Power, Timothy. 2010. The Culture of Kitharôidia. Hellenic Studies Series 15. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebook:CHS_Power.The_Culture_of_Kitharoidia.2010.
Part II. Anabolê, Prooimion, Nomos: Form and Content of Citharodic Songs
πλήκτρῳ ἐπειρήτιζε κατὰ μέρος· ἣ δ’ ὑπὸ χειρὸς
σμερδαλέον κονάβησε. γέλασσε δὲ Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων
γηθήσας, ἐρατὴ δὲ διὰ φρένας ἤλυθ’ ἰωὴ
θεσπεσίης ἐνοπῆς καί μιν γλυκὺς ἵμερος ᾕρει
θυμῷ ἀκουάζοντα. λύρῃ δ’ ἐρατὸν κιθαρίζων
στῆ ῥ’ ὅ γε θαρσήσας ἐπ’ ἀριστερὰ Μαιάδος υἱὸς
Φοίβου Ἀπόλλωνος, τάχα δὲ λιγέως κιθαρίζων
γηρύετ’ ἀμβολάδην, ἐρατὴ δὲ οἱ ἕσπετο φωνή.
The anabolê was traditionally brief, as it seems to be here. Some formally adventurous musicians of the fifth century BCE, however, expanded it into a showcase for instrumental virtuosity, to the consternation of critics such as Democritus of Chios, who said, parodying Hesiod Works and Days 265–266, “A man who contrives evils for another contrives evils for himself, but the long anabolê is the greatest evil for its composer” (Aristotle Rhetoric 3.9.1409b26–30). Aristotle says that Democritus was criticizing Melanippides, a dithyrambic composer, who enlarged the preludial role of the aulos in his choral songs. But developments in kitharôidia and dithyramb kept close pace in the fifth century, so we could expect that citharodes too experimented with this controversial innovation. 
2. The Prooimion: Necessary Introductions
While it is possible that these lines come from a narrative song that would constitute the bulk of the nomos, a prooimion seems a better bet. Such a prooimion would be a traditional piece intended for performance in Sparta, that important market for early kitharôidia, a piece perhaps handed down specifically by the Lesbian line of citharodes “descended” from Terpander, those recurrent winners at the mousikoi agônes at the Carneia.  The conclusion of the Delian portion of the Homeric Hymn to Apollo, in which the singer links his praise of the god with praise of the Ionians assembled at the Delian festival of Apollo and the local maiden chorus that also sings there (146–178), offers a sense of the wider proemial context, and the still wider festal context of performance, in which the encomiastic rhetoric of fr. 5 Gostoli might have found place. It is worth noting that the praise of Delos in the Hymn (as preserved in Thucydides 3.104) is introduced by phraseology that echoes the language of the Terpandrean lines:
ἔνθά τοι ἑλκεχίτωνες Ἰάονες ἠγερέθονται
αὐτοῖς σὺν παίδεσσι γυναιξί τε σὴν ἐς ἄγυιαν·
οἱ δέ σε πυγμαχίῃ τε καὶ ὀρχηθμῷ καὶ ἀοιδῇ
μνησάμενοι τέρπουσιν ὅταν στήσωνται ἀγῶνα.
But in Delos, Phoebus, you most of all delight in your heart,
where (ἔνθα) the Ionians in trailing chitons gather
with their children and wives on your avenue.
And with boxing, dancing, and song
they call you to mind and delight you, when they settle into their assembly.
Like the rhapsodic performer of these lines at Apollo’s festival on Delos, the citharode at the Carneia festival may similarly have sung fr. 5 by way of fusing praise of the hymned god with the here-and-now Apollonian virtues on display in Sparta and in particular in the festal program of the Carneia.
About the far-shooting lord once more let my heart sing. 
