The Emergence of the Lyric Canon 0198810865, 9780198810865

Citation preview

T H E EM E R G E N C E O F T H E LY R I C C A N O N

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon THEODORA A. HADJIMICHAEL

1

3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Theodora A. Hadjimichael 2019 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2019 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2018957119 ISBN 978 0 19 881086 5 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

For you, in absentia † Dora A. Alexiou ἐν ἀγκάλαις ἀστέρων τε καὶ ἀγγέλων

Acknowledgements This book was many years in the making, and it travelled with me to various corners of the world. Its story started as a doctoral thesis at University College London supervised by Chris Carey, but it has grown over the years and it resembles only to a small percentage that initial endeavour. I am particularly thankful to Chris for his feedback throughout my doctoral years, for his generosity and patience, enthusiasm and positive thinking, his support and guidance, but mostly for teaching me how to constantly grow as a researcher and as a scholar. Maria Wyke asked the right questions before the thesis was submitted; her background as a Latinist and her specialization in Modern Reception added to my research a rejuvenating tone and often made me consider things differently. My two examiners, Felix Budelmann and Angus Bowie, provided criticism, useful advice, and guidance both at my viva and the years after. Although this book is very different from its early form, I feel the need to thank Myrto Hatzimichali, Simon Hornblower, the late Georgios Katsis, the late Robert Sharples, and Joseph Skinner who helped me with various intellectual challenges that I faced while completing my doctoral thesis. Giambattista D’Alessio and his Fragments Seminar at Kings College London contributed to the development of my skills in Papyrology, and added to my enthusiasm of dealing with ancient Greek scholarship, textual challenges, and fragmented questions. If I allow my memory to travel further back, my academic life would not have started without the foundations that were laid in my undergraduate years at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece, where I first encountered Pindar and Bacchylides at the lectures of Mary Yossi. Since completing my doctorate I have been very fortunate to have been exposed to various academic environments and scholarly approaches, as I spent time in the USA, the Netherlands, and Germany before I returned to the UK. My ideas benefited exceptionally from my wandering academic life, which much enhanced my academic training and richly shaped my profile as a classicist. The initial steps of this book’s revisions started with a Margo Tytus Summer Fellowship at the Classics Department at the University of Cincinnati, followed by a short-term fellowship at Radboud University in Nijmegen in the Netherlands that was sponsored by the Institute for Historical, Literary and Cultural Studies of the Faculty of Arts. A post-doctoral fellowship at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München in Germany that was funded by LMUexcellent offered me the required time to think carefully, write, and prepare the manuscript. The book the reader holds in their hands

viii

Acknowledgements

was completed and finalized while I held a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions COFUND fellowship at the University of Warwick UK. The financial support of the DFG Exzellenzinitiative and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 713548 is gratefully acknowledged. I thank the late Getzel Cohen and the Classics Faculty at the University of Cincinnati, and also André Lardinois at Radboud University, Martin Hose at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, and Alison Cooley and David Fearn at the University of Warwick who supported the applications that eventually turned into successful fellowships. The 2011–12 Advanced Seminar in the Humanities at the Venice International University in Italy played a decisive role in my future career, and I owe special thanks to Ettore Cingano. Friends and colleagues, scattered all over the world, supported me and stood by me during this journey: Peter Agócs, June Angelides, Nineta Avani, Emrys Bell-Schlatter, Ingrid Charvet, Jenn Finn, Lisa Fuhr, Kyriaki Ioannidou, Petros Koutsoftas, Zacharoula Petraki, Stephany Piper, Zoe Stamatopoulou, Hans Teitler, Bobby Xinyue, my co-fellows at Warwick Ellie Martus and Elizabeth Nolte, and so many other friends and contacts I met in my peripatetic life. Peter, Nineta, Zoe, and Bobby helped me understand that it is time for this book to come to life. I am most grateful to Margarita Alexandrou for reading and commenting on an earlier version of the manuscript and to the anonymous reader of Oxford University Press, whose acute comments and criticism much improved this book. All remaining errors and follies are of course my own. Many thanks are also due to Charlotte Loveridge, Tom Perridge, and Georgina Leighton at OUP for their help and patience in answering all the questions of a first-time author, and to my copy-editor Christine Ranft for her attention to detail and for her assistance in preparing this book for publication. Lydia Shinoj oversaw the production process and I am very thankful to her and to the production team for their resourcefulness and professionalism. The maps that are included in the book were prepared by Michael Athanson whose impeccable work maps visually and literally the scope of this project. Both the production of the maps and the inclusion of the vase images were made possible with funds from my post-doctoral fellowship at the University of Warwick. The Dali image was discovered with Elena Giusti on a rainy afternoon, and its use on the cover of this book was made possible in part by a contribution of funds from the Institute of Advanced Study, University of Warwick Finally, my immense gratitude goes to my family—my parents and my brothers—who always believe in me. Words cannot suffice to thank my parents for their financial, moral, and emotional support, their unconditional love and self-sacrifice. They and my brothers constantly remind me that I should always keep my feet on the ground, and for this I am eternally grateful. This book is dedicated to my cousin, who was gone too soon. 9 July 2018

List of Maps and Figures Maps 1.1. Geographical distribution of the poetic activity of the nine lyric poets

24

6.1. Locations of known libraries in the Mediterranean, in relation to lyric activity, from the fifth to the second century BC

221

Figures 5.1. Douris cup. F 2285. Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin Preußischer Kulturbesitz

186

Photographer: Johannes Laurentius. © bpk Bildagentur / Antikensammlung, SMB / Johannes Laurentius

5.2. Detail of Douris cup (Fig. 5.1)

188

Photographer: Johannes Laurentius. © bpk Bildagentur / Antikensammlung, SMB / Johannes Laurentius

5.3. AN1896 1908 G.138.3.a. Onesimos/Panaitios Painter. Attic red figure cup (kylix) fragments showing seated figure with scroll in front of bearded double flute (aulos) player

189

Image © Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford

5.4. Attic red figure hydria of the Polygnotos Painter Group (Sappho hydria), National Archaeological Museum, Athens, inv. no. 1260 Photographer: Giannis Patrikianos. © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Archaeological Receipts Fund

190

Conventions and Abbreviations The names of the Greek authors and their works appear either unabbreviated or have been abbreviated following the conventions in LSJ. For ancient authors beyond the scope of LSJ I follow the abbreviations of the OCD; Latin authors appear as in OCD or unabbreviated. Journals bear the acronyms used in L’Année Philologique. Σ is used for scholion, and in the case of the scholia to Aristophanes it is stated with the appropriate subscript when the scholia are vetera (Σ v) or recentiora (Σ r), whether they refer to the commentaries of Tzetzes (ΣTz), those of Thomas Magistrus (ΣTh) or Triclinianius (ΣTr). I include the numbering of the most important editions of lyric fragments by using the relevant abbreviation and/or the name of the editor in each case and by separating them with a solidus (/). I state in the text where I favour certain editions, and in cases where textual discrepancies matter I give the relevant variants. For fragments I often give not only the fragment number in the edition referred to in each case but also the reference to the Greek text where the fragment was quoted, and I connect the two with an equal to (=). For the passages of Pindar and Bacchylides I give the abbreviation of the relevant edition only for fragments. AB

Austin, C. and Bastianini, G. (2002), Posidippi Pellaei quae supersunt. Milan.

Adler

Adler, A. (1928 38), Suidae Lexicon, 5 vols. Leipzig.

AGEP

Stadtmüller, H. (1894 1906), Anthologia Graeca Epigrammatum Palatina cum Planudea, 3 vols. Leipzig.

ALG²

Diehl, E. (1936 42), Anthologia Lyrica Graeca, edition altera, 2 vols. Leipzig.

ARV²

Beazley, J. D. (1963), Attic Red Figure Vase Painters, 2nd edn, 3 vols. Oxford.

Bethe

Bethe, E. (1900 37), Pollucis Onomasticon. Fasc. 1: Libri I V; Fasc. 2: Libri VI X; Fasc. 3: Indices. Leipzig.

Broggiato

Broggiato, M. (2001), Cratete di Mallo: I Frammenti. La Spezia.

Brussich

Brussich, G. F. (2000), Laso di Ermione: Testimonianze e Frammenti. Pisa.

Brunck

Brunck, R. Fr. P. (1794 1814), Anthologia Graeca sive Poetarum Graecorum lusus. Indices et commentarium adjecit Fridericus Jacobs, 13 vols. Leipzig.

Calame

Calame, C. (1983), Alcman. Rome.

Campbell

Campbell, D. A. (1982 93), Greek Lyric, 5 vols. Loeb Classical Library 142 4, 461, 576. Cambridge MA.

CEG

Hansen, P. A. (1983), Carmina Epigraphica Graeca Saeculorum VIII V a.Chr.n. Berlin.

xiv CLGP

Conventions and Abbreviations I.1 Fasc.2.1: Bastianini, G., Haslam, M., Maehler, H., Montanari, F. and Römer, C. E. (2013), Commentaria et Lexica Graeca in Papyris Reperta. Pars I: Commentaria et Lexica in Auctores. Volume 1: Aeschines Bacchylides. Fasc. 2.1 Alcman. Berlin. I.1 Fasc.4: Bastianini, G., Haslam, M., Maehler, H., Montanari, F. and Römer, C. E. (2012), Commentaria et Lexica Graeca in Papyris Reperta. Pars I: Commentaria et Lexica in Auctores. Volume 1: Aeschines Bacchylides. Fasc. 4 Aristophanes Bacchylides. Berlin.

Colonna

Colonna, A. (1951), Himerii Declamationes et Orationes: Cum deperditarum Fragmentis. Rome.

Consbruch

Consbruch, M. (1906), Hephaestionis Enchiridion. Leipzig.

Delectus

Meineke, A. (1841), Delectus Poetarum Graecorum Anthologiae Graecae. Berlin.

DF

Domingo Forasté, D. (1994), Claudii Aeliani Epistulae et Fragmenta. Stuttgart.

Di

Dindorf, W. (1855), Scholia Graeca in Homeri Odysseam ex codicibus aucta et emendata, 2 vols. Oxford.

Diehl

Diehl, E. (1903 6), Procli Diadochi in Platonis Timaeum Commentaria, 3 vols. Leipzig.

Diels

Diels, H. (1895), Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum libros quattuor posteriores commentaria. Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca vol. 10. Berlin.

Dilts

Dilts, M. R. (1974), Claudii Aeliani Varia Historia. Leipzig.

Dindorf

Dindorf, W. (1829), Aristides, 3 vols. Leipzig.

Dindorf Σ

Dindorf, W. (1838), Aristophanis Comoedia. Vol 4. Pars I: Scholia Greca ex codicibus et emendata. Oxford.

DK

Diels, H. (1964), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 11th edn. rev. W. Kranz, 3 vols. Berlin.

Doutreleau et al. Doutreleau, L., Hemmerdinger, B., Rousseau, A., and Mercier, Ch. (1969 2002), Contre les hérésies: Irénée de Lyon: édition critique d’après les versions armenienne et latine, 10 vols. Paris. Dr.

Drachmann, A. B. (1903 27), Scholia Vetera in Pindari Carmina, 3 vols. Leipzig.

Ebert

Ebert, J. (1972), Griechische Epigramme auf Sieger an gymnischen und hippischen Agonen. Berlin.

Erbse

Erbse, H. (1969 88), Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem (Scholia vetera), 7 vols. Berlin.

Ercoles

Ercoles, M. (2013), Stesicoro: Le Testimonianze Antiche. Bologna.

FCG

Meineke, A. (1839 59), Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum, 5 vols. Berlin.

Conventions and Abbreviations

xv

FGE

Page, D. L. (1981), Further Greek Epigrams. Cambridge.

FGrHist

Jacoby, F. et al. (1923 ), Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Leiden.

FHG

Müller, C. (1878 85), Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, 5 vols. Paris.

Finglass

Davies, M. and Finglass, P. J. (2014), Stesichorus: The Poems. Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 54. Cambridge.

Fort.

Fortenbauch, W. W., Huby, M. P., Sharples, R. W. and Gutas, D. (eds) (1992), Theophrastus of Eresus: Sources for his Life, Writings, Thought and Influence, Parts I II. Leiden.

H C

Hansen, P. A. and Cunningham, I. C. (eds) (2009), Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon: Volumen IV; Τ Ω. Editionem post Kurt Latte continuans recensuit et emendavit. Berlin.

Harder

Harder, A. (2012), Callimachus: Aetia, 2 vols. Oxford.

Henry

Henry, R. (1959 91), Photius Bibliothèque, 9 vols. Paris.

Hermann

Hermann, G. (1830), Aristophanis Nubes cum scholiis. Denuo recensitas cum adnotationibus suis et plerisque Io. Aug. Ernestii. Leipzig.

Hilg.

Hilgard, A. (1901), Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam Leipzig.

Hobein

Hobein, H. (1910), Maximi Tyrii Philosophumena. Leipzig.

HWRh

Üding, G. (ed) (1998), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik. Darmstadt.

Ieranò

Ieranò, G. (1997), Il Ditirambo di Dioniso: Le Testimonianze Antiche. Pisa.

IEG²

West, M. L (1989 92), Iambi et Elegi Graeci: Ante Alexandrum Cantati, editio altera aucta aque emendata, 2 vols. Oxford.

IG

Inscriptiones Graecae (1873 ), Berlin.

Körte

Körte, A. (1912), Menandrea ex papyris et membranis vetustissimis. Leipzig.

Koster

Koster, W. J. W. (1975), Scholia in Aristophanem. Pars I Prolegomena de Comoedia, Scholia in Archarnenses, Equites, Nubes. Fasc. IA Prolegomena de Comoedia. Groningen.

Kühn

Kühn, C. G. (1821 33), Klaudiu Galēnu Hapanta: Claudii Galeni Opera omnia, 20 vols. Leipzig.

Latte

Latte, K. (1966), Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon. Volumen II; Ε Χ. Copenhagen.

LCL

Loeb Classical Library

LdH

Schmitt, H. H. and Vogt, E. (eds) (2005), Lexikon des Hellenismus. Wiesbaden.

xvi

Conventions and Abbreviations

LSJ

Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Stuart Jones, H., McKenzie, R., Glare, P. G. W. (1996), A Greek English Lexicon, with a Revised Supplement, 9th edn completed in 1940. Oxford.

M

Maehler, H. (1989), Pindari Carmina cum Fragmentis. Pars II: Fragments; Indices. Leipzig.

Maehler

Maehler, H. (2003), Bacchylidis Carmina cum Fragmentis. Leipzig.

Martano

Martano, A. (2012), ‘Chamaeleon of Heraclea: The Sources, Text, and Translation’, in Martano, A., Matelli, E. and Mirhady, D. (eds), Praxiphanes of Mytilene and Chamaeleon of Heraclea: Text, Translation, and Discussion. RUSCH XVIII. New Brunswick NJ, 157 228.

Meineke

Meineke, A. (1849), Stephani Byzantii Ethnicorum quae supersunt. Berlin.

Millis Olson

Millis, B. W. and Olson, S. D. (2012), Inscriptional Records for the Dramatic Festivals in Athens: IG II² 2328 2325 and Related Texts. Leiden.

Mirhadi

Mirhadi, A. (2001), Dicaearchus of Messana: The Sources, Text, and Translation’, in Fortenbauch, W. W. and Schütrumpf, E. (eds), Dicaearchus of Messana: Text, Translation, and Discussion. RUSCH X. New Brunswick NJ, 3 138.

Moretti

Moretti, L. (1953), Iscrizioni agonistiche greche. Rome.

OCD

Hornblower, S. and Spawforth, A. (eds) (2012), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 4th edn. Oxford.

Pack

Pack, R. A. (1963), Artemidori Daldiani: Onirocriticon libri V. Leipzig.

PCG

Austin, C. and Kassel, R. (eds) (1983 98), Poetae Comici Graeci. 8 vols. Berlin. I Comoedia Dorica Mimi Plyaces (2001); II Agathenor Aristonymus (1991); III.2 Aristophanes Testimonia et Fragmenta (1984); IV Aristophon Crobulus (1983); V Damoxenus Magnes (1986); VI.2 Menander (1998); VII Menecrates Xenophon (1989); VIII Adespota (1995). The relevant volume is given in small Roman numerals after the abbreviation.

Pf.

Pfeiffer, R. (1949 53), Callimachus, 2 vols. Oxford.

PLG

Bergk, Th. (1878 82), Poetae Lyrici Graeci, 4th edn, 3 vols. Leipzig.

PLF

Lobel, E. and Page, D. L. (1955), Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta. Oxford.

PMG

Page, D. L. (1962), Poetae Melici Graeci. Oxford.

PMGF

Davies, M. (1991), Poetarum Melicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Vol 1: Alcman, Stesichorus, Ibycus. Oxford.

Conventions and Abbreviations

xvii

Poltera

Poltera, O. (2008), Simonides Lyricus, Testimonia und Fragmente: Einleitung, kritische Ausgabe, Übersetzung und Kommentar. Basel.

Powell

Powell, J. U. (1925), Collectanea Alexandrina: Reliquiae Minores Poetarum Graecorum Aetatis Ptolemaicae 323 146 A.C. Epicorum, Elegiacorum, Lyricorum, Ethicorum. Oxford.

Radt

Radt, S. (2002 11), Strabons Geographika: Mit Übersetzung und Kommentar, 10 vols. Göttingen.

RE

Pauly, A. Fr., Wissowa, G., Kroll, W. et al. (eds) (1894 1980), Real Encyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft. Neue Bearbeitung begonnen von Georg Wissowa unter Mitwirkung zahlreicher Fachgenossen, 83 vols. Stuttgart.

Rose

Rose, V. (1886), Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta. Leipzig.

Scheer

Scheer, E. (1958), Lycophronis Alexandra. Vol. 2: Scholia continens, editio altera ex editione anni MCMVIII lucis ope expressa. Berlin.

Schmidt

Schmidt, M. (1862), Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, vol. 4 Appendix. Jena.

Schneider Uhlig Schneider, R. and Uhlig, G. (1878), Apollonii Dyscoli quae superunt, Voluminis primi Fasc. 1. Leipzig. SIG

Dittenberg, G. (1915 24), Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 3rd edn, 4 vols. Leipsig.

SLG

Page, D. L. (1974), Supplementum Lyricis Graecis: Poetarum Lyricorum Graecorum Fragmenta quae recens innotuerunt. Oxford.

SEG

(1923 ), Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Amsterdam.

SH

Lloyd Jones, H. and Parsons, P. (1983), Supplementum Hellenisticum. Berlin.

SIG

Dittenberg, G. (1915 24), Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 3rd edn, 4 vols. Leipzig.

Slater

Slater, W. J. (1986), Aristophanes Byzantii Fragmenta. Berlin.

SLG

Page, D. (1974), Supplementum Lyricis Graecis. Oxford.

Schwartz

Schwartz, E. (1887 91), Scholia in Euripidem, 2 vols. Berlin.

Sn M

Snell, B. and Maehler, H. (1987), Pindari Carmina cum Fragmentis. Pars I: Epinicia. Leipzig.

Theodoridis

Theodoridis, Ch. (1982 2013), Photii Patriarchae Lexicon, 3 vols. Berlin.

ThesCRA

Balty, J. C. (ed.) (2011), Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum: VII Festivals and Contests. Los Angeles CA.

TrGF

Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, 5 vols. Göttingen. Vol. 1 Didascaliae Tragicae, Catalogi Tragicorum et Tragoediarum, Testimonia et Fragmenta Tragicorum Minorum (ed. Snell, B. 1971, 2nd edn. 1986); Vol. 2 Fragmenta Adespota (eds. Kannicht, R. and

xviii

Conventions and Abbreviations Snell, B. 1981); Vol. 3 Aeschylus (ed. Radt, S. 1985); Vol. 4 Sophocles (ed. Radt, S. 1977, 2nd edn 1999); Vol. 5 Euripides (ed. Kannicht, R; 2 parts 2004). The relevant volume is given in Arabic numerals after the abbreviation.

V

Voigt, E M. (1971), Sappho et Alcaeus Fragmenta. Amsterdam.

van Krevelen

van Krevelen, D. A. (1939), Philodemus: De Muziek. Amsterdam.

W²

Wehrli, F. (1967 78), Die Schule des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentar, 2nd rev. edn, Basel. I Dikaiarchos (1967a); II Aristoxenos (1967b); III Klearchos (1969a); IV Demetrios von Phaleron (1968a); V Straton von Lampsakos (1969b); VI Lykon und Ariston von Keos (1968b); VII Herakleides Pontikos (1969c); VIII Eudemos von Rhodos (1969d); IX Phainias von Eresos. Chamaileon. Praxiphanes (1969e); X Hieronymos von Rhodos. Kritolaos und seine Schüler. Rückblick: Der Peripatos in vorchristlicher Zeit. Register (1969f); Supplementband I Hermippos der Kallimacher (1974); Supplementband II Sotion (1978). The relevant volume number is given in small Roman numerals either after W² or after the date.

Wendel

Wendel, C. T. E. (1914), Scholia in Theocritum vetera: Adiecta sunt scholia in technopaegnia scripta. Leipzig.

W H

Wachsmuth, C. and Hense, O. (1884 1912), Ioannis Stobaei Anthologium, 5 vols. Berlin.

Note to the Reader The term lyric is used throughout this book in association with the canonical nine lyric poets and marks primarily their canonization in the Hellenistic era. Lyric is interchanged with melic, which is used mostly in cases where the audience and their experiencing of poetry as oral performance are involved. In those cases lyric song, melos, or melic poem may also be used. Where the materiality of the physical text is implicated the term lyric is used instead. In passages where the nine lyric poets are recalled in connection with their poetic compositions the term melopoios is also used alongside the term lyric in order to emphasize the performative character of their poetic compositions. I transliterate and italicize the Greek terms of lyric songs that were recognized in the Hellenistic era as distinct lyric genres and as classifying categories of song, i.e. enkōmion, hyporchēma, thrēnos, epinikion, partheneion, skolion, hymnos, prosodion. Transliteration and italicization applies also to other Greek terms that are included in the text, and I note both the omega and the iota with a macron (ō, ē). The Greek word symposion, however, is written ‘symposium’. Translations throughout the book are my own, although I have consulted the relevant volumes in the Loeb Classical Library and the Aris and Phillips series for those of the Greek texts. All dates are BC, unless stated otherwise. I have been unable to access a few books that were published in 2018, and thus the reader will find important gaps in the Bibliography: i.e. Rawles, R. (2018), Simonides the Poet: Intertextuality and Reception, Cambridge; Spelman, H. (2018), Pindar and the Poetics of Permanence, Oxford; Schorn, S. (2018), Studien zur hellenistischen Biographie und Historiographie. Berlin.

Introduction The Lyric Canon

Two anonymous epigrams and a twenty-line elegiac poem preserved in the scholia to Pindar are only some of the several ancient testimonia which record nine names who are grouped together and are identified as the Lyric Canon.¹ The adespoton epigram AP 9.184 is the first evidence for the existence of a selection of nine lyric poets. Πίνδαρε, Μουσάων ἱερὸν στόμα, καὶ λάλε Σειρὴν Βακχυλίδη Σαπϕοῦς τ’ Αἰολίδες χάριτες γράμμα τ’ Ἀνακρείοντος, Ὁμηρικὸν ὅς τ’ ἀπὸ ῥεῦμα ἔσπασας οἰκείοις, Στησίχορ’, ἐν καμάτοις, ἥ τε Σιμωνίδεω γλυκερὴ σελὶς ἡδύ τε Πειθοῦς Ἴβυκε καὶ παίδων ἄνθος ἀμησάμενε καὶ ξίϕος Ἀλκαίοιο, τὸ πολλάκις αἷμα τυράννων ἔσπεισεν πάτρης θέσμια ῥυόμενον, θηλυμελεῖς τ’ Ἀλκμᾶνος ἀηδόνες, ἵλατε, πάσης ἀρχὴν οἳ λυρικῆς καὶ πέρας ἐστάσατε. Pindar, holy mouth of the Muses, and loquacious Siren Bacchylides, and the Aeolian graces of Sappho, Anacreon’s written word and you, Stesichorus, who drew off from the Homeric stream in your own works, Simonides’ delightful page, and you, Ibycus, who gathered the sweet flower of Persuasion and of boys, and Alcaeus’ sword that poured frequently the blood of tyrants in defence of ancestral lawful customs, and Alcman’s soft singing nightingales, be gracious, you who established the beginning and end of lyric poetry. AP 9.184

¹ According to Barbantani (1993) 7 the number of the lyric poets is nine in order to create parallels with the group of the nine Muses. Whether or not this is true, multiplies of three are strikingly common in ancient canons.

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon. Theodora A. Hadjimichael, Oxford University Press (2019). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198810865.003.0001

2

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

We possess no secure chronological information on the epigram, and its date is thus disputed in modern scholarship. The epigram’s technique, according to Wilamowitz, suggests that it was not a composition of the Roman period but rather that it belonged to the time of Bion (c.100 ). Stadtmüller on the other hand attributes the epigram to Alcaeus of Messene, and consequently dates it at the end of the third century , while Silvia Barbantani groups it with the other epigrammatic lists of the second/first century —Antipater Sidonius AP 7.81 for the Seven Sages, AP 9.58 for the Seven Wonders of the World, and Antipater Thessalonike AP 9.26 for the Seven Poetesses—and offers an approximate date in the second century .² The existence of more than one epigram with similar catalogues of names suggests that (canonical) lists preserved as epigrams were presumably a trend in the second/first century . Such a correlation could be used as a helpful (though not absolute) indicator to date AP 9.184 in that period. The epigram’s hymnic tone through which the distinct poetic qualities of the lyric poets are enumerated endows each one of them with exemplary status. It additionally indicates that the epigram was composed at a period when the Lyric Canon was well established and the distinguishing features of its individual members were also well recognized. Each poet is perceived and defined in terms of his/her poetic corpus and its distinctive features, which are also projected to the figure of each poet: Pindar is portrayed in a divine aura and in association with the Muses; Bacchylides’ poetic sound resembles that of the Sirens; Sappho is remembered for her graceful Aeolic poetry; Anacreon is depicted as the poet of the written word; Stesichorus’ work is characterized by Homeric qualities; Simonides’ poetic sweetness and Ibycus’ eroticized poems are presented as renowned features of their personae; Alcaeus is recalled for his political verse and Alcman for his softly sung partheneia.³ Beyond the attributes to individual poets the epigram becomes an important source of information not only for the literary history and reception of lyric poetry but also for the status this canonical list had acquired by its date of composition.⁴ The very label λυρική (‘lyric’) defines every poet who is named in the epigram, and embraces all nine of them as a group. We can observe the persistence of the term λυρικός in other lists and later sources as the principal

² Wilamowitz (1900) 5; Stadtmüller (1906) in AGEP iii.144; Barbantani (1993) 8 and (2009) 303, where she claims that this particular epigram ‘could belong to a scholastic and rhetorical environment’; Acosta Hughes (2010) 214 dates the epigram in the first century . ³ See also Acosta Hughes (2010) 214 16; Phillips (2016) 94 comments on how the epigram combines evaluative and stylistic terms that reflect performance (ἱερὸν στόμα, λάλε Σειρήν) and terms that point to the materiality of the book (γράμμα, σελίς). ⁴ Depending on whether we date AP 9.184 in the third century , the epigram may contain the first known use of the term λυρική, on which Wilamowitz (1900) 5 and Acosta Hughes (2010) 217; cf. Budelmann (2009) 2n. 3 who suggests that the earliest occurrence of the term appears in SIG³ no. 660 (160 ).

Introduction: The Lyric Canon

3

qualification applied to the same group of poets the above epigram evokes. The very term λυρική draws attention to the single characteristic that unifies the named poets: the lyre.⁵ This is exceptionally important, as the term not only reveals the common musical accompaniment of these poets’ compositions, but also reflects the performative context within which their poetry was once sung and circulated. It implicitly therefore recalls the song-culture of previous centuries, while the term also attests to the Hellenistic classification of these poets and to the representation and recognition of lyric poetry as a distinct poetic category.⁶ Wilamowitz also draws attention to the concluding phrase of the epigram—καὶ πέρας ἐστάσατε—and argues that the phrase suggests that by the time of the epigram’s composition the canon of the nine lyric poets was fixed and closed.⁷ Not only the concluding phrase but also the entire concluding sentence of the epigram is revealing, and should thus be interpreted as a complete whole—πάσης | ἀρχὴν οἳ λυρικῆς καὶ πέρας ἐστάσατε. The concluding verse implies that those who are named within the epigram (οἵ ) establish the beginning and the end (ἀρχήν . . . καὶ πέρας) of the whole of lyric poetry (πάσης . . . λυρικῆς). Such a formulation demonstrates the exclusive and selective character of the list, and confirms as a result its distinctive nature as canonical. At the same time, it asserts Wilamowitz’s conclusion on its strictness. It is also worth considering and briefly commenting on the other testimonia for the Lyric Canon. A second anonymous epigram lists once more the nine lyric poets (AP 9.571). The order in which the lyric poets are presented in this epigrammatic catalogue is different from that of AP 9.184, and each poet is again qualified with certain poetic characteristics, some of which are also different from the ones enumerated in AP 9.184. Still, their recollection and inclusion in AP 9.571 suggest that these recalled poetic features, too, were accepted as definitive of the poet’s reception and representation. Ἔκλαγεν ἐκ Θηβῶν μέγα Πίνδαρος ἔπνεε τερπνὰ ἡδυμελεῖ ϕθόγγῳ μοῦσα Σιμωνίδεω λάμπει Στησίχορός τε καὶ Ἴβυκος ἦν γλυκὺς Ἀλκμάν λαρὰ δ’ ἀπὸ στομάτων ϕθέγξατο Βακχυλίδης Πειθὼ Ἀνακρείοντι συνέσπετο ποικίλα δ’ αὐδᾷ ⁵ Cf. Σ Pi. Capitula de praefationem pertinentia c (Dr. iii, p. 307) Ἐπειδὴ λυρικός ἐστιν ὁ Πίνδαρος, καὶ πρὸς λύραν ᾄδονται τὰ ποιήματα αὐτοῦ (‘for Pindar is a lyric poet, and his poems are sung to the lyre’); Commentaria in D.T. Ars Grammatica p. 21.15 17 Hilg. Ταῦτα οὖν τὰ ποιήματα καλεῖται λυρικά, ὡς ὑπὸ λύραν ἐσκεμμένα καὶ μετὰ λύρας ἐπιδεικνύμενα (‘these poems are called lyric because they were taken together with the lyre and they were also performed to the lyre’); Tzetzes Σ ad Lycophron p. 2, 3 5 Scheer λυρικῶν δὲ γνωρίσματα τὸ πρὸς λύραν τὰ τούτων ἄδεσθαι μέλη (‘the characteristics of the lyric poets were that their melē were sung to the lyre’). See Färber (1936) 17 16 on the connection between ‘lyric’ and ‘lyre’ in our sources. ⁶ Cf. Acosta Hughes (2010) 217. ⁷ Wilamowitz (1900) 7; cf. Phillips (2016) 93n. 22 on how the position of πέρας ἐστάσατε at the end of the epigram marks physically the closure and ‘limit’ of the poem.

4

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon Ἀλκαῖος, κύκνος Λέσβιος, Αἰολίδι. ἀνδρῶν δ’ οὐκ ἐνάτη Σαπϕὼ πέλεν, ἀλλ’ ἐρατειναῖς ἐν Μούσαις δεκάτη Μοῦσα καταγράϕεται. Pindar shouted greatly from Thebes; the muse of Simonides with the sweet singing sound was breathing with pleasure; Stesichorus shines and so does Ibycus; Alcman was sweet; Bacchylides uttered a sweet voice from his multifarious mouth; Persuasion accompanied Anacreon; Alcaeus, the Lesbian swan, cried in Aeolic in various ways. Among men Sappho is not the ninth; she is rather recorded among the lovely Muses as the tenth Muse. AP 9.571⁸

This second epigram is considered an imitation of AP 9.184, and was presumably composed with the aim to enumerate the nine lyric poets, concluding climactically with Sappho.⁹ Sappho is set apart not only as the sole female voice among male poets but also as the sole figure from within the canon that was inscribed among the Muses.¹⁰ Sappho’s recognition as the tenth Muse might indeed be due to her female gender. Yet, the coincidence of this identification with the conclusion of the epigram implicitly conveys the idea that the whole poem was composed with the aim to honour Sappho. The verb καταγράϕεται ascribes to her inclusion in the group of the Muses a formal tone, and gives the impression that it was permanently set in stone, and was as a result unquestionable. The presence of the Muses creates an additional association between the two epigrams. In AP 9.184 the lyric figure portrayed in the company of the Muses is Pindar, whose name opens the epigram. In AP 9.571 Pindar holds his place as the first poet to be named in the list, but the Muses now move to the end of the epigram, where they embrace the sole female figure in the canon of the lyric poets, Sappho. The Pindaric scholia further confirm the selective character of the lyric list. An elegiac poem survives in three of the manuscripts that came down to us with scholia on the Pindaric victory odes, and a number of other manuscripts with Pindaric scholia deliver twice the same list in prose (Σ Pi. De IX Lyricis, Dr i, pp. 10–11). All three testimonia are revealing. The elegiac poem is entitled Εἰς τοὺς ἐννέα λυρικούς (‘To the nine lyric poets’), and reads to a certain extent like a text that was included in the school curriculum; the reader is asked to learn (μάνθανε). The list is practically a biographical poem for all

⁸ I translate στομάτων as ‘multifarious mouth’ in order to denote the plural of the noun in Greek and with the aim to point at the generic variety of Bacchylides’ poetic oeuvre. ⁹ Wilamowitz (1900) 5; Barbantani (1993) 9. For an analysis of the epigram, Barbantani (1993) 10; Acosta Hughes (2010) 216 17. ¹⁰ See AP 9.66 and AP 9.506 for depictions of Sappho as the tenth Muse, and AP 9.26 where the list of the nine poetesses is parallelized to the group of the nine Muses.

