek rules?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• 1.I'm aware that in English how the breaking of syllables (syllabisation-syllabification-syllabication) is done is different and that it affects the way you treat words of other languages; btw
  • a.I think that both the former and the latter are near-universal phaenomena or certainly not exclusive to English
  • b.this was my guess on the reason behind how these authors-sources treat this.
• 2.The c instead of a s is not important or relevant here.It's just a script difference.There has been an endless variety of Greek scripts-alphabets through space and time; read e.g. this...
• 3.The relevant here syllabisation rule which as far as I know has been used for ages, both on ancient and modern Greek, is that two (or tree, that's btw the maximum in Greek) consonants placed between two vowels-diphthongs (i.e. being intervovalic), form a syllable with the second vowel (i.e belong to the second syllable) except when these two (or three) consonants are not allowed to form , don't form, a word in Greek that has them as initial letters.You can read an indirect definition-instance-version of this rule here or here (§111.b).
  
• 4.On the other hand as all rules are made to be broken, there might be a reason that I don't know of or an exception to this rule.Heck, this rule might even be a later construct-convention and I might be wrong claiming that it has been used for ever.Or it might e.g. have had exceptions to it through the millenia of the life of the Greek language(written or oral) or even have been common but not universal in usage at earlier times. The problem is that these books-sources don't explain this, don't deal with this, but instead in effect oppose this presently very,very,very strongly, very,very,very commonly (e.g. in Greece, where in dealing both with ancient and modern Greek it is universal;every -good- school-boy-girl learns it at school very early) held and used "convention".
• Example of this rule:
  
  • The aforementioned esti (i.e. (he-she-it) is) gets syllabised like this e-sti because there are words in Greek (it is allowed to) with an initial st, e.g. stephanos, i.e. crown.
    
  • (Counter-)Example: anthropos (i.e. a human) gets syllabised like this an-thro-pos because there are no words in Greek (it is't allowed to) having an initial nthr; there are instead words with an initial thr, hence th-θ-theta is a part of the second syllable and not of the first; e.g. thronos, i.e. throne.
• In order to help you understand the above, let me note this:
  In Greek there are consonant or consonant cluster rules allowing (or not) the placement-occurence of them in a word; think in comparison about ps in English: you may write an initial ps all the time, this being happening let's say due to etymology(i.e. due to the words in English of mainly Greek origin), e.g. psychology, but 99.99% of the time you are not allowed to, you don't pronounce both of the letters; you only pronounce the s; when instead ps is intervocalic or even word-final, you seem to generally have no problem pronouncing it, e.g. (using only Greek words or words of Greek origin)
  