The line or some close variation was the highly traditional incipit of a proemial hymn to Apollo. So common was it that by the fifth century BCE citharodes had earned the nickname amphianaktes, and a verb was coined, ἀμφιανακτίζειν, that was used synonymously with προοιμιάζεσθαι.  The temporal adverb αὖτις ‘once more’ (in some versions rendered as αὖτε) announces, “from the top,” the recursiveness of the prooimion, the cyclicality of its inaugural function, and dramatizes the serial reenactment of the persona of its legendary composer, Terpander of Lesbos, by the citharodes who assume the “I”of his prooimion.  Just as common-repertoire rhapsodic prooimia were attributed collectively to a single author, Homer, who was emulated by generations of rhapsodes, so were traditional citharodic prooimia attributed collectively to Terpander (“Plutarch” On Music 4.1132d, 6.1133c), the model citharode.  Terpander set a model for such performative emulation by emulating classic models in his own musical and performative practice. The second-century BCE scholar Alexander Polyhistor captures this dynamic: Terpander himself “emulated (ezêlôkenai) the epic verse (epê) of Homer and the melodies (melê) of Orpheus” (FGrH 273 F 77 ap. “Plutarch” On Music 5.1132f).
καὶ σοφὲ μυστοδότα, Λατοῦς γόνε, Δήλιε Παιάν,
εὐμενεῖς πάρεστέ μοι.
Wise Calliope, leader of the pleasure-bringing Muses,
and wise giver of mysteries, child of Leto, Delian Paean,
stand kindly beside me.
The first two lines are hexameters in “Doric” melic dialect, to which is appended a short trochaic verse. The melody is harmonically and rhythmically simple; word accent coincides with melodic pitch throughout, and there are no melismatic figures.  The prooimion presumably prefaced the citharodic nomoi for which Mesomedes was known, and was probably transmitted along with them by performing citharodes (Dio Cassius 78.13.7; Eusebius 2.2160; Suda s.v. Μεσομήδης). The “brief humnos” performed by Philostratus’ Nero impersonator could have sounded something like it, at least verbally. Styles of music, however, may well have changed from the time of Nero to Hadrian, and the simple tune of Mesomedes perhaps reflects the broader archaizing trends, literary and visual, that developed under Hadrian. Of course, the musical settings of citharodic prooimia, even in the wake of the New Music, might always have been relatively straightforward and unadorned, characterized by a restrained, hymnic solemnity that stood in contrast to the greater degree of sonic elaboration that would characterize the following nomos.
ἑπτατόνῳ φόρμιγγι νέους κελαδήσομεν ὕμνους.
It is tempting to read these verses as Terpander’s own manifesto of musical innovation, anticipating the modernist claims of New Music composers such as Timotheus PMG 796, which begins, “I sing not the old songs, for my new ones (kaina) are better.”  But we might do better to understand their significance within the specific context of the citharodic performance ritual.  If the verses come from a prooimion, which seems likely—the σοί ‘you’ must refer to a hymned divinity—they might belong at its conclusion, signaling a transition to the song proper, the nomos, which is referred to cataphorically, and in the poetic plural, as neoi humnoi.  The rhetorical intent, if not the precise phraseology, recalls a transitional formula recurrent in the Homeric Hymns, μεταβήσομαι ἄλλον ἐς ὕμνον ‘I will shift to another humnos’ (5.293, 9.9, 18.11), with which the rhapsode (or citharode), after bidding farewell to the hymned divinity, signals that he is ready to move on from the prooimion to the heroic epos. 
3. Hymnic and Choral Origins of Kitharôidia
The definitive moment is captured in which Chrysothemis, elsewhere attested as the victor of the first Pythian musical contest (Pausanias 10.7.2), emerges into the spotlight, resplendent in his Apollonian garb, as a citharode. The background from which he emerges is implicitly choral, for the oldest medium of lyric song at Delphi was the paeanic chorus, whose model incarnation, comprised of the Cretans who first settled at Delphi, was led at the founding of the Pythian shrine by Apollo kitharistês himself (Homeric Hymn to Apollo 514–519). The father of Chrysothemis, Carmanor, was said to have purified Apollo on Crete after the god’s slaying of the serpent (Pausanias 2.7.7; 2.30.3; 10.7.2); according to the implied mythical chronology, then, his son would have belonged to that pioneering group of paean singers. Strabo 9.3.10 records that citharodes at the legendary “ancient agôn” of the Pythia used to compete in singing paeans for Apollo, a claim that would seem to conflate the solo performance of competitive kitharôidia at the historical Pythia with its protomorphic origins in choral performance. While it has been argued that the testimony of Strabo and Proclus reflect late attempts by Peripatetic eidographers to posit a historical basis for a perceived correlation between the monodic nomos and choral paean, the two genres most closely associated with Apollo, it is entirely possible that both writers (or their sources) had access to the local musical lore of Delphi, as Pausanias, who makes clear that he is reporting local Delphian accounts, certainly did (10.7.2).  Conversely, it was related that Philammon, the second victor at the Pythian agôn after Chrysothemis, “seemed to have been the first to establish choruses of parthenoi ‘girls’” at Delphi (πρῶτος ἐδόκει χοροὺς συστήσασθαι παρθένων, Pherecydes FGrH 3 F 120 = scholia MV to Odyssey 19.432; cf. “Plutarch” On Music 3.1132a). In the musico-mythical economy of Delphi, both Chrysothemis and Philammon thus alternately play the archetypal roles of solo agonistic citharode and integrated choral kitharistês serving the interests of the local cultic community.  In the Homeric Hymn to Apollo Apollo himself alternates between solo performance, playing his phorminx on the way to his Pythian shrine (180–185), and his role as Mousagêtês, the kitharistês to the chorus of the Muses on Olympus (186–206). 