Introduction: The Lyric Canon

5

the nine lyric poets, and consciously provides the reader with collected information about the hometown and origin (πάτρην γενεήν τε), the family (πατέρας), and the dialect (διάλεκτον) of each poet, as well as about the musical harmonies they used for the performance of their poems (ἁρμονίην). The title of the poem, which is mirrored in the introductory phrase to the other two lists in the other Pindaric manuscripts—Λυρικοί ποιηταὶ μουσικῶν ἀσμάτων ἐννέα and ἐννέα δέ οἱ λυρικοί, Σ Pi. De IX Lyricis (Dr i, p. 11)—reveals the list’s exclusive character and the main binding feature of these nine names: the catalogue includes only nine poets (ἐννέα), all of which are lyric poets (λυρικοί). Such a characterization suggests that their poetry was classified as lyric, recalling once more the lyre that accompanied the performance of their poems. The same elegiac poem opens with the puzzling phrase ἐννέα τῶν πρώτων λυρικῶν. The adjective πρώτων could denote chronology—the oldest of the lyric poets— or quality and priority—the first and best of the lyric poets. Given how the catalogue signifies selection, as we have already seen with the two anonymous epigrams, it is more likely that the phrase is an indication of the selective character of the list. It would in all probability therefore stand for ‘the nine first lyric poets’, and only by association would the phrase ἐννέα τῶν πρώτων λυρικῶν become ‘the nine best lyric poets’.¹¹ One last usually ignored list is preserved in the Pindaric scholia. The scholiast concludes his metrical analysis and prosodic exegesis of the compositions of the lyric poets in Capitula de praefationem pertinentia (Dr iii, pp. 306–10) with a reference to the lyric poets themselves (Capitula f, Dr iii, p. 310). The discussion opens with a remark about the use of strophes, antistrophes, and epodes in the compositions of the lyric poets (Capitula b, Dr iii, p. 306), and closes by naming and enumerating these lyric poets. Λυρικοὶ δέ εἰσιν οὗτοι Ἀλκμὰν Στησίχορος Ἀλκαῖος Ἴβυκος Ἀνακρέων Σιμωνίδης Πίνδαρος Βακχυλίδης These are the lyric poets: Alcman, Stesichorus, Alcaeus, Ibycus, Anacreon, Simonides, Pindar, Bacchylides. Capitula f, Dr. iii, p. 310

Surprisingly, the catalogue does not include Sappho, who is later mentioned along with Alcaeus and Anacreon as an example of a lyric poetess whose poems were monostrophic. Unless we assume that we are dealing with a scribal error, a conclusion that the manuscript’s condition does not support, Sappho’s exclusion from this list could designate the scholiast’s confusion of whether her poems were performed to the accompaniment of the lyre. As specified by the scholiast, the lyre is nonetheless the defining characteristic of the term λυρικός and accordingly the defining feature of the group of the lyric poets whom he names—λυρικοί: οὕτω δὲ προσηγορεύθησαν διὰ τὸ πρὸς λύραν

¹¹ On the elegiac poem found in the Pindaric scholia, Labarbe (1968); Gallo (1974) 91 104.

6

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

ᾄδεσθαι τὰ ποιήματα αὐτῶν (Capitula f, Dr iii, p. 310, ‘lyric poets: they were called such because their poems were sung to the lyre’). The omission could indeed also be accidental. Nevertheless, even with this evidently confusing final list, where Sappho is both excluded from the lyric catalogue and singled out at the end, we can reasonably conclude that our Hellenistic and postHellenistic sources and testimonia on the Lyric Canon confirm its stable character in antiquity.

CANONS AND CANO NIZATION This very brief discussion of the testimonia for the existence of a selection of nine lyric poets which modern scholarship perceived as the Lyric Canon is a prerequisite in order to understand the picture promoted in the sources that deliver this selection. It also formulates the background against which this book positions itself, and serves as an important introduction to its purpose. The present book will examine the emergence and establishment of the Lyric Canon in antiquity, by investigating its formation as a cultural, sociological, and ideological process, thus by taking into account the context(s) within which the Lyric Canon was shaped in antiquity. Being a modern concept that is inferred by ancient writers rather than explicitly declared in ancient sources, the very designation ‘Lyric Canon’ deserves some explanation. Our sources themselves explicate already the term ‘Lyric’, as we have seen. The poetry that was recognized as lyric was the poetry composed in strophic metres and performed to the lyre, according to the Pindaric scholiast. In retrospect therefore the poets who composed these poems were also called lyric—the λυρικοί as specified both in AP 9.184 and in the scholia to Pindar. The Alexandrians also recognized this poetry as a distinct poetic category. Although one should refrain from assuming that performances of lyric poetry ceased to exist completely in the Hellenistic era, the Alexandrians’ understanding of sixth- and fifth-century lyric poetry was in all probability not based on experiencing for themselves a performance of a sixth- and fifthcentury lyric song. It was rather based presumably on the correlation between the names of the poets who composed this kind of poetry and their poetic compositions which the Alexandrian scholars possessed as material texts in the Library. The term ‘Canon’ as instrument of cultural memory, as implied in its modern sense, is itself an invention of the modern era. The term was coined as a literary metaphor by David Ruhnken in his Historia Critica Oratorum Graecorum, published in 1768. ‘Canon’ was initially used for religious purposes, and defined the religious scripts that a Christian should or was allowed to read, and which constituted as a result the biblical Canon. The restrictive

Introduction: The Lyric Canon

7

use of ‘canon’ might have been suggested to Ruhnken precisely by the biblical tradition, but Ruhnken aimed to define a list of valued secular works that would have been privileged in pedagogical institutions. For this purpose he drew parallels with selected lists of authors, which the Hellenistic philologists drew in antiquity.¹² Ruhnken’s coinage was therefore used to refer exclusively to those texts that were acceptable, perhaps also authoritative. These texts were meant to be distinguished from those that were less useful or less important, and which as a consequence were marginalized and thus excluded from the canon. ‘Canon’ has since been a term that is encountered frequently in modern scholarship of classical studies.¹³ Ruhnken referred to texts, a characteristic that is still present in a number of literary canons in the modern era, but the ‘canon’ as a term used for antiquity does not designate a privileged text or set of texts. It rather denotes a group of authors, and only in retrospect does it indicate a selection of texts/poems. Antiquity itself ascribed to the Greek term κανών (‘canon’) its aesthetic application, and additionally prescribed to the canonical selection the parameter ‘exemplary’, both of which define the term’s modern usage. Dionysius Halicarnasseus, for instance, chooses Lysias as the perfect example of the Attic language (D.H. Lys.2), and thus employs the word κανών as a rhetorical and philological term. Photius also applies the term to Thucydides, who is presented as the κανών for Dio Cassius, that is as the highest standard of historiography, or as the model for imitation for the younger author (Bibl. cod.71, p. 35b32–3 Henry). Implicit in both these uses is the authoritative character of the canon as a whole and of each of the selected authors individually, and might apply to those authors who were considered the culmination of the norm of the literary genre they represent, the most famous, or the most useful, a meaning that the ancients, too, applied to their understanding of the word κανών and consequently to their understanding of the ‘canon’.¹⁴

¹² Ruhnken’s coinage goes back to antiquity itself, as the term κανών is already found as early as the fourth century . See Asper (1998) 870 2, HWRh s.v. ‘Kanon’ for the uses of the term κανών down to the third century ; on the history of the word ‘canon’ from the time of Ruhnken to Rousseau, Gorak (1997). ¹³ It is worth keeping in mind Pfeiffer’s criticism of the term ‘canon’, who points out that the usage of the word κανών with the meaning ‘selective list’ has no Greek origin; it rather originated in the eighteenth century, on which Pfeiffer (1968) 207. ¹⁴ In his scholia to Lycophron’s Alexandra Tzetzes refers to the poets who were established as representatives of each genre (p. 1, 23 4, p. 2, 1 13 Scheer). Without using the term ‘canon’ Tzetzes’ characterization of the most prominent and notable representatives of each poetic genre as κατ’ ἐξοχὴν ποιηταί and ὀνομαστοί confirms that their selection was made based on merit and value or at least that this is how canons were understood in later years. On canons in antiquity, Schmidt, E. (1987) 246 58; Asper (1998) 869 82, HWRh s.v. ‘Kanon’; Dubielzig (2005) 513 19, LdH s.v. ‘Kanon’; Easterling (2012) 274 6, OCD s.v. ‘Canon’; Huber Rebenisch (2013) 264 6.

8

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

It becomes evident through the usage of the term κανών in ancient sources that each literary canon in antiquity included authors or poets who were selected from a larger group of authors. Consequently, each literary canon represents a fraction of the genre in question. Referring to the oratorical canon, Photius explains how Aeschines was included in the κανών that comprised the first and best of Attic oratory because he was one of the approved, so to speak, authors (εἰς τοὺς ἀρίστους ἐγκρίνει Bibl. cod.61, p. 20b25–7 Henry); the Corinthian Deinarchus was also another orator who was approved to join those orators who were grouped with Demosthenes, according to the Suda (s.v. Δείναρχος, δ 333 Adler τῶν μετὰ Δημοσθένους ἐγκριθέντων εἷς); on the contrary, the Athenian orator Pytheas was never included in the group with the other orators because of his bold and corrupted character (Suda s.v. Πυθέας, π 3125 Adler οὐκ εκρίθη μετὰ τῶν λοιπῶν ῥητόρων); lastly, Diodorus of Sicilus testifies how Periander was excluded from the canon of the Seven Sages because of his harsh tyrannical rule (D.S. 9.7.8–10 ἐκκρίναντες τὸν Περίανδρον τὸν Κορίνθιον). Although the direct evidence we possess for the termini technici that are used for selecting authors to be included in these canonical lists and for excluding authors from such catalogues apply exclusively to the orators and the Seven Sages, the verbs ἐγκρίνειν and ἐκκρίνειν must have also been terms that were applied to the selected/approved and non-selected/non-approved poets respectively. Those who became canonical, thus those who were accepted as members of a certain canon, were the ἐγκριθέντες, in contrast to the ἐκκριθέντες who were left out. The same verbs that are applied to those privileged and those expelled from canonical lists reflect the process through which these selections were made, and consequently the procedure through which canons were formed. The choice was apparently made possible through judgement of poets (κρίσις ποιητῶν).¹⁵ In his Ars Grammatica §1 Περὶ Γραμματικῆς Dionysius Thrax enumerates the steps through which one can have a good and complete experience of poetry and literature, and identifies in his guide judgement of poems as the concluding phase (κρίσις ποιημάτων). His instructions proceed climactically; he describes a procedure where one is involved in prosodic reading, understanding of poetic style, explanation of language and narration, discovery of etymology, understanding of analogy in grammatical examples, in order, lastly, to be able to judge the poem itself as a whole.¹⁶ The compilation of canons, as it seems, goes beyond judgement of individual poems; it rather involves judgement of poets, which presumably relies on assessing the entire corpus of each poet. Thus, the overall assessment and evaluation of ¹⁵ Cf. Quintilian Inst.10.1.54 where he points out how Aristophanes of Byzantium and Aristarchus acted out as ‘judges of poets’ (poetarum iudices), on which see Chapter 5 in this book, ‘Canonizing Lyric: The “Hellenistic” Lyric Canon’. ¹⁶ On κρίσις ποιημάτων, Ford (2002) 1 22; Laird (2006) 31 2; Porter (2006) 317 18.

Introduction: The Lyric Canon

9

poetic corpora implicitly absorbs the act of judging individual poems, presumably as one of the initial steps of investigation. Our testimonia to the Lyric Canon and the sources for the selection and exclusion of orators from the approved group of oratorical figures suggest that the process of canonization may similarly exceed poetry. We have seen the characterizations and features through which each lyric poet is identified in the two anonymous epigrams (e.g. AP 9.184 ἱερὸν στόμα, γλυκερὴ σελὶς ἡδύ τε, AP 9.571 τερπνά, ἡδυμελής, γλυκύς), as well as how according to the Suda the moral character of Pytheas was one of the reasons, if not the main reason, why he was not included in the oratorical canon.¹⁷ Although such characterizations do not necessarily determine canonization, they implicate that the process of canonization, whilst based on the corpus of each author, might also have involved moral and ethical reasoning.¹⁸ The latter would in most cases have been based on the corpus of each author and poet, which would after all have functioned as the justification behind any moral or ethical judgements. Such a formulation implicitly suggests that the choice of those authors or poets who were included in a literary canon in antiquity was not exclusively a choice made on literary merit. Features of the personality of the author or poet and certain characteristics in their representation in antiquity were presumably equally essential. There is no sense, however, that the canon was beyond criticism. Canonization did not make a writer unassailable. Despite the relatively established status of literary canons, selections, distinctions, and comparisons were still made from among the names that were included in these lists. With reference to the Lyric Canon, Dionysius of Halicarnassus comments upon Pindar, Simonides, Stesichorus, and Alcaeus (De Imitatione 31.2.5–8), and the same four but with Simonides at the final position are singled out by Quintilian (Inst.10.1.61–4).¹⁹ The similarity to the choices of Dionysius of Halicarnassus suggests that Quintilian reflects on an already set selection from the Lyric Canon. It is, however, difficult to claim with certainty that Quintilian distinguishes those four lyric poets as the best representatives of lyric poetry as a whole; he himself admits that there are more authors worth reading than the ones he mentions (Inst.10.1.45). Nonetheless, the passages in Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Quintilian insinuate the idea that even after the establishment of literary canons, those who were thought to be the canonical and great writers (if that was how they were to be understood) could still be assailed and ¹⁷ See also the discussion in Chapter 6 in this book: ‘The Alexandrian Bacchylides: Knowledge and Reputation’ on how the lyric poets are depicted in epigrams that are composed in their honour. ¹⁸ On the types of censures in the process of canonization, see Assmann and Assmann (1987) 19 21; Hahn (1987) 30 2 and (1998) 465 6. ¹⁹ Murphy (1965) xi points out that one of Quintilian’s aims is to provide the reader with a guide to the best authors.

10

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

criticized by later authors.²⁰ From among the lyric poets Pindar was almost always considered to be the definitive example of lyric poetry. We have seen how he is named first in both anonymous epigrams on the Lyric Canon. Additionally, Quintilian claims how of the nine lyric poets Pindar was by far the greatest in virtue of his inspired magnificence, the beauty of his thoughts, the rich exuberance of his language, and his eloquence (Inst.10.1.61); Petronius chooses to exclusively name Pindar when he refers collectively to the group of Greek lyric poets in his Satyricon (Sat.2); Pindar becomes Horace’s exemplary model for his lyric compositions (Carm.IV.2.1); lastly, ps-Longinus compares the work of Bacchylides to the Pindaric poetics, presumably the culmination of lyric poetics, and finds it inferior ([Long.] Subl.33.5).²¹ Such comments and such comparisons might imply that the other lyric poets from the group of the nine never reached Pindar’s poetic perfection or more specifically in the second instance that Bacchylides is second to Pindar, thus implicitly the last in the Lyric Canon in terms of poetic quality. Separations and comparisons of this kind do not dismiss the poetic value, nor do they question the eminence of the other poets included in this canonical selection. Despite preferences from within the list, the Lyric Canon was composed of nine selected and select poets. According to the commentator on Dionysius Thrax, all nine of them were also the πραττόμενοι, a term that should be understood as those to whom editorial and exegetic attention was devoted. Γεγόνασι δὲ λυρικοὶ οἱ καὶ πραττόμενοι ἐννέα, ὧν τὰ ὀνόματά ἐστι ταῦτα, Ἀνακρέων, Ἀλκμάν, Ἀλκαῖος, Βακχυλίδης, Ἴβυκος, Πίνδαρος, Στησίχορος, Σιμωνίδης, Σαπϕώ, καὶ δεκάτη Κόριννα. The nine lyric poets had also become the studied poets, and their names are these: Anacreon, Alcman, Alcaeus, Bacchylides, Ibycus, Pindar, Stesichorus, Simonides, Sappho, and tenth Corinna. Commentaria in D.T. Ars Grammatica p. 21.17 19 Hilg.

This is to be expected, as canonized authors gain greater importance after their canonization. Canons themselves generate the need to care for the text’s integrity, necessarily and consequently the need to interpret the text itself and protect its meaning in order to be able to retain the canon’s permanence, let alone the longevity of the canonical corpus. Thus, both the process and the

²⁰ Ps Longinus is presumably the author who demonstrates clearly that members of literary canons could still be criticized; e.g. Subl.34.3 on Demosthenes, 15.3 on Euripides, 15.5 on Aeschylus. ²¹ Russell (1964) 159 ad loc comments that ‘L’s implication that Bacchylides is a good second rate poet is borne out by the judgement of most modern critics since the discovery of the papyri.’ The comment of ps Longinus may indeed imply that Bacchylides is second to Pindar, but Longinus does not dismiss Bacchylides as a poet; he still recognizes his poetic elegance as a positive quality.

Introduction: The Lyric Canon

11

consequences of canonization in antiquity promote an inevitable relationship between the canonized author and the canonized text. The Lyric Canon is substantially a selection of names and authors not a selection of texts, but the canonical status of these authors also canonizes in retrospect their poetic corpus. This mutual connection between poet and poetic corpus necessarily creates a hierarchy of transmission, and controls as a consequence the editorial and scholarly work that was done on their poetry.²² That canons are established in turning points and that they are the result of socio-cultural developments which promote evolution and continuation is evident in two not necessarily exclusive factors in canon formation: on the one hand the canon’s permanence and demand of eternity and on the other the creation of new and different canons as a result of socio-cultural changes. These new canons might subsequently replace those already established in tradition. In the case of the Lyric Canon, the commentator to Dionysius Thrax adds Corinna as tenth to the list that includes the names of the nine whom tradition recognized as the lyric poets, and two manuscripts with Pindaric scholia offer a variation of the canonical lyric list, which finishes with the phrase τινὲς δὲ καὶ τὴν Κόρυνον, presumably a scribal mistake for Κόρινναν, as Drachmann emends (Σ Pi. De IX Lyricis, Dr i, p. 11 apparatus criticus 11. ‘and some also include Corinna’). The manner in which Corinna is introduced is revealing. Both the commentator and the scholiast name the nine poets whom tradition established as the selected and presumably select lyric poets. The scholiast to Pindar clarifies how the lyric poets were nine, whom he subsequently names. Λυρικοί ποιηταὶ μουσικῶν ἀσμάτων ἐννέα . . . τὰ δὲ ὀνόματα τῶν προειρημένων λυρικῶν εἰσὶ τάδε . . . The lyric poets of musical songs were nine . . . the names of the aforementioned lyric poets are the following . . . Σ Pi. De IX Lyricis, Dr. i, p. 11

Similarly, the commentator to Dionysius Thrax uses the past perfect tense to introduce the list of lyric names (γεγόνασι), implying that he merely reports an already made choice. Corinna is introduced only at the end of both lists. Not only her position at the conclusion of the catalogues is introduced by καί, but also the definition that is applied to her sets her apart from that lyric group. Corinna, according to the commentator to Dionysius Thrax, is separately added as the tenth in the list (καὶ δεκάτη), while the Pindaric scholiast declares how only some would include Corinna in the Lyric Canon (τινὲς δὲ καί).²³ ²² On how canonization might affect the reception of the text itself, Assmann and Assmann (1987) 12 15; Kammer (2000) 311 20. ²³ The date of Corinna still remains problematic; she has been dated either in the fifth or in the third/second century . Corinna is not mentioned in any surviving Greek literature before the second/first century  (cf. AP 9.26), but an inscribed Roman statuette of hers appears to have derived from a fourth century source. Plutarch (Glor.Ath.347f 348a), Pausanias (9.22.3),

12

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

The wording of both the above statements reveals that the Lyric Canon as a selection of nine lyric poets was well established by the time the commentaries were written. The Pindaric scholion in particular implies that Corinna’s inclusion in the list was not generally accepted. The presence of Corinna as addition or afterthought confirms the nine as a selected group. It also shows how, despite its longevity and its institutionalized permanence through the Hellenistic era, the Lyric Canon allowed for the changing taste or for the changing cultural and aesthetic values to affect its boundaries and to include another poet in the selected list. Such an addition to the Lyric Canon reveals how cultural developments or changes in literary taste might affect a canon’s substance, and how they would consequently allow for more lyric poets to be canonized after its establishment. Petronius, as mentioned above, who recognizes the canonical lyric poets as models for successive generations and chooses to exclusively name Pindar, also increases the number of exemplary lyric models to ten (Sat.2.4 Pindarus novemque lyrici).²⁴ For the Byzantine scholar Tzetzes the famous and notable lyric poets were actually ten. λυρικοὶ δὲ ὀνομαστοὶ δέκα Στησίχορος, Βακχυλίδης, Ἴβυκος, Ἀνακρέων, Πίνδαρος, Σιμωνίδης, Ἀλκμάν, Ἀλκαῖος, Σαπϕὼ καὶ Κόριννα The famous lyric poets were ten: Stesichorus, Bacchylides, Ibycus, Anacreon, Pindar, Simonides, Alcman, Alcaeus, Sappho, and Corinna. Tzetzes Prolegom. ad Lycophron p. 2,11 14 Scheer

Tzetzes’ list incorporates Corinna officially in the Canon of the lyric nine, suggesting that by the twelfth century ad Corinna had presumably been established as one of the notable lyric poets of antiquity. Alterations of this kind, which ultimately increase the number of the canonized lyric poets, do not pose a threat to those already canonized, as we have seen. The Lyric Canon evidently still remains consciously and intentionally closed and unified, as established in the Hellenistic era. Nevertheless, the case of Corinna implies Aelian (VH 13.25 Dilts), and the Suda (s.v. Κορίννα, κ 2087 Adler) are the main sources that deliver how Corinna was contemporary with Pindar. In poetic terms her PMG 654 on the contest between Kithaeron and Helicon reads like a Hellenistic poem, and despite the biographical stories about her relationship with Pindar, I would suggest that Corinna was most probably a Hellenistic poetess who composed in the third/second century . The above sources relate her to Pindar probably in an attempt to establish her fame in antiquity and to portray her as important a poet as Pindar. On the date of Corinna, Page (1953) 65 84; West, M. (1970) 279 80 and (1990) 557; Allen and Frel (1972); Snyder (1989) 43; Palumbo Stracca (1993); Segal (1998) 319. ²⁴ Schmeling (2011) 6 ad loc suggest that Petronius might have used the specific expression ‘loosely and without exact knowledge’, or it could imply that Pindar is singled out as the epitome of lyric poetry. They assume that the group of ten would include Arion as the tenth lyric poet. Given how Corinna is at times mentioned as a member of the Lyric Canon already from the Hellenistic times, I would include her in Petronius’ list instead of Arion.

Introduction: The Lyric Canon

13

that the canon was contested on the margins, and demonstrates as well gradations of closedness over time.²⁵ The selection of the ἐγκριθέντες in the Lyric Canon was the result of a longer process of establishing aesthetic, cultural, perhaps also moral values that resulted to the official formation of this canonical list as early as the second century . The beginning of this process can be traced already in the fifth century .²⁶ As we can read in our sources, the fifth century was an era that experienced a number of historical, cultural, and social changes after the Peloponnesian War, and which accordingly had an impact on lyric poetry as a whole.²⁷ The distinction between old and new in literature is one of the central themes of literary criticism in antiquity, and it appears in particular in the comparisons and contrasts drawn by ancient thinkers between the mousikē and melic poetry of the sixth and fifth century  and the new musical and melic status quo in the later fifth century, the era of the so-called New Music. A sense of an ending in nostalgic Athenian writings, such as those of Aristophanes and Plato, emphasizes their pivotal status both in this cultural change and in antiquity’s literary criticism. It also stresses the importance of the fifth century as the era when the need to hold on to tradition is recognized, and also the era when we can detect the first signs of an attempt not only to establish a distinction between the old/traditional and the new/ popular but also to form the Lyric Canon itself. As it will become obvious in the course of this book, we have no evidence for an open-ended process of accretion. This canonical list of the nine lyric poets remained unchanged from the very beginning of its formation in the fifth century  until the Roman Imperial period.

THE E MERGENCE OF THE L YRIC CANON: CHAPTER L AYOUT This book consists of seven chapters, progresses chronologically—an inevitable condition when dealing with diachronic reception—and focuses on specific genres, authors, and philosophical schools that played a critical role in the survival and canonization of lyric poetry. Chapter 1 addresses lyric poetry in its environment of composition and performance, positions the poetic activities and movements of the lyric poets on a map of Greece and Magna Graecia, and also foregrounds the song-types that prevail in certain ²⁵ I owe this point to Felix Budelmann. ²⁶ Asper (1998) 873, HWRh s.v. ‘Kanon’. ²⁷ On the connection of the New Music with the economic and socio cultural changes at the end of the fifth century , Csapo (2004) 235 45 and (2011) 65 76.

14

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

periods and certain areas. It comprises of two parts that deal with local, wandering, and pan-Hellenic lyric poets and ‘Athenian’ lyric poetry respectively. The first part places lyric poetry in its local and pan-Hellenic contexts, and takes into account the environment within which lyric poets composed. Sappho, Alcman, Alcaeus, and Stesichorus, for example, composed exclusively for local audiences, and were presumably recognizable and highly esteemed poets in a local context during their lifetime. The discussion also considers wandering lyric poets, who moved with no local restrictions and who composed both for local audiences (i.e. their native town), for audiences other than their own, and for pan-Hellenic audiences. Such a category would include Ibycus and Anacreon, who given their frequent attachment to tyrannical courts could also be perceived as court-poets. Simonides, Pindar, and Bacchylides, the professional, and international, or pan-Hellenic lyric poets could be additionally considered as members of this category; several of their poems were composed in honour of private patrons. All three of them could also be characterized as the wandering poets par excellence; from the moment of commissioning their poetry was not exclusively local but was already embedded in a broader Hellenic context. Fifth-century Athens was just as essential for the formation of the Lyric Canon, and this is demonstrated in the second part of Chapter 1. The relevant analysis addresses the paradoxical status of Athens as the city that did not produce lyric but still helped preserve lyric, as it gradually became the centre of literary production and cultural development in the fifth century . Thus, even though at the time of lyric production and circulation our attention is focused on the broader Greek world, we need always to look for traces of that poetry within the fifth-century Athenian poetic context. The first section of this second part explores the manner in which non-Athenian lyric poets were chosen to participate in Athenian festivals, while the second section focuses on the preservation (or not) of the names of the victorious dithyrambic poets in official Athenian records. The latter also raises the question concerning the survival of lyric names within the Athenian literary context. The Athenian cultural and poetic agenda played a vital role in the process of canonization, and Chapter 2 looks at the comic genre. Comedy is an important source of information about the Athenian audience’s knowledge of the lyric poets and of their output. It is also an essential piece of evidence for discussing the diffusion of lyric poetry in Athens in the fifth and fourth centuries. The treatment of lyric poets in fifth-century comedy matters enormously for our understanding of canon-formation, as the comic genre is a major source of information on the movement of song and on poetic reputation. The discussion brings into the analysis issues such as generic awareness and poet recognition, comic play with cultic and performative characteristics of poems, as well as with biographical and anecdotal features of lyric poets.

Introduction: The Lyric Canon

15

Comedy as a genre reflects the evolutionary process of canonization, and also the emerging distinction between the old and the popular, a distinction that eventually turned into that between the canonized lyric and the New Music. Such a distinction demonstrates that the canonizing process of lyric poetry was already at work during the fifth century , and it was by that time obvious within the Athenian literary background. Chapter 3 turns to Plato, who is perhaps the Greek author who influenced profoundly the reception of poetry. The discussion focuses on Plato’s attitude towards the lyric poets in comparison to the much-discussed hostility towards tragedy and the Homeric epic, as well as on the diversity with which certain extracts from specific lyric poems are incorporated in his dialogues. Lyric poets are depicted as authorities on ethical matters, and melic extracts are incorporated as pieces of eternal wisdom. Plato proves to be of great value with regards to the reception 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  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 Platonic dialogues also offer us the opportunity to perform a comparative study with the picture painted in comedy. Beyond reasonable conclusions that some, if not all, of the lyric poets had acquired canonical status by the time of Plato, it becomes obvious that the depictions of the lyric poets in both comedy and Plato were instrumental in the representation of the lyric nine in later sources. Chapter 4 demonstrates the importance of the Peripatos in the canonizing process of lyric, and further determines a degree of continuity between fifth- and fourth-century reception and evaluation of lyric poetry. Plato’s view of lyric history and the comic representation of lyric evolution seem to prevail in several later sources, to the extent that the Peripatetics concentrate in their treatises mainly on the great lyric masters of the sixth and fifth centuries . Consequently, they do not devote as much scholarly energy to the kind of lyric poetry that was negatively criticized in Plato and was parodied by comedy, namely the New Music. The Peripatetic agenda, the Peripatetic treatises on lyric poets, the methodology of the Peripatetics, and the contents and resources of the Peripatetic library are some of the essential issues that are discussed in this chapter. The overall analysis demonstrates that Aristotle’s Lyceum becomes a centre for literary study that dealt with poems as cultural and anthropological sources. The fourth century is not only a period when literary criticism is consciously instituted but also a period of rapid and fundamental transitions, and it proves to be critical for the process whereby lyric moves from song to text. Chapters 1 to 4 address the question of transmission and diffusion of lyric song together with questions of reputation, performance, and circulation. They do not, however, refer to the materiality of text. The question of form

16

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

is addressed separately in Chapter 5, which discusses the move from song to written text, and considers the physical life of lyric song together with the existence, diffusion, availability, and circulation of material lyric texts in locations other than Athens. The analysis firstly sets the background and focuses on the fifth-century literary and archaeological evidence we possess 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 a private collection. It also takes into account the breadth of poetic activities and movements of the lyric poets, as sketched in Chapter 1, and thus brings into the discussion the possible existence of local archives with lyric texts. Geographical distinctions prove significant with reference to questions of transmission of texts, as they have implications for the volume and nature of what is available in different locations. Moreover, they foreground plausible differences in local taste and interests. Fifth-century Athens is instrumental in the formation of the Lyric Canon, and for this reason the discussion concentrates on, lastly, the broader sociology of lyric reception and transmission in democratic Athens by addressing questions of literary fashions and lyric preferences and also the socio-cultural circumstances within which they are contextualized according to our late fifth- and early fourth-century sources. Chapter 6 transports us to the Library of Alexandria. The first part offers plausible answers to the question of when and how lyric texts actually reached Alexandria. Plausible reconstructions can be offered on this issue based on the connection between Alexandrian and Peripatetic scholars and ultimately on the association with the Peripatetic library, but the analysis also takes into account all sources that refer to the process of acquiring texts for the Library. The chapter opens up questions with reference to the format of travelling texts of lyric—did they travel collectively as corpora on a single papyrus roll or individually?—and to the resulting consequences for the Alexandrians in each case. The discussion then moves on to the available information about the editing of and commenting on the lyric poets in the Library in order to better understand the criteria the Hellenistic scholars used as they prioritized texts and as they chose authors to be edited and annotated. The Lyric Canon itself becomes the subject of discussion in the second part of the chapter, which addresses the question of whether the Canon was based on poetic quality and evaluation or simply on availability of texts. In other words, did the canonical list include those lyric poets who had already been established as classic before the Hellenistic period, or those whose work had reached Alexandria and was thus available in the Library? The analysis emphasizes the ‘closedness’ of the Lyric Canon in contrast to other literary canons in antiquity, and also demonstrates that the Hellenistic era did not create the Lyric Canon as such. By explicitly assembling the nine poets in the two main epigrams of the time and by elaborating on this selection, it practically established the Lyric Canon.

Introduction: The Lyric Canon

17

And for the canon’s establishment the Alexandrians followed the lead of previous literary evaluations. Bacchylides occupies an unusual position in the Canon of the lyric nine, and he therefore becomes the focus in Chapter 7. The transmission of his poetry and the canonization of his name do not seem to follow the norm and pattern of the rest of the lyric poets. As shown in the analysis in the preceding chapters, he is neither quoted nor named in any of the sources that become crucial for the formation of the Lyric Canon. The discussion takes into account Bacchylides’ presence both in the Lyric Canon and in the Alexandrian Library in conjunction to the fact that his name did not travel within antiquity despite his pan-Hellenic poetic presence. It gives prominence therefore to Bacchylides’ reputation in the Hellenistic era, and uses inscriptional and epigraphical evidence to argue that his poetry was known at the time and that it possibly also circulated within the broader Hellenistic world. The case of Bacchylides, who might have reached Alexandria through Pergamum, is the defining card in understanding that the transmission of lyric poetry was presumably not linear.

THE H ERMENEUTIC FRAMEWORK: R E C E P T I O N AN D T HE CLASS IC The process of canonization is a form of reception and for this reason central to the methodology and approach employed in this book is Reception Theory, as initiated by Hans-Georg Gadamer and as further developed by Hans Robert Jauss.²⁸ Jauss’ Rezeptionsästhetik acknowledges the historicity of texts and the aesthetic response of receivers at any present time. It thus recognizes how literature exists only in the form of a dialogue between work and audience and between past and present. Jauss frames this interpretative process within his ‘horizon of expectations’, a hermeneutic and philosophical concept that is principally linked with Gadamer’s historical conception of reading, and acknowledges as a result the framework of expectations of the text which enters the framework of assumptions of the reader.²⁹ Such a mediated interpretation and understanding of literature fuses the literary-historical surroundings of the work under question with the receiver’s ‘horizon of expectations’, which is formed by the conventions of genre, style, and form. Reception Theory ²⁸ A comprehensive presentation of the basic theories of Gadamer and Jauss can be found in Holub (1984) 36 45, 53 82; also Habib (2005) 708 24. ²⁹ Cf. Kennedy (1997) 50 ‘such interpretations, interpreted in turn, will thereby be seen to be accommodated teleologically to their ends the preoccupations and interests of their interpreters’.

18

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

recognizes that past and present are always implicated in each other and its application in literary interpretations avoids ‘crude presentism . . . and crude historicism’, as Charles Martindale observes.³⁰ A work on the emergence of the Lyric Canon unavoidably raises questions on the transmission and survival of lyric poetry, and it therefore calls for attention to the changing historical, cultural, and literary contexts within which lyric poetry was interpreted and was eventually canonized. Consequently, the present study perceives the histories of reading of lyric poetry and the development of the meaning of the Lyric Canon as synchronic and diachronic literary series, which are practically series of reception(s). Canonization is necessarily a process that is established through tradition, but it is also a process that is primarily formed through reception. In this particular case, tradition, which is itself a case of reception, should be interpreted as a ‘chain of influence’;³¹ it continuously influences conceptions of lyric poetry, representations of lyric poets, and interpretations of the Lyric Canon as a whole from antiquity to the modern era. Implicit in the concepts of both tradition and reception is a ‘need for sensitivity in context’,³² which requires scholars to make certain connections between the objects of research (in this case, lyric poetry) and their contexts—creating and receiving contexts. The chain of receptions within antiquity is formed through the work’s engagement with a number of factors: cultural and historical contexts of reception, literary contexts of reception, audiences, and readership. In this case in particular the broad spectrum of engagements with lyric is evaluated and re-evaluated in antiquity within and by the new markets that are involved in the process of reception. Markets of reception are mainly formed by the varying characteristics of each era and equally by the changing nature of audiences, who engage as receivers with the product in question on the basis of the expectations created by the nature of the artefact itself and by their personal experiences. This ‘personal’ engagement attributes to the audience/readership a role in the construction of meaning at the time of reception, and allows for the collective formation of what we tend to call tradition.³³ For the purposes of this book the cornerstone in the above dialogic relationship between tradition and reception and between audiences and contexts is Jauss’ understanding of the concept of ‘genre’. In his Toward an Aesthetic of Reception Jauss proposes that a literary work does not present itself as new in a vacuum; it rather predisposes its audience to a specific kind of reception that is oriented by the genre or by the type of work.³⁴ The text itself is determined through its relationship to the succession of texts that form the genre, and it subsequently evokes for the receivers the kind of ‘horizon of expectations’ ³⁰ Martindale (2006) 8. ³¹ Budelmann and Haubold (2008) 16. ³² Budelmann and Haubold (2008) 24. ³³ Martindale (1993) 3. ³⁴ Jauss (1982) 22 3.