  • a. intervocalic: autopsy, synapses,
  • b. word-final(in spelling or sound): apocalypse, triceratops,
  • c. I'd guess a possible exception to this, however rare, would be some compound (or hyphenated) words that (could or would) have as a second part words of the initial ps category , for example something like antipsychotic, counter-psychology.
• Note - Post Scriptum: All of the above are meant to be understood as referring predominantly to the official rules and formal use and teaching of the language; perhaps also to a very common or the commonest rule, teaching and use.Dealing with unofficial rules and usage would make this discussion extremmely more complex; unofficially, as I've already said, since all rules are made and meant to be broken, almost anything goes (albeit perhaps in different frequencies and/or probabilities)... ;-)
• So returning to the main subject before us:
  Since, as you say, this score-lyrics-image is fine, since there doesn't seem to be a problem, I guess I'll make use of it inside the article; in due time, that is.
  Thanks, again, very much!!!!! Thanatos|talk 02:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the lesson in Greek syllabification. As I said, I have no Greek at all, though I am comfortable in several other modern European languages and am well aware of the principles you mention, and how they vary from one language to another. It is interesting in the case of Pöhlmann and West that we are dealing with two scholars of ancient Greek who have different native languages (German and English), shich you might think would help to cancel out any modern-language prejudice. I do have one further resource which I have not mentioned: I am employed in a clerical capacity in the office of a university Department of Classics, where I can ask the opinions of a dozen or so specialists in Ancient Greek. Perhaps they can throw some light on why Pöhlmann and West break that word as they do. After all, despite their credentials it is always possible that they simply made a mistake! As the saying goes, "Even Homer nods".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• 1.FYI and for any future reference:Just to be as much clear as possible,crystal clear, I've added above a post scriptum on unofficial rules and usage; it's trivial but it doesn't hurt to include it...
• 2.Note that I'm writing this, I'm uploading files, editing articles, discussing in wikipedia about things that are completely irrelevant to my studies, instead of writing/completing my thesis...
• 3.Well, if it would not be (very) inconvenient or troublesome to you, it wouldn't hurt to ask them, you might as well do this; they're right next door, next office door, right?!?!?! :D
• 4.I have to repeat, thank you very much for your help; my musical education is close to 0; hence, I wouldn't know what to do with this file and I see noone else but you volunteering to help, answering my call(s)!! Thanatos|talk 03:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• 5. Addendum:
  • A.Oh also forgot this; another possibility or guess is the following; in fact it's pretty silly of me not to have mentioned it before: the syllabisation of esti into es and ti in the aforementioned sources, might have been done because of the stele itself! See here, left-hand-photo-side, 4th row from the bottom.The musical notation, the (two) symbols above the word ΕΣΤΙ are pretty much or somewhat aligned with ΕΣ and ΤΙ respectively...
  • B.Also a thought of mine that is again totally a guess(it's anyway of secondary or tertiary+ importance): The authors of Documents of ancient Greek music et al may be using cs instead of σs and ςs or ss and lowercase throughout the text so that the transcribed Greek text, would not mislead the reader into thinking that different symbols (initial-intervocalic (σ) and final (ς) sigma; a much later convention) had been used in the inscription itself and at the same time would not be aesthetically and/or orthographically unpleasing-wrong, like e.g. some texts (usually of authors alien to the field(s) and/or language) that transcribe sigmas in e.g. Greek quotations-words, as σs all the way...Thanatos|talk 04:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Are there no news? Have you consulted with them?? Thanatos|talk 08:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I have consulted two professors, one of whom threw up his hands and said, "Who knows? I certainly don't!" It seems that, in scholarly publications, one does not ordinarily break Ancient Greek words at line-ends, so this professor referred me to another, who has considerable experience with typesetting texts in a variety of non-Roman alphabets. He told me that there are no established rules for syllabification breaks of Ancient Greek, in part because in that historical era texts were usually carved in stone. If the carver ran out of space on one line, a break could be made anywhere; it was only during the Roman period that scribes started to worry about such things, and even then there were no fixed rules, which only came into existence in comparatively recent (post-medieval) times. As a result, the situation with Ancient Greek is "wide open" in modern scholarship (the professor says he could find citations to support this assertion, if need be), and every specialist publisher has to develop their own house style on this matter. Breaking syllables for singing a musical setting is even rarer. Evidently, Oxford University Press decided to break esti (and presumably other, similar words) between the two consonants, in spite of the Modern Greek rules. On the other hand (and I am still quoting the professor), you are perfectly justified in doing it the other way.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much!
So unless someone else justifiably objects to this, I'll let this image be, unchanged, as it presently stands.
Btw, again, just to be crystal clear (it might of interest to them), it's not just Modern Greek rules unless this is to be understood as referring to what modern Greeks do about Ancient Greek language grammar rules, not as referring to rules of modern Greek per se;
this is what the (at least modern) Greek Ancient Greek grammar books say and prescribe, see e.g. these two:
§10.β-γ, page 16, §34.γ-δ;
though as it seems, on cases of three consonants, the rule is not exactly as I remembered it to be (the two first consontants suffice), mea culpa; both are Ancient Greek grammar books officially used (at least in the past; don't know about the present) at Greek schools, published by ΟΕΔΒ; had to use google translate on the Greek wikipedia article (the latter link) since I could't find an analogous article herein.
Thank you again,very much! CU Thanatos|talk 04:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You are very welcome! As for the two sources you offer, I cannot read Greek well enough to assess what they say, but I notice that one was published in 1971, the other by an author active only since about 1980. With the greatest respect, these are modern sources, not ancient ones, even though they do treat the Ancient Greek language. I have checked the text used in my institution (Hardy Hansen and Gerald M. Quinn, Greek: An Intensive Course, New York: Fordham University Press, 1992), which seems to agree with what I have been told, since it ducks the question entirely, merely giving examples without explaining them. Another text (Maurice Balme and Gilbert Lawall, Athenaze: An Introduction to Ancient Greek, revised edition, 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990–91) basically agrees with what you have said: "In dividing words into syllables, single consonants go with the following vowel …; a group of consonants that cannot stand at the beginning of a word is divided between two syllables …; and double consonants are divided between syllables" (vol. 1, p. 208). However, I notice that this source does not actually forbid the division of two consonants that may stand at the beginning of a word, but rather formulates only the negative: if the group cannot stand at the beginning of a word, it must be divided. In any case, this is also a modern text, and does not claim to represent Ancient Greek rules on syllable division, though it is published by the same firm who produced the Pöhlmann and West anthology, where the word is broken es-ti rather than e-sti.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