ἀντόμεναι Θάμυριν τὸν Θρήϊκα παῦσαν ἀοιδῆς
Οἰχαλίηθεν ἰόντα παρ᾽ Εὐρύτου Οἰχαλιῆος·
στεῦτο γὰρ εὐχόμενος νικησέμεν εἴ περ ἂν αὐταὶ
Μοῦσαι ἀείδοιεν κοῦραι Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο·
αἳ δὲ χολωσάμεναι πηρὸν θέσαν, αὐτὰρ ἀοιδὴν
θεσπεσίην ἀφέλοντο καὶ ἐκλέλαθον κιθαριστύν.
While the mythos surrounding Thamyris is complexly overdetermined, involving multiply layered accretions of commentary on real-world musico-poetic developments of the Archaic and Classical periods, at a most basic level the Iliadic episode deals with the intimate relationship between citharode and chorus, which here takes an antagonistic turn; the former’s detachment from the latter is made problematic, indeed catastrophic.  It is notable that some writers identify Thamyris as a citharist (Plato Ion 533b–c; Dio Chrysostom 12.21; Pliny Natural History 7.204) rather than a citharode, echoing perhaps an implicit sequel to the contest in which Thamyris is forcibly subordinated to the chorus as a “mute” accompanist, his hopes for a solo career irrevocably dimmed.  The adjective πηρός in Iliad 2.599 was taken by ancient interpreters to mean that he was made ‘lame’ as well as ‘blind’, ‘dumb’, or ‘mad’. Could we not then understand too the physical incapacitation of Thamyris by the Muses in light of the subtext of the aborted differentiation, as a symbolic curtailment of the Panhellenic aspirations of the itinerant, agonistic citharode—Thamyris significantly meets the Muses while traveling from one professional engagement to another—and his notional containment within the local horizons that define choral performance culture?  The Panhellenically ambitious rhapsodes primarily responsible for the oral composition and transmission of the Iliad may have been particularly drawn to the myth for the way in which it puts the citharode, a potential rival, back in his place, as it were.
4. The Rule of Nomos: What’s in a Name?
From this primary, generically unmarked musical sense of nomos developed a secondary, generically marked use, that denoting the contest pieces performed by citharodes, auletes, aulodes, and citharists, pieces that deployed, in systematic fashion, harmonic and rhythmic elements drawn from a number of regional and occasional musical idioms, nomoi in the primary sense. Inasmuch as the competitive performers of early nomoi were expected to observe certain structural and musical “rules” in their performance of these pieces, however, the name was particularly, if coincidentally apt. A passage in “Plutarch” On Music, almost surely derived from Heraclides of Pontus, indeed argues that the old-time citharodic nomos took its name just because of its strictly regulated musical character:
The etymology proposed by Heraclides is surely off the mark, as it completely disregards the meaning of nomos as ‘melodic idiom’ in favor of a direct derivation from the original sense of ‘law, custom’. There is little doubt that a reality-distorting ideological agenda is at work here. Like most Athens-based, post-Platonic cultural historians, Heraclides has a tendency to overplay the “lawful” conservatism of the old-time music, arkhaia mousikê, that he sets off against the supposed musical decadence of his own day, decadence that portends or entails political, moral, and religious disorder—an idea that goes back, via Plato and Socrates, to the sociomusical theories of the sophist and Periclean cultural advisor, Damon of Oa, that “nowhere are the styles of music altered without change in the greatest laws (nomoi) of the polis” (οὐδαμοῦ γὰρ κινοῦνται μουσικῆς τρόποι ἄνευ πολιτικῶν νόμων τῶν μεγίστων, Plato Republic 424c).  But the point Heraclides makes nonetheless has some objective validity: the citharodic nomos was inherently conservative in form, content, and execution.  According to “Plutarch” On Music 6.1133b, “On the whole, the kitharôidia of the time of Terpander continued in a quite simple form until the time of Phrynis,” that is, for a span of over 200 years, from the early seventh century BCE, when Terpander supposedly established the first citharodic agôn in Sparta. 