Introduction: The Lyric Canon

19

which they formulated thanks to their familiarity with earlier texts of the same genre. Generic identifications are particularly important in a discussion on canonization of lyric, not solely because the Lyric Canon itself identifies its generic and performative context. The sources that are examined in this book show a profound awareness of generic boundaries and an irrefutable understanding of the multifarious concept of ‘lyric’, which makes the question of ‘genre’ relevant to the issue of canonization. As ‘classic’ and ‘classical’ are terms that are used to designate the cultures of Greece and Rome in antiquity and also to denote chronologically the fifth and fourth centuries , it is important to offer some clarifications on the way the two terms are understood in this book, especially in view of the concept of the Canon. The first documented use of the word ‘classical’ in connection with authors goes back to the second century ad. Aulus Gellius reports hearing M. Cornelius Fronto, a noted orator and friend of the emperor Marcus Aurelius, referring to the ideal group of ancient orators or poets (antiquiore cohorte) who should be taken as reference points for the correct use of language by using the expression scriptor classicus (‘first-class/first-rated writer’) (NA 19.8.15). Gellius specifies in the passage how classicus would be non proletarius (‘not proletarian’), which suggests that Fronto used figuratively the language of social and political stratification to designate linguistic value and cultural standing. The use of the word in the sense of ‘first-class’ and more specifically ‘first-class author’, as used in the Noctes Atticae, seems to disappear after Gellius. It resurfaces as a learned reuse of an ancient Latin term only in the Renaissance, where it is used metaphorically in humanistic contexts.³⁵ Over the centuries the word assumed a range of complex and dense nuances that made the idea and concept of ‘the classical’ and ‘the classic’ controversial.³⁶ Moreover, the cultural specification of both terms, which are adopted and adapted in various societal and ideological contexts in correlation with their universal and absolute applicability, makes them even more problematic. In his famous essay What is a Classic? T. S. Eliot argues that a classic author can be known as such only by hindsight and in retrospect, always within a context and never in isolation.³⁷ Eliot perceives the literature that has been recognized as classic or classical as reflecting the society that produced it and as indicating as well its greatness and importance, on occasions even its uniqueness. Both Eliot and Gadamer draw attention to the existence of a timeless present in ‘the classical’, and Gadamer goes on to point at the tension ³⁵ Further on the passage from Gellius and on classicus, Citroni (2006) 204 11. ³⁶ See the four groups of the distinguished features of ‘the classic’ in Simm (1988a) 37 8n. 11, and the nine anatomies of the term in Porter (2006) 14 16. ³⁷ Eliot (1944) for whom the ultimate classic is Virgil and his Aeneid and who views ‘the classic’ as embedded and exhibited within the authorial text itself. Eliot perceives it as the culmination of a historical, intellectual, and linguistic process, whose completion is nevertheless a matter of fortune.

20

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

that is created between the self-consciousness of the endurance of ‘the classical’ and the historical moment that generated it.³⁸ ‘It is an awareness of decline and distance that gives birth to the classical norm’, as Gadamer puts it in his Truth and Method, and this very awareness of its historical anchoring, its preservation in time, and the combination of the two shape the concept of ‘the classic’.³⁹ A backward-looking is clearly identified in our fifth- and fourthcentury sources, which idealize the canonical lyric poets as the heyday of mousikē and paint a picture of decadence and musical degradation with regards to the current state of poetic and musical compositions in fourthcentury Athens. This very sense of an ending that is vigorously expressed in their rhetoric encapsulates Gadamer’s decline and distance that give rise to ‘the classic’, in our case to the lyric ‘classic’ and subsequently to the Lyric Canon. In other words, ‘the classic’ is perceived in the present work always in association with the canon—the canonical lyric poets are the classical lyric poets, and their inclusion in the Canon is what makes them classic. The lyric ‘classic’ therefore indicates the restricted and exclusive character of the canonical lyric list, as well as the selective framework within which the nine lyric poets were identified as the canonical lyric poets. Scholarly discussions on modern literary canons and ‘the classic’ contextualize the canon debate within educational curricula, and problematize the criteria upon which the selection of certain authors and texts were chosen: aesthetic value of form, content characterized by timeless wisdom, and intellectual and linguistic perfection.⁴⁰ Moreover, the canonical works that are included in the literary curricula of several modern societies are regarded as carriers of ideological notions and repositories of cultural values, and are additionally perceived as mirroring the social and political context within which they emerged. Canon formation is therefore interpreted within the politics of its own representation. The critique of the canon and the debate over its eternal value express a critique of the circumstances that led to the inclusion of authors in ‘The Great Books’ and a critique of the perpetual nature of the cultural value that the canon embraces. Challenging the canon ultimately translates into challenging the past that brought it into existence. It is difficult to make absolute parallels between modern literary canons and Greek canons in antiquity, at least at the stage of their formation. This is due to the fact that these critiques frequently attach modern literary canons to educational institutions, which would often prescribe the texts and authors a student would study and a general reader would read. With regards to the Lyric Canon, our sources state the changes that were gradually shaping the ³⁸ Gadamer (1979) 255 6. ³⁹ Gadamer (1979) 256. ⁴⁰ The literature on modern literary canons is enormous, in different languages, and is associated with various countries and societies; see, very selectively, the collected essays in Simm (1988b); Guillory (1993); the collected essays in Morrissey (2005).

Introduction: The Lyric Canon

21

educational curricula in fifth- and early fourth-century Athens, and although they convey the idea that canonical lyric probably remained part of education, they implicitly suggest that it was probably restricted to those who consciously wanted to follow the old and traditional curriculum. The public, the ‘masses’ as presented in our texts, preferred the new and non-canonical both in their curriculum and for their entertainment. It should still be recognized that these kind of modern debates foreground and often criticize the social circumstances that contributed to the establishment of literary canons in certain societies, the social identity of the author that appears as a condition of canonicity, and the political and ideological agendas that the canons subsequently serve in higher education. Canons are interpreted as ‘the products of historically specific conflicts over culture and values’,⁴¹ and as a reflection of the past’s sense of its own past. The Lyric Canon, as this book demonstrates in detail, was the product of an ‘elitist’ and conservative perspective that connected the musical and poetic developments in the late fifth and early fourth centuries with the ideological and political changes in Athens. Our fifth- and fourth-century sources helped pave the way for a formalized lyric ‘classic’, which was shaped by the processes of exclusion and selection and informed by the logic of closure. They also contributed to the institutionalized preservation of the Lyric Canon on the bookshelves of the Alexandrian Library; the lyric ‘classic’ is encapsulated in the process of transmission as well as in the aesthetic and cultural commitments of the Peripatetics and the Alexandrians, and is permanently captured in the two canonical epigrams as widely accepted heritage.

⁴¹ Lauter (2005) 183.

1 The World of Lyric Local, Pan-Hellenic, and Athenian

A discussion on lyric canonization requires the canvas of lyric geography. The objective of this first chapter is to place the nine lyric poets and their poetry on a map of Greece and Magna Graecia in both a literal and a literary sense (see Map 1.1).¹ It aims therefore to provide information in connection with the locations where the canonical lyric poets composed and where their work was performed and to touch upon the issue of fame-acquisition. The geographical positioning of the activities of these poets is an important component in a book on the Lyric Canon, as it allows us to understand the complexity of the process of transmission and survival and ultimately the complexity of the process of canonization. Alcman, Alcaeus, Sappho, Anacreon, Stesichorus, Ibycus, Simonides, Pindar, and Bacchylides came from different locations across mainland Greece and Magna Graecia, some of them composed at locations other than their hometown, but both the survival of their poetry and the canonization of their names were later centralized in Athens. This paradoxical channel of lyric canonization which the following chapters will address sets off from various geographical locations, initially reaches Athens, and then eventually Alexandria. For this precise reason, the setting and the living environment in which lyric poetry was composed, sung, and performed becomes essential as a first step in understanding the defining role that the established reputation of each lyric poet played in the subsequent survival of his/her poetry. The main focus of the analysis in this chapter is essentially the poetic activity and production of the canonical lyric poets, which will inescapably bring to the surface the important components of this World of Lyric: patrons and commissioning ¹ For a concise geographical and chronological account of lyric poetry with maps and figures that also includes elegy and iambus, see Neri (2004) 61 81 and the interactive map Mapping Greek Lyric: Places, Travel, Geographical Imaginary created by Driscoll, D., McMullin, I., Sansom, A., and Peponi, A. E. at Stanford University, which illustrates the geo cultural aspects of lyric production from the eighth to the beginning of the fourth century : http://web. stanford.edu/group/lyricmapping/bubblemap.html

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon. Theodora A. Hadjimichael, Oxford University Press (2019). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198810865.003.0002

24

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

Map 1.1. Geographical distribution of the poetic activity of the nine lyric poets.

The World of Lyric: Local, Pan-Hellenic, and Athenian

25

states, poetic mobility, private and public performance occasions, lyric songs, and lyric genres. All these features define a confined poetic geography that exceeds the geographical perimeter of mainland Greece and offers opportunities for mobility, but which is nonetheless restricted within the cultural boundaries of Hellenism. This chapter has an introductory function, and it concentrates on both the poetic activity and the geographical mobility of the canonical lyric poets. It is thus divided into two sections. The first section contextualizes lyric poetry in its natural habitat and also touches upon possible performance contexts, and the drawn picture is based on evidence provided in the compositions of the poets themselves and on relevant testimonia on their poetic activity and mobility. A number of lyric poets compose locally, that is exclusively for their homecommunities, while others move both geographically and poetically within the broader Greek world. The local, wandering, or pan-Hellenic character of their poetry subsequently shapes these poets’ fame at the time of their poetic activity, and it eventually has an impact on their reception in later times. As the city that considerably influences lyric canonization, Athens becomes the main focal point in the second section of the chapter. This particular section addresses the paradoxical status of Athens as the city that does not have its own native lyric poets to compose melic poetry for the city, but nevertheless helps preserve it through its festival culture. The centrality of Athens in shaping the Lyric Canon makes prominent the need to examine its own lyric background.

THE WORLD OF LYRIC: LYRIC GEOGRAPHY AND TRAVELS One of the testimonia on the Lyric Canon, the elegiac poem preserved in the Pindaric scholia that was mentioned in the Introduction, transmits information concerning the biography of the nine lyric poets (Dr. i, pp. 10–11). For the purposes of this chapter the most important piece of information included in the poem is the identification of the hometown of each lyric poet. We first learn that Alcaeus came from Mytilene (Μυτιληναῖος); Sappho, who is mentioned second and without regional qualification, is indirectly recognized through Alcaeus also as Mytilenean; Stesichorus came from Himera in Sicily (Ἱμέρα); we read in the poem that Ibycus came from Rhegium or from Messene (ἐκ Ρηγίου ἠὲ Μεσήνης); Anacreon came from Teos (Τήιος); Pindar was a Theban (Θηβαῖος); Simonides and Bacchylides were Ceans (Κείου, Κεῖος); and Alcman came from Sparta (ἐκ Σπάρτης). The poem moves geographically from the Greek islands to the Greek West, and concludes in mainland Greece. While covering the locations where the canonical lyric poets originated from it also offers a glimpse of the World of Lyric; a narrow and

26

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

restricted glimpse, however. The poem focuses on the origin of these lyric personae and on the linguistic register of their poems, which is directly connected with their ethnic descent, and it exclusively foregrounds as a result the hometowns of these poets; these are presented as landmarks for lyric poetry. In contrast to the picture painted in the poem, in the real World of Lyric, which this chapter aims to describe at present, only in specific cases did the hometown of the lyric poets coincide with the actual locations of their poetic production, as only at times did the poet compose as local for his local community. Thus, although the specific elegiac poem encompasses in its geographical view the entire Greek world in which the lyric poets moved and composed their poetry in the sixth and fifth centuries , by focusing entirely on their hometowns it ignores the broader and also pan-Hellenic character not only of lyric song but also of some of the representatives from the group of the canonical nine. The geography that the poetry of these poets covered can be used as a criterion to divide the canonical group into local and wandering poets. Such a distinction recognizes the geographical origin of each poet and their connection with both the communities for which they compose and the location where the premiere of their poems took place. The defining criterion is therefore the relationship between poet and place, which consequently has an impact on the association between poetry and place. The question at hand in this case is whether the lyric poet had a pre-existing connection with the geographical location where he composes and where his poetry is performed, be that for an individual patron or for a specific community, or a connection that is created exclusively through and thanks to the poetic product itself. More simplistically, when a poet composed for his own community as a local, his poetry would also be labelled as local, but in cases where the poet is imported so to speak, his poems would also be perceived as of foreign origin, namely non-local. The three main representatives of the epinician genre and their compositions have also been characterized as pan-Hellenic, a characterization which is determined, in my view, by two main factors: the geographical location of the first poetic performance and the link of the poet with that location, and the ethnic origin of the community or of the individual for whom the poem is composed. I would suggest that this notion of poetic panHellenism is especially at force in Magna Graecia; the pan-Hellenic lyric poet is ultimately a wandering poet. Based on the above pan-Hellenizing factors a notable difference arises within the group of those wandering lyric poets who would (at times) also be recognized as non-local. The differentiation derives from the dynamics created by the origin of the poet and the place where his poetic composition is firstly performed, and also between poetry (often composed in honour of an individual) and poetic aim, the latter of which is frequently prescribed by the patron or by the occasion that calls for poetry. These distinctions will be clarified as the discussion progresses.

The World of Lyric: Local, Pan-Hellenic, and Athenian

27

Local and Wandering Lyric Poets From the group of the nine canonical lyric poets Sappho and Alcaeus are the most appropriate examples of local poets. Their poetic corpus revolves around their own persona, a characteristic that inevitably positions their poetry within their own locale and geographical surroundings. This is particularly obvious in the case of Alcaeus who often handles poetically the political situation in Lesbos. The tyrant of Mytilene Pittacus is named frequently in his fragments (e.g. Alc. 70 and 348 V), prominent political figures and members of political parties feature in his poems, and his verses reflect on his exile as a consequence of his political ideology.² Alcaeus’ poems mirror therefore the political situation of Mytilene at his time, while they interconnect two political institutions: the hetaireia, which fostered political solidarity and reciprocity among its group-members, and the symposium, which is evoked in a number of his poems.³ The latter suggests that the symposium would be a suitable performance setting for some of Alcaeus’ poems, if not for the majority of his poems, which are often poetically situated within the context of a drinking-party.⁴ To mention only a few examples, in Alc. 38A V Melanippus is invited to join the singing voice (Alcaeus?) in drinking; Pittacus’ marriage into the house of the Penthilidae is reported at a banquet at the accompaniment of a lyre in Alc. 70 V; the symposiasts are urged to drink before the night falls (Alc. 352, 346 V); the singing voice offers instructions on the preparation of the drinking cup (Alc. 346 V); and lingering perfume is mixed with wine at a context where the participants are depicted as drinking (Alc. 50 V). One would wonder where these symposia might have taken place. Given how Alcaeus’ political poems are locally contextualized, one can reasonably assume that his sympotic poems were also performed at Mytilene. The positioning of Alcaeus’ poems within the political context of Mytilene and the naming of individuals in his poems colour his poetry with a visible Lesbian aura which is also transferred to his non-political poems. This kind of localization consequently defines his own poetic persona as a local persona that moves and composes within the geographical boundaries of Mytilene. Sappho’s poetic corpus is also connected to Lesbos but differently from the corpus of Alcaeus. In general, Sappho does not contextualize her poetry in the broader Mytilenean environment, and only in two cases does she touch on ² e.g. Alc. 70.7 V Μυρσί̣[λ]ω̣ and vv.13 Φιττάκω< ι >, 75.10 V Πεν̣θίλη, 112.23 4 V Κλεανακτ̣ί δαν | (Ἀ)ρχεανακτ̣ί δαν, 129.28 V Μύρσιλ̣[ο, 130b.4 V (Ἀ)γεσιλαΐδα, vv.9 Ὀνυμακλέης, 169a.8 V Μυτι̣[λ]η̣ ν[̣ , 169b.4 V Φίττ[ακ, 302b.1 V Πέ̣νθι[λ, 303Aa.2 V Πωλυαν̣ακ̣τ[ιδ]α . . [, 332.2 V Μύρσιλος, 348 V Φίττακον. Alcaeus was seemingly exiled twice or three times, on which Bowie, E. (2007) 32 42. ³ On the hetaireiae and the symposium in Alcaeus’ poetry, Rösler (1980) esp. 33 41; Caciagli (2011) 49 52 and 56 77 for a detailed discussion of the characteristics of hetaireia. ⁴ See Stehle (1997) 230 7.

28

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

the political sphere in Lesbos: the family of Myrsilus is mentioned in her 98b V (vv.7 Κλεανακτίδα̣[ν), and the Penthilidae, the family into which Pittacus married, are recalled in Sapph. 71 V (vv.3 Πενθιλήαν̣[).⁵ As a result, we only learn from other sources that she, too, was a Lesbian and that she spent most of her life in Mytilene.⁶ Her poems encompass a microcosm which involves female figures, amorous feelings and ephemeral pleasures, group activities and religious occasions, presumably weddings and symposia, and this microcosm was carefully defined by a geographical location that remains unidentifiable in her poems. Nevertheless, Lesbos still has a bearing on her poetry. In contrast to Alcaeus who places his poems prominently within the city’s external circumstances Sappho portrays the insider’s world of Mytilene. The Lesbian aura in the poems of both Sappho and Alcaeus suggests that their place of performance was in all probability the local environment of Lesbos, and both private and public occasions could be envisaged as potential performance scenarios for Sappho.⁷ A number of Sapphic fragments refer to a plurality of voices and to groups of women, which suggests that they might have been publicly performed by a chorus either at weddings or at local festivals. The same performance contexts are conceivable for those poems of Sappho which would be later classified as epithalamia or hymenaioi. In Sapph. 27 V, for example, the singing group states that they are going to a wedding, and they invite the bride-to-be, who was probably a member of the group, to sing along (vv.8 σ]τείχομεν γὰρ ἐς γάμον); the maidens are described as singing of their love towards the bride at night in Sapph. 30 V (vv.2–5 πάρθενοι δ[| παν νυχίσδοι̣[σ]α̣ι [̣ | σὰν ἀείδοισ̣[ι]ν ϕ[ιλότατα καὶ νύμ- | ϕας ἰοκόλπω); while the name of Ἄδωνις and the vocative κόραι in Sapph. 140 V could be taken as hints of a performance by a female chorus at the Adonia. Though we lack indicators in Sappho’s poems for performances for a closed circle, some of her poems, wherein a solo voice is prominent, might have been performed solo in private occasions, or at symposia, as we can conclude from fifth- and fourth-century sources.⁸ For both Sappho and Alcaeus Mytilene becomes a point of reference in their poetry in all its aspects—political, ritual, and social. ⁵ Apparently, Sappho was also exiled from Lesbos; cf. Sapph. 98b.8 V ϕύγασ̣† and the Marmor Parium (FGrHist IIB 239 A36). ⁶ e.g. Hdt. 2.135; Arist. Rh.1398b15 20; Str. 13.2.3, p. 617C Radt; Pollux IX.84.6 8 Bethe; Hermesian. F7.47 52 Powell; Ath. 10.424f8 425a2; Ael. VH 12.19 Dilts; cf. Suda s.v. Σαπϕώ (σ 107 Adler) on Eresus of Lesbos as the hometown of Sappho. ⁷ On Alcaeus and local contexts of performance, Yatromanolakis (2009) 206 14; on both Sappho and Alcaeus, Caciagli (2011). ⁸ On the performers of Sappho’s poetry, Lardinois (1996); Calame (1997) 210 14; Stehle (1997) 262 318; on the possibility of sympotic performances for Sappho’s poems either at their premiere or at re performances, Yatromanolakis (2009) 220 6; Schlesier (2013); see also Chapter 2 in this book: ‘Lyric Names for the Symposium’. The performative mode of a number of Sapphic fragments is discussed in Ferrari, F. (2010).

The World of Lyric: Local, Pan-Hellenic, and Athenian

29

Mytilene also becomes the performance location of their poetry at its initial performance. As a result, their compositions offer one of the best examples of poetry being composed by local lyric poets and performed locally within the geographical limits of Lesbos. Alcman and Stesichorus are also two lyric poets who obtained their poetic fame within a local context. Alcman established himself as a poet who composed and flourished exclusively in sixth-century Sparta acquiring thus a reputation that was strictly localized. His fame is also confirmed by our sources. A number of ancient sources declare that Alcman was established as a poet of choral poetry and as a didaskalos of choruses of maidens and youths in Sparta, and his Louvre partheneion affirms both this reputation and his poetic connection with Sparta (e.g. Alcm. 10(a).30–4 PMG; cf. AP 7.18.3–4). It seems, though, that our sources disagreed on his origin; he is often said to have been a Lydian.⁹ Alcman is the sole lyric poet in the canonical elegiac poem in the Pindaric scholia for whom two geographical locations are presented as equally important for his poetic status: he apparently came from Sparta (ἐστὶ καὶ ἐκ Σπάρτης), but he must also have had some sort of connection with the Lydians (ἐν Λυδοῖσι μέγα πρέπει).¹⁰ The poet who composed this poem is obviously aware of the dispute on this topic but insists on Alcman’s Spartan background. Although the Suda states that Crates, the librarian of Pergamum, was the first to have claimed that Alcman was a Lydian (Suda s.v. Ἄλκμαν, α 1289 Adler), the disagreement concerning Alcman’s area of origin is already evident in sources that can be dated earlier than the second century ; an ancient commentator points out that Aristotle and his school were misled by a specific word in one of Alcman’s poems, and thus concluded that he was of Lydian origin (P.Oxy. 24.2389, fr.9 col.i = PMG 13).¹¹ A number of Hellenistic epigrams also play with this double identity of Alcman and with his connection with two different geographical locations (e.g. AP 7.18, 7.19, 7.709). A Lydian background would eventually have turned Alcman into a foreigner (non-Spartan) and thus into an outsider. Even if we accept that the sources that testify to his Lydian origin transmit genuine information, the same sources seem to underline his reputation in Sparta. The renown that Alcman earned exclusively in Sparta turned him in effect into a Spartan poet, and tradition as well recognized him as Spartan. If nothing else, this fame positions him poetically and geographically at a specific geographical location, and it consequently localizes both him as a lyric poet and his work.

⁹ e.g. P.Oxy. 29.2506, fr.1(c) col.ii.30 45 (= Alcm. Test.5.30 4 Calame); Paus.3.15.2; Plu. Lyc.28.5.1 5; Aristid. Or.45.32.13. ¹⁰ The E manuscript in the scholia transmits μέτα. ¹¹ On P.Oxy. 24.2389, fr.9 col.i, see Chapter 4 in this book: ‘The “Lyric” Library of the Peripatos’.

30

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

Most notably, Alcman’s surviving fragments and testimonia provide substantial evidence of the involvement of female choruses in Spartan ritual cults, and contextualize his poems within the festival culture of Sparta in general. A fragmentary commentary, for example, dated in the first or second century  connects Alcman, his role as chorodidaskalos of female choruses at Sparta, and his partheneia with the Spartan festival of Hyakinthia (P.Oxy. 29.2506, fr.1(c) col.ii.1–20); according to Athenaeus, the Spartan antiquarian Sosibius stated that male choruses at the Gymnopaidiai sang and danced songs by Thaletas and Alcman, and paeans by Dionysodotus (Ath. 15.678b–c = FGrHist IIIB 595 F5); lastly, Statius mentions that Alcman’s songs were sung in Amyklai where choruses of parthenoi played an important role in rituals (Stat. Silv.5.3.153 tetricis Alcman cantatus Amyclis).¹² Despite the chronological distance of these sources from Alcman’s poetic activity, they all situate Alcman and his poetry geographically in Sparta and performatively in the cultic and festival calendar of the city where his fame was established. They also all attest to the recognition of Alcman’s songs as cultural heritage and to the preservation of that heritage through continuous re-performances in Sparta’s cults and festivals. Stesichorus was presumably also well known throughout his local region, where his work was plausibly performed by choruses at civic festivals.¹³ His poems bear no localized or local identity nor do they draw attention to the poet’s literary persona. This lack of explicit poetic links with the geographical and historical context creates difficulties in drawing conclusions on the identity of the poet and on the location of performance, even on the mode of performance. We merely learn from secondary sources that Stesichorus was a poet of the Greek West and that his hometown was Himera on the north coast of Sicily, while tradition associates him with a number of other cities in Sicily and South Italy—Metauros, Locri Epizephyrii, and Catane—and with tyrannical figures in the West.¹⁴ The mythological settings of his actual poetic narratives display good knowledge of the Peloponnese, and the totality of his poetry exhibits awareness of a broad poetic and mythological

¹² On the Hyakinthia, Pettersson (1992) ch. 1; Calame (1997) 174 85; Chaniotis (2011) 164 7 in ThesCRA; on the role of female choruses in different cults in Amyklai, which might also be mentioned in the fragmentary commentary (P.Oxy. 29.2506, fr.1(c) col.ii.8 = PMG 10.8 ταν Ἀμυκλα[), see Nobili (2014) 140 2. ¹³ Finglass (2014) 29 32 summarizes the scholarly views on the performance contexts of Stesichorus’ poetry. ¹⁴ On Himera and Metauros, see Ta10 15 Ercoles with discussion at pp. 259 75, where he suggests that Stesichorus was born in Metauros and moved to Himera, and Ta31, Ta33(i) Ercoles on Locri Epizephyrii. A number of sources connect Stesichorus with Phalaris and Gelon: Arist. Rh.1393b8 22; Conon FGrHist A 26.F1, 42; the dubious Epistles of Phalaris in Ta43 Ercoles. Apparently, Stesichorus was buried in Catane: AP 7.75; Phot. Lex. s.v. πάντα ὀκτώ (π 168 Theodoridis); Suda s.v. πάντα ὀκτώ (π 225 Adler); cf. Pollux IX.100.19 23 Bethe; Suet. Paed.1.20 2; Eust. ad Il.23.88, 1289.56 64 where Himera is named as Stesichorus’ resting place.

The World of Lyric: Local, Pan-Hellenic, and Athenian

31

Greek geography.¹⁵ Nevertheless, Stesichorus’ engagement with the mythology of the Greek world does not necessarily suggest that he was a wandering poet who travelled to Greece to compose or to have his poems performed.¹⁶ The presence of mythological material from the Greek mainland in Stesichorus’ poetry might be perceived as evidence of the existence of a fusion of epichoric and Hellenic consciousness in Magna Graecia, as Jonathan Hall points out.¹⁷ Given the lack of information, we cannot be certain that Stesichorus travelled beyond Sicily. Even so, the Marmor Parium records how Stesichorus arrived in Greece in 486/5 or 485/4  (FGrHist IIB 239 A50), a date that would synchronize him with Aeschylus’ first victory and with the birth of Euripides.¹⁸ Unless we assume that the name ‘Stesichorus’ on the stēlē implicitly refers to the introduction of Stesichorus’ poetry to the Athenian festival repertoire, as Ewen Bowie suggests, the Marmor Parium creates chronological impossibilities that reduce its credibility.¹⁹ Stesichorus is connected in other testimonia with certain lyric poets whose dates are otherwise confirmed. According to the Suda, Sappho was born in the period 612–19  when Alcaeus, Stesichorus, and Pittacus were alive, and Simonides, who was born either in the years 556–3  or in the years 532–29 , was younger than Stesichorus.²⁰ Stesichorus could nevertheless have been believed to have come to Greece either because of the knowledge of the geography of mainland Greece that is demonstrated in his poems or because it was expected that great poets of the West would also at some point in their career pass by Greece. It is, however, impossible to deduce with certainty whether poems of Stesichorus were composed to be initially performed in any of the geographical areas in mainland Greece his mythological narratives touch upon or even in sixth-century Athens, thus beyond Sicily and South Italy. Arguing from probability therefore Stesichorus was a lyric poet of the West who did not travel in order to compose or to have his poetry performed, who was aware and made use of the Greek poetic and mythological background, and who might have envisioned a pan-Hellenic audience for his work.

¹⁵ On the mythological range of Stesichorus’ poems, Finglass (2014) 32 9. ¹⁶ In agreement with Finglass (2014) 25, who, however, subtly suggests that we could assume from the lack of local deictic elements in Stesichorus’ poetry that Stesichorus travelled and performed his work around the Greek world (pp. 11, 23). ¹⁷ Hall, J. (2012) 31 2. ¹⁸ Cf. Marm.Par. FGrHist IIB 239 A73 on Stesichorus of Himera the Second and the Suda testimonium (s.v. Στησίχορος, σ 1095 Adler) on Stesichorus’ exile from Arcadian Pallantium, an inference made by the reference to Pallantium in his Geryoneis, according to Paus.8.3.2 (= S85 PMGF/21 Finglass). See Bowie, E. (2015) for a speculative presentation on how Stesichorus might at some point have been in Athens. ¹⁹ Bowie, E. (2015) 115 20. ²⁰ Suda s.v. Σαπϕώ (σ 107 Adler), s.v. Σιμωνίδης (σ 439 Adler); also Ta4 9 Ercoles.

32

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

The primary wandering lyric poets, Ibycus and Anacreon, travelled to perform and were invited to courts of tyrants where they spend a considerable amount of time.²¹ One cannot be absolutely certain how much Ibycus travelled and how much his travels were tied to his poetic activities or better how much he travelled in order to be given the chance to compose lyric songs. We can detect in Ibycus’ corpus references to locations and names of individuals which we can tie to specific locations: Leontini in Sicily (S220), Arethusa in Syracuse (PMG 323), perhaps also Ortygia (PMG 321), Sparta (S166), and the court of Polycrates in Samos (S151) feature within the geographical span of Ibycus’ mobile poetic activity.²² This is at least the conclusion we can draw from the surviving fragments. Himerius also reports how Ibycus had a road accident on his way from Himera to Catane plausibly en route to poetic patrons (Himer. Or.69.35, p.244 Colonna). His whereabouts, as one can judge from the overall nature of his extant poetry, were obviously tied to the nature of his poetry and to the purpose of his poetic compositions.²³ Ibycus’ surviving fragments provide evidence that he was first and foremost a praise poet, who might also have composed epinician odes (S166, S220), as John Barron proposes, while his poetic oeuvre presumably also included dithyrambic compositions (PMG 296).²⁴ Ibycus’ praise poetry offers no indications of its performative context, but we can make plausible assumptions on the performance occasions of his praise poetry based on the encomiastic poetry Pindar and Bacchylides composed for their tyrant patrons. Deictic markers in the extant fragments of Pindar and Bacchylides from such compositions contextualize the performance of their praise poetry within the frame of the symposium. In his enkōmia for both Alexander of Amyntas and Hieron, for example, Bacchylides mentions the symposiasts who are enjoying themselves and are presumably present at the poem’s performance (fr.20B.5 Maehler συμποσ[ίαι]σιν, fr.20C.6 Maehler συμπόταις ἄνδρεσσι); Pindar’s ²¹ On wandering poets, Hunter and Rutherford, I. (2009) with 17 19 on seven principal contexts in the frame of which poetic travelling occurred; on travelling poets in the archaic period, Bowie, E. (2009) esp. 135 6, who also classifies Alcaeus as a wandering poet, a suggestion which I would accept with scepticism. Apart from Alc. 129 and 130 V which Alcaeus composed in exile, as well as Alc. 325 and 327 V, based on which we could claim that he presumably visited Boeotia, the rest of Alcaeus’ poetry is exclusively localized in Lesbos. ²² Wilkinson (2013) 7 8 offers various interpretations of the role of Ibycus at the court of Polycrates. ²³ Scholars explored the context within which Ibycus travelled and the order in which he visited the cities he did, foregrounding the Chalcidian link with other Sicilian colonies and the close relationship between Sparta and Samos, on which Jeffery and Cartledge (1982); Barron (1984); the model of these scholars is also proposed in Bowie, E. (2009) 125; Bowra (1961) 246 suggested that Ibycus lived and wrote in Sicyon before he went to Samos, and his assumption is followed by Barron (1969) 137. ²⁴ Barron (1984) 20 2 suggested that S221 for the unknown Callias and PMG 323 could have celebrated victories at the Games; cf. Wilkinson (2013) 24 6, 35 for a summary of the arguments both in favour and against the proposal that Ibycus wrote epinician odes.

The World of Lyric: Local, Pan-Hellenic, and Athenian

33

enkōmion for Thrasybulus of Acragas is depicted as being performed during supper (fr.124a–b.2 M μεταδόρπιον), and wine accompanies the sound of the barbiton in Pindar’s enkōmion for Hieron (fr.124d M βαρβι[τί]ξ̣αι . . . ἐν οἴνῳ). The sympotic nature of many of their enkōmia conclusively points at the symposium as the performance context of praise songs in honour of rich patrons, a suggestion that can be extended to the songs Ibycus composed to praise his patrons. Anacreon of Teos was apparently present at the court of Polycrates of Samos too, which he presumably visited after Ibycus, and which he left for the court of Hipparchus the son of Peisistratus in Athens only after Polycrates’ murder.²⁵ No reference to Hipparchus or to Athens is detectable in Anacreon’s surviving poems, and we can only tentatively connect some of his fragments with the court of Polycrates in Samos. Nevertheless, Herodotus portrays him in one of the environments that literary sources have seen as typical for poetic patronage; Anacreon is depicted enjoying the hospitality of Polycrates, the luxury of his court, and the tyrant’s confidence. Οἱ δὲ ἐλάσσονες λέγουσι πέμψαι Ὀροίτεα ἐς Σάμον κήρυκα ὅτευ δὴ χρήματος δεησόμενον (οὐ γὰρ ὦν δὴ τοῦτό γε λέγεται), καὶ τὸν Πολυκράτεα τυχεῖν κατακείμενον ἐν ἀνδρεῶνι, παρεῖναι δέ οἱ καὶ Ἀνακρέοντα τὸν Τήιον Fewer report that Oroetes sent a messenger to Samos with some sort of request (it is not reported what exactly), and that so it happened that Polycrates was lying down in the banqueting hall in the company of whom was also Anacreon of Teos. Hdt. 3.121

The Herodotean passage may in all probability be the earliest (and only) source to have presented Anacreon at the court of Polycrates, and Herodotus may likely be the ultimate source of information for Anacreon’s poetic courtship with Polycrates, at least for other later sources that provide evidence for it. Herodotus may seemingly be in general the first to have portrayed a poet at the court of a tyrant. Although, as we shall see, fourth-century anecdotes often satirize the xenia these poets might have enjoyed at the tyrant’s court, and depict them as parasites by recalling the often monetary nature of their relationship, the above is the sole passage that crafts a visual and perhaps idealistic image of this type of patronage. It is also the only source that allows us to peep in Polycrates’ palace and literally see a poet at a tyrant’s court. Strabo states how Anacreon’s poetry was full of references to Polycrates, which may suggest that the poems themselves might have been the principal source of information for Herodotus (Str.14.1.16, p. 638C Radt). Still, no extant poetic fragments of Anacreon suggest a contact with Polycrates of Samos, and it is often only the context wherein other sources quote specific fragments ²⁵ Himerius Or.29.24 31, p. 132 Colonna = Anacr. 491 PMG; Hdt. 3.121; Paus. 1.2.3.6 10; Pl. Hipparch. [sp.] 228b c.