These are officially used grammar books (OK the first one isn't any more; inter alia, having been in katharevousa...; the latter though is where I learned ancient Greek from at school), not peer reviewed articles published in some obscure journal every other day-month-year; I'd say, following a instantaneous constructionist impulse in me (the positivist, realist, rationalist, empiricist etc in me is crying foul), that at least in this case, these are the books that construct the norms, the rules... P.S. I've provided the links not just for you (yes you've told me you don't speak Greek, I know), but for any present or future reader of this and for your mates down the corridor... ;-) :D Thanatos|talk 18:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe Jerome Kohl is right, but you need to have a Hellenist look at this. The two best I know of on Wikipedia are Wareh, an venerable statesman whose time for the project is limited these days, and Davidiad, who I suspect will have something precise to say about the above. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

In prosodic syllabification, consonant combinations, whether internal or word-initial, are split between syllables, unless they are one of a small group of exceptions or something about the meter of the passage makes for an unusual division. M. L. West, Greek Metre (Oxford, 1983) 8: "Where two consonants occur together, it is in most cases only the second that releases the following vowel: the first is treated as belonging to the previous syllable and adding to its length." In the same book, 17f., West catalogues "Certain other consonant combinations are exceptionally treated as undivided ..." (my emphasis). This list of exceptional combinations does not include -στ-. A plosive + a liquid is one of these exceptions: hence ὁ χρό-νος, not ὁχ-ρό-νος. The syllabification used in Pöhlmann–West should in any event be used here, as it is the "authoritative scholarly source", as Jerome Kohl says.  davidiad { t } 23:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanx Davidiad! If Pöhlmann–West is indeed considered the authoritative scholarly source, if ..., I cannot object.
So concluding, both a mousikos-mousikologos and a philologos have commented; I've uploaded a new version reading es-ti, the score is fine, so I think we're done; thank you all!!! :) Thanatos|talk 00:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• 1.Sorry to bother you again but since you say Poehlmann-West is the authoritative souce I've made some changes following their syllabification throughout the score(without really understanding why it differs at places). Therefore I ask you to please check again and comment.
• 2.Following our discussion, I've replaced in the article this

  

  The Seikilos "score"

  image with this

  

  The Seikilos "score"

  one which I've created (based on the former, changing syllabification, moving around elements etc, trying to make it more readable, trying to make separate syllables-notes more apparent etc) and uploaded. Please also check and comment.
• I remind you that you can find-read the relevant Poehlmann score-syllabification here.
• ADDENDUM: On a different but related issue: should we remove the ano teleiai and semi cola from both the article and the images??
• ADDENDUM2: I had left a question-note here but nobody has replied.So let me ask it again here: Am I the only one that is hearing here

  Melody sung in a Koine Greek approximate pronunciation.

  an initial N?

Thank you all very much. Thanatos|talk 14:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think Davidiad is taking a holiday today, but I left a note in case he hadn't added this page to his watchlist. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