5. What’s in a (Terpandrean) Nomos?
Here Terpander is not the composer, but merely the namer of nomoi, which have come into being without the agency of a composer. The indeterminateness of this formulation may reflect the fact that, in actual practice, these nomoi did not exist as the closed-off, totalized creations of one individual author. Rather, they functioned more like open-ended structures that, despite the totalized regulation suggested by their name, allowed citharodes considerable leeway in their choice of texts to be sung as well as some room for improvisation and elaboration within the traditional musical guidelines. Heraclides, in the passage from On Music quoted in Section 4, stresses the careful observance of a specific harmonia, rhythm, and tasis ‘arrangement’ honored by performers of early nomoi; Photius s.v. νόμος similarly emphasizes the “established harmonia and (pre)determined rhythm” (ἁρμονία τακτή, ῥυθμὸς ὡρισμένος) of the nomos (cf. Suda s.v. νόμος). We should note, however, that structural articulation, rhythm, and mode, as well as the other epiphenomena of the appointed mode (tessitura, tempo, dynamic range, and ethical quality), are rather broad areas, each open to interpretation. A citharode could make a personalized mark on a traditional nomos by playing creatively within the assigned rules, in particular by crafting unique melodic variations on the source material.
The crucial question presented by this passage is how we are to take the meaning of epê, which in turn would better indicate what is meant when we hear that Terpander set Homer to music for performance at musical contests. Were Terpander’s Homeric epê, and his own, dactylic hexameters, as Alexander Polyhistor seems to employ the word, or as Proclus Chrestomathia ap. Photius Bibliotheca 320b5–6 assumes when he writes, “By using heroic meter, Terpander seems to have been the first to perfect the nomos” (δοκεῖ δὲ Τέρπανδρος μὲν πρῶτος τελειῶσαι τὸν νόμον ἡρώιῳ μέτρῳ χρησάμενος)? Or by epê does Heraclides mean also some other variant of lyric dactyls? The latter interpretation is prompted by the mention of Stesichorus, who composed heroic narratives arranged in strophic units of various dactylic cola rather than in the stichic hexameters of the Homeric epics.  But is Heraclides directly equating citharodic nomoi with the poetry of Stesichorus and the Archaic melopoioi? Those who think so have used this passage to support the idea that Stesichorus was himself a citharode.  Bruno Gentili has argued that the epê employed by both Terpander and Stesichorus represent an early lyric stage of dactylic rhythms that eventually underwent a “normalizzazione omoritmica” to become the dactylic hexameter.  Indeed, we saw that a one-line fragment ascribed to Terpander is in a quasi-hexametrical iambo-dactylic rhythm that shares characteristics with Stesichorean metrical cola (fr. 2 Gostoli = PMG 697).  The verse introduces a prooimion, not a nomos, but we learn at On Music 4.1132d that Terpander’s prooimia, which seem to be known in some versions even to the late compiler or at least his source (cf. 6.1133c), were also composed in epê. Two other fragments attributed to Terpander (frs. 4 and 5 Gostoli = PMG p363) are in perfect hexameters, however.
6. Stesichorus and the Citharodes
7. Terpander’s Homer
Stesander is difficult to date with accuracy, but a date in the later sixth or early fifth century BCE is possible.  Timomachus, probably writing in the earlier fourth century BCE, seems to imply that Homeric narrative had been sung by citharodes before Stesander, perhaps even at Delphi, and presumably at the Pythian agônes there; the Samian’s innovation was to focus on citharodizing the most dramatic episodes from the tradition, the better to show off his cutting-edge tekhnê. (Although Timomachus mentions only the Odyssey, Stesander’s singing of Homeric “battle scenes” certainly points to the Iliad as well.) It is worth noting a lyric hexameter in Alcman fr. 102 Calame = PMG 80 that resembles, yet differs slightly from Odyssey 12.47: καί ποκ’ Ὀδυσσῆος ταλασίφρονος ὤατ’ ἑταίρων | Κίρκα ἐπαλείψασα ‘And once Circe anointing the ears of the companions of long-suffering Odysseus’. Alcman, who himself played the role of the kitharistês—the lines perhaps come from a prooimion—could be drawing on a tradition of “Homeric” kitharôidia that was known at Sparta through the agôn at the Carneia. 