34

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

from his corpus that creates ad hoc a connection with Polycrates or with Samos.²⁶ Herodotus might in any case have been informed of Anacreon’s presence at the court of Polycrates by informants on Samos; he introduces Anacreon’s figure in the course of a digression which opens with an indicator that it was reported by the minority (οἱ δὲ ἐλάσσονες). Even so, various other sources dated later than Herodotus connect Anacreon with Polycrates: Himerius reports how Anacreon was invited to Samos by Polycrates’ father to act as tutor (διδάσκαλον) to his son who is presented as being possessed by ‘eros towards the art of the Muses’ (τῆς μουσικῆς ἔρωτα Or.29.26–8, p. 132 Colonna = Anacr.491 PMG),²⁷ Aelian reduces his role to that of a poet at court who would entertain Polycrates with his poems and satisfy the tyrant’s love for music (Ael. VH 9.4.1–3 Dilts), and several other sources record anecdotes about Anacreon’s monetary relationship with Polycrates and about their erotic rivalry for young boys.²⁸ These passages place the relationship between Anacreon and Polycrates within two frames. On the one hand the professional and financial frame wherein Anacreon appears as the court-poet who was presumably paid for his poetic compositions while being in residence in Samos, and on the other the socially competitive and intimate frame where Anacreon becomes involved in Polycrates’ erotic endeavours. Any picture of the relationship between the poet and the tyrant one might sketch needs to also accommodate the possibility that Anacreon stayed at the court of Polycrates not exclusively as a commissioned poet but also as a commissioned tutor, the role that is ascribed to him by Himerius. Such a conclusion does not necessarily alter the dynamics of Anacreon’s presence in Samos. It simply opens up the possibility to the suggestion that the poet, who might indeed have composed poetry at the court, might additionally have been paid for his didactic and musical skills rather than solely for his poetic and encomiastic compositions.²⁹ Testimonia that record Anacreon’s poetic career allow us therefore to conclude that Anacreon becomes the first known lyric poet from the Canon

²⁶ e.g. Anacr. 352 PMG in Ath. 15.671e f and 15.673d, PMG 353 in Σ Hom. Od.21.71, Di ii p. 698, and PMG 416 wherein a certain Megistes appears. ²⁷ Acosta Hughes (2010) 141n. 1 points out how Himerius might have been influenced by the Ptolemaic practice of a prominent poet serving as tutor to the palace. ²⁸ Later sources mention this professional and monetary relationship between Anacreon and Polycrates, often as an example of poetic patronage: Str.14.1.16, p. 638C Radt; Ael. VH 9.4, 12.25 Dilts; Paus.1.2.3.8; Himerius Or.29.22 31, p. 132 Colonna; Stob. Ecl.4, caput 31.91, p. 767 W H v who records an anecdote from Aristotle’s Chreia. Ath. 12.540d e; Stob. Ecl.4, caput 21.24, p. 491 W H iv = Anacr. 414 PMG; Ael. VH 9.4 Dilts refer to Polycrates’ erotic rivalry with Anacreon; Max.Tyr. 37.5f, p. 432 Hobein on how Anacreon’s poetry apparently had a soothing effect on the tyranny of Polycrates for the Samians. ²⁹ Cf. Poseidippus 9 AB on Polycrates as a tyrant at the company of a poet, on which Bastianini and Gallazzi (2001) 18 in their commentary to the editio princeps; Gutzwiller (2004) 87 and Bing (2005) 121 suggest that the poet is Anacreon.

The World of Lyric: Local, Pan-Hellenic, and Athenian

35

to wander thanks to his poetic status and not in order to enhance it through poetic commissions, as was presumably the case for Ibycus. Anacreon seems to have been invited to the court of Polycrates and to have been associated with political circles and grand families who attracted poets from abroad. He is thus portrayed as travelling by invitation. Just like Ibycus and perhaps also Simonides with whom Anacreon is linked in the Hipparchus, he, too, presumably praised his hosts and patrons.³⁰ The content of his poetry, especially the erotic and playful aura in his surviving fragments, demonstrates with high probability that Anacreon composed for symposia, where such erotic topics were often brought up for entertainment.³¹ His drinking and erotic songs define in any case his entry in the Suda (s.v. Ἀνάκρεων, α 1916 Adler). It is therefore possible that Anacreon was invited by his hosts to provide entertainment at sympotic gatherings and that his stays were not short.³² Both the passages from the Hipparchus and Herodotus suggest that he firstly spent quite some time at Polycrates’ court and that he was transferred to Hipparchus’ court only after he lost his patron. Anacreon seemingly jumped from patron to patron offering his poetic services, enjoying as well the hospitality of tyrants. Such attachment to tyrannical courts, where he composed and had his poetry performed, inevitably turns Anacreon into a court-poet. Simonides could also potentially be perceived as a court-poet. Fragments of his poetry can be used as evidence for his connection with grand families in Thessaly, Syracuse, and Athens, while late fifth- and fourth-century sources present him casually at the company of tyrannical figures. He apparently spent time with the Scopades and the Aleuadae, with Hieron of Syracuse and Pausanias in Sparta, and he was also at the court of Hipparchus in Athens.³³ He was therefore undeniably involved with tyrants in the West, including Anaxilas of Rhegium, powerful families in Thessaly, and political, if not tyrannical, figures in Athens and Sparta. Simonides might have been a court-poet like Anacreon who spent considerable time at a tyrannical court and received invitations by tyrants, or he might have been commissioned periodically by great families to offer his poetic services while also serving as an epinician poet. Regardless the way we may choose to describe his poetic

³⁰ Cf. Pl. Chrm.175e4 7 on the praise of the house of Critias son of Dropides, on which Chapter 3 in this book: ‘Awareness, Knowledge, and Recognition’. ³¹ On the topics that appear often in poetry for the symposium, Gentili (1988) 89 99; Hobden (2013) ch. 1. ³² Cf. Critias 88, B1.36 DK, where Anacreon is called ‘stimulus for symposia’ (συμποσίων ἐρέθισμα). ³³ e.g. Theocr. 16.34 47 with Σ 16.34 5a, p. 328, 44 Wendel; Pl. Hipparch. [sp.] 228b c; Ep.II [dub.] 311a1 4; Arist. [Ath.] 18.1 2; Chamaeleon fr.33 W²; Xenophon Hiero; Paus.1.2.3.6 10; cf. T2, T53, F7 epinikion, F273 epinikion?, F246, F247, F260 thrēnoi Poltera on Simonides’ connection with the families of Antiochus and Scopas of Thessaly for which he composed poetry.

36

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

career, later tradition still crafted anecdotal stories, and often ridiculed Simonides’ presence at such environments, particularly his presence in tyrannical courts.³⁴ Another strand of the tradition turned Simonides into an example of the poet mediator at times of turbulence. Timaeus, Diodorus Siculus, and the Pindaric scholia inform us of a number of controversies between the two tyrannical clans in Sicily in the years 480–70 , which involved, among others, the rivalry between Hieron and Polyzelus, Hieron’s intention to attack Acragas where his brother Polyzelus found refuge with Theron, the battle of Himera and Hieron’s deceiving role against the Himerians, and Hieron warning Theron of a plot against him that was organized by his cousins (Timae. IIIB 566 F93b FGrHist; D.S.11.48–9; Σ Pi. O.2.29b–d, Dr. i, pp. 67–70). These troubles are alluded to in Pindar’s Olympian 2 for Theron of Acragas (τῶν δὲ πεπραγμένων), and in the course of his explanation the Pindaric scholiast refers to Timaeus’ report that Simonides the lyric poet reconciled the kings’ quarrel (Σ O.2.29d.18–20, Dr. i, p. 69), and singles out Simonides as the one who acted as the conciliator to the conflict between Theron and his brothers (Σ O.2.29c.10, Dr. i, p. 68). This story demonstrates that poets who were close to the tyrannical court could assume the role of the intermediary at times of political turmoil, revealing as a result the confidence upon which the relationship between poet and tyrant was presumably built. Anacreon himself is portrayed in Herodotus enjoying casually Polycrates’ company at his court, and the entire scene suggests that he had gained his patron’s trust. Such depictions do not necessarily change the status of the lyric poet who was in all probability invited to the court to provide his poetic services. They simply add a more personal touch to the relationship between poet and patron, suggesting that the poet’s presence at the court might indeed have been long and the length of its stay might also have helped in developing a relationship that was not merely professional.

Poetic Pan-Hellenism and Pan-Hellenic Poets Simonides, Pindar, and Bacchylides mark the era of poetic pan-Hellenism. All three of them operated roughly in the same broad geographical and generic space, they covered a vast geography, celebrated a number of communities, and praised patrons from different ethnic backgrounds. These three axes define their poetic statuses and personae, while they reveal the complexities of poetic professionalism. A complete picture of the career and activities of Simonides, Pindar, and Bacchylides can help us make sense of the distribution ³⁴ On the caricature Simonides, see Chapters 2 and 4 in this book.

The World of Lyric: Local, Pan-Hellenic, and Athenian

37

of commissioned melic poetry in the sixth and fifth century , and also outline the geographical range through which a mobile and professional lyric poet moved and worked. A comparative study of the dispensation of commissions of these poets will additionally give us a sense both of the larger international context in which they operated and of the individual needs and aims of patrons and states. I thus begin with their private commissions (i.e. epinician odes, enkōmia, thrēnoi, and hyporchēmata in honour of individual patrons). A careful look at the poetic geography of each of these poets reveals similarities as well as differences. It immediately becomes obvious that Simonides’ commissions centred predominantly in Thessaly, Central Greece, and the Peloponnese, while his geographical span also reaches Rhodes, Sicily, and South Italy. Pindar’s private commissions concentrated mainly in Sicily, Aegina, Central Greece, and the eastern Greek islands, and are also supplemented by scattered commissions in the area between Athens, the north-east Peloponnese, Thessaly, and Cyrene. Bacchylides seems to have moved mostly in Ceos, Athens, Syracuse, and the Peloponnese, and both Pindar and Bacchylides served patrons in Thessaly, Macedon, and South Italy. Sources also suggest that Simonides had connections with Aegina: Aristophanes hints at Simonides’ poem for the Aeginetan Krios (Ar. Nu.1355–6); the Pindaric scholia refer to a Simonidean epigram celebrating the victory of Sogenes in Aegina, for whom Pindar composed Nemean 7 (Σ Pi. N.7.1a, Dr. iii, pp. 116–17); and the Planudean Anthology ascribes to Simonides a poem commemorating the victory of Theognetus, apparently the grandfather of Aristomenes of Aegina, whom Pindar praises in his Pythian 8 (APl. 2/FGE 30).³⁵ A number of patterns become discernible from the extant poetry of these three poets. With reference to the number of patrons and commissions both Pindar and Bacchylides received in mainland Greece, obvious differences reflect the poets’ home regions—Ceos is particularly favoured by Bacchylides and Thebes by Pindar, Bacchylides lacked east Greek commissions in comparison to Pindar—whereas Simonides concentrated in particular in Thessaly and, as far as our evidence allows us to conclude, he did not compose for his native island Ceos. Pindar seems to be taking the lead in the commissioning race in geographical locations beyond mainland Greece. He appears to be especially favoured in Sicily, where he is hired repeatedly in Syracuse, Acragas, and in cities under the control of the dynasties of the Deinomenids and the Emmenids, while he also composed for patrons in Cyrene. The overall picture of the spread of private commissions of these three poets in Greece, Magna Graecia, and Lybia shows the predominance of important and tyrannical ³⁵ Page on FGE 30: FGE p. 244; Molyneux (1992) 87 95 expresses scepticism in ascribing the two epigrams to Simonides; on the ode to Krios and its possible political reading, Page (1951); Molyneux (1992) 47 54; Rawles (2013) 183 90.

38

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

figures in the commissioning process: the Deinomenids and Emmenids in Sicily—Hieron of Syracuse and Gela, Theron and Thrasybulus of Acragas— Arcesilaus of Cyrene from the Battiad dynasty; Alexander of Amyntas in Macedon; the Oligaethidae in Corinth; the Scopades in Thessaly; and the Aleuadae in Larissa. The prominence of Aegina in Pindar’s epinician corpus and of the Nemean Games in Aegina demonstrates additionally that a possible epichoric tradition in preparing for and participating in the Games, in this case the Nemean Games, might also need to be taken into account.³⁶ Lack of a complete poetic corpus for all three poets limits our understanding of the commissioning process that led to the composition and performance of epinician odes and of other private commissions. Catherine Morgan has demonstrated such a limitation. In her study on the agōn between cities to bestow poetic patronage, Morgan compares the epinician odes that were composed by both Pindar and Bacchylides. Her research shows that in conjunction with the victory lists only few and specific states from among those providing victors at the Games commissioned victory odes.³⁷ Thessaly was apparently the region with the most victors, and yet we possess only a small sample of epinician poetry: fragments of Simonides and testimonia on how he composed victory odes for important families in Thessaly, a single composition by Pindar, and two odes by Bacchylides for Thessalian victors.³⁸ Such shortcomings are essential to bear in mind in any attempt to understand the overall picture of epinician commissioning. They clearly indicate that although Simonides, Pindar, and Bacchylides were the epinician and panHellenic poets par excellence at the time, they were apparently not the sole epinician poets available to victors for commissioning. Local poets, whose works did not survive, possibly composed a number of victory odes in a local context. One would be interested in understanding how patrons chose their encomiastic and epinician poets, especially in the cases of Pindar and Bacchylides who were poetically active at approximately the same chronological period. Undeniably, fame and poetic prestige played a major role in the commissioning of any poet, especially when the patron concerned was a highly esteemed political figure, a tyrant, or a member of an elite family. The more famous ³⁶ Pindar’s eleven odes for Aeginetan victors have drawn much attention in scholarship; very selectively, Burnett (2005); Hornblower (2007); Morrison (2011); the edited volume by Fearn (2011); Pavlou (2015). ³⁷ Morgan, C. (2007) 216 17 with diagrams 1 (p. 217) and 2 (p. 220). The numbers in diagram 1 are, however, incorrect: Pindar composed two victory odes for Central Greece, sixteen for Sicily/South Italy, and twelve odes for Aegina. Bacchylides’ three epinician poems for Sicily/ South Italy and the one for Athens are not included in the diagram. He also composed five victory odes for Ceos. Similar issues with numbers are also found in diagram 2. ³⁸ Simonides: T2 and T53 Poltera, PMG 511/F7 Poltera, PMG 564/F273 Poltera, which Poltera assumes was probably part of the Thessalian epinician; Pindar’s Pythian 10; Bacchylides 14 and 14B, the first of which is for the local festival Petraia; cf. Πετραίῳ in Simonides’ 519 fr.148 PMG/F35 Poltera, which Poltera takes as epinician fragment.

The World of Lyric: Local, Pan-Hellenic, and Athenian

39

was the poet, the more prestigious would be the poem, and the more glamorously would the patron be celebrated. With reference specifically to epinician poems, other criteria could also have played a role, at least in mainland Greece, where an athletic victory bestowed kleos not only on the individual victor but also on his celebrated community. The work of Catherine Morgan also shows how the Crown Games reveal the conflicts and uncertainties of the early fifth century. Peloponnesian cities which sponsored major festivals and were hostile to each other were apparently the regions mostly involved in athletics. Morgan’s focus is mainly Argos and Corinth, and her work demonstrates that these poleis used the Crown Games in order to assert their status in the region, which inevitably incorporated athletics into a sphere of political rivalry.³⁹ Such a politicized view of the Games could function as one of the frameworks within which the very act of commissioning, composing, and performing epinician poetry could be interpreted. The whole process played an important role within the wider context of victory and status commemoration, which could go beyond the figure of the individual victor and could promote a state agenda. Under such circumstances the political interests of the polis correlated with both the victory and the commissioned epinician song, which was eventually turned into the vehicle of self-definition and of statedemonstration. The realization of the victory ode in a public choral performance before the community audience at multiple contexts of performance additionally marks the political dimension of the epinician as a form of propaganda.⁴⁰ Similar dynamics should also be assumed for those encomiastic poems, be that victory odes, enkōmia, or other praising songs, which were commissioned by individuals in Sicily and South Italy. The very participation in the Crown Games of individuals from Greek colonies in Sicily and South Italy was a strong statement of their Greekness. Their commemoration in song was an even more enduring means of remembrance, and the commissioning of a renowned lyric poet from mainland Greece was an even stronger statement of their Greek identity. Autocrats and elite patrons of Greek poets in colonial cities in Sicily, South Italy, and Cyrene, and the rulers in Macedon sought to sustain ties with mainland Greece and to subscribe to the values of the Greek elite by commissioning epinician poems, enkōmia, and other poems for praise.⁴¹ Hieron of Syracuse attracted musical and intellectual experts to his court and promoted the Greek musical culture,⁴² and Alexander of Amyntas ³⁹ Morgan, C. (2007) 261. ⁴⁰ The possible performance venues of the victory odes continue to be discussed in scholar ship; see, among others, Krummen (1990); Currie (2004) 63 4; Burnett (2005) 6 8; Carey (2007b); Kowalzig (2007) 268, 274; Currie (2011) 277; Athanassaki (2012); Ferrari, F. (2012); on the symposium as performance context for Pindar’s epinicians for autocrats in Sicily and Cyrene, Athanassaki (2016) with further bibliography. ⁴¹ Hornblower and Morgan (2007) 3 12. ⁴² See Arnson Svarlien (1991); Morgan, K. (2015) 87 109.

40

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

apparently also encouraged lyric writers to visit his court (Solin.9.13–14), a gesture that, coupled with the demonstration of his Greek identity in order to participate in the Olympic Games (Hdt. 5.22), can be interpreted within the cultural policy of tyrants to transfer features of Greek culture to their court.⁴³ Simonides, Pindar, and Bacchylides were very much linked to the Greek values these patrons wanted to demonstrate and advertise. It is through this Greek aura of their compositions in combination with the aim of these elite to promote their Greek identity that the pan-Hellenic character of their poetry is defined. Moving from individuals to communities, the civic commissions of Simonides, Pindar, and Bacchylides can be seen as additional pieces of evidence in favour of the conclusion that the three poets were recognized as stellar lyric poets in Greece. Their commissions of paeans, dithyrambs, prosodia, and partheneia are more concentrated in geographical terms in comparison to their private compositions; they are all restricted within mainland Greece. Pindar, as his surviving fragments suggest, was commissioned by Thebes, Abdera, Ceos, Athens, Delphi, Naxos, Aegina, Sparta, and Argos to compose paeans and dithyrambs that were performed at local sanctuaries, at Delos and Delphi, or at festivals with dithyrambic competitions in Athens.⁴⁴ Bacchylides’ dithyrambic corpus includes commissions by his native Ceos, Sparta, and Athens, whereas his only substantial paean, which was probably commissioned by Argos, was meant for performance at the sanctuary of Apollo Pythaeus in Asine (ffr.22+4 Maehler).⁴⁵ Unfortunately, we can draw only tentative conclusions from the scarce fragments of Simonides’ paeans, dithyrambs, and hymns concerning his commissioning communities.⁴⁶ Nevertheless, testimonia reveal that Simonides participated frequently in Athenian dithyrambic competitions and that he ⁴³ Enkōmia or other private commissions in honour of individuals beyond mainland Greece based on the extant poetic corpus: Theron of Acragas (Pi. O.2, O.3, frr.118 19 M enkōmion), Thrasybulus of Acragas (Pi. fr.124a b M enkōmion), Hieron of Syracuse (Pi. O.1, P.1, P.2, P.3, fr.105 M hyporchēma, frr.124d 6 M enkōmion; B.3 and 5, fr.20C Maehler enkōmion), and Alexander of Amyntas of Macedon (Pi. frr.120 1 M; B. fr.20A Maehler enkōmion). ⁴⁴ Conclusions drawn from Pindaric fragments, at times tentative, due to the nature of evidence. All references are in M. Thebes: Hymn 1 in honour of Zeus, Paeans 1 and 7 and fr.66, Dithyramb fr.71, Dith.2, Hyporchēma frr.109 10, Partheneia 1 (?), 2 and fr.94c assuming that the last two were not privately commissioned; Abdera: Paean 2; Ceos: Paean 4; Athens: Paean 5, Dithyrambs frr.74a 7; Delphi: Paeans 6 and 8 (?); Naxos: Paean 12; Aegina: Paean 15 and Prosodion fr.89b; Sparta: Hyporchēma fr.112; Argos: Dith.1. ⁴⁵ Barrett (1954) 438 assumes that the ode was composed for Troizen; see Kowalzig (2007) 129 60 on Apollo Pythaeus at Asine, the relationship between Asine and Argos, and for a detailed analysis of Bacchylides’ paean. ⁴⁶ Simonides possibly composed paeans for the Athenians (PMG 519, fr.35(b).1 10/F100 Poltera), for Andros (PMG 519, fr.35(b).11 12/F101 Poltera), for the Careians (PMG 519, fr.32/ F102 Poltera); PMG 519, fr.62(a).(b)/F164 Poltera and PMG 519, fr.134/F211 Poltera might belong either to paeans or epinicians composed for Athenians or Spartans respectively. Εὐρώπα PMG 562/F253 Poltera and Μέμνων PMG 539/F351 Poltera were probably dithyrambic compositions.

The World of Lyric: Local, Pan-Hellenic, and Athenian

41

was the lyric poet whose name was attached to a number of epigrams that commemorated the Persian Wars, a reputation that might presumably have been initiated by his enkōmion on the dead at Thermopylae.⁴⁷ Although of a different nature and function, the epigrams and epitaphs that have been ascribed to Simonides can also be included in this list with civic and public commissions. Similarly to the dynamics projected through public performances of civic commissioned poetry, they, too, demonstrate a public identity which the community itself promoted. Moreover, the publication of fragments of Simonides’ elegy on the Battle of Plataea confirmed the statements in secondary sources that Simonides also wrote poems on the sea-battles at Artemisium and Salamis.⁴⁸ The occasion of the first performance of these three naval poems and the question of patronage are problematic issues. If the Plataea elegy can be taken as an exemplar for the length, structure, and rhetoric of the other two poems on naumachiae, a public performance at a solemn occasion, possibly a major religious or political event, could be envisaged as its performative context. One could suppose an Athenian performance for the poems on Artemisium and Salamis, since Athens, the leading city-state of the Delian League, might also have been the commissioning city. On the other hand, Simonides’ Plataea elegy could in all probability have been commissioned by Spartans or by Pausanias himself and thus performed at Sparta. This view can be supported not only by the practical information we possess on the battle—the large force Sparta assembled for the battle at Plataea, and Pausanias’ position as commander in chief—but also by the rhetoric of praise in the elegy itself, where the narrative slowly zooms-in and turns the focus from Greece and Sparta to Pausanias.⁴⁹ It is, however, plausible that a major event at a pan-Hellenic venue was the occasion not only for the Plataea elegy, wherein a number of poleis were celebrated, but also for Simonides’ poems on the two naumachiae.⁵⁰ They all mark an event that was of pan-Hellenic importance.

⁴⁷ AP 6.213/‘Simonides’ 27 FGE on Simonides’ numerous victories with choruses, on which Page FGE ad loc; Molyneux (1992) 102 4; ‘Simonides’ 11 FGE on the Corinthians who died in Salamis; ‘Simonides’ 16, 20, 22 (a), 22 (b) FGE; on these epigrams see the commentary in Page FGE ad loc and Petrovic (2007) ad Ep. 3, 4, 6, 10, and 11 respectively; F261 Poltera/PMG 531 on Simonides’ poem on the battle at Thermopylae. ⁴⁸ Simonides’ elegy for Plataea (eleg.10 8 IEG²), PMG 532/T3 Poltera = Suda s.v. Σιμωνίδης (σ 439 Adler) on his naumachiae; PMG 533/F249 Poltera; PMG 535+SLG p.157/F251 Poltera; PMG 536/F252 Poltera. ⁴⁹ Aloni (2001) 102 4; Morgan, K. (2015) 148 50. ⁵⁰ Given that we only possess the Plataea elegy, scholars focused exclusively on possible performance venues for that poem: see Rutherford, I. (2001a) 40 1 who reviews concisely the suggestions made in scholarship on the performance locations for the Plataea elegy; Aloni (2001) 95 102 who focuses on the proem to suggest that the original occasion of the elegy’s perform ance was an event commemorating the battle at Plataea.

42

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

This overview of the civic commissions of Simonides, Pindar, and Bacchylides reveals that Sicily and South Italy, though prominent in epinician commissions, are absent from the commissioning communities of civic poetry. Such a revelation comes as a surprise, given the fact that western colonies and their tyrants invested greatly in material monuments at pan-Hellenic sanctuaries to celebrate athletic and military victories.⁵¹ To this absence contributed presumably the political resonance Delos and Delphi had acquired within the frame of the Delian League and the Delphic Amphictyony, and the purpose for which these three Greek poets were commissioned by cities in Magna Graecia, predominantly by its monarchs. Kathryn Morgan has recently demonstrated how Pindar’s songs for the Syracusan tyrants, particularly for Hieron, were instrumental to the promotion of the tyrant’s self-image and how they fitted into the politics of Deinomenid self-representation both at home and abroad.⁵² To be sure, the tyrant embodied his city at the athletic contests. At the celebrations of such triumphs, however, despite their symbolic integration into a broader Greek conception of authority and identity, focus always fell on the personal image of the tyrant and on his dynastic power.⁵³ Choral performances at pan-Hellenic sanctuaries, such as Delphi and Delos, rather projected a civic identity, and the performance itself was consequently turned into the vehicle of communal self-identification.⁵⁴ Such a promotion of collective social values and equality, which a civic performance would have portrayed, would have unavoidably acquired a sense of communality that would not have conformed to tyrannical regimes. Ian Rutherford draws attention to the political background of participations in such major festival networks at sanctuaries, and specifies how sending theoric delegations to a common sanctuary was associated with the polis, a distinctively Greek institution.⁵⁵ On the contrary, commissions by tyrannical families in Sicily and South Italy were predominantly, if not exclusively, persona oriented commissions; they celebrated the achievements and the megaloprepeia of one single individual who was not concerned with being integrated into a wider citizen body, as Morgan has demonstrated.⁵⁶

⁵¹ On Hieron’s dedications at Delphi, Scott, M. (2010) 89 90; on Gelon’s dedication for his victory at Himera and the Plataean victory monument, Harrell (2006) 127 8; also Harrell (2002) for a comparison of the portrayal of tyrannical figures in epinician poetry with their commem oration on dedicatory monuments; Antonaccio (2007) points out that dedications at sanctuaries promoted the tyrannical claims of a hybrid identity. ⁵² Morgan, K. (2015) 23 with further bibliography. ⁵³ See the detailed analysis of odes composed for the Sicilian monarchs by Pindar and Bacchylides in Morgan, K. (2015). ⁵⁴ Rutherford, I. (2004) 69. ⁵⁵ Rutherford, I. (2013) 273. ⁵⁶ Morgan, K. (2015) 22; see Paus.6.19.7 where dedications at Olympia are mentioned as being made separately by Gelon and the Syracusans, which suggests that at times the collective community was commemorated separately from the tyrannical figure.

The World of Lyric: Local, Pan-Hellenic, and Athenian

43

Apart from the specifics the above analysis has shown first and foremost that the status of the poet changes gradually in the sixth and fifth century . The lyric poet himself carries the prestige which he adds and transfers to the patrons he composes for. This implies that Simonides, Pindar, and Bacchylides had already become recognized as important poetic figures, and this recognition led to their numerous poetic commissions in Greece, Magna Graecia, Macedon, and Libya. The commissioning process itself, the fact that these poets are now approached and hired by the elite and by a number of communities is strong enough evidence in favour of the assumption that they had acquired international fame before their being commissioned by new patrons.⁵⁷ Such scenery does not exclude fame at a local level, as we can judge from the Theban and Cean commissions of Pindar and Bacchylides. Apart from these local commissions these lyric poets do not work exclusively within their own local tradition, however. Pindar, Simonides, and Bacchylides become and remain outsiders, as their status is mainly defined by them being foreigners to the community for which they compose. In this sense, they are all detached from any local tradition, and this consequently allows them to move from community to community and from patron to patron. The character of both their poetic persona and their compositions is thus inevitably determined by their whereabouts in the Greek world and by their numerous compositions for various patrons and communities. Such a geographically diverse poetic corpus makes Simonides, Pindar, and Bacchylides pan-Hellenic poets, and attaches to their compositions as well a pan-Hellenic flavour.⁵⁸ It is not only their poetic geography that turns their poetry into pan-Hellenic, however. It is predominantly their presence in the Greek West and the correlation of their compositions with questions of Greek identity that adds to their poetry a panHellenic character. In such a framework and given the political significance that these kinds of poems often carried, the most suitable composers were poets who operated outside and beyond local restrictions. The above contextualization of lyric poetry in the environment wherein it was commissioned, composed, and performed reveals the generically and geographically diverse character of the lyric corpus of the canonical poets, which ultimately demonstrates the complexity of the phenomenon of lyric canonization. Initially and at a first level this sort of complexity derives from the broad geographical spectrum which the figures of these lyric poets covered by being natives of different locations throughout Greece and Magna Graecia. The picture becomes even broader and more complex when we take into ⁵⁷ Pelliccia (2009) 245 7 and Bowie, E. (2012) take a sceptical view on the monetary relationship between poet and patron; Morgan, K. (2015) 115 17 points out that ‘we are faced with the task of evaluating a certain rhetoric and its constitutive tone’ (p. 117), raising thus the dangers of drawing realistic conclusions from poetic rhetoric. ⁵⁸ D’Alessio (2009) analyses the construction and articulation of local identities in Greek lyric poetry through the compositions of non local lyric poets.

44

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

account the mobility of a number of lyric poets and the geographical span their compositions covered. Canonization implicitly states recognition and we should perhaps see a coexistence of the local and the pan-Hellenic at this stage and necessarily a correlation between the two, at least at a later stage, in order to get a clearer picture of the canonizing process. One should perhaps understand this process in causal and temporal terms. During the song’s composition and performance the recognizable status of the poet might in all probability have already been at work, at least at a local level, while the poet’s fame slowly evolved and eventually received a wider pan-Hellenic acceptance. Such recognition and acceptance at a broader level and beyond local restrictions depended primarily on this original localization of both poet and poetry. This would be especially at force for Sappho, Alcaeus, and Alcman, perhaps also for Stesichorus. To a certain degree the esteem that the poet enjoyed locally within his hometown and the surrounding areas would have contributed to achieving wider and non-geographically defined fame. Similar dynamics might also be at work for wandering and pan-Hellenic lyric poets. As already emphasized, the status and renown of the invited or commissioned poet played a vital role in the commissioning process and in possible invitations by tyrants. The biggest question in this case is the process through which the commissioned or invited poet acquired this broadly recognized status, which was apparently already well established initially at a local level, as mentioned above. It also emerges that the nine poets of the Lyric Canon moved within a frame that involved powerful rulers who promoted cultural activities and cities or islands with rich musical traditions which attracted poets and musicians, a conclusion that the next section on Athens will strengthen. Anacreon and Ibycus attach themselves to Polycrates of Samos and Hipparchus in Athens; Simonides, Pindar, and Bacchylides are commissioned by prestigious families and tyrants, and are associated with a number of political figures; Alcman flourished in the thriving musical culture of sixth-century Sparta, which, based on Hellanicus’ Karnean Victors, attracted a number of famous Lesbian musicians; Sappho and Alcaeus compose within a well-known local Lesbian tradition of song-making and of kitharōdia;⁵⁹ lastly, Stesichorus and Ibycus are only two examples from the rich poetic culture of Sicily and South Italy.⁶⁰ We can additionally deduce from the poetic corpora of Simonides, Pindar, and Bacchylides that movements of songs and poets often depended on markets, and markets themselves were shaped by the environment which created them. The latter is particularly obvious in the compositions of victory odes. Without the Crown Games no such poems would have been commissioned nor composed, and without the pan-Hellenic character and importance of these ⁵⁹ On the Lesbian tradition of kitharōdia and Hellanicus’ Karneian Victors, Franklin (2012). ⁶⁰ See Morgan, K. (2012).

The World of Lyric: Local, Pan-Hellenic, and Athenian

45

Games, these poets would not have had composed for patrons in Magna Graecia. Lastly, the picture drawn above has shown how at its time of composition and performance lyric song is located at a specified time and space, and it migrates only by being attached to the poet himself. It is thus restricted within a local context when the lyric poets are exclusively local, and it travels at first only when the poet himself travels. As it will be demonstrated in the course of the monograph, after its first performance lyric song travels without requiring the physical presence of the poet. At times it travels independently, at times it attaches itself to the name of a lyric poet.

THE WORLD OF ‘ ATHENIAN’ LYRIC With the exception of the presence of Anacreon and Simonides at the court of Hipparchus and of some epinician and civic poems that were composed for Athenians by Pindar and Bacchylides, Athens has been barely touched upon in the previous section. This is to be expected, since, as the analysis has shown, no canonical lyric poet came from Athens. Unless we accept that the city produced minor lyric poets whose work did not survive, Athens was no habitat to local Athenian lyric poetry, a statement that is still valid even with the presence of Solon and his elegian poems. It is, however, the city which in the fifth century  gave rise to a very dynamic and vibrant culture of performance of lyric song. Numerous Athenian festivals were occasions for agonistic performances with kyklioi khoroi and for dithyrambic competitions, which generated as a result an enormous market for choral song.⁶¹ Athens’ development as a cultural centre was linked with the growth of Athenian power and wealth, and these festivals celebrated and manifested Athenian culture and civic identity.⁶² Their often exclusive Athenian character demonstrated an increasing ‘Athenian self-consciousness and confidence at home’, to quote Russell Meiggs, and a corresponding increase of the importance of Athens in the Greek world during the fifth century.⁶³ Thus, poetically and performatively dithyrambic performances in such a vibrant cultural context displayed prestige and recognition. The collective and exclusive participation of Athenian citizens in these agōnes were a means through which the community itself was represented, and the phyletic structure of these musical ⁶¹ Tribal dithyrambic choruses were presumably performed at the Dionysia, the Thargelia where the khorēgos represented two tribes, the Prometheia, the Hephaesteia, and probably also the Panathenaea. Generally on the Athenian festivals, see ThesCRA. ⁶² Meiggs (1972) 273. ⁶³ Quotation from Mills (1997) 25; on Athens’ increasing significance in the fifth century, Meiggs (1972) 45, 292, who notes how ‘the presence of the allies gave the Dionysia an Imperial flavour’ (p. 290); see Isoc.8.82 on tribute display at the Dionysia, with Meiggs (1972) 433 4.

