Abstract

An examination of the nine fragments attributed to Terpander (some in ancient sources, some by modern editors) suggests that none is securely assigned to him. Indeed, the evidence suggests that most circulated in citharodic prooimia, and that the attribution to Terpander was a metonymic process of identification of a genre with its traditional founder. This interpretation makes better sense both of the fragments themselves and of the uses to which they were put in our source-texts.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call