8. Rhapsodes Versus Citharodes
9. Terpander and “Other Poets”
i. Lesbian lyric epic and the Epic Cycle
West’s answer to the last question is that Sappho and Alcaeus heard these forms from “epic singers.” I would specify that they heard them sung at concerts or agônes of citharodes, on the same festival occasions on which rhapsodes too might have presented their accounts of Trojan myth. The interactions between the performance traditions of rhapsodes and citharodes, both rivalrous and emulative, afforded by such occasions would be the most logical background against which to understand the introduction of the Πέραμος form: the citharodes were gradually bringing their older lyric cola, to which Πέρραμος was suited, in line with the hexametrical rhythmicization of the increasingly standardized rhapsodic treatment of Trojan epic.  (We should recall that Sappho’s praise of the “outstanding Lesbian Singer” in fr. 106 is itself expressed in a hexameter line.) It is important to recognize, however, that such formal and linguistic accommodation by citharodes of rhapsôidia does not signal their own obsolescence; their creative, musical engagement with rhapsodic practice would, as we have seen, continue until the end of the fifth century BCE, with no dimming of their cultural relevance and popularity.
καλῇ δαιδαλέῃ, ἐπὶ δ᾽ ἀργύρεον ζυγὸν ἦεν,
τὴν ἄρετ᾽ ἐξ ἐνάρων πόλιν Ἠετίωνος ὀλέσσας·
τῇ ὅ γε θυμὸν ἔτερπεν, ἄειδε δ᾽ ἄρα κλέα ἀνδρῶν.
And they [the embassy] found him delighting his heart with a clear-sounding phorminx,
beautiful and cunningly wrought, and there was a silver bridge on it.
He won it from the spoils after he destroyed the city of Eëtion.
Now he was delighting his heart with it, and he was singing the glorious deeds of men.
This phorminx is no ordinary instrument, but one of those auratic artifacts whose wondrous craftsmanship and mythically resonant provenance, although only briefly alluded to in the Iliadic narrative, indicate that they played some far more meaningful role in a para-Iliadic tradition.  In this case, that tradition is a distinctly Aeolic one, devoted to romantic accounts of Achilles’ sacking of cities on Lesbos and across the Troad, accounts that would have been cultivated originally by aoidoi in these areas and then inherited by the Lesbian citharodes.  It is entirely reasonable to assume that in singing Achilles’ exploits citharodes would have taken a particular interest in foregrounding and expanding his lyric persona, in linking his heroic glory to the famed kitharôidia of Lesbos and environs by telling of his recovery and possession of a lyre with meaningful attachments to local Aeolic place lore.  Like citharodic Apollo in Sappho fr. 44.33, this Achilles is εὐλύρας.  Such self-regarding inclusion of charismatic “heroic citharodes” (or quasi-citharodes) in citharodic epic narrative is a phenomenon that, we will see, is elsewhere attested. However, in the rhapsodic Iliad we catch only a glimpse of the elaborately characterized lyric Achilles. As Nagy has argued, the scene in Iliad 9, in which Achilles sings while Patroclus “waits for whatever moment the Aeacid would leave off singing” (191), is specifically imagined in terms of the late Archaic and Classical “esthetics of rhapsodic sequencing,” the relay-style performance of the Iliad from one rhapsode to the next that was formalized above all by the Panathenaic Rule in Athens.  The description of the phorminx nevertheless betrays its importance to the heroic experience of Achilles in the Aeolic tradition. The Iliad says that Achilles selected it from the spoils that were the possessions of King Eëtion of Thebe (cf. 6.414–418, 23.826–829), a city of the Troad at the nexus of key pre-Iliadic myths.  It was the home of Andromache, the daughter of Eëtion, and it is clear from the frequent references in the Iliad that Achilles’ capture of it had been the subject of lavish narration. 