46

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

competitions demonstrated a combined focus on Athenian unity and on phyletic distinctiveness. Culturally and politically therefore choral and communal performances celebrated both the collective distinct Athenian identity and the unique phyletic identity of the winning tribe. Consequently, distinguished non-Athenian lyric poets were asked to operate for both the inclusive Athenian and the exclusive tribal character of these festivals. This section will sketch the picture of ‘Athenian’ lyric, as painted in our surviving sources. Several epigrams, for example, celebrate Simonides’ success with dithyrambic choruses, some of which might plausibly have been performed in Athens (AP 6.213/FGE 27; FGE 28). Pindar and Bacchylides composed epinician odes for two Athenians (Pythian 7 and B.10), while they both participated in competitions with kyklioi khoroi within the context of Athenian festivals: Pindar probably participated twice in Athens with his frr.74a–7 M and presumably also with a lost to us third victorious dithyramb in 497/6 or 496/5  (P.Oxy. 26.2438.8–10), and three of Bacchylides’ almost complete dithyrambs seem to have been performed at Athenian festivals (Odes 15, 18, and 19).⁶⁴ Another set of Athenian performances were the songs performed by theoric khoroi that Athens sent to pan-Hellenic sanctuaries, and it seems that Simonides and Pindar composed paeans performed by Athenians on Delos (Simon. 519, fr.35b.1–10 PMG/F100–1 Poltera and Pi. Pa.4). Some of the questions that will be raised here concern the participation of non-Athenian lyric poets in Athenian festivals and inevitably the commissioning process of lyric poets in Athens and for Athens. The engagement of these poets in Athenian performances did not involve exclusively performances of lyric songs in the city itself but it also involved performances of songs sent by Athens as expressions of theōria. At times discussion will be speculative due to lack of secure evidence for the manner in which lyric poets were chosen either as representatives of Athenian tribes or as the poets commissioned to compose Athenian theoric songs.⁶⁵

Importing Lyric Poets This section will inevitably concentrate on the lyric poets who served as dithyrambists or as kykliodidaskaloi in Athens, but it is important to ⁶⁴ A number of Athenian festivals have been proposed as plausible performance contexts for Bacchylides’ civic poems. Ode 15: Zimmermann (1992) 69, Maehler (2004b) 157 8, and Fearn (2007) 237 propose a performance at the Panathenaea; Zimmermann (1993) 49 50 raises the possibility for a performance at the Great Dionysia, the Thargelia, or the Panathenaea. Ode 18: Webster (1970) 102 assumes that the ode was performed at the Thargelia; Maehler (2004b) 189 91 follows Barron (1980) and asserts that the ode was probably performed at the Panathe naea of 458 . Ode 19: Fearn (2007) 237 points out how the reference to Dionysius in the poem hints at a performance at the City Dionysia. ⁶⁵ On the status of the dithyrambic poet in the city of Athens, Ieranò (2013).

The World of Lyric: Local, Pan-Hellenic, and Athenian

47

acknowledge firstly the evidence we possess for the presence of lyric poets in Athens before the boom of dithyrambic competitions and of performances with kyklioi khoroi in Athenian festivals. Such competitions were established in Athens by c.509 , while kyklioi khoroi probably danced and sang at both the Lesser and the Great Panathenaea by the later fifth century (cf. Lys.21.2). Similarly to the structure of the dithyrambic competitions at the Dionysia, choral performances at the Panathenaea were in all probability also tribal.⁶⁶ The introduction and establishment of choral performances at both the Dionysia and the Panathenaea falls chronologically within Kleisthenes’ restructuring of the Athenian society in the closing decade of the sixth century and of his reorganization of the Athenian citizens in ten phylai (508/7 ).⁶⁷ This sequential order indicates that such performances were presumably closely tied to the democratic reformation of the Athenian constitution. The period before the reorganization of these festivals is, nevertheless, similarly significant. It is likely that the record on the Marmor Parium on the first dithyrambs that were sang by a chorus in Athens in 510/9 or 509/8  refers to the first dithyrambic victory at the Dionysia as a festival distinct from the poetic contests arranged by tyrants (FGrHist IIB 239 A46).⁶⁸ Such a conclusion can be conclusively drawn from the evidence we possess for the literary policy of the Peisistratids, whereby Peisistratus and Hipparchus instituted poetic agōnes, Peisistratus edited the text of Homer, and Hipparchus, a well-known patron of poets, established rhapsodic performances of Homer at the Panathenaea.⁶⁹ The literary policy of the Peisistratids is of utter importance in an attempt to understand the gradual development of Athens as a city of culture. For the purposes of the present discussion Hipparchus’ poetic patronage takes priority. We learn in the Hipparchus that Anacreon and Simonides were brought to Athens by Hipparchus himself, a statement that is repeated in the Athenaiōn Politeia. The passage from the Hipparchus gives indications of the environment in which lyric poets might have moved within Athens.⁷⁰ ΣΩ. Πολίτῃ μὲν ἐμῷ τε καὶ σῷ, Πεισιστράτου δὲ ὑεῖ τοῦ ἐκ Φιλαϊδῶν, Ἱππάρχῳ, ὃς τῶν Πεισιστράτου παίδων ἦν πρεσβύτατος καὶ σοϕώτατος, ὃς ἄλλα τε πολλὰ καὶ καλὰ ἔργα σοϕίας ἀπεδείξατο, καὶ τὰ Ὁμήρου ἔπη πρῶτος ἐκόμισεν εἰς τὴν γῆν

⁶⁶ Goette (2007) 122. ⁶⁷ Zimmermann (1992) 35 8; according to Wilson (2003a) 182, ‘a case can be made that the dithyrambic khoros was the very first form of collective action in the new tribal system’; also Pritchard (2004). ⁶⁸ On whether dithyrambic competitions existed already at the time of the Peisistratids or whether they were established by Kleisthenes, Privitera (1965) 86 8; Wilson (2000a) 16 17. ⁶⁹ See Shapiro (1993); Slings (2000). ⁷⁰ Cf. Arist. [Ath.] 18.1 2; cf. Aelian VH.8.2 Dilts who cites the Hipparchus as his source of information. According to Herodotus, Lasus was also apparently at Hipparchus’ court. His presence, however, is not associated in the Herodotean passage with poetic activities (Hdt. 7.6.3).

48

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

ταυτηνί, καὶ ἠνάγκασε τοὺς ῥαψῳδοὺς Παναθηναίοις ἐξ ὑπολήψεως ἐϕεξῆς αὐτὰ διιέναι, ὥσπερ νῦν ἔτι οἵδε ποιοῦσιν, καὶ ἐπ’ Ἀνακρέοντα τὸν Τήιον πεντηκόντορον στείλας ἐκόμισεν εἰς τὴν πόλιν, Σιμωνίδην δὲ τὸν Κεῖον ἀεὶ περὶ αὑτὸν εἶχεν, μεγάλοις μισθοῖς καὶ δώροις πείθων ταῦτα δ’ ἐποίει βουλόμενος παιδεύειν τοὺς πολίτας, ἵν’ ὡς βελτίστων ὄντων αὐτῶν ἄρχοι, οὐκ οἰόμενος δεῖν οὐδενὶ σοϕίας ϕθονεῖν, ἅτε ὢν καλός τε κἀγαθός. Soc. I refer to our fellow citizen Hipparchus, the son of Peisistratus of Philaïdae, who was the eldest and wisest of Peisistratus’ sons and who demonstrated many and noble deeds of wisdom; he first brought the poems of Homer into this country, and compelled the rhapsodes at the Panathenaea to recite them succes sively by taking up the cue the one from the other just like they still do nowadays. He also brought Anacreon of Teos into the city, having sent a fifty oared galley for him. Simonides of Ceos was always around, prevailing on him with big payments and gifts. He did these because he wanted to educate the citizens, so that he might have subjects of the highest excellence. For he was so good and noble that he believed it not proper to grudge wisdom to anyone. Pl. Hipparch. [sp] 228b4 c7

We could explain the presence of both Anacreon and Simonides at the court of Hipparchus based on their history as poets at the courts of tyrants. The author of the Hipparchus specifies, however, how their presence would also benefit the citizens of Athens: Hipparchus brought these two poets in Athens because he wanted to educate his citizens (βουλόμενος παιδεύειν τοὺς πολίτας). Such a statement implies that Anacreon and Simonides were not meant to be courtpoets during their stay in Athens, perhaps not exclusively court-poets, but were also meant to compose poetry for public performances. Sources confirm Simonides’ participation in tribal dithyrambic competitions, and Anacreon might have composed hymns (PMG 348 and 502(b)), poems performed by female choruses at the private festivities called pannychides (Critias 88 B1.36 DK), while a number of epigrams associate Anacreon with nocturnal festivals that probably accommodated performances by mixed male and female groups (AP 7.24, 7.29, and 7.31).⁷¹ We know as well that Anacreon presumably also composed partheneia, some of which might have been performed in Athens too.⁷² Notwithstanding the disputable date of Simonides’ presence in Athens and the uncertainty concerning Anacreon’s non-sympotic and public poetry, the extract from the Hipparchus remains significant.⁷³ It positions the ⁷¹ On female choruses in fifth and fourth century Athens, see recently Budelmann and Power (2015). ⁷² See P.Oxy. 2.221, col.vii.5 12; Critias 88, B1.36 DK; Lucan Ver.Hist. 2.15. ⁷³ A number of sources locate Simonides in Athens only after the fall of Hippias in 510 : T A.1.27 30 TrGF 3 (Vita Aeschylus) = T32 Poltera on how Simonides defeated Aeschylus with an elegiac poem; Marm.Par. FGrHist IIB 239 A54 on Simonides’ first dithyrambic victory in 477/6 ; Simonides’ relationship with Themistocles (Plu. Them.114a; Suda s.v. Τιμοκρέων, τ 625 Adler; PMG 627/F325 Poltera, Cic. Fin.2.104); the epigrams on the Persian Wars ascribed to Simonides, and the poems he composed on the naumachiae of Salamis and Artemisium (480 ).

The World of Lyric: Local, Pan-Hellenic, and Athenian

49

lyric poet within the broader frame of the community, where his poetry would also potentially have gained a pedagogical role and would have had a public impact. Anacreon and Simonides, though non-Athenian in origin, had apparently gained a worldwide reputation as poets of great value, and this obviously led to their being invited and being brought to Athens to offer their poetic services to both Hipparchus and the Athenians. The non-Athenian origin of Anacreon and Simonides reflects the status of the dithyrambic poets and of the kykliodidaskaloi in Athens. In contrast to the figure of the dramatic didaskalos who was an Athenian citizen, the dithyrambic poet was in the majority of cases an outsider. Sources with information on the assignment of poets to khorēgoi as representatives of tribes present a rather perplexing procedure that involves a random assignment by lot, as well as settings where the tribes themselves could interfere in the selection. Antiphon 6.11, for example, suggests a procedure at the Thargelia and Dionysia whereby the city, plausibly through the figure of the Archon, engaged itself in the contact between poet and khorēgos, and allotted poets to khorēgoi (ἔλαχον διδάσκαλον). Ἐπειδὴ χορηγὸς κατεστάθην εἰς Θαργήλια καὶ ἔλαχον Παντακλέα διδάσκαλον καὶ Κεκροπίδα ϕυλὴν πρὸς τῇ ἐμαυτοῦ, [τουτέστι τῇ Ἐρεχθηίδι,] ἐχορήγουν ὡς ἄριστα ἐδυνάμην καὶ δικαιότατα. When I was appointed khorēgos at the Thargelia and was allotted the poet Pantacles and the tribe Cecropid in addition to my own, [that is to the Erecht heid,] I served my office as khorēgos as well and fairly as I could. Antiphon 6.11 (Περὶ τοῦ χορευτοῦ)

Aristophanes, on the other hand, paints a picture in the Birds where the phylai had a say on the matter of the selection of the dithyrambic poet or where they even had the chance to negotiate directly with the candidates or with their khorēgos before the poets were appointed. As it seems, all the tribes wanted to have Kinesias as their representative poet, and were fighting over him. Πε. Κι. Πε.

οὐ γὰρ σὺ χαίρεις πτεροδόνητος γενόμενος; ταυτὶ πεποίηκας τὸν κυκλιοδιδάσκαλον, ὃς ταῖσι ϕυλαῖς περιμάχητός εἰμ’ ἀεί; βούλει διδάσκειν καὶ παρ’ ἡμῖν οὖν μένων Λεωτροϕίδῃ χορὸν πετομένων ὀρνέων, Κρεκοπίδα ϕυλήν;

1405

Peis. Do you not enjoy being high flown? Kin. You treat in this manner the kykliodidaskalos, who is constantly fought over by all the tribes? Peis. Would you then like to stay with usand train for Leotrophides a chorus of flying birds, the Cecropid tribe? Ar. Av.1402 7

50

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

Any attempts to sketch a complete picture from both Antiphon and Aristophanes might lead to crude generalization, but the two passages, although seemingly contradictory, can be reconciled if they are understood as indicating the same procedure in successive stages. Peter Wilson proposes that the lot possibly had to do with the order of choice with which khorēgoi could select their poets.⁷⁴ This would agree with the reference to the wrangling of the tribes over Kinesias in Aristophanes. A hypothetical scenario would see the tribes expressing in advance informally but vociferously their preferences on the poet they wanted to have as representative at the competitions. This would explain the squabbling over the kykliodidaskalos, as described in Aristophanes. After the allocation by lot of the order with which the khorēgoi would have chosen their poets, which would eventually have led to the assignment of poets to khorēgoi, the tribes would have had the right to contest the allotment. Such a scenario would also explain the Aristophanic passage. The tribes could have reacted both before and after the allocation of their representative poet. It is nevertheless also conceivable that Aristophanes might have painted a comic picture of the procedure that was carried out at his time in Athens and not necessarily of the official course of action at the time of Simonides, Pindar, and Bacchylides. On the other hand, Kinesias might be reacting to Peisetairos’ rejection of his poetic services, and might therefore be exaggerating about his popularity. Although it is important to recognize that the scene might be crafted for comic effect, the portrayal of the tribes fighting over a lyric poet in Aristophanes could reflect informal expressions of preference, and the whole procedure might in fact have been a matter of allocation. In a scenario where the Archon, the tribes themselves, and the khorēgoi exercised some influence on the selection process, the taste, financial position, and the personal network of the Archon or of the khorēgoi become important factors for any lyric poet who wanted to be considered as a potential candidate for commission by the city of Athens. If the tribal influence was not decisive, proposing a poet reduced the room for personal contact, which might have consequently repeated collaborations of a poet with a particular khorēgos and his tribe. The non-Athenian citizenship of the dithyrambic poets foregrounds the complexity of their relationship with their civic patrons. How would a nonAthenian lyric poet have been chosen to perform in Athens? In a manner similar to the dramatic proagōn the non-Athenian dithyrambic poets could have presented themselves before the Archon early in the civic year.⁷⁵ This would suggest that the Archon initially chose from a bigger pool of poetic talent which was then

⁷⁴ Wilson (2000a) 67 8. ⁷⁵ Petrovic (2009) 203 12 raises the possibility of the existence of an agonistic procedure by means of epigrammatic contests between mobile poets with the aim to choose some of the public monuments, and suggests that literary proagōnes might have been a standard procedure for the selection of artefacts or poetic works.

The World of Lyric: Local, Pan-Hellenic, and Athenian

51

narrowed down to those poets who could finally compete for specific tribes. One would, however, expect such competitions between dithyrambic poets to have been somehow recorded in our sources. Despite the initial and perhaps informal nature of such contests, performances of this sort would still have demanded the same practicalities as they officially did at the actual festivals. Besides, the wording of our very few evidence does not support a scenario where the poets were chosen through their poems. Antiphon was after all assigned the poet Pantakles and not a specific poetic composition of Pantakles. As important a link as the poet’s fame could have been in this process, equally important were interpersonal relationships of poets with Archons, khorēgoi, or with Athenian citizens. Individuals could have acted on behalf of the poet by proposing to the city poets they were acquainted with or whose poetry was familiar to them. Isocrates informs us in his Antidosis that, in addition to a financial reward, Pindar was named a proxenus of the Athenians in recognition of his honorific poems on the city’s behalf (Isoc.15.166). This passage suggests that the bestowal of the status of proxenus might have been one of the rewards non-Athenian lyric poets would have gained for their poetic services to Athens. It is also possible that these very institutions of xenia and proxenia contributed to establishing not only a network of political and cultural contacts in the ancient Greek world but also a network of poetic and musical contacts which could also have led to the presence of nonAthenian poets in Athens. Equally important was information available from informal sources independent of the polis. Sian Lewis argues for the importance of oral communication within a community and for the effect which interactions between reputation and public life had in defining the status of individuals.⁷⁶ Names of poets could therefore have been travelling by hearsay both in Athens and in the rest of the Greek world. Name recognition, poetic quality, previous success, and popularity would have been the most essential factors for a poet to be chosen for participation in dithyrambic competitions in Athenian festivals. Due to their non-Athenian origin those poets who were to be selected as representatives of Athenian tribes had to be sufficiently famous for their reputation, if not for their poetry, to be known in advance to Athenian officials and to the Athenian audience. The selection of a particular non-Athenian poet would have reflected on the Athenian tribe his poem represented. The better or the more famous the poet, the finer the dithyramb was likely to be, and the more chances the tribe would have had to win the choral competition. This was of course a reciprocal process. Participation in Athenian festivals would have additionally reflected on the poet himself. We can see this at work in the fact that we have either certain or probable evidence for the participation in

⁷⁶ Lewis (1996) 10.

52

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

Athenian competitions of all three of the great pan-Hellenic poets of the late sixth and early fifth century —Simonides, Pindar, and Bacchylides. Though we are poorly informed about choral competitions in other Greek states, we can be reasonably confident that the scale and complexity of inter-tribal competition at Athens and the administrative and financial infrastructure required meant that Athens was the largest intrastate ‘consumer’ of commissioned choral song in the fifth century  and thus the prime maker for the lyric poet.⁷⁷ Athens was already in the process of increasing its international profile as a principal cultural city, as it is evidenced by the numerous competitive musical and dramatic festivals it displayed. This in turn would have enhanced the desire to participate in the Athenian choral institutions, as competition in Athenian festivals would have added prestige to the poet’s name. Although any assumptions on the factors and the procedure under which the Archon granted a chorus to a dithyrambic poet or a poet to a khorēgos are speculative, we can assume that perceived poetic quality was a factor that played an important role in the commissioning procedure, especially in the case of the most important civic festivals. Particularly, when we take into account the fact that dithyrambic poets such as Pindar and Bacchylides were non-Athenians, thus foreigners, being hired by Athens for Athens at that particular era and being chosen amongst a vast number of dithyrambic poets was presumably thought to be a great achievement. Athenian commissions could accordingly have translated into poetic capital, as they would have plausibly created favourable grounds for future performances not only in Athens but also in other cities of the Greek world.

Monuments and Names The above observations present us with a paradox. Athens, though prominent in agonistic festivals, choral performances, productions of dramas, and dithyrambic poetry, did not have Athenian poets to participate in festivals other than dramatic. Whereas only Athenians were allowed to participate as performers in dithyrambic contests, Athenian tribes were represented by nonAthenian poets. There might have been several factors favouring this practice. The vast quantities of song required and the need to offer works of recognizable quality meant that it might have been difficult to maintain the stream of local talent. The competition between tribes also meant that there might have been difficulties in obtaining poets. A system of random allocation might have

⁷⁷ Scholars have recently turned their attention to other locations where dramatic and musical performances are documented: on khorēgia beyond Attike, Wilson (2000a) 279 302; on dithy rambs and tragedies in Cyrene, Ceccarelli and Milanezi (2007); on the Dionysia at Iasos, Crowther (2007); on Sicilian choruses, Wilson (2007).

The World of Lyric: Local, Pan-Hellenic, and Athenian

53

had a poet working against his own tribe, and a system of obtaining poets from within tribes could have left some tribes without talent. There might have been a positive preference for foreigners, since the nature of the compositions had the prospect of strengthening the poets’ links with the city. A more practical and perhaps for Athens also an ethical issue might additionally have been at stake in this case. The surviving dithyrambs portray no tribal-specific features, and their encomiastic rhetoric rather contributes to the self-presentation of the city as a whole. Pindar devotes three lines in his fr.76 M to praise Athens as the divine citadel and protector of Greece and as the city that was mostly praised in song (fr.76.1–3 M ἀοίδιμοι, Ἑλλάδος ἔρεισμα); Bacchylides, too, characterizes Athens as holy and blessed (B.18.1 ἱερᾶν Ἀθανᾶν, B.19.10 ὀλβίαις Ἀθάναις) and as a city of luxury (B.18.60 ϕιλαγλάους Ἀθάνας). The foreign non-Athenian origin of the lyric poet therefore becomes crucial. A praise of Athens would probably have been more easily acceptable by Athenians and would perhaps also have been considered as more prestigious, had it been expressed by a non-Athenian lyric poet in comparison to that composed by a native Athenian. The latter would practically have been a lavish self-praise, and it might also have been perceived as such. Be that practical or ethical, we can only guess the reasons behind this Athenian trend. Implicit in the above discussion is that the name of the lyric poet had to be known within Athens for him to be chosen to represent an Athenian tribe. How important is the lyric poet and his name after the competition? Evidence for the judgment and announcement of victory at the dithyrambic agōnes can be found in the language of khoregic inscriptions. Apart from recording the actual victory, the khoregic monuments are additionally displayed as the culmination of the poetic performance itself, as they contribute to its agents’ self-display and kleos. The inscription that is attached on victorious tripods is of great importance for understanding the status of the dithyrambic poet within this system of choral performances and dithyrambic victories. The khoregic inscriptions reveal an ongoing tension between the khorēgos and the collective tribe, while emphasis is gradually transferred from the poet to the figure of the khorēgos. Whereas in the fifth century the tribe was listed as the victor and was thus the primary receiver of honour, by the middle of the fourth century the khorēgos was proclaimed the victor of the agōn, and his primacy frequently overshadowed the poet himself.⁷⁸ Most of the surviving khoregic inscriptions for dithyrambs point to the increasing prominence of the khorēgos. This tendency could possibly be explained on the grounds of the expenditure needed for the participation of his tribe in the dithyrambic agōn and for the

⁷⁸ Wilson (2000a) 215 with detailed information on the development of the khoregic language in pp. 214 16; the khoregic inscriptions from Athens for the Dionysia and the Thargelia are collected in Ieranò Appendix I.

54

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

erection of the khoregic monument itself.⁷⁹ Although the poet and his song were practically the link between the tribal agōn and the civic celebration, and the figure in whom both khoreia and khorēgia culminate, the poet was nonetheless only a marginal figure on khoregic inscriptions. The material record for dithyrambic victories in classical Athens before the 480s offers little to sketch a complete picture of the khoregic inscriptions, but we can still draw important conclusions. As it seems, the inscriptions display primarily the importance of the khorēgos in the victorious performance, and openly associate his figure with the victorious chorus and eventually with the victory itself. An epigram for a victory of the Akamantid tribe that dates as early as 490–80  is amongst the earliest inscriptions that were accommodated on a khoregic monument. Πολλάκι δὴ ϕυλῆς Ἀκαμαντίδος ἐν χοροῖσιν Ὧραι ἀνωλόλυξαν κισσοϕόροις ἐπὶ διθυράμβοις αἱ Διονυσιάδες, μίτραισι δὲ καὶ ῥόδων ἀώτοις σοϕῶν ἀοιδῶν ἐσκίασαν λιπαρὰν ἔθειραν, οἳ τόνδε τρίποδά σϕισι μάρτυρα Βακχίων ἀέθλων ἔθηκαν εὖ τούσδ’ Ἀντιγένης ἐδίδασκεν ἄνδρας, εὖ δ’ ἐτιθηνεῖτο γλυκερὰν ὄπα Δωρίοις Ἀρίστων Ἀγρεῖος ἡδὺ πνεῦμα χέων καθαροῖς ἐν αὐλοῖς, τῶν ἐχορήγησεν κύκλον μελίγηρυν Ἱππόνικος, Στρούθωνος υἱός, ἅρμασιν ἐν Χαρίτων ϕορηθείς, αἵ οἱ ἐπ’ ἀνθρώπους ὄνομα κλυτὸν ἀγλαάν τε νίκαν θεοῦ θ’ ἕκατι θῆκαν ἰοστεϕάνων τε Μοισᾶν.

1

5

10

Frequently indeed have the Seasons of the Dionysia shouted among the choruses of the Akamantid tribe at the ivy wreathed dithyrambs, and shadowed with the finest headbands from roses the shiny hair of skilled singers, who have set up this very tripod for themselves as witness to their Bacchic struggles. Antigenes trained these men well and Ariston from Argos fostered their delightful voice well by blowing a sweet strain on his pure Dorian auloi. Hipponicus, the son of Strou thon, was khorēgos of their honey voiced kyklios khoros, who, after he was carried around in the chariot of the Charites, set on these men both a glorious name and a bright victory by the grace of the goddess and of the violet crowned Muses. AP 13.28/Antigenes 1 FGE/99 Ieranò⁸⁰

Even in this case, where it is clearly stated that Antigenes trained the men who danced at the Dionysia, reference to the dithyrambic poet is almost marginal (vv.6 εὖ τούσδ’ Ἀντιγένης ἐδίδασκεν ἄνδρας). The dedicatory inscription opens with the victorious chorus and closes with the image of the khorēgos

⁷⁹ On the office of dithyrambic khorēgoi, Pickard Cambridge (1968) 75 8; Wilson (2000a) 93 5; on the khoregic system with sources, Csapo and Slater (1994) 143 57. ⁸⁰ The text is that of Ieranò.

The World of Lyric: Local, Pan-Hellenic, and Athenian

55

on the chariot of the Charites and in the company of the Muses.⁸¹ Another important document from that period is a partially preserved peculiar inscription dated between 500 and 470 . νικέσ]ας hο[δε προ῀ ]τον Ἀθένεσ[ιν χο]ρο῀ ι ἀνδρο῀ [ν] [hιμερ]τ̣ε῀ ς σοϕ[ίας] τόνδ’ ἀνέθε[κ]εν hόρον [εὐχσ]άμενο[ς π]λείστοις δὲ [χ]οροῖς ἔχσω κατὰ ϕῦ[λα] [ἀνδ]ρῶν νι[κε῀ ]σαί ϕεσι π[ερ]ὶ τρίποδος. Having won first with a chorus of men at Athens, he dedicated this mark of his desirable wisdom after he vowed to do so; he claims with regards to the tripod to have been victorious through the tribes of men with many choruses abroad. IG I³ 833 bis/Ieranò 92⁸²

The monument was probably erected by the poet, who might have named himself in the missing part of the inscription. The inscription is important, as it displays how the fame of the poet and the erection of the monument are both tied with victorious choruses of men. The quatrain turns our attention exclusively to the poet himself who is presented as the victor of the competitions, but the wording of the inscription repeatedly places emphasis on the choruses of men he successfully trained. This poet was apparently triumphant in a number of competitions, both in Athens and elsewhere in the Greek world, and the non-geographically-specified victories on the inscription hint at his non-Athenian origin.⁸³ Khoregic inscriptions might indeed have included the names of the kykliodidaskaloi, but Athens’ official inscriptional records for the dramatic festivals did not name the poet who provided the dithyrambic poem and trained the victorious chorus. The so-called Fasti (IG II² 2318) registers the victors in both dithyrambic and dramatic agōnes at the City Dionysia on a year by year basis, starting its records near the end of the sixth century —the earliest preserved entry dates to 473/2  and the latest to 329/8 .⁸⁴ The Fasti ‘reads like a transcript of an official record’, as Pickard-Cambridge points out, it was presumably copied from Athenian records, and consists of thirteen columns, each of which registers under every year dithyrambic, tragic, and comic victories at the Dionysia.⁸⁵ The pattern displayed is the following: the names of both the Archon and the victorious khorēgos are mentioned in all three categories; the names of the victorious tribes are registered in the case of the dithyrambs; the poet is included and named in the entries for comedy and tragedy, but the dithyrambic poet is not named. The distinction in these inscriptional records between naming and non-naming reveals the ⁸¹ The epigram is analysed in FGE pp. 11 15; Ieranò pp. 260 62; Wilson (2000a) 120 3. ⁸² The text is that of Ieranò with the supplement of Peppas Delmousou (1971) in line 2. ⁸³ For interpretation, Peppas Delmousou (1971) 55 6; CEG p. 270; Wilson (2000a) 217; on the epinician language of the inscription, Biles (2011b). ⁸⁴ Millis Olson p. 5. ⁸⁵ Quotation taken from Pickard Cambridge (1968) 104.

56

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

dynamics wherein lyric poets participated in Athenian choral competitions. Athens aimed to purchase quality of art, thus important lyric figures and big names. Although the weight of the victory in the competitions fell either on the victorious tribe or on the khorēgos, the name of the kykliodidaskalos was still often inscribed on personal khoregic monuments. Nevertheless, the Fasti reveals that apparently names of dithyrambic poets did not matter as much to be officially recorded by the city of Athens, and they were thus excluded from such official records. Such a silence could be variously explained. The non-Athenian origin of the dithyrambic poet and possibly the fact that officials attempted to retain an exclusively Athenian aura on official records might be one reason. The tribal nature of the dithyrambic agōnes that assigned success to a specific Athenian group rather than to an individual tragedian or comic poet, as in the case of dramatic competitions, might be another. Whichever the justification for such exclusion, the impression given is that the name and fame of dithyrambic poets mattered enormously before their selection for participation in Athens, but they were no longer as important after the completion of their duties at the competition. The puzzling question raised at present concerns the issue of knowledge and survival. How would the names of the lyric poets who represented Athenian tribes at dithyrambic competitions have survived, if they were not included in the official records of the city? The victorious poets, as we have seen, were often named on khoregic monuments. If every monument had survived in time, we would have blissfully had in our possession all the necessary information in order to compile a concise history of Athenian dithyrambic or choral culture. That is unfortunately not the case. It appears that Pindar was victorious at an Athenian dithyrambic contest as well. Yet, no (surviving) monument records his name, and had the fragments of his Athenian dithyrambs, as well as Bacchylides’ dithyrambs, had not survived, we would not have been in a position even to suggest that both of them participated with their poems in Athenian festivals. It is quite plausible that the poets themselves kept personal records with their poems and that these later contributed into shaping the corpus of a poet. Likewise, it could be that the names of the participants, perhaps also their compositions, were kept in private archives either of the Archon or of the khorēgos. It is also not inconceivable that the tribe kept its own records with details relevant to their participation in the competitions. Archives of this sort would have enhanced the prestige of the tribe, and would also have served as an important and historical source of information for their successors.⁸⁶ No matter how hypothetical the above scenarios might be, both the names of these lyric poets ⁸⁶ On archives and their role in the survival and transmission of lyric, see Chapter 5 in this book.

The World of Lyric: Local, Pan-Hellenic, and Athenian

57

and the poems for Athens by Pindar and Bacchylides survived in one way or another for us to be able to draw part of the Athenian portrait of lyric. This brief discussion of the Athenian lyric landscape has demonstrated that the performance-culture of Athens both demanded and invited lyric poets to offer their services to the city, and absorbed lyric talent that in most cases originated beyond the geographical boundaries of Athens. The very participation of any lyric poet in choral competitions was tantamount to an Athenian statement in its own right, as it contributed towards the cultural and political display of the city. Inevitably therefore those lyric poets who participated in these festivals offered to the city not only their poems but also their already established reputation. This was at least the case with Pindar and Bacchylides, whose work for Athens has survived, Simonides, if one trusts not only the epigrams on his numerous dithyrambic victories but also plausible assumptions that some of his elegies might have been commissioned by and performed in Athens, perhaps also Anacreon at a time before the institutionalization of choral competitions. The presence of the above poets within the Athenian cultural environment is obviously connected with their established and international fame as well as with their wandering status. The timing in this case is also important. With the exception of Anacreon, the other lyric poets for whom we possess evidence to suggest that they were in Athens operated at a time when the city needed to invest in lyric talent. This condition is worthy of attention. It suggests that those lyric poets whom Athens might have been acquainted with were the ones who were in a position to offer their services to the city, and the ones who could travel and could thus be physically present in the city to train the chorus. As it will become obvious, Athens might have welcomed physically and poetically a selected number of distinguished poets but at a later stage it ‘absorbed’ also those lyric poets, such as Alcman, Alcaeus, and Sappho, whose poetry never reached the city at the time of its composition.

2 The Canonical Nine on the Comic Stage Ultimately, any evaluation of Greek poetry produced before or within the fifth century  has to be attempted primarily, though not solely, through the lens of Athens. This partly reflects the nature of our evidence. Our Athenocentricism, however, is more than a matter of the accident of survival. As already sketched, Athens gradually became in the fifth century  the centre of literary production and cultural development. The city set the agenda through its own poetic productions, which, as well as offering their own distinctive contribution, also absorbed and reproduced both earlier forms and earlier poets. Athens was the point of reference not only in the fifth century but also in the following centuries up to the Imperial era; the Greek past was seen through the lens of Athenian cultural experience. In the case of lyric poetry, as we have seen, Athens is of marginal importance for poetic production. After Solon the city produced no single lyric poet of significance, lyric in either the technical (i.e. small-scale poetry performed to the lyre) or the extended modern sense of small-scale poetry. Nevertheless, the subsequent ‘presence’ of lyric at its theatre and festivals, through adaptations and implicit references in drama, as well as in philosophy and literary discussions plays a crucial role in the process of canonization, which, as it will be demonstrated, begins long before this poetry reaches Alexandria. Thus, even though in terms of origin our attention at the time of both production and circulation of lyric is in most cases focused on the broader Greek world, we need always to look for traces of that poetry within the Athenian poetic output. This was the ticket for future survival. The situation creates a fascinating paradox: while the ‘presence’ of lyric in the Athenian context and re-performances of lyric songs in Athens are essential for subsequent survival, a direct connection with the city in terms of original performance has no significance whatsoever. Such re-performances were an important component of fifth- and fourth-century Athenian song-culture, and despite the change in performance venues—private and sympotic contexts presumably replaced in some cases civic and community contexts—the result was the same: the sixth- and fifth-century melos still formed part of the Athenian song-landscape.

