The Hellenistic Era

Chapter 6 transports us to the Alexandrian Library. The first part focuses on the question of when and how book-rolls reached the Library, and the analysis foregrounds possible connections with the Peripatos and its library. Although we have cases of single travelling poems (Olympian 5), lyric texts arrived to the Library largely as corpora, and scholarly work on lyric begun with Zenodotus, continued with Aristophanes of Byzantium, and was intensified with Aristarchus, while Callimachus presumably had lyric texts in his disposal when he was preparing his Pinakes. The second part addresses the question of whether the Lyric Canon was based on poetic quality and evaluation or simply on availability of texts. The analysis demonstrates that the Hellenistic era did not create the Lyric Canon; the Alexandrians rather inherited an already set agenda which determined the authors who were worthy of scholarly attention and subsequently worthy to be canonized.

Towards a Written Text

Chapter 5 considers the materiality of lyric poems, and discusses the coexistence of lyric song with the availability and circulation of lyric texts both within and outside Athens. The analysis presents the fifth-century literary and archaeological evidence on the existence of various kinds of books in everyday life, and distinguishes between public availability of (lyric) texts in Athenian book markets and copies owned by individuals in private book collections. No reference is ever made to book-rolls with lyric poetry in the market in our sources, and it is difficult to argue that lyric texts circulated widely in Athens. It is, however, possible that they were part of Athenian private collections. The discussion also concentrates on the sociology of lyric reception and transmission in democratic Athens. Our sources suggest that canonical sixth- and fifth-century lyric remained a favourite of the ‘elite’ and intellectuals, who would have preserved these poems as both text and song.

The Paradox of Bacchylides

Chapter 7 focuses on Bacchylides, who, despite his pan-Hellenic poetic presence, is neither quoted nor named in any of the sources that become crucial for the formation of the Lyric Canon. He is nonetheless included in the Lyric Canon, his text is edited according to principles of colometry, and his poems are classified and organized in books in Alexandria. Based on Hellenistic inscriptional and epigrammatic sources his poetry possibly circulated within the broader Hellenistic world, and the engagement of Herodotus and Aristophanes with two of his odes is strong evidence to suggest knowledge of Bacchylides in the fifth and fourth centuries BC. With regards to his canonization and in view of the fact that the Alexandrians inherited an already selected list, it is justifiable to argue that Bacchylides was canonized not merely because his text was available in the Library but also because the Hellenistic scholars were somehow aware of his poetry.

Plato, Poetry, and the Lyric Nine

Chapter 3 focuses on Plato’s attitude towards the lyric poets and on the diversity with which certain lyric extracts are incorporated in his dialogues. Lyric poets are portrayed in Plato as authorities on ethical matters, lyric passages are integrated in philosophical arguments as pieces of eternal wisdom, and gnomic utterances from several lyric poems are re-contextualized in a number of passages in the Platonic dialogues. This method attests to the atemporal poetics and the broad applicability of lyric. The evidence provided in the Platonic dialogues allows us to conclude not only that the lyric poets were well recognized by mid-fourth century BC but also that a number of their poems were still performed during Plato’s time or were famous enough to be recalled in his work.

The Canonical Nine on the Comic Stage

Chapter 2 looks at the comic genre as a source of information about the Athenian audience’s knowledge and recognition of the lyric poets and their compositions. Comedy makes use of biographical and anecdotal features of several lyric poets who are parodied on stage, and demonstrates a profound awareness of generic features and also of cultic and performative characteristics of various lyric song-types. Lyric poets are contextualized in several comic symposia that are depicted as settings of lyric reception and as possible contexts of the survival of lyric poetry in Athens. In several cases one observes how comedy reflects the evolutionary process of canonization and the emerging distinction between the old and the popular new in lyric poetry, a distinction that eventually led to the formation of the Lyric Canon. The evidence suggests that canonizing process of lyric is obvious already in the fifth-century Athenian literary background.

Introduction

The Introduction discusses the history and meaning of the term ‘canon’, as established by Ruhnken, and explains the connotations of the term’s usage in modern scholarship. The discussion centres on the main characteristics of canonization and of literary canons in general and on the nature of the Lyric Canon specifically by focusing on the main sources in antiquity that deliver the selected lyric list. Attention is drawn to the closedness and stability of the Lyric Canon in antiquity. The Introduction finishes with a chapter layout and with an exposition of the book’s hermeneutic framework outlining the important features of the Reception Theory that were fundamental for the overall analysis. It further explains how the term ‘classic’ and ‘classical’ are understood throughout the book always in connection with the Lyric Canon, and contextualizes canon formation in antiquity within discussions and debates on modern literary canons and the classic.

Conclusion

The Conclusion states the important points that were raised in each chapter, brings together all the conclusions, and contextualizes the overall analysis. It also emphasizes that the lyric selection that has been transmitted to us on the two Hellenistic epigrams as the Lyric Canon reflects a selection that was attained as set and non-negotiable much before the Hellenistic era, and was subsequently accepted as canonical. It closes by drawing attention to the usefulness and applicability of the approach taken in the book both in terms of scope and methodology and by pointing out the research that still needs to be done on the reception of Greek lyric in antiquity.

The Peripatos

Chapter 4 analyses the importance of the Peripatos in the canonizing process of lyric, and the analysis demonstrates a degree of continuity between fifth- and fourth-century reception and evaluation of lyric poetry. The aim of the Peripatetics was to register, memorialize, and study the Greek culture by accumulating written records and creating learned treatises. Close analysis of several fragments shows that the Peripatetic library also possessed texts of lyric, which were used to prepare the peri-treatises on the lyric poets. The Peripatetic lyric agenda is ultimately a classicizing agenda that was inherited by comedy and Plato, as the Peripatetics do not devote much scholarly energy to the representatives of the New Music. The overall analysis shows that Aristotle’s Lyceum became a centre for literary study that viewed poems as cultural and anthropological sources, and extant fragments from their treatises reveal that the Peripatetics also dealt with problems of authorship and authenticity.

The World of Lyric

Chapter 1 offers a sketch of lyric geography. It positions the poetic activities and movements of the lyric poets on a map of Greece and Magna Graecia, and presents lyric poetry in its environment of composition and performance. The first part places lyric poetry in its local and pan-Hellenic contexts, and takes into account the environment within which local, wandering, and pan-Hellenic lyric poets moved, and the patrons and communities for which they composed, foregrounding the song-types that prevail in certain periods and areas. The second part addresses the paradoxical status of Athens as the city that did not produce lyric, but still helped preserve it. Athens imports lyric poets for its festivals, and the discussion explores the manner in which non-Athenian lyric poets were chosen to participate in Athenian festivals and calls attention to the paradoxical absence from official Athenian records of the names of victorious lyric poets.