ii. Lesches and the (citharodic) Little Iliad
At least in the version of the story that Phaenias tells, Lesches emerges as the winner of the contest (διημιλλῆσθαι δὲ τὸν Λέσχην Ἀρκτίνῳ καὶ νενικηκέναι). Although this outcome may seem to be at odds with the diminished place in the Cycle assigned to the Little Iliad, it may simply be a matter of patriotic pride—Phaenias was from Eresos, a city of Lesbos—or, less personally, a reliance on local Lesbian accounts. Geographical biases aside, however, Nagy sees a more complex dynamic at work in this narrative condensation of the Cycle’s formation: “As long as a given tradition can somehow survive after losing to another tradition, the loser can be presented as the winner.” While keeping intact the essential terms of Nagy’s valuable analysis, I would contend that the anecdotal contest between Lesches and Arctinus assumes a historical tension not only between successive poetic traditions but between rival performance traditions as well. That is, the epic tradition represented by Lesbian Lesches is a citharodic tradition, while that by Ionian Arctinus is a rhapsodic one, which largely succeeded, yet did not make entirely obsolete the older citharodic one. 
Μοῦσα καινῶν ὕμνων,
ἄεισον ἐν δακρύοις
νῦν γὰρ μέλος ἐς Τροίαν ἰαχήσω.
The dactylic incipit ἀμφί μοι Ἴλιον unmistakably references citharodic music. As with the verse inscribed on the Douris cup, it may be meant to represent either the phraseology of the secondary proemial introduction to the narrative section of the citharodic nomos, or it may be Euripides’ conflation of typical proemial humnos and nomic narrative. In either case, Euripides looks to Classical kitharôidia as the most obvious model for a melic account of the fall of Troy such as he is composing. In so doing, however, he self-consciously creates a novel fusion of citharodic song and the women’s song of lament (ᾠδὰν ἐπικήδειον) that his tragic chorus is made to sing. Such a generic fusion, which involves the melodramatic intensification of the old nomos and its epic contents, is redolent of the Athenian New Music, and very likely reflects the theatrical transformations of the nomos that citharodes such as Timotheus of Miletus were at the time introducing into their art (Trojan Women was produced in 415 BCE). Indeed, the Μοῦσα καινῶν ὕμνων ‘Muse of novel humnoi’ invoked by the chorus might contain an allusion to the sphragis section of a nomos in which Timotheus claims to reject the “Old Muse” (Μοῦσα παλαιά) in favor of the καινά ‘novel songs’ that he prefers to compose instead (PMG 796). 
10. Argonautica Citharoedica
μέλψουσι κατ’ ἑπτάτονόν τ’ ὀρείαν
χέλυν ἔν τ’ ἀλύροις κλέοντες ὕμνοις,
Σπάρτᾳ κυκλὰς ἁνίκα Καρνεί–ου περινίσεται ὥραμηνός, ἀειρομένας
λιπαραῖσι τ’ ἐν ὀλβίαις Ἀθάναις.
τοίαν ἔλιπες θανοῦσα μολ-πὰν μελέων ….
The “lyreless humnoi” must refer to the aulos-accompanied choral songs of Athenian tragedy—as such the expression is an apposite bit of choral self-reference. What about the songs at the Carneia? Choral performance could be indicated by μέλψουσι and μολπάν (446, 454), both of which tend to denote singing and dancing together, but these words could more properly belong to the Athenian aulodic-choral milieu.  The “Muses’ servants” in Sparta might then be the citharodes, above all the Lesbian apogonoi of Terpander, for whom the Carneian agônes were most famous.  Indeed, with the term μουσοπόλοι, which occurs in Sappho fr. 150.1, Euripides would appear to be alluding specifically to the Lesbian musicians who made the Carneia such a conspicuous center of kitharôidia.  The extended description of the lyre (the “seven-toned mountain tortoise”), which sequentially accords with Sparta as the “lyreless humnoi” accord with Athens, strongly supports the interpretation that it is citharodes who sing of Alcestis. 
ἱππῆες κιθαρισταὶ ἀεθλητῆρες ἀοιδοί,
Κάστορος ἢ πρώτου Πολυδεύκεος ἄρξομ’ ἀείδειν;
The both of you, who assist mortals, who are both dear to them,
horsemen, citharists, athletes, singers,
Whom first shall I begin to sing, Castor or Polydeuces?