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon. Theodora A. Hadjimichael, Oxford University Press (2019). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198810865.003.0003

60

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

Beyond these means of poetic survival and recycling, the nine lyric poets also circulated in the Athenian landscape as names. In such cases, the names represented collectively not only a specific era of poetic composition and performance but also certain types of song, whilst they invoked poetic characteristics, trends, and attitudes, as well as biographical details. Re-use of material from melic poetry in dramatic performances, named references to lyric predecessors in comedy, oblique or explicit allusions to melic songs undeniably reveal that a certain degree of knowledge was demanded from the theatrical audience. This process becomes in retrospect an evaluative procedure, as inclusion by naming or citation indicates to some degree that the lyric poet and the employed melic poetry are present within the receiving context. Looking at it from the perspective of the author, references to previous poetry in a dramatic play discloses personal knowledge of that poetry, direct or indirect, as well as knowledge of that poet. Such a recollection or reception of melic poetry and its representative lyric poets is particularly evident in the comic genre whose poetics reveal an intense self-awareness of the literary tradition it recalls and of its own poetic status. The sole extant fragment of Antiphanes’ Poiesis reveals comedy’s poetic and literary self-awareness (189.1–5, 17–21 PCG ii). Antiphanes or the speaking character in the fragment expresses his dissatisfaction about the inferior position of comedy against the enviable genre of tragedy, and his complaints rest on the innovative strand and originality that should characterize both plots and characters in comic plays; comedy has to invent everything (πάντα δεῖ εὑρεῖν): new names (ὀνόματα καινά), what happened previously (τὰ διῳκημένα πρότερον), the current situation (τὰ νῦν παρόντα), the conclusion (τὴν καταστροϕήν), and the introduction (τὴν εἰσβολήν). The extensive literary-critical discourse in Antiphanes’ fragment reveals not only the self-critical mannerism of comedy but also the self-awareness of the comic poets for the status of the comic genre within the poetic tradition.¹ All comic dramatists placed themselves and their poetry within a literary process of change and development, and claimed novelty and originality, both characteristics of the generic and literary self-consciousness of the genre they served.² While this self-awareness marks the competitive spirit of comic performances and the continual need of the comic genre to innovate, it also foregrounds the critical and literary outlook of the comic plays.³ ¹ Konstantakos (2003 4) 11 comments how Antiphanes’ fragment ‘occupies an almost sym bolic central position in the history of comic self criticism’; Bakola, Prauscello, and Telò (2013a) 1 interpret the fragment as a form of recusatio, where comedy advertises its artistic superiority. ² On comedy’s literary self consciousness, Platter (2007) esp. 1 41; the recent volume by Bakola, Prauscello, and Telò (2013) with further bibliography; on the comic parabasis and literary self consciousness, Hubbard (1991). ³ The competitive stance of the comic genre has become the subject of recent studies. Very selectively, Sidwell (1995); Ruffell (2002) who also draws attention to the common stock of jokes

The Canonical Nine on the Comic Stage

61

The originality which the comic genre proclaimed as its principal feature ‘consisted partly in the effective reuse of old material’, and thus comedy was positioned within a poetic and literary tradition, which it reflected in its discourse and poetics.⁴ The very absorption and critical representation of current cultural, literary, and poetic transformations, comedy’s judgements on past and current literature, and its concern with both the poetics of the comic genre and its role within society assigns to the comic genre a protagonistic role in literary and cultural history.⁵ Albeit unsystematic, comedy offers a sense of literary history mainly because of this self-conscious position of the comic genre within a poetic continuum and within the literary tradition.⁶ While it provides us with evidence for the early development of literary criticism, comedy also tells us much about its relation with other literary genres, about the changing Athenian taste in literature and music, and about the literary knowledge the Athenian audience had or was thought to have.⁷ Whilst recognizing that the innovative temperament of the comic writers and the amusing motive of the comic genre are the two main reasons behind the assignment of new names to comedy’s characters, this original process of naming the comic heroes goes hand in hand with the presence, use, and abuse of known personal names in the comic plays, including the names of lyric poets.⁸ The positioning of comedy within the Greek poetic context, the context of melic poetry in particular, is the main focal point of this chapter.⁹ The discussion concentrates on the presence and (re-)presentation of the nine canonical lyric poets in Aristophanes, and where possible in other comic poets, with the aim to make deductions about individual lyric poets and to reveal the status of the nine lyric poets in Athenian song-culture. The evidence provided in Aristophanes and in comic fragments allows us to draw conclusions

the comic poets had access to; Revermann (2006a) 5 7, 19 24; Kyriakidi (2007); Bakola (2008); Biles (2011a); Wright, M. (2012). ⁴ Quotation from Redfield (1990) 316; Konstantakos (2003 4) 13 21 summarizes Aristoph anes’ sermons on his comic art; Wright (2012) 99 on kainotēs as rhetorical device. ⁵ Baker (1904) outlines comedy’s judgements on literature in general; on comedy or exclu sively on Aristophanes as major chapter of literary criticism, Atkins (1934) ch. 2; Ford (2002) ch. 6 and 8; Hunter (2009) ch. 1; Dobrov (2010) 8 perceives the important role of comedy in critical tradition self reflectively. ⁶ Rosen (1988) 6; Wright, M. (2012) 1. ⁷ Barker (1984) 93 considers Aristophanes as ‘our most significant fifth century witness’ of the musical developments in the later fifth century; cf. Pölmann (2011) on Aristophanes and his dealings with the New Music and with the ‘new tragedy’ of Euripides. ⁸ Though one should recognize that the inclusion of real names in comedy does not necessarily have a satiric effect, it often reflects the invective character of the comic genre and the κωμῳδεῖν ὀνομαστί (cf. Pl. Lg.935d.3 5). ⁹ Cf. Kugelmeier (1996), who examines the comic poets’ use of non dramatic poetry, and investigates the circumstances in which the reflex, as he calls it, occurs and the purposes it serves in the text.

62

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

about the knowledge of the canonical nine the Athenian audience had and about the diffusion of melic poetry in Athens.¹⁰ The analysis ultimately reveals that the process of classicization and canonization of the lyric nine was already at work by the fifth century .¹¹ One should perhaps note as a preliminary that any discussion about the relation of comedy to poetry and to previous literature begins with two major gaps. The first concerns the fragmentary form in which the work of a number of poets of Old Comedy survived.¹² Comic fragments are taken into account for the argument of this chapter, but the fragmentary state of a number of comic poets implies that the discussion often centres on Aristophanes. This is done with the proviso that any conclusions drawn from Aristophanic comedy cannot be too readily generalized for the entire corpus of the comic genre. The second major gap concerns the relationship of comedy with other literary genres. In recent years scholarly attempts have been made to explore the engagement of comedy with other genres,¹³ but discussions still focus primarily on comedy’s interplay with tragedy.¹⁴ This is to be expected, since comedy is a genre defined in mutual opposition to and connection with tragedy; the tragic genre belongs within the generic identity of comedy, and becomes therefore an obligatory point of reference in the comic drama.¹⁵ The widely studied engagement of comedy with tragedy and the sheer scale of that engagement are instructive for an exploration of the employment of the lyric poets in comedy. It has long been a dominant factor in studies on comic intertextuality that this continuous dialogue with other poets and with the tragic genre in particular consisted largely of mockery (i.e. invective and satire)

¹⁰ Carey (2011) 452 3 underscores the importance of Athenian comedy in the transmission and establishment of poetic canonization. ¹¹ The analysis will not focus on the poetics, similarities, and differences between comedy and melic poetry, or on the role of the comic poet as a poet composing melic, elegiac, or iambic poetry, on which see the thorough article by Silk (1980), who discusses Aristophanes as lyric poet, with criticism by Mathews (1997); Parker (1997) esp. 3 17 who demonstrates that the registers of Aristophanes’ lyrics are diverse and centre their ‘lyric’ quality on the metre he employs; also Silk (2000) 160 206. ¹² The biographical appendix by Dover, Arnott, Lowe, and Harvey (2000) 507 20 reveals the fragmentary form in which the work of a number of poets of Old Comedy survived. Recent scholarship has been directing its attention to the rest of the representatives of Old Comedy; a full set of commentaries on all fragmentary comic poets is being prepared in Freiburg within the frame of the project ‘Kommentierung der Fragmente der griechischen Komödie’ (KomFrag) under the general direction of Bernhard Zimmermann. ¹³ See, for example, the recent volume edited by Bakola, Prauscello, and Telò (2013b). ¹⁴ e.g. Rau (1967); Silk (2000); Dobrov (2001) 37 53; Rosen (2005); the collection edited by Medda, Mirto, and Pattoni (2006); Bakola (2010) 118 79; Telò (2010); Rutherford, R. (2012) 57 69. ¹⁵ The paradoxical nature of mutual segregation between tragedy and comedy has been discussed by Lowe (2007a) 23 9; also Silk (2013) for a theoretical approach of this relationship. Comedy’s interest in tragedy is evident in titles of plays such as Κωμῳδοτραγῳδία (Comicotra gedy) by both Alcaeus (19 21 PCG ii) and Dinolochus (3 PCG i).

The Canonical Nine on the Comic Stage

63

and of parody.¹⁶ Recent critics tend to see a more diverse association between tragedy and Aristophanes in particular, whose engagement with tragedy has been lately perceived as a means of pronouncing on the possibilities of comedy.¹⁷ Matthew Wright, for example, argues that quotations from tragedy could be seen as the means through which the comic poets demonstrate their cultural credentials in an attempt to depict the comic genre as a rival to the tragic genre.¹⁸ Although it is easier to recognize the diversity of comedy’s association with tragedy than to determine the particular effect sought in any given instance, the result of incorporating tragic features into the play and during the performance is the same in each case: the tone is enlarged and elevated via the incorporated foreign tragic colour, stylistic fluctuations portray the generic differences between tragedy and comedy, and they also create tension in the narrative.¹⁹ The precise effect of this hybridization was a matter of reception by the audience both individually and collectively.²⁰ Whatever the reaction, the poet could rely on a high degree of recognition of the intertexts due to the Athenian origin of tragedy and to its establishment by the late fifth century as a genre that deserved to be re-performed in Athens and beyond.²¹ The presence of melic poetry and of the lyric poets in comedy is, however, a more complicated phenomenon than comedy’s interaction with tragedy. Undeniably, the Athenian audience would have been exposed to a wide range of lyric that was an integral part of the song-culture of fifth-century Athens, including not only melic but also elegiac, and iambic poetry.²² Even so, the city itself produced no major melopoioi, and had to import non-Athenians to participate in its festivals and contests, as we have seen. Aristophanes and other comic poets cite in their works the names of these non-Athenian melopoioi, who were presumably popular enough for the audience to recognize their names if not to recall their poetry. Despite the fact that high melic poetry was almost invariably composed by and for members of the elite, the social

¹⁶ I distinguish between mockery and parody: mockery is mostly related to invective and satire, a line of argument that probably derives from Aristotle (Po.1448b34 8), whereas parody is not necessarily concerned with ridicule, attack, abuse, and transvestism. On the satiric mode with a number of examples from ancient literature, Rosen (2007) 3 42; on ways of defining and reading parody, Rose, M. (1993) 3 53; on parody in Aristophanes, Goldhill (1991) 185 222; Tsitsiridis (2010) offers a typology of Aristophanes’ parodic techniques; on paratragedy, Rau (1967) 12 17; Silk (1993) and (2000) 351 6; Revermann (2006a) 155 6, 232 5 and (2006b) 103 4. ¹⁷ e.g. Silk (2000) 49; Rutherford, R. (2012) 57. ¹⁸ Wright (2012) 144 and (2013) where he develops this idea with reference to Aristophanes’ Wasps. ¹⁹ Rutherford, R. (2012) 57 60 demonstrates how tragedy and comedy differ in spirit and style by discussing Aristophanes’ Acharnians. ²⁰ Cf. Fowler (1997) 24. ²¹ Re performance of Aeschylus’ tragedies is implied in Ar. Ach.9 12 with Σ vTr Ar. Ach.10c (T73 TrGF 3), Σ v Ar. Ra.868a and Σ r Ar. Ra.868c; Philostr. Vit.Apoll.6.11 (= T74 6 TrGF 3). ²² On fifth century song culture in Athens, Herington (1985) 79 99; Swift (2010) 35 60.

64

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

diffusion of song in subsequent performances, often through re-performances at a number of private and public performative occasions was much wider than the elite. Taking into account that the success of a comic play depended on audience-response, we can presume that the inclusion of lyric poets in the plays, whether named references, allusions to their poetry, verbatim quotations, or paraphrases, had to have an effect on the spectators. At the very least, their presence within the comic narrative had to create a sense of familiarity to the audience, even if they did not draw in detail on their knowledge of the poet recalled or of the passage evoked. To judge from Aristophanes and as the discussion will demonstrate lyric poets are included in comedies for various reasons and with different aims, and not all of them are incorporated in a similar fashion. One can detect named references, inclusion of specific features of lyric personae, parodies of certain types of melic poetry and/or of its author, named and anonymous quotations from melic poems, allusions to the language or to a scene extracted from a melic poem, and also intriguingly silence. Only a few poets are named in Aristophanes and in fragmentary comedy, while others are simply alluded to by citing or adapting their poetry. Given that one of the aims of this chapter is to look at the manner of (re-)presentation of the lyric poets within the comic genre in order to draw conclusions on questions of awareness and recognition, the analysis will begin and ultimately revolve around those classic lyric poets who are named and portrayed in comedy: Alcman, Ibycus, Anacreon, Alcaeus, Sappho, Stesichorus, Simonides, and Pindar.

LYRIC NAMES FOR THE SYMPOSIUM A look at the passages where we encounter named lyric figures in Old Comedy reveals that sympotic scenes often invited the inclusion of lyric poets. The presence of lyric names within the sympotic context should not come as a surprise, as the symposium was turned into one of the main Athenian contexts that absorbed melic poems, even if these were not meant to be originally performed at drinking-parties. Scenarios of sympotic gatherings in comedy, as scholars have recognized, plausibly reflect real-life practice in fifth and fourth centuries .²³ Extracts from the compositions of these lyric poets could indeed have been part of the sympotic repertoire, and could subsequently have been ²³ Currie (2004) 51 69, whose scenarios of re performance, although focused on Pindar’s epinician odes, can apply to melic poetry in general; also Morrison (2007) 1 39, (2011), (2012) explores the possibility of subsequent re performances of Pindar’s Sicilian victory odes; on the association between Athenian symposia and melic poetry, Swift (2010) 43 55. The testimonies for re performance of non dramatic poetry (mainly monodic) in sympotic and other contexts are collected in Herington (1985) 195 8, 207 8.

The Canonical Nine on the Comic Stage

65

re-performed at a number of sympotic occasions. Poems that were composed for a sympotic premiere, such as those of Anacreon, Alcaeus, and Ibycus, fitted well in a sympotic re-performance context, where their deictic pointers would not have disturbed the harmony between poetics and performative context. The same could apply to a number of Pindaric victory odes; sympotic imagery provides indications of composition for an initial performance in a sympotic context, and additionally point at sympotic re-performances.²⁴ One should nonetheless not discard the possibility that these comic scenes could also display an exaggerated or parodic portrayal of fifth-century Athenian reality, and it might be necessary to accept that some of the conditions with reference to the symposium’s depiction in comedy might have been altered to achieve the desirable comic effect of mockery or parody. Nevertheless, the consistency with which one encounters these lyric figures in comic sympotic scenes could be indicative of a realistic representation, as in most cases of mockery or of parodic representations the object of laughter would be anchored to an existing situation in order to become recognizable. The comic genre itself invites us to assume that it presents an inflated scenario, but all these scenes we encounter in comedy, chiefly from Eupolis and Aristophanes, have a number of features in common: they portray the same poets who also figure as representatives of a certain era and of certain poetic features. The following analysis will clarify these preliminary points. I begin with Aristophanes. In one of the most discussed sympotic scenes in Greek comedy, Clouds 1353–73, Simonides becomes part of the debate concerning sympotic entertainment.²⁵ Στ. καὶ μὴν ὅθεν γε πρῶτον ἠρξάμεσθα λοιδορεῖσθαι ἐγὼ ϕράσω. ’πειδὴ γὰρ εἱστιώμεθ’, ὥσπερ ἴστε, πρῶτον μὲν αὐτὸν τὴν λύραν λαβόντ’ ἐγὼ ’κέλευσα ᾆσαι Σιμωνίδου μέλος, τὸν Κριόν, ὡς ἐπέχθη. ὁ δ’ εὐθέως ἀρχαῖον εἶν’ ἔϕασκε τὸ κιθαρίζειν ᾄδειν τε πίνονθ’ ὡσπερεὶ κάχρυς γυναῖκ’ ἀλοῦσαν. Φε. οὐ γὰρ τότ’ εὐθὺς χρῆν σ’ ἀράττεσθαί τε καὶ πατεῖσθαι, ᾄδειν κελεύονθ’ ὡσπερεὶ τέττιγά μ’ ἑστιῶντα;

1353

1356

1360

²⁴ See Athanassaki (2009) ch. 3; Athanassaki (2016) has analysed at length the possibility of the Pindaric odes being initially performed at symposia; also Budelmann (2012); Morgan, K. (1993) 11 12 discusses the association between komastic language in the Pindaric epinicia and the symposium; also Agócs (2012); Currie (2004) 51 5 asserts that possible re performances of victory odes at symposia would qualify as informal re performance scenarios of epinician; Morrison (2007) 11 19 and 5 10 for an overview of scholarship with reference to the question of Pindaric re performance. ²⁵ Bowie, A. (1997) 4 5 and Kugelmeier (1996) 76 82 analyse this passage by taking into account the cultural context of the symposium; Pütz (2007) 75 83 on the distortion of sympotic practices in the scene.

66

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon Στ. τοιαῦτα μέντοι καὶ τότ’ ἔλεγεν ἔνδον οἷάπερ νῦν, καὶ τὸν Σιμωνίδην ἔϕασκ’ εἶναι κακὸν ποιητήν. κἀγὼ μόλις μέν, ἀλλ’ ὅμως ἠνεσχόμην τὸ πρῶτον ἔπειτα δ’ ἐκέλευσ’ αὐτὸν ἀλλὰ μυρρίνην λαβόντα τῶν Αἰσχύλου λέξαι τί μοι κᾆθ’ οὗτος εὐθὺς εἶπεν ‘ἐγὼ γὰρ Αἰσχύλον νομίζω πρῶτον ἐν ποιηταῖς ψόϕου πλέων, ἀξύστατον, στόμϕακα, κρημνοποιόν.’ κἀνταῦθα πῶς οἴεσθέ μου τὴν καρδίαν ὀρεχθεῖν; ὅμως δὲ τὸν θυμὸν δακὼν ἔϕην ‘σὺ δ’ ἀλλὰ τούτων λέξον τι τῶν νεωτέρων, ἅττ’ ἐστὶ τὰ σοϕὰ ταῦτα.’ ὁ δ’ εὐθὺς ᾖσ’ Εὐριπίδου ῥῆσίν τιν’, ὡς ἐκίνει ἁδελϕός, ὦλεξίκακε, τὴν ὁμομητρίαν ἀδελϕήν.

1365

1370

St: I will then tell you from the very beginning how we began quarrelling. After we finished our dinner the way you all know I asked him at first to pick up the lyre and sing a song of Simonides, the Krios, how he got shorn. He immediately said that it was old fashioned to play the lyre and to sing while drinking, just like a woman would sing while grinding barley. Ph: You deserved straightaway to be beaten and be pounded, asking me to sing as if you were entertaining cicadas. St: He kept saying such things while we were still in the house, similar to what he says now, and he kept arguing that Simonides is a bad poet. I found it hard, but I put up with it at first; then I asked him instead to take a branch of myrtle in his hands and to recite me something from Aeschylus; he snapped at once: ‘I regard Aeschylus the first of all poets full of noise, incoherent, that ranter who uses rugged words!’ Can you imagine how at that point my heart began to palpitate? But I bit back my anger and said, ‘You recite us then something from those modern poets, those clever things, whatever they are.’ He immediately started singing a speech of Euripides about how a brother was screwing his own sister, o averter of ill! Ar. Nu.1353 73

Euripides’ shockingly immoral story of the brother sleeping with his sister that Pheidippides chooses to narrate brings the symposium to an end. Strepsiades’ reaction to his son’s choice and his disapproval of his recitation concerns exclusively morals and models of behaviour, but the symposium, as sketched in the above passage, paints a picture that fuses poetic genres and poets, songs and plain recitation, and lastly performative modes. Strepsiades suggests that his son Pheidippides should sing either Simonides or Aeschylus while the symposiasts enjoy their drinks, but his request is met with derogatory comments by his son. Pheidippides’ indignation towards his father’s request to hear the Krios of Simonides focuses on the lyre-playing that will accompany his singing and on the act of singing while drinking (τὸ κιθαρίζειν). This he finds old-fashioned (ἀρχαῖον), repetitive, perhaps also tedious, which

The Canonical Nine on the Comic Stage

67

prompts Strepsiades in the second round to request a recitation by Aeschylus (λέξαι τί ).²⁶ According to Pheidippides, Aeschylus did not compose poetry pleasant enough to be sung at all, and Aeschylus thus joins Simonides in the group of bad poets. At his third attempt to convince his son to entertain him Strepsiades points at the generational gap between himself and his son when he asks for a modern recitation (λέξον τι τῶν νεωτέρων). Although this characterization seems to concern exclusively Aeschylus and Euripides, it is in retrospect also reflected on his request to hear Simonides’ Krios.²⁷ Pheidippides’ readiness to recite Euripides, when perceived in correlation to his judgements against Aeschylus and Simonides, further emphasizes the distance from his father not only in terms of musical taste but also in terms of moral principles. The scene follows the agōn in Clouds where Better Argument outlines how learning to sing to the kithara and to the musical tunes that were handed down by tradition (Nu.968 οἱ πατέρες παρέδωκαν) was part of the curriculum of oldfashioned education (Nu.961 τὴν ἀρχαίαν παιδείαν). Better Argument contrasts this old style of musical and poetic training to the disrespect towards the established musical and poetic tradition that the modern and innovative poets show with their compositions (Nu.971 οἱ νῦν). The musical comparison between an idealized past and a degenerated present in the speech of Better Argument creates itself a generation gap between Strepsiades the father and Pheidippides the son, and it is upon this conflict that the symposium is grounded. This distinction between the past and the present as well as between old and new is useful for understanding how the poetic names are employed in this scene. Apparently, Simonides and Aeschylus who are preferred by the older generation belong in the old era of Better Argument, evidently the era of Strepsiades, whereas Euripides is depicted as one of the representatives of the modern age, and is thus favoured by Pheidippides.²⁸ The chronological distance between the poets who are turned into objects of debate additionally mirrors this generational conflict, and is manifestly displayed in the conversation itself: Simonides’ song is old (ἀρχαῖον), Euripides one of these modern and fashionable poets (τῶν νεωτέρων), and whereas Simonides embodies the cultural values that Better Argument expresses in his speech, Euripides would

²⁶ Cf. Antiphanes Diplasioi 85 PCG ii where a number of songs that would be sung at symposia are characterized as old fashioned (τῶν ἀπηρχαιωμένων). ²⁷ Cf. the reaction of the chorus where τῶν νεωτέρων τάς καρδίας Nu.1391 (‘the hearts of the youths’) suggests that Pheidippides’ choice to sing Euripides would be the choice of the young generation. ²⁸ On the juxtaposition of the two tragic poets in the scene, Rosen (2010) 270. It is also conceivable that all the poets named in this scene could be presented with an ironic touch, cf. Σv Nu.1366 and ΣTz Nu.1356a.

68

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

in all probability be classified as one of the current poets who would bend the laws of music along with the laws of morality. The clash between the cultural values, as defined in the agōn in Clouds, and between the old and new educational curriculum in Athens, as Better Argument describes, is to a certain degree prefigured in the plot of Daitaleis.²⁹ According to the scholia vetera on Aristophanes’ Nu.529a–b and the commentary of Tzetzes on Nu.518, Daitaleis involved the two sons of a countryman, one decent (σώϕρων) and one depraved (καταπύγων), whose upbringing diverged at an early stage in their life.³⁰ The first son received the traditional Greek education, which, as defined by Better Argument in Clouds, involved learning how to sing the poetry of the old days, whereas the depraved son received the modern sophistic education of rhetoric and was corrupted into lavish hedonism (Ar. 206 PCG iii.2). The very characterization of the two sons as decent and depraved is built upon their chosen curricula. A series of fragments from the Daitaleis puts forward for consideration the possibility that the education of the two sons was put to the test by their father. As it seems, the old man questions his two sons, and the few surviving fragments reveal that the examination moves from the meaning of Homeric words and phrases (Ar. 233 PCG iii.2) to questions on characters from tragedy (Ar. 234 PCG iii.2), and lastly presumably to a practical demonstration of poetic and musical knowledge by performing lyric melē.³¹ ᾆσον δή μοι σκόλιόν τι λαβὼν Ἀλκαίου κἀνακρέοντος Pick up [the lyre] and sing me a skolion by Alcaeus and Anacreon. Ar. Daitaleis 235 PCG iii.2

The old man asks to hear one of Alcaeus’ and Anacreon’s drinking songs (skolion) to the accompaniment of the lyre. We cannot dismiss the possibility that the addressee in the above fragment might be the decent son, who in contrast to his brother would have been willing and capable of singing the skolion to the lyre. Nonetheless, the setting of the interrogation between father and son in the Daitaleis might be reflected in the sympotic scene in Clouds, and the old man probably addresses in this fragment the indecent son. Thus, his request to hear a skolion by Alcaeus and Anacreon might have been met with a reaction similar to that of Pheidippides, who refused to sing Simonides’ Krios. The scene in Clouds elaborates on this single line from Daitaleis: the type of song in the Daitaleis (σκόλιόν τι) is turned in Clouds into a request for a specific poem (μέλος, τὸν Κριόν), and the scenario in each case involves singing (ἆισον ~ ᾆσαι), accompanied presumably in both cases by the lyre (τὴν λύραν ²⁹ Cf. Halliwell (2015) 240 2. ³⁰ Σv Nu.529; ΣTz Nu.518; Ar. Daitaleis 205 PCG iii.2. ³¹ See the commentary by Cassio (1977).

The Canonical Nine on the Comic Stage

69

λαβόντα ~ λαβών). Alcaeus and Anacreon are exclusively identified in the fragment from Daitaleis through their poetic compositions, as the father wants to specifically hear a skolion. The specificity of the father’s wish suggests that Alcaeus and Anacreon composed songs that were identified and recognized as drinking-songs already by the time of Aristophanes. Assuming as well that the fragment displays the ignorance and indignation of the modern son in contrast to the knowledge and ability to sing of the conservative son, this kind of generic awareness revealed in the term skolion might have been presented as a quality that would have been acquired by those who had been traditionally educated and knew their melic poetry, including some members of the audience. Given also the title of the comedy Daitaleis (Banqueters), the singing of this skolion would in all probability have taken place within the context of a symposium, where the interrogation of the father in all likelihood occurred. The adjustment of the song to the setting of the symposium invites us to assume that the characters (and the audience) were aware of the appropriate performative context of such songs or that they were aware of the appropriate song-types for a sympotic context. It becomes obvious from the above fragment and from the sympotic scene in Clouds that the songs are often identified through the context of the symposium, which obviously defines their song-type and their musical accompaniment. Even in the sham symposium in Wasps the symposiasts are expected to sing skolia: V.1219–22 οἱ δὲ συμπόται | . . . τούτοις ξυνὼν τὰ σκόλι’ ὅπως δέξει καλῶς (‘the symposiasts | . . . by being in their company you will take up the skolia nicely this way’). The sung verses are chosen in the symposium in Wasps for their invective character, but the scholiast explains how these skolia were presumably songs of either Simonides or Stesichorus: Σ v V.1222a ᾖδε Σιμωνίδου μέλος ἢ Στησιχόρου μέλος (‘he sang a song of Simonides or one of Stesichorus’). Simonides features in the sympotic scene in Clouds, as we have seen, while a song of Stesichorus is depicted as the sympotic repertoire of Socrates in a fragment of Eupolis. δεξάμενος δὲ Σωκράτης τὴν ἐπιδέξι’ Στησιχόρου πρὸς τὴν λύραν οἰνοχόην ἔκλεψεν Socrates stole the wine pitcher as he accepted the myrtle that passed around from left to right singing to the sounds of the lyre a song of Stesichorus. Eupolis 395 PCG v³²

Although the explanation of the scholion does not apply to what is actually sung in the particular scene in Wasps, the comment possibly recalls a tradition that goes beyond the context of the specific imaginary symposium and that suggests that the songs of Simonides and Stesichorus were plausibly still common sympotic repertoire. ³² Cf. Hesychius s.v. τὴν ἐπιδεξιάν (τ 796 H C) and Pollux VI.108.16 18 Bethe on passing the myrtle from left to right while singing drinking songs to the lyre.

70

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

In view of the above passages, Simonides, Alcaeus, and Anacreon would represent in the comic world a past era when archaic and classical melic poetry flourished and was constantly being performed in the private context of the symposium. In each case their names serve as an exemplum of the kind of poetry that was apparently gradually considered to be old-fashioned. Simonides and Aeschylus who are both rejected by Pheidippides in Clouds, also the modern Euripides who is favoured by him, as well as Alcaeus, Anacreon, and Homer in fragmentary Daitaleis are employed in the passages in such a way that they embody the cultural and musical changes in fifth-century Athens. Their named inclusion also utters social concerns: Strepsiades is frustrated in Clouds because Pheidippides’ education in the new curriculum apparently affected his parenthood (Nu.1380–90). A number of Eupolis’ fragments complement the picture painted in Aristophanes concerning both the alleged deterioration in musical taste and the replacement of the music and poetry of the past by different tunes and modern poets.³³ τὰ Στησιχόρου τε καὶ Ἀλκμᾶνος Σιμωνίδου τε ἀρχαῖον ἀείδειν, ὁ δὲ Γνήσιππος ἔστ’ ἀκούειν. κεῖνος νυκτερίν’ ηὗρε μοιχοῖς ἀείσματ’ ἐκκαλεῖσθαι γυναῖκας ἔχοντας ἰαμβύκην τε καὶ τρίγωνον. It is old fashioned to sing the songs of Stesichorus and of both Alcman and Simonides. Gnessipus is the one to hear. He was the one who invented the nocturnal songs for the adulterers to call out the women to the accompaniment of an iambykē and of a trigōnos. Eup. Heilotes 148 PCG v πάντα δὲ ταῦτα μόνον ἐξευρεῖν ἐκ παλαιῶν ψηϕισμάτων καὶ δογμάτων τηρήσεως, ἔτι δὲ νόμων συναγωγῆς οὓς έτι (suppl. Kaibel) διδάσκουσιν, ὡς τὰ Πινδάρου κωμῳδιοποιὸς Εὔπολίς ϕησιν, ἤδη κατασεσιγασμένων ὑπὸ τῆς τῶν πολλῶν ἀϕιλοκαλίας. [Larensius] discovered all these on his own by examining old decrees and ordinances, and by collecting laws which are no longer taught, just as the comic poet Eupolis says about the works of Pindar, and have been condemned to silence because of the public’s lack of good aesthetic judgement. Eup. 398 PCG v = Ath. 1.2c10 3a2

Conceivably, Eupolis sets the tradition on which Aristophanes’ criticism rests. Heilotes was produced before Aristophanes’ Clouds, and, if we accept Meineke’s inference that Eupolis 398 PCG v is associated with Heilotes (FPCA ii.482 ad Eup. 3),

³³ e.g. Pherecrates 155 PCG vii, Eupolis 326, 395, 398 PCG v; Pl. Com. 138 PCG vii with reference to choruses; Antiph. 207 PCG ii who praises Philoxenus, according to Athenaeus.

The Canonical Nine on the Comic Stage

71

a similar chronological order might also be the case for the fragment that survives in Athenaeus.³⁴ The two fragments develop the same features that are elaborated in the words of Strepsiades and Pheidippides: differentiated poetics that represent old and new poetic eras, explicitly delineated by the word ἀρχαῖον to characterize Simonides as old-fashioned in Clouds and to denote the old days in Heilotes; poets being silenced and poets being replaced; new and modern poets being established. The telling participle κατασεσιγασμένα in Eupolis 398 PCG v develops once more the idea that a certain kind of melic poetry was no longer sung at Eupolis’ time. Whereas the scenes we have examined so far locate this silencing within the private frame of the drinking-party, the reference to the crowd that might have been listeners to that poetry (τῶν πολλῶν) transfers this silence to public contexts of performance: Pindar’s poetry was presumably no longer performed at Athenian festivals.³⁵ Eupolis 148 PCG v in particular paints a picture very similar to that in Aristophanes’ Clouds. The frivolous and adulterous Gnesippus in Heilotes is the counterpart of Euripides in Clouds, who is presented as the writer of indecent rhēseis, while their new and current erotic compositions are portrayed as ‘inappropriate and morally disreputable replacements’ for the old.³⁶ The scenes in Eupolis and Aristophanes also sketch an acoustic image in which the lyre-playing and the kithara give way to the iambykē and to the trigōnos. The replacement of the musical instruments clearly denotes a change in musical sounds at the time of Eupolis, which subsequently implies as well a change in taste not solely with reference to poets and to poetic content but also to the music that accompanied each performance.³⁷ The iambykē and the trigōnos are coupled together as the appropriate instruments for adulterers to call out their mistresses in the Eupolis fragment, and both musical instruments are coloured with sexual and sensual connotations in other comic fragments: in Eupolis 88 PCG v the performance of the trigōnos is combined with sexual agility; the trigōnos is also mentioned in Aristophanes’ Daitaleis (Ar. 255 PCG iii.2) presumably in contrast to the training in playing auloi and lyres (Ar. 232 PCG iii.2); in Plato Comicus the trigōnos accompanies an Ionian song, thus a song with a sensual character and erotic

³⁴ On the above two fragments, Olson (2014) 181 2 and (2016) 163 5. ³⁵ Olson (2016) 164 suggests that the phrase οὐκέτι διδάσκουσιν could refer to the training of the chorus for public performances of Pindaric poetry. ³⁶ Quotation from Miles (2009) 65; also Prauscello (2006) 63. On Gnesippus, see Hordern (2003); Prauscello (2006). I incline towards Prauscello’s interpretation with reference to Gnesippus’ poetic character, who is presented in other comic fragments as a frivolous and fashionable poet of erotic songs; cf. Chionides 4, Cratin. 17, 104, and 276 PCG iv, Telecleides 36 PCG vii, and the context in Ath. 14.638d 639a where these comic fragments are cited. ³⁷ On the iambukē/sambukē and the trigōnon / trigōnos, Mathiesen (1999) 275 80.

72

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

content (71 Lakones or Poets PCG vii).³⁸ Aristoxenus calls the iambykē and the trigōnos ἔκϕυλα ὄργανα (fr.97 W² ‘foreign instruments’), a characterization that might go beyond allusions to their non-Greek origin and might also refer to their new and harmonically improper sound (metaphorically ‘strange/ horrible instruments’).³⁹ The trigōnos is also picked up by Plato in his Republic as one of the many-stringed instruments that were portrayed as accompanying modern performances and that were often criticized for their capability of being played upon many modes (R.399c–d2). As they are meant to accompany the performance of Gnesippus’ poems, Eupolis, too, depicts both of them in the above fragment as belonging to the realm of the innovative. In retrospect, the iambykē and the trigōnos are also portrayed as unsuitable to accompany performances of Simonides, Stesichorus, and Alcman. Beyond comedy’s constant portrayal of a distinction between the traditional and the modern fashion of entertainment at symposia, and besides the comic statements that the great music of the past is forgotten and replaced, the above passages additionally submit that poems of lyric poets were presumably still sung at some sympotic gatherings at the time of Aristophanes and Eupolis. Assuming that the fragment from Eupolis’ Heilotes recreates a symposium, Simonides, Stesichorus, and Alcman are portrayed as the lyric poets one used to sing at such gatherings and as the poets one might still hear at sympotic occasions. This would also apply to Alcaeus and Anacreon, possibly also to Pindar. Their naming in sympotic scenes in comedy and their inclusion within the group of poets whose songs could have been performed at the symposium or in other private and public occasions reveals the contexts of survival for their poetry. The poems of these poets would have been known and remembered to have been performed and re-performed at sympotic contexts in the past. It might also be the case that comic settings recall realistic circumstances and that indeed the symposium was turned into one of the main Athenian contexts that absorbed melic poems, even if these were not meant to be originally performed at drinking-parties. In all passages, even in the cases where characters express their dissatisfaction about how poems of these poets are not sung anymore, the named inclusion of the specific lyric poets allows us to conclude that they were not only part of the musical repertoire of the symposium but were also widely recognized as poets who could have been sung in sympotic settings and other public or private gatherings. Finally, a fragment from Epicrates of Ambrasia, a poet of Middle Comedy on the one hand contradicts comedy’s depiction of the silencing of the melē of ³⁸ On this fragment, Pirrotta (2009) 171 5; Olson (2007) 299 301. ³⁹ Athenaeus states, on the authority of Iobas, that the trigōnon was the invention of the Syrians and that Neanthes of Cyzicus attributes the invention of the iambykē to Ibycus of Rhegium (Ath. 4.175d e); cf. Suda s.v. Ἴβυκος (ι 80 Adler) and σαμβύκαι (σ 73 Adler) on how Ibycus invented the sambukē/iambykē. Sophocles’ Mysians 412 TrGF 4 refers to the ‘Phrygian trigōnon’.