[ edit conflict ] It looks good, and is much easier on the eyes. I think it's your call on whether that should be an ano teleia or a comma. If we want to say that we're following Pöhlmann–West faithfully, then I'd switch it to a comma, but if we're just saying that out transcriptions are "after" Pöhlmann–West, then it's within your editorial discretion which punctuation to use.  davidiad { t } 17:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Apologiai for not replying sooner (obviously there are some Spartacus influences present here but also irritation at Greek-Greece not being anywhere mentioned there :) ); 1.I was hoping that others would also comment; but anyway since they haven't, thanx; I might remove the ano teleiai and semicola some time in the future from both article and images. 2. How about the strange Initial N sound?? Thanatos|talk 18:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for coming back to this after so long a time, but I have at last taken the time to carefully examine the music notation in the above image. There are a great many differences from the Pöhlmann-West transcription, but many of them are debatable and in fact conform to some other readings annotated in Pöhlmann and West 2001, especially Jan 1899 and Wagner 1921. I have also minutely compared the photograph of the squeeze. In the process, I have found five undoubted errors in the present version, all in the last row: (1) the double dot over the OΦ is simply not there in the squeeze, and none of the published editions show a double dot anywhere; (2 & 3) in the sequence O I Z, both the iota and the zeta should have dots over them (all sources agree, and they are plain in the squeeze—this is obviously just an oversight); (4) the hook at the left of the overbar on the last single C is a mistaken reading of the swallow-tail serif on the sigma in the line above; (5) the very last character is not a J, but rather a reversed gamma (again all the sources agree and the squeeze shows this clearly—the error is apparently a mistaken reading of the end of the ligature under the group as part of the final letter). It would be nice to have these fixed. It would probably be overkill to annotate all the honest differences of opinion elsewhere.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Please check for errors etc and report back.
P.S.I've also created but not uploaded a version of the image that afaict is identical to the one of Pöhlmann–West's ancient score, i.e. including corrections that you've not mentioned above. Do you want me to upload that replacing the one that's there now?Thanatos|talk|contributions 06:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast! It looks fine to me. The version exactly corresponding to the Pöhlmann-West transcription would be better still, since it can then be attributed to a reliable source. (In this respect, a version corresponding exactly to Jan 1899 would be just as good, but of course the most recent version is usually regarded as more authoritative.) As it stands, it must be regarded as a hybrid amongst Jan 1899, Wagner 1921, and Pöhlmann-West 2001, which means that it involves a certain amount of "original research" (that is, choices made by a Wikipedia editor amongst several options). You may have noticed that the dots and overbars are rhythmic notation, with the dots transcribed as quavers (eighth notes), overbars as crotchets (quarter notes), and the "hooked overbar" as dotted crotchets. (I do not understand the addition of dots to the overbars, however.) Unmarked notes are quavers by default, so the dots are mainly precautionary. This means that there is one discrepancy in the current version, since the hooked overbar on the Φ over the word "ζῆν" corresponds to an undotted crotchet. Pöhlmann-West's decision to extend the overbars to two symbols seems like a conceptual error to me, though in fact it results in no confusion, so long as the reader/musician understands that only the last note of the ligature is to be lengthened. (It is entirely coincidental that this principle also applies to certain European notational conventions found between the 13th and 16th centuries.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Done...Please check...
P.S.Removed punctuation excluding full stop as per discussion above (taken place some time in the past); will remove it also from the article.
P.P.S. The graphics changes needed this time were much, much simpler and therefore easy and quick.
P.P.P.S.*Another symbol of frequent occurrence is the single point (stigme) added above or just to the right of note-signs (and above any diseme or triseme symbol). This marks the arsis or up-beat, as the Anonymus states: 'The thesis is indicated when there is simply the note-symbol without the point, and the arsis when it has the point'. Where the arsis embraces two or three notes, each of them commonly has the stigme, but sometimes only one of them has it. Some texts, such as the Delphic Paeans, have no pointing, and in others it is sporadic. Sometimes it is difficult to make sense of, and seems to have become confused. A mere point was especially vulnerable to faults of transmission: it was easily overlooked, and on the other hand it was possible for a stray spot of ink, or of some alien substance, to be mistaken for a stigme.
* - 'two-time long' (diseme) └ 'three-time long' (triseme)
*2. The application in musical texts of the symbol -, which we know signified a 'diseme', a doubling of the normal 'monoseme' short note, to notes on which a long syllable was sung.
*From the second half of the fifth century BC, if not earlier, it was customary to divide each measure into 'up' and 'down' segments (ano, kato), later called 'lift' and 'step' (arsis, basis) or 'lift' and 'placement' (arsis, thesis), corresponding to the raising and lowering of the foot. These segments were not necessarily equal in length. When they were unequal, the 'down' part of the measure the thesis, to use what became the established term was usually the longer. Theoreticians classified rhythms according to the ratio between the segments (1 : 1, 1 : 2, etc.). Their writings provide us with a quantity of information on how the division was made in the case of various rhythms, and we can supplement it from indications in the musical texts, where the arsis is often marked by dots above the note-symbols. This evidence will be cited later when particular rhythms are discussed.
M. L. West, Ancient Greek Music, 1992, pages 268, 266, 131, 133-134 respectively.
Hope this helps...