Line 24 clearly alludes to a traditional hendiadys for “citharodes,” ἄνδρες ἀοιδοὶ καὶ κιθαρισταί, which appears in early hexameter poetry, most notably Hesiod Theogony 95. But, although the Dioscuri were associated with an armed dance at Sparta (Plato Laws 796b), the characterization of them as singers-to-the-kithara is unique to this passage. Has Theocritus invented it?  If so, we might see it as a projection onto the twins of the cultural enthusiasms of the apotheosized royal sibling couple of Ptolemy Philadelphus and Arsinoe (the Theoi Adelphoi), who may be the implicit recipients of the hymnic praise directed toward the Dioscuri in the poem.  Similarly, in Idyll 18, the “Epithalamium for Helen,” Helen is uniquely praised for her ability to play and sing to the lyre (35–37: “Surely no one is as skilled as Helen at striking [krotêsai] the lura and singing of Artemis and broad-breasted Athena”).  The praise could again reflect the lyric interests exhibited by Arsinoe, whose marriage to Philadelphus the poem, some have argued, indirectly celebrates.  But if the Idyll 22 passage is a crypto-encomium of the Ptolemies, this need not entail that the lyric Dioscuri represent a Theocritean innovation. Theocritus may rather be performing some virtuosic musico-poetic archaeology, uncovering a traditional motif in citharodic poetry: the assimilation of the athletic twins to the image of the agonistic citharodes who sing their heroic exploits—note the pointedly asyndetic intertwining of the athletic and the musical in ἱππῆες κιθαρισταὶ ἀεθλητῆρες ἀοιδοί.  Such a motif would have been rooted at the Spartan Carneia, but was conceivably at home in other festal contexts in cities in which the divinized Dioscuri were honored, including Athens.  The Dioscuri also received cult on Archaic Lesbos—Alcaeus composed a hymn to them (fr. 34)—a fact that is notable in light of the predominantly Lesbian provenance of the citharodes at the Carneia; perhaps they brought these lyricized Dioscuri with them to Sparta.  Given that Theocritus’ poem as a whole plays with the form of the Archaic humnos, and the passage in question is markedly proemial, the citharodic casting of the Dioscuri may have originally figured in proemial evocations of the brothers in locally relevant humnoi that prefaced the performance of nomoi.  But it could as well have been elaborated in one of the epic narratives featuring the Dioscuri that constituted the text of a nomos, e.g. the voyage of the Argo, the Calydonian boar hunt, the battle against the Hippocoontidae, or the brothers’ rescue of Helen from Theseus and Perithous, a story treated chorally by Alcman (fr. 21) and in the Cycle (Cypria fr. 13 Bernabé). A lyric Helen might similarly have made an appearance in any number of citharodic epics performed in Sparta. The scholia to Idyll 18 report that “some things” (τινα) in Theocritus’ poem were derived from the Helen of Stesichorus.  One of those things was perhaps the image of Helen singing hymns to her lura. In view of Stesichorus’ debt to kitharôidia, however, we might further speculate that a citharodic exemplar, localized in Sparta, stood behind his lyric Helen. 
11. Heracles kitharôidos
12. Heracleia and Hesiodica
Κηφισόδοτον τὸν Ἀχαρνῆθεν,
μέλπειν δ’ ᾠδαῖς
τοτὲ μὲν Σπάρτην τὴν εὐρύχορον,
τοτὲ δ’ αὖ Θήβας τὰς ἑπταπύλους
τὰς ἁρμονίας μεταβάλλειν.