The Canonical Nine on the Comic Stage

73

the previous era, and on the other confirms the conclusions drawn above on the symposium as appropriate context of re-performance. τἀρωτίκ’ ἐκμεμάθηκα ταῦτα παντελῶς Σαπϕοῦς, Μελήτου, Κλεομένους, Λαμυνθίου I have learnt very well these erotic songs of Sappho, Meletus, Cleomenes, and Lamynthius. Epicrates Antilais 4 PCG v

The specific fragment follows a long speech of a prostitute where she accuses the courtesan Lais of being addicted to symposia, and her addiction is seen as a consequence of her old age (Epicr. 3.1–3, 16–17 PCG v). The speaker in the above fragment is in all probability Lais herself, who seemingly attempts to convince her accuser that symposia were beneficial to her. Lais enumerates the poets whose poems she learnt by being present at the symposium, and Sappho features in this list along with Meletus, Cleomenes, and Lamynthius. The poetic list is itself thought-provoking: the Meletus in this fragment is presumably the writer of erotic skolia (Ar. Ra.1302); Cleomenes is mentioned in our sources together with Kinesias and Philoxenus as one of the representatives of the New Dithyramb (Σ v Ar. Nu.333a and PMG 838); and Lamynthius was a lyric poet probably contemporary to Antimachus of Colophon (PMG 839) who, according to Photius, composed erotic melē (Phot. Lex. s.v. Λαμύνθιος, λ 82 Theodoridis). Epicrates’ poetic catalogue presents a mixture of old (Sappho) and new poets (Cleomenes and Lamynthius) and by extension a mixture of old and new poetic trends, which are grouped together within the context of a drinking-party. Lais further specifies that she actually learnt the erotic poems of these poets (τἀρωτικά), and her specification implies that the erotic character of their poems allowed Epicrates to group the four poets together. By identifying the types of songs she learnt and sung at the symposia Lais, moreover, draws attention to the poetic repertoire that a symposium could accommodate. As in the case of the skolia, the symposium as performance setting would presumably have pronounced the types of songs that would have been performed in its context, including their tone and poetic character. In the above case the symposium offers the appropriate circumstances for accommodating performances of melic poems with erotic character. Sappho in the above fragment, Alcaeus and Anacreon in Daitaleis, Simonides, Stesichorus, and Alcman in Eupolis’ fragments, and also Pindar are mentioned in all cases casually, with no specification, and with no explanation. Their named presence in the musical circumstances of imaginary scenes in fifth-century comedy allows us to conclude that their names carried a recognition-factor that helped both the characters and the audience to evoke specific songs of these poets. These songs would possibly also have been performed beyond the settings within which comedy inserts them. In addition to identifying the names of these melopoioi, including those poets who were portrayed as modern, as well as to recognizing the song-types a symposium

74

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

would accommodate (i.e. skolia, erōtika), the specificity of Strepsiades’ request in Clouds to hear the song of Simonides about how Krios got shorn adds an additional level of recognition. According to the scholia, this Krios was an Aeginetan wrestler in whose honour Simonides composed an epinician, an explanation that brings to the surface the compressed manner in which this song becomes part of the comic context.⁴⁰ Strepsiades identifies it through its content (‘Krios having a haircut’) and through the name of the main figure (‘Krios’). That the name of the individual mentioned in a song might be turned into its identifying feature in later times and by extension be employed as a title also becomes evident in the imaginary symposium in Wasps.⁴¹ The guests sing and cite lines of the Harmodius song (V.1225 ᾄδω δὲ πρῶτος Ἁρμοδίου, ‘I shall sing first that of Harmodius’) and of the story of Admetos (V.1238 Ἀδμήτου λόγον, ‘the tale of Admetus’),⁴² while in Lysistrata the drunken Athenians are pictured as singing the songs of Telamon and Cleitagoras.⁴³ All these songs are identified in comic fragments exclusively by the names of the individuals or by their opening. ὁ μὲν ᾖδεν Ἀδμήτου λόγον πρὸς μυρρίνην, ὁ δ’αὐτὸν ἠνάγκαζεν Ἁρμοδίου μέλος One was singing the tale of Admetus while holding a myrtle branch, and the other made him sing the Harmodius song. Ar. Pelargoi 444 PCG iii.2 Ὠιδός. οὕτως ἐκαλεῖτο τὸ ποτήριον, ϕησὶ Τρύϕων ἐν τοῖς Ὀνοματικοῖς, τὸ ἐπὶ τῷ σκολίῳ διδόμενον, ὡς Ἀντιϕάνης παρίστησιν ἐν Διπλασίοις (Α.) τί οὖν ἐνέσται τοῖς θεοῖσιν; (Β.) οὐδὲ ἕν, ἂν μὴ κεράσῃ τις. (Α.) ἴσχε, τὸν ᾠδὸν λάμβανε. ἔπειτα μηδὲν τῶν ἀπηρχαιωμένων τούτων περάνῃς, τὸν Τελαμῶνα, μηδὲ τὸν Παιῶνα, μηδ’ Ἁρμόδιον. The ōidos; thus was called the drinking cup, as Tryphon states in his Onomastika, which was given to the one who was singing the skolion, as Antiphanes describes in his Diplasioi (A.) What will there be then in the name of gods? (B.) Well, nothing unless someone mixes wine with water. (A.) Stop! Take the ōidos. Then sing from beginning to end none of those worn out songs, the Telamon, for example, neither the Paion nor the Harmodius. Antiph. Diplasioi 85.2 5 PCG ii = Ath. 11.503d

⁴⁰ i.e. Σ vrThTr Nu.1356aα. Rawles (2013) 185 90 interprets politically the inclusion of Simonides’ song in the passage. ⁴¹ On the skolia chosen in this scene, Vetta (1983). ⁴² See Σ vTr V.1238a Ἀδμήτου λόγον· καὶ τοῦτο ἀρχὴ ἔστι τοῦ σκολίου (‘the tale of Admetus: this was the beginning of a skolion’). ⁴³ Ar. Lys.1236 7 ὥστ’ εἰ μέν γέ τις | ᾄδοι Τελαμῶνος, Κλειταγόρας ᾄδειν δέον (‘so in case one sings that of Telamon, someone should sing Cleitagoras’).

The Canonical Nine on the Comic Stage

75

These cases reveal that a number of poems, in the above cases skolia or melē chosen to be performed at symposia, were well known in Athens by the fifth century, and this allowed the comic authors to mention them unobtrusively in their work. The symposiasts in Wasps recite them verbatim in the context of their imaginary symposium. In the other instances cited above the songs that could be sung within the sympotic context are indirectly referred to through the name of their honorand or of the main character. The characters involved in this game of knowledge are expected to identify, even to recall, the song. The attending audience, too, might have been aware of the existence of such a poem, and some of them might even have been capable of recalling the entire song. Their oblique inclusion in the comic action nonetheless suggests that these (drinking) songs were still part of the Athenians’ experience at the time. The ways in which comedy and especially Aristophanes depict sympotic scenes reflect on the symposium’s role in Greek society as an institution where political and social values are assessed. These comic symposia articulate in addition questions raised by the dramas. The representation of sympotic codes on the one hand charts the state of relationships within an oikos or within a polis, and on the other evaluates changes in the constructed comic world.⁴⁴ Though their depiction in the plot might be exaggerated and comically inflated, scenarios of sympotic gatherings on the comic stage and in front of a diverse and stratified theatre-audience question the symposium’s purely aristocratic character.⁴⁵ They further display a code of shared cultural values. The presence of lyric and of other poets in sympotic frames reveals that the musical culture portrayed within the context of the comic symposium was shared among the elite, the lower classes that were often represented by the characters on stage, and the attending audience in the fifth and fourth centuries.⁴⁶ The frequent positioning of lyric names in the sympotic context also allows one to argue that the symposium is depicted as one of the main mediums for the reception of their poetry, at least on the comic stage. To be sure, the comic representation of the reception and re-performance of melic poetry in sympotic contexts might not correspond with precision to the circumstances wherein these poets were performed in fifth- and fourth-century

⁴⁴ Bowie, A. (1997) 1 4; Pütz (2007) for a detailed analysis of important sympotic scenes in comedy. ⁴⁵ See Swift (2010) 44 55. On the symposium as aristocratic forum, Hobden (2013) 1 15; Węcowski (2014) 74 81 with further bibliography. ⁴⁶ The social, ideological, and political character of the theatre audience has been the subject of a number of studies: Sommerstein (2014) argues for an elite dramatic audience in the late fifth century, and claims that only a small minority of the general Athenian public might have been present at the theatre (pp. 298 9); audience stratification is supported by Wilson (2000b) 122 32; Revermann (2006a) 165 9 and (2006b); Roselli (2011) and (2014). The sources with regards to the nature of the dramatic audience are found in Csapo and Slater (1994) 286 305.

76

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

Athens, and one should perhaps avoid generalizing from comic evidence. The ease with which Alcaeus, Sappho, and Stesichorus are contextualized in the comic setting of the symposium along with other lyric figures suggests nevertheless that (their) melic songs might plausibly still have been sung at Athenian drinking-parties. If nothing else, their sympotic contextualization insinuates that they were meant to be remembered in Athens as poets for the symposium.⁴⁷

MELIC POEMS, QUOTATIONS, AND CARICATURES In view of the above, comedy provides evidence that Alcaeus, Anacreon, Alcman, Simonides, Stesichorus, and Sappho were poets who were often identified with private gatherings in fifth-century Athens and the setting wherein they were invoked often declared the kind of songs the participants could sing. Some of the above passages suggest that the performative context somehow pronounced the performed melic song-type (skolion, erōtika) or even the poets who would be depicted as appropriate for being sung in such scenarios. The adjustment of song to certain contexts reveals comedy’s awareness of the existence of distinct melic song-types each of which might also have been perceived as a distinct lyric genre, a generic understanding that would have been different from that in the Hellenistic era. To judge from comedy, the fifth century would perceive lyric genres as song-types embodied in performance and defined by their performative context, also by their function.⁴⁸ It would therefore explicate them as specific song-types which would have been performed in a certain mode, with a certain aim, and within a certain context.⁴⁹

⁴⁷ Cf. the anecdote in Timaeus FGrHist IIIB 566 F32 (= Ath. 6.250b) on how some of the envoys of Dionysius of Syracuse the Elder chose to sing after dinner poems of Phrynichus, Stesichorus, and Pindar, thus recalling the poetic repertoire in the reconstructed symposia in Eupolis’ 395 PCG v and Aristophanes’ Clouds; also Aelian fr.190 D F ap. Stob. Flor.3, caput 29.58 pp.638 9 W H iii on Solon asking his nephew to teach him the song of Sappho he had sung over wine as a last wish before he dies. See Bowie, E. (2016) 148 57 who has argued in favour of the male symposium as the initial performance context for many of Sappho’s poems, which would explain ‘the movement of Sappho’s songs into the male sympotic repertoire’ (quotation p. 152). ⁴⁸ In agreement, however, with Wright, M. (2012) 162 4 on how the game with genres and the reproduction of stylistic features in comedies reveals that the comic poets understood genre also in terms of style. ⁴⁹ Cf. Aristophanes’ Tagenistai (505 PCG iii.2) where the chorus presents itself willing to sing an enkōmion in honour of their master (ᾄδωμεν εἰς τὸν δεσπότην ἐγκώμιοί ), revealing the mode of performance they would assume (ὥσπερ οἱ χοροί ), while also evoking the dynamics of patronage by specifying their object of praise.

The Canonical Nine on the Comic Stage

77

Birds is informative with reference to the contextualization of generic terms of melic songs in performance. As in the above fragments, certain melic songtypes are mentioned in connection with specific performative aims and are associated with individual lyric poets. But unlike the passages in the previous section, the inclusion of these melic song-types in Birds creates expectations that are not fulfilled on stage. Kinesias calls himself an expert in the composition of dithyrambs (Av.1388 τῶν διθυράμβων), but the entire scene focuses on how he would have got inspired to compose such songs, had he been given feathers. Even the few lines he sings for the birds are performed before Peisetairus’ suggestion to offer him a chorus (Av.1392–4, 1405–7). In the scene preceding Kinesias’ appearance the Poet enumerates as well types of melē he has already composed for the new city, and chooses to perform an extract from Pindar’s hyporchēma to Hieron (Av.905–57). Πε. Πο. Πε. Πο. Πε. Πο.

Πε.

Πο. Πε. Πο.

Πε.

οὐκ ἐτὸς ὀτρηρὸν καὶ τὸ ληδάριον ἔχεις. ἀτάρ, ὦ ποιητά, κατὰ τί δεῦρ’ ἀνεϕθάρης; μέλη πεποίηκ’ εἰς τὰς Νεϕελοκοκκυγίας τὰς ὑμετέρας κύκλιά τε πολλὰ καὶ καλὰ καὶ παρθένεια καὶ κατὰ τὰ Σιμωνίδου. ταυτὶ σὺ πότ’ ἐποίησας; ἀπὸ ποίου χρόνου; πάλαι πάλαι δὴ τήνδ’ ἐγὼ κλῄζω πόλιν. οὐκ ἄρτι θύω τὴν δεκάτην ταύτης ἐγώ, καὶ τοὔνομ’ ὥσπερ παιδίῳ νῦν δὴ ’θέμην; ἀλλά τις ὠκεῖα Μουσάων ϕάτις οἷάπερ ἵππων ἀμαρυγά. σὺ δὲ πάτερ, κτίστορ Αἴτνας, ζαθέων ἱερῶν ὁμώνυμε, δὸς ἐμὶν ὅ τι περ τεᾷ κεϕαλᾷ θέλῃς πρόϕρων δόμεν {ἐμὶν τεΐν}. τουτὶ παρέξει τὸ κακὸν ἡμῖν πράγματα, εἰ μή τί γ’αὐτῷ δόντες ἀποϕευξούμεθα. οὗτος, σὺ μέντοι σπολάδα καὶ χιτῶν’ ἔχεις, ἀπόδυθι καὶ δὸς τῷ ποιητῇ τῷ σοϕῷ. ἔχε τὴν σπολάδα πάντως δέ μοι ῥιγῶν δοκεῖς. τόδε μὲν οὐκ ἀέκουσα ϕίλα Μοῦσα τὸ δῶρον δέχεται τὺ δὲ τεᾷ ϕρενὶ μάθε Πινδάρειον ἔπος ἅνθρωπος ἡμῶν οὐκ ἀπαλλαχθήσεται. νομάδεσσι γὰρ ἐν Σκύθαις ἀλᾶται στρατῶν ὃς ὑϕαντοδόνητον ἔσθος οὐ πέπαται ἀκλεὴς δ’ ἔβα σπολὰς ἄνευ χιτῶνος. ξύνες ὅ τοι λέγω. ξυνίημ’ ὅτι βούλει τὸν χιτωνίσκον λαβεῖν. ἀπόδυθι δεῖ γὰρ τὸν ποιητὴν ὠϕελεῖν. ἄπελθε τουτονὶ λαβών.

915

920

925

930

935

940

945

78 Peis. Poet

Peis. Poet Peis. Poet

Peis.

Poet Peis. Poet.

Peis.

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon Well, that’s a cloak full of holes you’ve got. But how come you turned up here, poet? I composed in honour of your Cloudcuckooland, many and splendid songs to be danced in circles, and partheneia, and others after the manner of Simonides. And when exactly did you compose them? Since when? Long, long now have I been celebrating this city. But am I not just now performing a sacrifice for its tenth day and have I not only just named it, like a baby? The Muses’ report is swift like the sparkling running horses. You father, founder of Aetna, namesake of holy rites, give to me whatever you would freely want to give by your head’s assent. This wretched thing here will cause us problems if we don’t get rid of him by giving him something. You there, you’ve got a jerkin and a tunic. Take it off, and give it to the wise poet. There, have this jerkin. You truly seem to be shivering. Not unwillingly does my dear Muse accept this gift; but let your mind learn the Pindaric saying. The man will simply not go away. For he wanders among the nomad Scythians, he wanders away from the people, he who does not acquire a woven garment. Unglorified goes a jerkin without a tunic. Understand what I am saying. I understand that you want to get the little tunic. Take it off. We have to help the poet. Here it is. Take it and leave. Ar. Av.915 48

The Poet’s repertoire consists of varied civic compositions for public performances: poems performed by kyklioi khoroi, songs performed by female choruses, and poems composed kata ta Simōnidou. The Poet does not refer to the content of the expected songs, but rather presents a list that comprises of songtypes that are identified by their performative mode: kyklia and partheneia.⁵⁰ His vague kata ta Simōnidou might allude to the generic variety of Simonides’ compositions, thus revealing the Poet’s capability to sing poems from different lyric genres, or it might be interpreted as referring to pure classical style, as Ann Dunbar claims.⁵¹ In either way the Poet’s list points at features of the Athenian performance- and song-culture, as well as at lyric figures (Simonides) who had a close connection with Athens. It is therefore expected that the audience in the auditorium would have recognized kyklia and partheneia if not as generic terms at least as identifying certain types of songs or certain modes of performance they were likely aware of through their everyday experience. They might also have recognized Simonides as a name they heard of.

⁵⁰ Swift (2010) 174 suggests that partheneia in this passage may be ‘a catch all for female song’. ⁵¹ Dunbar (1995) 531 ad Av.919.

The Canonical Nine on the Comic Stage

79

In spite the introduction of his poetic repertoire, the Poet sings what he labels Pindaric words. Interestingly, the poetic quotation is identified as Pindaric only after Peisetairus interrupts the Poet’s singing, which subsequently breaks the re-performance of Pindar’s frr.105a–b M into two parts (Av.926–7 and Av.941–5). Consequently, Peisetairus’ statement points at the Pindaric origin of the second part of the Poet’s performance (Av.941, 945). The first quotation is literary left hanging in the air, and the fact that it remains unmarked allows the spectators to take it as samples of Simonides’ poetry, especially if they are not capable of identifying the discontinuity between the name of the lyric poet and the original source of the Poet’s song. Such a misconception would be applicable. The Poet qualifies his songs at Av.919 as kata ta Simōnidou, an identification that is followed by an actual Pindaric quotation at Av.926–7, which is identified correctly as Pindareion epos only at Av.939. The disordered adaptation of the Pindaric lines in Aristophanes’ passage adds to the difficulty in recognizing the original song. Ar. Av.926 7, 941 3, 945 σὺ δὲ πάτερ, κτίστορ Αἴτνας, ζαθέων ἱερῶν ὁμώνυμε . . . . . . . νομάδεσσι γὰρ ἐν Σκύθαις ἀλᾶται στρατῶν ὃς ὑϕαντοδόνητον ἔσθος οὐ πέπαται ἀκλεὴς δ’ ἔβα . . . . . . . ξύνες ὅ τοι λέγω

Pi. frr.105a b M (a) Σύνες ὅ τοι λέγω, ζαθέων ἱερῶν ἐπώνυμε πάτερ, κτίστορ Αἴτνας (b) νομάδεσσι γὰρ ἐν Σκύθαις ἀλᾶται στρατῶν, ὃς ἁμαξοϕόρητον οἶκον οὐ πέπαται, ἀκλεὴς < δ’ > ἔβα.

Dunbar points out that ‘we cannot tell if this passage of Pindar [frr.105a–b M] was familiar enough for many of the audience, with no mention of Pindar until 939, to recognize it as by Pindar rather than Simonides or Bacchylides’. The reshuffling of the verses in the Poet’s song reinforces her remarks, but it also suggests that it was not crucial to recognize the text as Pindaric, as it was to recognize it as high melic poetry. With reference to the second act of this Pindaric re-performance and in particular to ξύνες ὅ τοι λέγω (Av.945), Dunbar remarks that the phrase had ‘become famous as by Pindar . . . but since Aristophanes postpones this line until 945, he may not have seen any need to ensure that the audience thought particularly of Pindar while listening to the poet’s effusions.’⁵² While her comments are contextually relevant to the scene, the analysis in the following chapter will demonstrate that ξύνες ὅ τοι λέγω became proverbial, and as a result it was circulated independent of its poetic source and with no identification as Pindaric. This suggests that ξύνες ὅ τοι λέγω had become famous enough not necessarily as by Pindar, as Dunbar presumes, or as by any lyric poet, but famous enough to be cited as an ⁵² Quotations from Dunbar (1995) 532 3 ad Av.926 30.

80

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

apophthegm, thus de-contextualized, and with no need to identify its poetic source. The re-performance of Pindar on stage, however, satisfies partly the expectations created at the Poet’s entrance. The scholia testify that the Poet’s song derives from Pindar’s hyporchēma for Hieron (Σ v Nu.926), whose original performance involved a chorus, female or male, and a lively mimic dance (Ath. 1.15.d–e, 14.631c). Cyclic poems and songs performed by female choruses, which are mentioned by the Poet as part of his repertoire, allude therefore to the original performance mode of the Poet’s song. Even the reference to the father of Aetna tacitly touches upon the Poet’s kata ta Simōnidou; Simonides’ poetic activity was connected with a number of prominent families and patrons both in the Greek West and in mainland Greece, as we have seen.⁵³ His role evolved in tradition from poet composing in honour of his patrons and hosts to adviser to Hieron. In this sense, the entire scene operates at several levels: for the more sophisticated members of the audience who know their melic poetry it mismatches name and poem—the kata ta Simōnidou songs of the Poet are actually Pindaric; for those who only recognize style the scene points at its non-comic literary models; for the spectator who is aware of the specifics—literary, historical, and cultural—the passage indiscriminately mixes into a single whole performative modes of lyric song and all the civic lyric poets who celebrated in their poems the foundation of new colonies and who praised elite patrons. Simonidean and Pindaric identifications of the Poet’s song would also have influenced the perception and identification of the actual poetic figure on stage. Instead of displaying a picture of a prestigious and luxuriously dressed lyric poet who would receive grand civic commissions, the Poet is presented as of low status. Peisetairus comments on the poor clothes of the Poet who asks for the slave’s tunic (Av.935, 944), and his request consequently infuses his representation with Hipponactean features. In two of his extant fragments Hipponax ironically projects his poetic voice and persona into the speaking voice when he complains about his lack of a cloak and his need of sandals (Hippon. 32 and 34 IEG²). The Hipponactean injection is given a twist in the above scene. Whereas in Hipponax’s poems the speaking persona asks for a cloak from Hermes without referring to his poetry as a means that would allow him to be rewarded, in Birds the Poet is looking for a patron who will commission his poetry and pay him for his services. He receives a cloak instead. Despite this difference in content, emphasis on the lowly appearance of the Poet and on the jerkin that is offered to him in order to keep him away, and the subsequent request for a cloak by the Poet himself, which is also eventually offered to him, incorporate in the scene elements of the

⁵³ See Chapter 1 in this book: ‘Poetic Pan Hellenism and Pan Hellenic Poets’.

The Canonical Nine on the Comic Stage

81

Hipponactean iambus. Aristophanes thus does point to specific lyric models in the above scene. While using the Simonidean persona and the words of Pindar to portray those poets who would traditionally be commissioned to sing of the foundation of a new colony, he adds an iambic admixture through the implicit presence of Hipponax. Such an alteration ridicules the status of commissioned poets and the discourse of praise-poets in fifth century .⁵⁴ In the process it provides a reductio ad absurdum of the process of poetic commissioning by turning it into the beggar’s need for a cloak.⁵⁵ As J. M. Bell suggests, the phrase kata ta Simōnidou could additionally hint at Simonides as the example of the poet who composed in return for payment, and could thus imply ‘for payment’.⁵⁶ Ultimately, the scene crafts a pastiche: a poetic persona with explicitly recognizable characteristics is presented on stage, accompanied by named references, allusions to specific poems, and lines extracted from melic songs.⁵⁷ The caricature is also located in a comic setting that merges the issues of commission, patronage, and poetry for newly-founded colonies, as well as the personae and poems of Pindar and Simonides. This amalgamation, however, is not consistent. Aristophanes mixes and matches what suits his purposes without necessarily making the text correspond to the poetic figure he brings on stage and without requiring his audience to identify simply one poet. Aristophanes fuses in this scene features that belong to different types of lyric poetry (lyric in the broader sense that includes melic, elegiac, and iambic) and the characteristics of a number of poets. This procedure ultimately merges personae, song-types, and lyric genres, and creates a melange, which is turned essentially into a comic caricature on stage. It could be that Aristophanes draws specifically on that strand of the anecdotal tradition that portrayed particularly Simonides as the parasitic poet who always attended the lavish dinners of tyrants only to be given the leftovers from the feast as a reward for his poetic services.⁵⁸ Simonides brought with him invaluable connotations of avarice that were largely connected with his role as the first freelance poet who was paid by his

⁵⁴ Dunbar (1995) 521; Martin (2009) 87. ⁵⁵ We find parallels in Aristophanes’ comedies for this process; politicians of low birth become foreigners in Aristophanes, on which MacDowell (1993), e.g. Spintharus (Av.762) and Euathlus (Ach.704 12) are called Scythians, Exekestides (Av.764 5, 1527) Carian and barbarian, Acestor (Av.31 2) is nicknamed Sacas and is a foreigner in V.1221, and Cleophon becomes a Thracian (Ra.679 81). ⁵⁶ Bell (1978) 40. ⁵⁷ I use the term ‘pastiche’ as understood in Rose, M. (1993) 72: ‘practice of compilation which is neither necessarily critical of its source, nor necessarily comic . . . pastiche may be used as part of a parody.’ ⁵⁸ e.g. Chamaeleon fr.33 W² = Athen. 13.656c d with relevant discussion in Chapter 4 in this book: ‘The Peri Treatises on the Lyric Poets’.

82

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

patrons.⁵⁹ His figure came along with a precise narrative attached to it, and Aristophanes makes use of it in his Peace. Τρ. ἐκ τοῦ Σοϕοκλέους γίγνεται Σιμωνίδης. Ερ. Σιμωνίδης; πῶς; Τρ. ὅτι γέρων ὢν καὶ σαπρὸς κέρδους ἕκατι κἂν ἐπὶ ῥιπὸς πλέοι. T: H: T:

698

From Sophocles he becomes Simonides. Simonides? How so? He is very old, but he would still go to sea on wicker work to make profit. Ar. Pax 697 9

Later anecdotal tradition emphasized Simonides’ avidity and longevity that subsequently made his name synonymous with these notions.⁶⁰ This passage in Peace is probably the first source for unambiguous associations of Simonides with greed, and Aristophanes might be responsible for the shaping of the anecdotal tradition on Simonides. Although biographical data and information in these anecdotes are not necessarily reliable, the fact that ancient sources already from the late fifth century turned Simonides into the greedy poet par excellence is of great importance. The consistency with which Simonides is portrayed in the tradition suggests that he offered many reasons to be named in comedies: fame gained from prestigious commissions by individuals and communities; possible continuous re-performances of his poetry at private occasions (i.e. symposia); mainly the numerous anecdotes that surrounded his name. The anecdotally heavy figure of Simonides, and the plausible circulation of these anecdotes in fifth-century Athens provided Aristophanes with the means to make jokes in the most economical manner about what had already been established as features of the Simonidean caricature. Trygaeus still puts into words in the above passage the meaning of the name Simonides: Sophocles is getting old, but would still do anything for profit. His explanation might indicate that Aristophanes is aware that for some, perhaps many, of the audience Simonides was simply a name presumably attached to a poetic corpus and not a set of associations. The reference to Simonides is still relatively undemanding. The passage does not rely for its effect on recollecting

⁵⁹ See ΣTz Ar. Nu.98a οὐδεὶς γὰρ τῶν παλαιῶν οὔτ’ ἔγραϕεν οὔτ’ ἐπαίδευε πρὸς ἀργύριον, πρῶτος δὲ Σιμωνίδης ἤρξατο μισθοῦ γράϕειν (‘none of the older men ever wrote or educated anyone in exchange for money. Simonides firstly started to write for a wage’) with Bell (1978) 29 54 on the portrayal of Simonides’ professionalism in the anecdotal tradition. ⁶⁰ On Simonides’ avarice: Σ vr Ar. Pax 697 b e = Xenophanes 21 IEG²; Pl. Hipparch.[sp.] 228c1 2; Arist. EN 1121a4 7, Rh.1405b23 34; Chamaeleon fr.33 W² = Ath. 14.656c d; Theophr. 516 Fort.; Σ Pi. I.3.9a (Dr. iii, p. 214) = Call. 222 Pf.; Ael. VH 8.2.11 14 Dilts; P.Oxy. 15.1800, fr.1 col.ii.36 47; on Simonides’ longevity: ‘Simonides’ 28 FGE. For a summary of Simonides’ features on which the biographers focused, Lefkowitz (2012) 55 60.

The Canonical Nine on the Comic Stage

83

the poetry itself but rather on recalling the anecdotal and biographical tradition, the important features of which are spelled out in the passage itself.⁶¹ However, a correlation exclusively with the Simonides of popular caricature in Birds would require the audience to ignore the ‘presence’ of Pindar in the scene. Richard Martin argues that the figure of the anonymous bard could apply to every wandering poet who belongs in the fifth-century exchange culture and who is in search of a long-term patron.⁶² His formulation would therefore include not only Simonides and Pindar, both of which are named in the passage, but also Bacchylides, who was also commissioned by Hieron of Syracuse, as well as Ibycus and Anacreon, who allegedly accepted hospitality from both Polycrates of Samos and Hipparchus in Athens. The objects of parody in this scene would in such a case be two: on the one hand the traditional and prestigious public choral celebrations, and on the other the poeti vaganti who recycled their poetry and jumped from patron to patron.⁶³ The parody is exemplified both in the mockery of the poetic figure and in the reproach of the bard’s services. Peisetairus rejects the norms that used to signal the importance of a new colony because his city does not need the solemn poets of celebration. The entrance of the encomiastic poet evokes aspects of the traditional process of colonization, whereas the comic rejection of his services recalls again the struggle between old and new, as we have seen in Clouds and in a number of comic fragments. A different kind of old and new, however. The contrast between the poet’s fancy songs and the outbursts they provoke in Peisetairus, who does not want his city to be praised or at least does not want this kind of bombastic and commercial festivities, demonstrate that the traditional choral celebrations for newly-founded colonies are no longer welcome. It seems therefore that it is not crucial for understanding the content of the passage and for grasping the humour of the scene to identify the figure on stage specifically with Simonides or Pindar, both of whom are named, to recognize the reshuffled text as Pindaric, or even to get the allusion to Hipponax. What matters essentially is for the audience to recognize the names and to identify the cited passages as melic in order to understand that Aristophanes both mimics and ridicules the high style of public melic poetry and the lyric poets of the past. What is desirable but inessential is for the audience to identify the original, to recall the exact quotation, and to perceive it as echoes of Pindar. The scene becomes humorous essentially through the contrast between the traditional portrayal of these prestigious lyric poets and the shabby figure of the Poet as well as through the juxtaposition between the grand poetic style, the grand choral lyric, and the realities of ⁶¹ Bell (1978) 38 40 for a political interpretation of the passage in Peace. ⁶² Martin (2009). ⁶³ Martin (2009) 101 2 suggests that the joke of the passage is that the Poet and presumably every wandering poet employed ‘canned material’ on public occasions.

84

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

patronage as parodied in the specific scene. For those who caught the intertext of Hipponax the irony of Aristophanes’ presentation of high melic as represented by Simonides and Pindar is increased. This, too, was optional, however. Intertextual allusion was one aspect of the experience for those who recognized the original source of the song. Aristophanes probably could not have expected his entire audience to recognize Pindar or to identify the Hipponactean features. It might have been enough for many of the audience to recognize the grand style and to recall the process of poetic commissioning. The erudite spectators or possibly those spectators who had had an elite education could ideally identify the passage as of a particular poetic corpus. The rest were only required to recognize the tone and the linguistic register of melic poetry.⁶⁴

LYRIC F IGURES AND VIVID COMIC PORTRAYALS The case of Simonides in both Birds and Peace is a representative example of how comedy openly takes advantage of biographical and anecdotal details that shaped the persona of a lyric poet in tradition. Modern scholars of ancient biography have demonstrated that the corpus of each poet is the main source of information for the construction of biographical narratives.⁶⁵ This implies that Aristophanes possibly knew of the poems of a number of lyric poets—he might even have heard some of them—or that he was aware of the tradition that each of them represented. Simonides, for example, to judge from his extant works and from testimonia, spent time at the company of rich patrons who presumably paid him to compose poems, features comedy engages with in crafting his image in Peace and Birds. His figure in the two Aristophanic scenes reveals as well the comedic and hyperbolic interpretation of biographical and representational attributes: Simonides is turned into the poet who would do anything to make profit (Peace) and would also accept anything and everything as payment (Birds). Simonides was also a member of Athens’ festival-culture, and Aristophanes openly makes use of his participation in festivals with choral competitions in his Wasps. ⁶⁴ A universally sophisticated audience at dramatic performances should be ruled out; cf. Arist. Po.1451b23 6. Revermann (2006b) argues that the theatrical competence of the audience is connected with their participation in choruses at the City Dionysia; Robson, J. (2017) provides evidence from Aristophanes to conclude that Old Comedy takes into account all social classes and levels of intellectualism in the audience: the social elite and the wealthy, the intellectuals, thus the cultural elite, and the masses. ⁶⁵ See, among others, Fairweather (1974); Graziosi (2001) (2002) and (2009); Kivilo (2010); Lefkowitz (2012).

The Canonical Nine on the Comic Stage Αρ. Φι. Αρ.