I've updated the score after doing a check and realising I had missed differences from Pöhlmann-West; I think it now is faithful to this source irrespectively of whether that's good or bad as far the musicological stuff per se are concerned. Please check and report back. Thanatos|talk|contributions 17:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed something when reading the discussion, but is there a reason why the transcription at the top of this paragraph, which starts with an A and has two sharps, has been replaced with a version starting with a G? When you read the quotation from Winnington-Ingram quoted in the article, he discusses the tune as though referring to the version starting with an A, which is confusing when the reader sees the alternative version starting with a G just above. Could the version with A be put in the article instead perhaps? As for ἐστι it should presumably be divided ἐσ-τι not ἐ-στι, since the first syllable is long. Kanjuzi (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Transcription of ancient-Greek into modern notation is not an absolute matter, but this particular tune is conventionally transcribed to begin on A, for reasons not important enough to go into here. Your point is well taken, however, that Winnington-Ingram's text becomes confusing when an alternative transposition level is used, and this could easily be the case for other text citations as well. The conventional transcription with two sharps and the melody beginning on A should be restored in the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Strongly agree, for same reasons; I've restored it (hadn't noticed it had changed). Conventional transcription begins on A. Antandrus (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

New score version

Now that the score extension exists and is working again, I've made a new version:

I've been rather bold by including a transliteration, to give the reader an idea of what each word means (since singers who don't know sometimes sound really bathetic). I hope someone with expertise will tear it apart and come up with a better version. I also hope I haven't made any error in the accentuation or anything; I just copied from the article text. It's really easy to alter this format, any change requests welcome if you don't want to do it (in the article) yourself. I've used the "flute" midi instrument; I'd appreciate any help picking something more appropriate from this a list of alternative midi instruments. HLHJ (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

For instance, "τὸ τέλος ὁ χρόνος ἀπαιτεῖ" has an obviously parallel structure, grammatically and musically; does the transliteration convey that? Would "[By no means] [at all] thou grieve" be a better way of clumping multiple English words translating a single Greek one, or is that clear? Any improvements welcome. HLHJ (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Trying for an International Phonetic Alphabet version, Greek pronunciation: [
ˈ(h)o.son zɛːi̯s pʰai̯.nuː
meˈden/miˈðen '(h)o.lɔːs sy lyˈpuː
pros oˈli.ɡos/oˈli.ɣos ɛsˈti/esˈti (h)o zen/zin
(h)o ˈtɛ.los/ˈte.los (h)o ˈkʰro.nos/ˈxro.nos a.pɛˈtei̯]

Is this reasonable? Which alternatives are preferred? HLHJ (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

It's been a week, so @Chinasaur, Ex0pos, Byz, Thanatos666, Jerome Kohl, Cynwolfe, Davidiad, Kanjuzi, and Antandrus: If I've missed anyone interested, or pinged the unintersted, my apologies. HLHJ (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me -- thank you for working on this. No objection to the transliteration; anyway I can't think of any improvements right off. Antandrus (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Being Hellenistic Greek but also keeping it simple,
I'd keep the move from pitch to stress accent,
on vowels and diphthongs, I'd keep the vowel length distinction unless it's a very late dating, I'd keep eta as ɛː (mɛːden, zɛːn; if not move to /eː/, then /iː/, then /i/, depending on date), make long diphthongs monophthongs (zɛːs, then as before...), also monophthongize /ai̯/ to /ɛː/ (pʰɛː.nuː, a.pɛːˈtei̯) if not to /eː/ (/a.peːˈtei̯/), certainly monophthongize the by now absorbed by the spurious diphthong ει (a.pɛːˈteː), if not go further (depending on dating) to /a.peːˈtiː/ and then /a.peˈti/;
on consonants, I'd ditch the daseia (/o.son/) and consider, depending on dating, frivatives (feː.nuː, ˈxro.nos, oˈli.ɣon); also it's pros oligon, not pros oligos, to zɛːn, to ˈte.los not (h)o zen, (h)o ˈte.los (???) and /ˈte.los/, /es'ti/, why tɛ.los, ɛsˈti (do you go by Allen? if so wouldn't also epsilon, among others, have to become more open?)? So let's say something like this: Greek pronunciation: [
ˈo.son zɛːs ˈfɛː.nuː
mɛː.ˈden 'o.lɔːs sy ly.ˈpuː
pros o.ˈli.ɣon es.ˈti to zɛːn
to ˈte.los o ˈxro.nos a.pɛː.ˈteː]
Thanatos|talk|contributions 00:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Thanatos. You overestimate my scholarship; I have negligable understanding of this field, and I'm working from sketchy and inadequate references. I've added the IPA you recommend. I've also changed "brief" to "small" because I think it might be a better match for the vagueness of ὀλίγον, but not in the article text, yet. I hope the English (and German, which I added because SOV and inflections made it a lot easier) transliterations are reasonable. HLHJ (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I would personally prefer the voice synth, as this is a song after all. I also wonder if some space can be put between the systems as they seem kinda crammed at the moment. Aza24 (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Aza24, I've switched to some of the voices, and I've increased the spacing, maybe too far. I could also put some of the lyrics above the staff. HLHJ (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't have my Vox Graeca with me at present but I don't think the transliteration of eta in zēis above is quite right. You have transliterated it with an open e (zɛːs) in the same way as yοu have transliterated αι (ˈfɛː.nuː), but I believe that by the 1st or 2nd century CE eta was a closer sound. At all periods including modern Greek it was different from the sound represented by αι. In Vox Graeca Professor Allen has a table indicating when the vowels changed their sounds. This should be consulted.