There seem to be two layers of humor here. The first is extramusical. The citharode’s switching between Spartan and Theban themes, and between harmoniai ‘modes’, is surely a “reference to the Spartan seizure of the [Theban] Kadmeia in 382 and its liberation in 379 B.C.”  The second likely involves a jab at the harmonically mercurial style of the “new kitharôidia” practiced by Cephisodotus (τὰς ἁρμονίας μεταβάλλειν). While we know nothing else of Cephisodotus, Anaxandrides names two other, better-attested performers at the wedding: Antigeneidas, the famously innovative Theban aulete, and Argas, who is mentioned, alongside one Telenicus of Byzantium, by the late-fourth-century BCE Peripatetic scholar Phaenias as a composer of μοχθηρὰ ᾄσματα ‘worthless songs’ that paled in comparison with the classic nomoi of Terpander and Phrynis.  Apparently, then, Argas was a citharode, and a notably progressive one at that—by contrast to his nomoi, even those of the once controversial Phrynis are classics. Cephisodotus must have also been a distinctly “new” citharode to be placed in this company. The themes of the songs through which Anaxandrides has him cycle seem to be, however, classic ones; this is presumably part of the joke. One song is devoted to Σπάρτην τὴν εὐρύχορον ‘Sparta with its broad dancing places’; the phrase has an epic weight that evokes Archaic Terpandrean kitharôidia, which was fundamentally tied to Sparta (cf. the praise of Sparta’s Δίκα εὐρυάγυια ‘Justice who goes along the wide avenues’ in Terpander fr. 5 Gostoli = PMG p363). The other celebrates Θήβας τὰς ἑπταπύλους ‘Thebes the seven-gated’, which recalls the dactylic ἑπταπύλους τὰς Θήβας that we read in Nicomachus. The phrase may be a shorthand reference to a well-known nomic text dealing with Amphion’s foundation of the city, a theme with relevant political symbolism in light of the liberation of Thebes from Spartan occupation in 379 BCE.
Αὐτόλυκον, πολέων κτεάνων σίνιν Ἄργεϊ κοίλῳ.
She had at her breast a son by Erichthonius,
Autolycus, plunderer of many goods in hollow Argos.
The nursing woman is Philonis, mother, with Hermes (here called Erichthonius), of the master thief Autolycus and, with Apollo, of the citharode Philammon, and so the paternal grandmother of Thamyris, son of Philammon.  Thamyris is almost certainly singing these hexameter lines, which perhaps belong to one of the citharodic nomoi mentioned by another character in the play (fr. 241). Like Hermes in the Homeric Hymn to Hermes, who sings to the lyre a hymnic account of his own birth from Zeus and Maia (57–61), Sophocles’ Thamyris sings his own prestigious genealogy. We find this same parentage detailed in the Catalogue of Women:
ἣ τέκεν Αὐτόλυκόν τε Φιλάμμονά τε κλυτὸν αὐδήν,
τὸν μὲν ὑποδμηθεῖσα ἑκηβόλῳ Ἀ]π̣όλ[λ]ω̣νι,
τὸν δ’ αὖθ’ Ἑρμάωνι μιγεῖσ’ ἐρατῇ] φιλ[ό]τητι̣
Αὐτόλυκον τίκτεν Κυλληνίῳ Ἀρ]γεϊ[φ]ό̣ντ̣[η.]
who bore Autolycus and Philammon, renowned for his voice,
the latter after she was overcome by far-shooting Apollo,
the former after she lay with Hermes in loving intercourse;
Autolycus she bore to the Cyllenian Argus-slayer.
Sophocles may simply have adapted hexameter poetry on Thamyris’ family from the rhapsodic Catalogue tradition for the kithara, which he himself supposedly played onstage in the role of Thamyris (or which he at least may have mimed playing).  But it is as likely that he drew upon a separate citharodic tradition of heroic genealogy, in particular, the genealogies of mythical musicians, that was variously reflected as well in the Hesiodic Catalogue. As we have repeatedly seen in the preceding review of the possible material developed in the citharodic nomos, citharodes seem to have liked to sing about kitharôidia and its practitioners, not exclusively, of course, but often enough to constitute a pattern. Sophocles would thus have had his mythical citharode singing poetry of the sort that his dramatic audience heard integrated into the nomoi of contemporary citharodes, where genealogies framed narratives or provided digressions within them.  With a twist, of course: this citharodic hero celebrates in song his own glorious descent from Apollo and Philonis (whose relationship with Hermes, the inventor of the lyre, redounds significantly to his glory as well) and then, we should presume, through Philammon and the Parnassian nymph Argiope.  Again, compare Hermes in his Homeric Hymn: the first divine lyre singer sings what is recognizably a citharodic humnos about himself. We might detect a trace of such genealogizing in the Persians of Timotheus. In the closing section of this nomos, the sphragis, Timotheus praises “Orpheus, son of Calliope,” and imagines “Aeolian Lesbos” (Λέσβος Αἰολία) as the mother of Terpander, who “bore him (γείνατο), destined for fame, in Antissa” (221–228).  We will examine in more detail citharodes’ biographical commentary on their predecessors in Part III.
13. Theseus in Kitharôidia?
14. A Summary of Sections 5–13
15. Pollux on Nomic Form