Further, χρόνος doesn't mean "life/time". It just means "time". And "the alive-being" is a horrible translation. It just means "life" or "living".

Concerning the singer, his version is very beautifully sung with excellent pronunciation. I don't have any objection to the initial "N", which is obviously just a trivial mistake. However, I don't think he's correct in adding an unwarranted fall in pitch in the word ζῇς, and he pronounces the first syllable of μηδὲν with a quaver instead of a crotchet (i.e. too short). (In Delphic hymn 2 we also find syllables with circumflex on a non-descending note.) Apart from that it's excellent.

As for the syllable division of ἔστι I think we should follow the inscription itself, as was pointed out above, namely ἔσ-τι. A similar instance where a short vowel has a long note comes in the immediately following word τὸ, where the syllable counts as long because zeta is a long consonant (whether pronounced dz, zd, or zz). Kanjuzi (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Kanjuzi, I agree and that's what I did on the syllablification.

On vowel sounds, are you saying the "eː" representing "εῖ" in "ἀπαιτεῖ" ("a.pɛː.ˈteː") should be used for "ζῇς", "ζῆν", and maybe "μηδὲν" too? Thanatos, comments? I know nothing of this.

My impression was that "χρόνος" means "time" in the infinitely-divisible English sense, but also has a discrete sense of "a duration" or "a timespan", and when specifically applied to humans "lifetime" or "lifespan". This gives the nice parallel contrast of end and duration, death-moment and lifespan; I was trying to convey that. But the slash is inappropriate, as "χρόνος" certainly does not mean "life"; I've now replaced it with square brackets. Thank you. Yes, "the alive-being" is a horrible translation. The translation currently in the article runs:

While you live, shine
have no grief at all
life exists only for a short while
and Time demands his due.

(maybe "for life is brief"?). In the score, I was going for a word-for-word transliteration, sacrificing any attempt at colloquiality. In English "living" as a noun is usual in the sense of "I don't edit Wikipedia for a living" and "Seikilos is no longer among the living". In the epitaph, I think the author used the present active infinitive form, "ζῆν", not "ζωή", the noun. I tried to convey this with the clumsy very mid-twen-cen verb "alive-being" (I don't even know what "-making" formations like that are called, but they seem to have been a pretty brief fad). I guess "aliving" would also work, but that sounds even less natural. If the consensus is that "for little it is, the living" is better, we could use that instead.

The singer is Byz, and I also very much like his recording. For clarity, my comment that "singers who don't know [what the words they are singing mean] sometimes sound really bathetic" was in no way intended to apply to him (I wasn't intending to discuss his recording). On the contrary, he shifts the beat you'd expect in the conventional transcription in a way that takes it off the definite articles (articles almost never take the stress in English verse, not sure about Koine Greek):

Conventional rhythmization	D'Angour rhythmization	Song recording	Original line divisions (no original word divisions)
hóson zêis, phaí-aí-aí-nou mēdèn hólō-ōs sù lu poû-oû pròs olígon é-ésti tò zê-ên tò télos ho khrónos apaiteî-eî-eî	hóson zêis, phaí-aí-aí-nou mē-ēdèn hólō-ōs sù lu poû-oû pròs olígon é-ésti tò zê-ên tò télos ho khrónos apaiteî-eî-eî	hóson zêis, phaí-aí-aí-nou mēdèn hólō-ōs sù lu poû-oû pròs olígon é-ésti tò zê-ên tò télos ho khrónos apaiteî-eî-eî	oson zeis phainou meden olos su lu pou pros oli gon eti to zen to telos o chro nos apaitei

As you say, the first syllable of mēdèn is shortened, shifting the beat for two bars; the second note of zên is also shortened, shortening it for the remaining two bars. Essentially the conventional rhythymization is used for the first and third bars, the D'Angour for the second and fourth; this may be deliberate. I think would be fairly easy to remove the formant of the "nóson" with sound editing. But honestly, I'm not that worried. The midi file gives the notated timing and pitches, but it's a computer beeping. The recording is an actual human singing and it's musical (plus it's a much better way of giving the pronunciation than IPA). HLHJ (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the IPA version from the transcription for various reasons. (1) It isn't justified in the literature; there is no citation to any scholarly source; it seems to have just been invented but not by anyone who has a good knowledge of what they are doing. (2) It is not clear what century the pronunciation is supposed to be representing, and mixes up pronunciations of different centuries. (3) It changes pitch accents to stress accents, when the music itself proves that the pitch accent was very much alive at the time of its composition. (4) There are various other errors; for example, τὸ ζῆν is transliterated as to zɛːn when probably tozze:n would be more accurate, since the open quality of the eta had changed by this period and zeta was a double letter. Naturally, the 5th-century BC transliteration conventionally given doesn't represent the 1st century pronunciation exactly, but it is possible for readers to adjust it as they wish. Kanjuzi (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't care much about the inclusion or removal of an IPA transcription. I think it's something helpful to have provided we have a caveat emptor but its absence does not make me lie sleepless on my bed at nights. Having said that I think you're asking for way too much.
The dating of the Seikilos epitaph itself is uncertain and lies in a period when Greek was in great flux. Afaict there is no total certainty or scholarly agreement (within a broader consensus of course) on the dating (or locating) of the relevant sound changes in the Greek of the period or the sequence of the changes or even the sounds themselves at many cases. Take a look for example at the two tables of approximate chronological development of Attic vowels and (short and long) diphthongs inside Allen's Vox Graeca (pages 74 and 82) or just read our Koine phonology article to see the giant mess out of which you want an exact answer to be derived. We're dealing with simplifications and approximations (again within a broader consensus); if you then add on top of all that the musical stuff, well... Thanatos|talk|contributions 00:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanatos, that looks like useful information for the article; could we qualify an IPA rendering suitably with links? If you are reading Wikipedia offline, you can't listen to the recording; we don't have sources for the recording or for the article's free translation (though there are probably PD professional translations). HLHJ (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Kanjuzi, I notice you changed "the end/death, the [life]time requires it" to "the end, the time requires it". While superior as a translation, I'm a bit worried about this missing something as a transliteration. Given the context, I thought the meanings of "death" and "lifetime" were likely to be heard by a historic native listener; I could of course be wrong. Opinions welcome. HLHJ (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I don't think χρόνος really means "lifetime" in this context, but simply "time". As for τέλος, it could of course imply death, but the basic meaning is "end". One scholar has pointed out that it could also mean "what is due" (like a customs tax). But I can't see the point of adding all these meanings under the words. By the way, I don't think the word "transliteration" is being used correctly here. What you mean perhaps is a literal translation. As for the IPA transcription, it is very difficult. Scholars argue, for example, about how the letter zeta was pronounced; and one must also take into account that in several languages (such as French or Persian) the pronunciation used when reciting or singing poetry is more conservative than that used in ordinary speech. Kanjuzi (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Scholarly Views section too scholarly?

The Scholarly Views section is unnecessarily technical and dense. I appreciate highly detailed information as much as the next user, but this either needs expansion for clarification or editing down for readability. It’s absurdly opaque to non-specialist readers. 166.198.161.75 (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the information itself is that complex, but I agree that the tone in which its written (and some of the chosen vocabulary) does lean much specialist than widely accessible vocab. The lack of links doesn't help either, neither does the lack of context. Aza24 (talk) 06:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)