καὶ καταγελᾷς μου; προσκαλοῦμαί σ’, ὅστις εἶ, πρὸς τοὺς ἀγορανόμους βλάβης τῶν ϕορτίων, κλητῆρ’ ἔχουσα Χαιρεϕῶντα τουτονί. μὰ Δί ’, ἀλλ’ ἄκουσον, ἤν τί σοι δόξω λέγειν. Λᾶσός ποτ’ ἀντεδίδασκε καὶ Σιμωνίδης ἔπειθ’ ὁ Λᾶσος εἶπεν, ‘ὀλίγον μοι μέλει.’ ἄληθες, οὗτος;

85 1406

1410

Br:

You dare laugh at me? I shall summon you, whoever you are, before the commissioners of the marketplace for ruining my stock, and will have Chaerephon here as my witness. Lov: Really, just listen to what I say, and see if it seems good to you. Once Lasus and Simonides competed with rival choruses, and Lasus then said, ‘I could not care less.’ Br: Did he really now? Ar. V.1406 12

Philokleon imagines an agōn with kyklioi khoroi or a dithyrambic competition between Lasus and Simonides in order to excuse his own aloof behaviour towards the possibility of being sued by the female bread-seller for ruining her stock.⁶⁶ Philokleon’s choice to refer to Lasus and Simonides as competitors is certainly based on two important factors that created a connection between the two: location (Athens) and poetic performances (dithyrambs/kyklioi khoroi).⁶⁷ Both Lasus and Simonides supposedly came to Athens under the patronage of Hipparchus, they had both been active in dithyrambic competitions in the city of Athens, and they were the two poets who had probably become paradigmatic of, if not synonymous with, the dithyrambic genre.⁶⁸ Tradition ascribed to both Lasus and Simonides a dominant role in the history of the dithyramb and in performances with kyklioi khoroi. The Suda states that Lasus was the initiator of dithyrambic contests and of choral performances with kyklioi khoroi (s.v. Λάσος, λ 139 Adler; s.v. κυκλιοδιδάσκαλος, κ 2646 Adler),⁶⁹ and other sources name him as a reformer of the dithyramb,⁷⁰ as the second principal articulator of dithyrambic history after Arion,⁷¹ and as a teacher of ⁶⁶ Some scholars have seen a reference to an actual competition between Lasus and Simoni des: Schmid (1959) 507, 544; Pickard Cambridge (1962) 13; Bowra (1961) 318. ⁶⁷ Wehrli (1969e) ix.81 2 suggests that the two poets are portrayed together not because of their involvement in the history of the dithyramb but because of their reputation for riddles and of their connection with the Seven Sages. ⁶⁸ On their connection with Hipparchus, Hdt. 7.6.3; Pl. Hipparch.[sp.] 228c1 3; Arist. [Ath.] 18.1.20 5; Ael. VH 8.2.1 15. ⁶⁹ On whether dithyrambic competitions existed already at the time of the Peisistrateids or whether they were established by Kleisthenes, see Privitera (1965) 86 8; Wilson (2000a) 16 17. ⁷⁰ See Zimmermann (1992) 39 40; D’Angour (1997) 346 50; Prauscello (2013c) 89 92, who analyses Plu. [De mus.] 1141c1 5 in order to identify Lasus’ reformations in music; Kowalzig and Wilson (2013) 14; Ieranò (2013) 372 3. ⁷¹ i.e. Σ Pi. O.13.26b (Dr. i, pp. 361 2); Σ vTr Ar. Av.1403b; Plut [De mus.] 29.1141c1 5; Tz. Prolegom. ad Lycophr. p. 2, 14 Scheer.

86

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

kyklioi khoroi. Simonides is remembered as the winner of a great number of victories with performances of male choruses, some of which he would in all probability have won in Athenian competitions (AP 6.213/‘Simonides’ 27 FGE; cf. ‘Simonides’ 28 FGE). One can reasonably conclude that the inclusion of the names of Lasus and Simonides in association with the verb ἀντεδίδασκε discloses the competitive nature of dithyrambic performances in Athenian festivals and the continuity of contests with kyklioi khoroi and of dithyrambic competitions from the period in which the two poets were active in Athens till the time of Aristophanes.⁷² The specifics of the passage would subsequently have crafted a picture that would have been familiar to the audience; Philokleon (and Aristophanes) takes for granted his interlocutor’s (and his audience’s) familiarity with the process of training a chorus for choral performances. The imagined poetic competition reveals more than that, however. Aurelio Privitera has demonstrated how the tradition surrounding Lasus in the fifth century paid attention to his rivalry with Simonides, a remark that is evident in the joint reference to the two poets in the above passage, and Guerrino Brussich points out how one can infer from the adverb ἔπειτα and from Lasus’ sarcastic reply that Lasus was defeated by Simonides in this imaginary agōn.⁷³ Nevertheless, one could assume that Lasus’ unfazed reply ‘it matters little to me’ is unrelated to the result of the actual competition and that it rather indicates that Lasus found the idea of competing against Simonides not intimidating at all.⁷⁴ Lasus’ aloof reaction either before or after this imaginary contest against Simonides presumably follows or even sets the grounds for the tradition surrounding Simonides as one of the most successful dithyrambic poets in Athens.⁷⁵ Building Philokleon’s joke on an imaginary dithyrambic contest between Lasus and Simonides and pairing the two poets in such an agonistic context puts forward the suggestion that their dithyrambic compositions and the tribal competitions in which both Lasus and Simonides participated in Athens defined not only their biography and persona within antiquity but also the manner in which antiquity portrayed their relationship.⁷⁶ They were not only presented as two of the main representatives of the dithyrambic genre. The passage also submits that their established fame in Athens allowed Aristophanes to use them as joke-material.

⁷² Choral competitions were still central in Athenian festivals and khoragic institutions for such activities survived well down to the fourth century , on which Wilson (2000a) 265 302. ⁷³ Privitera (1965) 48; Brussich p. 55. ⁷⁴ See Biles and Olson (2015) 488 ad 1410 11. ⁷⁵ Privitera (1965) 49 points out that ὀλίγον μοι μέλει became proverbial and that Aristoph anes ridicules in this passage the topos that was called lasismata by Hesychius (s.v. λασίσματα, λ 372 Latte). The phrase is found again in Ar. Av.1636, Eq.1195, Nu.1142, Lys.895, Ra.1136, and V.1446, and the scholiast in Birds identifies Lasus’ answer with the (apparently) slang phrase οὐδέν μοι μέλει τοῦ Σιμωνίδου (Σ vTr Ar. Av.1411a); cf. Hippocleides’ response in Hdt. 6.129. ⁷⁶ Molyneux (1992) 101 points out that the pairing in the above passage could also indicate that Aristophanes saw Simonides as Lasus’ contemporary and equal.

The Canonical Nine on the Comic Stage

87

The case of Simonides and his use and abuse by comedy is supplemented by the examples of Alcaeus, Anacreon, and Ibycus, as exploited by Agathon in Thesmophoriazusae. Agathon enters the stage holding a torch and pretending to be leading a chorus of maidens (Th.102 κοῦραι) while he sings a hymn to Apollo, Artemis, and Leto (Th.101–29).⁷⁷ His song springs a pseudo-literary commentary from Euripides’ Relative, who comments on the aesthetics of Agathon’s melos whilst mocking his appearance (Th.130–45). The Relative notes how Agathon’s attire and appearance reflect his effeminate song (Th.144–5), a comment that corresponds visually to the image of Agathon, who wears a saffron-coloured robe, a woman’s hair-net on his head, a band around his breast, and lacks the paraphernalia of a grotesque comic costume (Th.137–9).⁷⁸ The Relative’s commentary points as well at Agathon’s crossgender disguise and at the disjunction between his male sex, his female clothes, and his effeminate performance. As Anne Duncan has analysed, Agathon becomes an ontological puzzle for the Relative; he is depicted as indeterminate and as disrupter of categories.⁷⁹ Agathon defends his appearance and inappropriate behaviour by developing an aesthetic theory that is centred on the issue of mimesis: a poet’s tropoi must each time conform to the subject-matter of his poetry and his work must be in accordance to his physis (Th.148–50). Agathon needs nonetheless a poetic model to convince the Relative that this is the manner of the poets, and for this reason he anchors both his performance and his appearance to certain poetic figures of the past. Αγ. ἄλλως τ’ ἄμουσόν ἐστι ποιητὴν ἰδεῖν ἀγρεῖον ὄντα καὶ δασύν. σκέψαι δ’ ὅτι Ἴβυκος ἐκεῖνος κἀνακρέων ὁ Τήιος κἀλκαῖος, οἵπερ ἁρμονίαν ἐχύμισαν, ἐμιτροϕόρουν τε καὶ διεκλῶντ’ Ἰωνικῶς. καὶ Φρύνιχος τοῦτον γὰρ οὖν ἀκήκοας αὐτός τε καλὸς ἦν καὶ καλῶς ἠμπίσχετο διὰ τοῦτ’ ἄρ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ κάλ’ ἦν τὰ δράματα. ὅμοια γὰρ ποιεῖν ἀνάγκη τῇ ϕύσει.

160

165

Ag. Besides, it’s such an uncultured sight to see a poet looking boorish and shaggy. Take the renowned Ibycus and Anacreon of Teos and Alcaeus, who softened rough music, and appeared in head bands, and displayed Ionian softness. And take Phrynichus you’ve surely heard of him he was him self beautiful, and he dressed beautifully, too. For this reason his plays were also beautiful. A poet should reflect his nature. Ar. Th.159 67

Agathon makes an essentialist claim of mimesis in the above passage, whereby mimesis works outwards from the poet’s nature to his writing, and ⁷⁷ On the Agathon scene, Muecke (1982); Stohn (1993); Kugelmeier (1996) 271 97; Duncan (2006) 32 47; De Simone (2014) 254 60; Compton Engle (2015) 94 102. ⁷⁸ Compton Engle (2015) 14, 38 9. ⁷⁹ Duncan (2006) 33 5.

88

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

he simultaneously develops a conflicting constructionist theory, whereby mimesis works inwards from the clothes to the poet’s nature, reflecting in his apology theories of role-playing and theories of identity-formation respectively.⁸⁰ In his inability to disentangle the two theories, Agathon uses a kind of synecdoche in his response; Ibycus, Anacreon, Alcaeus, and Phrynichus are lined up in order to exemplify the associations he makes between manners and poetry and in order to underscore his thesis that a poet’s work reflects his own physis and appearance. The names of the poets thus stand for the nature of their poetry and are selected for the style of their poetry, for their physical appearance, and for their manners. The brief reference to each lyric poet, especially the pronoun ἐκεῖνος for Ibycus, suggests not only that their names would have sounded vaguely familiar but also that all three of them had become recognizable in Athens by the time of Thesmophoriazusae; recognizable in the manner in which Agathon introduces them on stage. Still, the introduction of Phrynichus with the parenthetic sentence ‘you’ve surely heard of him’ suggests that there is a small possibility that the Relative might not have recognized the named lyric poets. The Relative apparently is expected to be aware of Phrynichus presumably because of his Athenian origin and of the controversial tragedies he composed (cf. Hdt. 6.21). Agathon’s scepticism could also be interpreted as a hint of the status of melic poetry as a component of elite education and elite entertainment. The previous section has shown that the lyric names included in the comic symposia must have been recognized by both the characters and the audience, but learning how to sing songs to the lyre still remained part of an elite educational curriculum (e.g. Pl. Prt.325c6–326b4). It was surely not something Euripides’ vulgar kinsman would have studied. Be that as it may, the collective reference to Ibycus, Anacreon, and Alcaeus, who are introduced climactically with the repeated use of καί, suggests that their names and subsequently their figures are displayed as exemplars in order to serve Agathon’s claim that a process of assimilation is attached to poetic composition. His comment refers predominantly to those features of the poets’ appearance that associate them with his own effeminate performance and subversive appearance, but the passage asks the audience to attach a longer narrative to the names of the three melopoioi. This narrative would be related predominantly to the nature of the poems they composed. The passage can be interpreted in a number of ways. Firstly it insinuates the idea that Ibycus, Anacreon, and Alcaeus were known enough in Athens to be presented by the fifth century as paradigms for certain comic characters; secondly as they are all in retrospect characterized as sensuous and effeminate, it demonstrates that they were noted for their physical appearance; lastly, the

⁸⁰ Duncan (2006) 44; also Austin and Olson (2004) 105 ad Th.148 72.

The Canonical Nine on the Comic Stage

89

passage indicates that the Athenians at the time might have been aware of the erotic character of their poems, if not of specific erotic compositions. That these three lyric poets had become the pederastic and (homo-)erotic poets par excellence in the minds of the Greeks is hinted in later sources that play with the same pederastic and erotic motif in the representations of Ibycus, Anacreon, and Alcaeus. The scholia to Pindar, for example, group once more the same lyric poets as paradigms of poets who composed love-songs or poems devoted to young boys (περὶ τὰ παιδικά); the Suda incorporates this (homo-) erotic motif in its entries for both Anacreon and Ibycus; and Philodemus states how Ibycus, Anacreon, and other similar poets corrupted the youths with their songs.⁸¹ As it appears, Anacreon rivalled Polycrates of Samos for the love of young boys (Ath. 12.540e–f; Ael. VH 9.4 Dilts), and he is also depicted on vases in an ecstatic state as he performs whilst wearing a woman’s headdress, a visual image that recalls Agathon’s costume in Thesmophoriazusae.⁸² Alcaeus’ presence in the list might be puzzling considering how he is portrayed in the above passage and in the Pindaric scholia as erotic and pederastic exclusively in association with Ibycus and Anacreon.⁸³ To be sure, later sources refer to Alcaeus’ erotic poems, some of which he addressed to Sappho and others to beautiful boys.⁸⁴ His Lesbian origin, which connected him with Sappho, might have contributed as well to his inclusion in Agathon’s catalogue of poets. The consistency with which these three lyric poets are grouped together as erotic and effeminate in sources following Aristophanes submits that the initiator of the above tradition and the common source for the other passages was in all likelihood Aristophanes himself. Whilst all three of them, including Phrynichus, are presented as the rolemodels for Agathon’s image, his caricature, as can be visually reconstructed by the comments of the Relative, is paradoxically identical to a number of fifth-century pictorial representations of Anacreon.⁸⁵ This conjunction of Anacreon’s image and of the personae and poetry of old lyric poets creates an incongruous amalgam that is not compatible with Agathon’s place within the Athenian poetic landscape. He after all is one of the musical innovators, and his performance in Thesmophoriazusae displays the musical and

⁸¹ Σ Pi. I.2.1b (Dr. iii, p. 213); Suda s.v. Ἀνακρέων (α 1916 Adler) and s.v. Ἴβυκος (ι 80 Adler); Philodem. De Mus.4.14.6 13, p. 168 van Krevelen. ⁸² e.g. the red figure kalyx krater (‘Curtius krater’) by the Kleophrades Painter (Copenhagen MN 13365 = ARV² 185, 32). A number of Attic vases that were painted between 520 and 490  have Anacreon’s name inscribed on them, on which, Boardman and Kurtz (1986) and Price (1990). ⁸³ Contra De Simone (2014) 256 who argues that Alcaeus wears similar clothes with Anac reon on the attic krater attributed to the Brygos painter (Munich Antikensammlungen 2416). ⁸⁴ i.e. Arist. Rh.1367a7 15; Xermesianax F47 50 Powell; Hor. Carm.1.32; Cic. de Nat. Deor.1.28. ⁸⁵ See Snyder (1974).

90

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

harmonic syncretism that supposedly characterized the new musical style;⁸⁶ he sings a hymn for a constellation of gods, Apollo, Artemis, and Leto, to the accompaniment of numerous musical instruments, employing additionally for his composition poetic kampai, while the prominence of the lyre that is invoked as a god illustrates the dominance of music over words, a feature that characterized the New Music.⁸⁷ His choice is nevertheless telling. His connection with the three canonical lyric poets links old and new styles of composition, and Agathon associates himself with a tradition he might be unworthy of with the aim to persuade his questioner of the truthfulness of his theoretical underpinnings. Accordingly, Ibycus, Anacreon, and Alcaeus acquire an explanatory function and an exemplary role for the New Poet Agathon, as they become the ethical and poetic models upon which he excuses his own performance. Both his portrayal and performance on stage tacitly and conspicuously embody the melic past these three poets represent.

R E C O L L E C T I NG ME LI C P O E M S AND RECOG NIZING LYRIC P OETS One can draw a number of conclusions from the picture painted in comedy. The named presence of each lyric poet strongly pronounces their status in the lyric tradition and their presence in the Athenian poetic and musical landscape. Moreover, the easiness and casualty with which lyric poets are named suggest that Aristophanes expects his audience to recognize the reasons for such inclusions and to identify the subtext hidden behind each name. The transvestite appearance of Agathon in Thesmophoriazusae, for instance, draws attention to the erotic character of the poems of Anacreon, Ibycus, and Alcaeus and to their effeminate appearance in iconography and in subsequent representations. Although Agathon’s connection of his hymn to his representation on stage also associates implicitly the appearance of the recalled poets with their composed songs, for the purpose of the scene Aristophanes does not require the audience to recall any of these poets’ poems or to be familiar with

⁸⁶ i.e. Arist. Po.1456a25 32; Plu. Quest.Conv.645d6 e14 on how Agathon was the first to have introduced the embolima and the chromatikon into tragedy with West, M. (1992) 351 5. ⁸⁷ Th.53 κάμπτει (‘he bends’), Th.67 9 γὰρ μελοποεῖν ἄρχεται· χειμῶνος οὖν | ὄντος κατακάμπτειν τὰς στροϕὰς οὐ ῥᾴδιον (‘he starts to compose, and in winter it is not easy to bend down the strophes’), Th.120 κρούματά τ’ Ἀσιάδος (‘the sounds of the Asiatic [lyre]’), Th.123 4 σέβομαι . . . | κίθαρίν τε ματέρ’ ὕμνων (‘I honour . . . the kithara, mother of hymns’) with Austin and Olson (2004) 85 9 ad Th.100, 101 29; cf. Pherecrates’ Cheiron 155 PCG vii. On the representation of the novel features of the New Music in comedy, Ford (2013) 317 with n. 19, 318 22; Ieranò (2013) 380 6; LeVen (2014) 71 7.

The Canonical Nine on the Comic Stage

91

their poetry. Furthermore, the recollection of Simonides’ Krios in Clouds brings to mind not only this specific song but also those poems that were often (re-)performed at symposia, and Simonides’ pairing with Aeschylus in the same scene touches on his old and old-fashioned poetic character. Comic fragments, too, can be used as evidence in favour of assumptions that lyric poets became known through re-performances often in the receiving context of the symposium. Additionally, Simonides is mentioned in Peace for his longevity and avarice, and his named inclusion infuses the passage with anecdotal features, which undoubtedly would have derived from his poetic corpus. Aristophanes’ knowledge of the cultural and political background of composed lyric songs and of the process of poetic commissioning, as well as his awareness of lyric genres and melic performances are revealed in Birds, where the Poet mixes performative modes with civic commissions and Pindaric verses with Simonides’ caricature in an attempt to ridicule the process of poetic patronage. It has become evident that the comic scenes with references to the lyric poets both in Aristophanes and in the comic fragments do not rely heavily on detailed recollections of a song or of a certain poet. It is rather important to recognize the name of the lyric poet, the stylistic tone in a lyric pastiche, and the distinguished features of different lyric song-types. The dynamics of parody could be seen as parallel to this process. Parody depends on a shared recognition of what counts as parodic and of the process through which parody becomes parody.⁸⁸ Given that all parody is overtly hybrid and double-voiced, it entails identification of its object and of its model, as well as identification of its critical difference from it.⁸⁹ The possibilities of comprehension depend on the audience’s ability to recognize parody as parody, on its knowledge of the object in question, and on the acknowledgment of its distortion in the parodic reading, while it also relies on the audience’s capacity to interpret the function of parody in the passage.⁹⁰ Meaning in such cases is under negotiation, and it is only conveyed when the audience is in the position to recognize the dialogic complexity of the passage, as well as to read and decode the signals given in the parody-text.⁹¹ Similarly, in the passages discussed from both Aristophanes and the fragments, especially in those cases where the figure rather than the poetry of a specific lyric poet becomes essential for the comic result, the audience is asked to recognize the name and to make the appropriate connections, all of which are often indicated in the passage. The way in which a name should be read is most of the time mirrored and signalled in the text itself.

⁸⁸ Goldhill (1991) 194. ⁸⁹ Goldhill (1991) 207 9. ⁹¹ On the decoding of parody, Rose, M. (1993) 36 45.

⁹⁰ Goldhill (1991) 208 14.

92

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

This recognizing-and-reading process as outlined above becomes less straightforward and more complex when the lyric poet, whose verses are alluded to in a specific passage, is not named. Due to the volume of his work, the only comic poet who can be used as a substantial example in such a silent recollection of unnamed lyric poets is Aristophanes. Evidence from his comedies demonstrate how lyric poems could be adapted, reworked, or be called to mind without the identification of their composer. One can find resonances of some poems by Stesichorus and Sappho in a number of passages in Aristophanes that are picked up by the scholia;⁹² Anacreon’s 378 PMG is alluded to in the Kinesias scene in Birds (Av.1372–4) and his Artemon poem in Ach.850 (Anacr. 372, 388.5 PMG), while the figure of his περιϕόρητος Ἀρτέμων (PMG 372) is recalled in Diphilus’ Emporos 35 PCG v; Ibycus’ 288 PMG is hinted at in Ec.973a–5, and, according to the scholia, the bird πηνέλοψ in Av.1302 might have been taken from either Ibycus or Stesichorus (Σ vr Av.1302a); Alcaeus’ poetry becomes an intertext in two instances in Aristophanes;⁹³ an echo of Alcman’s 26.2–3 PMG is detected in Av.250–1, and at the end of Lysistrata Aristophanes creates a pastiche of Alcmanic allusions (Lys.1296–322);⁹⁴ lastly, certain Pindaric and Simonidean passages become unmarked objects of allusion or of parody, according to the scholia.⁹⁵ The big absent is Bacchylides; he is the sole canonical lyric poet who is not named in any of Aristophanes’ comedies or in any comic fragments. Still, one can find scattered reminiscences

⁹² Stesichorus: Ar. Nu.967 ~ Σ v Nu.967b.β with Dover (1968) 215 ad Nu.967 and the debate in the scholia on the authorship of the poem from which the line derives; Σ vr Pax 775f ~ Stesich. 210 PMG; Σ vrTr Pax 797c ~ Stesich. 212 PMG/173 Finglass; Σ v Pax 800 ~ Stesich. 211 PMG/174 Finglass. Sappho: Ar. Eq.730 τίς, ὦ Παϕλαγών, ἀδικεῖ σε; ~ Sapph. 1.19 20 V τίς σ’ ὦ | Ψάπϕ’ ἀδικήει; Lys.839 ὀπτᾶν καὶ στρέϕειν ~ Sapph. 38 V ὄπταις ἄμμε, on which Müller (1974) 29 30. ⁹³ Ar. V.1232 5 ~ Alc. 141.3 4 V (Σvr V.1232b 4); Av.1410 11 ~ Alc. 345 V (Σvr Av.1410b τινὲς παρὰ τὰ Ἀλκαίου); ad V.1239 the scholiast assumes that Bdelykleon sings a kolakikon skolion that some consider as by Alcaeus and others by Sappho, cf. incer. 25c V. ⁹⁴ With Σ vr Av.250b on how the lines were also written in Doric because of the interaction with Alcman (διὸ καὶ δωρικῶς εἴρηται); on the Alcmanic pastiche at the end of the Lysistrata, Bierl (2011). ⁹⁵ Simonides: Σvr Av.1301b and Σvr Av.1410b ~ PMG 597/F 307 Poltera); Σ vr Pax 117g ~ PMG 516/F5 Poltera; Σ vr Pax 736 ~ Simon. 86 IEG²; Σv Eq.405a ~ PMG 512/F1 Poltera. Pindar: the beginning of a Pindaric prosodion (Pi. fr.89a M) is the object of allusion in Ar. Eq.1264 73 ~ Σ vTr Eq.1264b; Eq.1329 constitutes a parody of Pindar (Σ vTr Eq.1329b totus versus [ἀπὸ Πινδάρου παρῴδηται) presumably of Pi. fr.76 M which the verse evokes, and the specific fragment is recalled again in Nu.299 301 (Σv Nu.299b) and in Ach.636 40 (Σv Ach.637(i)); a brief snatch of Pi. fr.189 M is found in V.308 (ΣvTr V.308a); Tzetzes claims in his Comm. in Nu.335 that ὑγρᾶν νεϕελᾶν is a gesture towards Pindar, who is mocked by Aristophanes (ad Nu.335b). Pindaric identifications or allusions to Pindaric passages in the scholia on Aristoph anes are often unconvincing; at times, they attempt to link stylistic and linguistic features of a higher register with Pindaric lyric: e.g. Σ v Av.515 ~ Pi. P.1.11; Σ v V.308 ~ Pi. fr.189 M; Σ v Av.1121 ~ Pi. N.1.11.

The Canonical Nine on the Comic Stage

93

of his poetry in the mouth of Kinesias in Av.1372–409.⁹⁶ The recollection of Hipponax in Birds brings also to mind Archilochus who appears only tangentially in Aristophanes and for which we have a corrective in Cratinus with his comedy Archilochoi.⁹⁷ Sappho was apparently a great hit for Middle Comedy: Antiphanes, Amphis, Diphilus, Ephippus, and Timocles wrote plays entitled Sappho, and Ameipsias, a poet contemporary with Aristophanes, also devoted a play to her (T2, 15 PCG ii).⁹⁸ If we can judge from the meagre evidence, Sappho’s representation in middle comedy often as an hetaira or as a desirable woman in love-triangles proves that the erotic character or her poems influenced her persona and subsequently its comic portrayal. The courtesan Antilais sings in Epicrates nothing other than her erotic poems (4 PCG v). Lyric poets would not have been named, had the name itself not carried any weight that would have made it sound familiar. It is also reasonable to conclude that poets and works that were alluded to and cited in comedy were still part of the songculture in fifth- and fourth-century Athens. The chorus sings in Knights Simonides’ πῖνε πῖν’ ἐπὶ συμϕοραῖς (Eq.405–6 ~ PMG 512/F1 Poltera), and the fact that the line is casually cited with no attachment to its author suggests that some poems or some compositions were still in circulation and were still (re-)performed in certain environments. Although a book trade, most likely a modest one initially, existed in antiquity, we should avoid drawing far reaching conclusions about the broad and public availability of poems as material texts.⁹⁹ Most likely, the majority of the comic audience encountered the alluded or recalled melic songs in (re-)performance. It is possible that for some, perhaps many, in the audience these lyric names were no more than names, and random lines from melic poems were no more than Aristophanic signs of erudition or illustrations of melic fabrication. It is, however, also conceivable that for certain members of the audience these random lines functioned as reminiscences of the melic poetry or of the lyric poet they became acquainted with through their educational curriculum; for others they might have reminded them vaguely of the songs they heard at symposia or at festivals. The consistency with which some of the lyric poets are incorporated in the comic action and the recurrent features detected in their ⁹⁶ See Chapter 7 in this book: ‘Traces of Bacchylides before the Hellenistic Era’. ⁹⁷ On Cratinus’ Archilochoi, Rosen (1988) 42 9; Kugelmeier (1996) 178 89; Bakola (2010) 70 9. Archilochus is cited in Aristophanes often verbatim but not by name: Σv Pax 1298a b, Σv Pax 1301 ~ Archil. 5 IEG²; ΣvTr Pax 603c ~ Archil. 109 IEG²; ΣvTr Ach.120 ~ Archil. 187 IEG²; Ach.1127 8, 1230 Τήνελλα καλλίνικος ~ Archil. 324 IEG²; Σ Lys.1257a πρὸς τὸ παρὰ τῷ Ἀρχιλόχῳ ~ Archil. 44 IEG²; Σv Ra.704b ~ Archil. 213 IEG². On a number of these allusions, see Kugelmeier (1996) 169 74. ⁹⁸ Antiphanes 194 PCG ii, Amphis 32 PCG ii, Diphilus 70 PCG v, Ephippus 20 PCG v, and Timocles 32 PCG vii, on which O’Higgins (2003) 123 5, 213n. 109; Konstantakos (2000) 157 80 analyses Sappho’s persona in Middle Comedy and comments on the relevant fragments of Antiphanes. ⁹⁹ See Chapter 5 in this book.

94

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

comic portrayal allow us to deduce that lyric reception was characterized by a high degree of diversity: some poets had by the fifth century become recognizable names with certain representational characteristics. They might even have become classic. The evidence from comedy allows us to conclude with confidence that the Lyric Canon was formatively visible through the comic lens, and was present on the comic stage already by the fifth century .

3 Plato, Poetry, and the Lyric Nine Few pre-Hellenistic works of prose are as endowed with such intensity of poetic diction and imagery as the Platonic dialogues. Yet, no other author has been charged with hostility towards both poetry and art as fiercely as Plato. Modern scholarship has until recently promoted a reductive and rigid view of the Platonic dialogues that flags the banishment motif, evident mostly in the Republic, as the orthodox interpretation of Plato’s dealings with poetry.¹ Plato’s censorship of poetry concerns predominantly tragedy and epic, a censorship that he justifies epistemologically, psychologically, and philosophically, but poetry and its role as an educational instrument in society concern him throughout.² The evidence provided in a number of Platonic dialogues suggests that it is essential not to assume that Plato rejected (all) poetry and (all) poets. He clearly targeted specific poetic trends, specific poets, and specific poetic passages, of which he disapproved, while at the same time making clear how good poetry, that is poetry under state control, could be beneficial for the citizens. Socrates’ arguments in favour of poetry’s exile from the ideal Platonic state in the Republic are best interpreted in correlation to the existing poetry of his time and more specifically to the objects this poetry imitates or sings for. Socrates decides to banish a certain kind of poetry, if not exclusively certain passages from specific poetic works, and clarifies that he would be willing to accept poetry of one sort, the kind of poetry which imitates virtuous people (R.398a8–b4).³ Central to Plato’s refusal to grant poetry a place in his ideal city ¹ See in particular, Gould, T. (1972); Annas (1981); Cross and Woozley (1986) 270 88 on Plato’s conception of art in the Republic; Annas (1982) on the attack on literature in the Republic as a whole and in book 10; Janaway (1995) esp. 1 13, 36 57. The critical attitude towards poetry was not a newly found approach launched in Plato’s Academy, on which Irwin (1992) for a thorough presentation of Plato’s intellectual background. ² e.g. R.398c 402c; Prt.325e1 326b6; Lg.809a6 813a2. ³ The literature on mimesis, mimetic poetry, art, and Plato is enormous. The works that I found most useful are: Annas (1981) 335 54; Cross and Woozley (1986) 270 88; Ferrari, G. (1989) 120; Moss (1992); Murray (1992) and (1996) 6; Greco (1994) 141 3; Janaway (1995) 133 57; Levin, S. (2001) 152 67; Halliwell (2002) part I; Naddaff (2002) 1 10, 67 91; Leszl (2004) 141 9 and (2006) 245 58; Hatzistavrou (2011); Herrmann (2011) 21 35; Marušič (2011) 217 28; Richardson Lear (2011) 195 201.

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon. Theodora A. Hadjimichael, Oxford University Press (2019). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198810865.003.0004

96

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

in the Republic are also questions of morality. His criticism concerns poetry’s educational and influential role, and in retrospect aims to bring to the foreground the ‘ethical and social responsibility’ of both the artist and the literary author.⁴ Plato’s worries about the impact uncontrolled poetry potentially had could, moreover, go beyond fears concerning the possibility of accommodating bad habits. They could be perceived as expressing his certainty that humans possess a weak nature. The emphasis given on the correct training and education, as expressed especially in the Laws, is mostly related to the need to train people from a very young age in how to resist pleasures and in how to choose the lawful and noble in life (e.g. Lg.659c9–660a). We can observe in the three main choruses which the Athenian lawgiver assigns to groups of his community his attempt to include all ages in the choral activities of Magnesia, and the communality displayed through the khoreia that is established in Magnesia encompasses the most important stages in a human’s life—childhood, early adulthood, midlife, and mature adulthood. The performances of this Magnesian trichoria are after all directed predominantly towards children and youngsters in the city, and aim to enchant and shape their souls as early in their lifetime as possible, to direct them towards the kind of life that is declared by the gods, and to instil in them the language of the community (Lg.664b3–c2). Seen from this perspective—moral and immoral poetry, mimesis that is defined as good and bad based on its object, weak human nature, and the poets’ role in the community—the Platonic corpus presents a dual and ambivalent attitude towards poetry, which is centred on four different poles: individuals as members of a community; the existing fallacious, non-rational yet charming poetic corpus; a kind of ideal poetry that is accountable to discursive understanding and is meant to be accommodated in the ideal Platonic cities; the character of the poets themselves. Though the image of the inspired poet is altered from dialogue to dialogue and changes from that of a transmitter to that of an imitator who reproduces solely the superficial and external features of reality, Plato stresses in every case the poets’ lack of understanding of what they actually compose.⁵ Stephen Halliwell has recently elaborated on the Platonic ambivalence towards poetry and the complex dialectic of Plato’s attitude towards poetic beauty and truth.⁶ His analysis of passages from the Apology, Ion, and book ten of the Republic brings to the foreground ‘a recurrent tension . . . between attraction and resistance to the possibilities of poetic experience’.⁷ As he

⁴ Leszl (2006) 330. ⁵ A number of scholars provide instructive analyses of the representation of both poetry and poets in Plato, e.g. Gould, T. (1972) 88 9 creates a list with Plato’s complaints about the poets in each dialogue; also Murray (1992) 30 8; Levin, S. (2001) 133 4, 147 50; Collobert (2011) 41. ⁶ Halliwell (2011b). ⁷ Halliwell (2011b) 159.

Plato, Poetry, and the Lyric Nine

97

argues, three distinct models of poetic experience are intertwined in the figure of Ion—cognitive knowledge for the poet, divine inspiration and imagination for the performer, and rational and critical expertise for the interpreter—while the dialogue as a whole withholds solution to the split between rational knowledge and inspiration for the poetic art.⁸ In a similar manner, the Republic reaches an aporetic conclusion. In the epilogue of the Republic Socrates returns to his suggestion to banish poetry only to apologize, as Andrew Ford argues, and to rework and rethink his decision to exclude poetry from Plato’s ideal city (R.607b–608b).⁹ The necessity to censor poetry is called into question until the end of the Republic, and this foregrounds Socrates’ hesitation to implement his suggestion to ban poetry from Callipolis. The relationship between poetry and philosophy in the soul of the lover of philosophy remains a problem, as Halliwell puts forward, and it might indeed be the case that Socrates’ dismissal towards traditional poetry is proposed ironically.¹⁰ The Republic nonetheless concludes with the female figure of Poetry being offered the right to defend herself in poetry.¹¹ Οὐκοῦν δικαία ἐστὶν οὕτω κατιέναι, ἀπολογησαμένη ἐν μέλει ἤ τινι ἄλλῳ μέτρῳ; Πάνυ μὲν οὖν. Δοῖμεν δέ γέ που ἂν καὶ τοῖς προστάταις αὐτῆς, ὅσοι μὴ ποιητικοί, ϕιλοποιηταὶ δέ, ἄνευ μέτρου λόγον ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς εἰπεῖν, ὡς οὐ μόνον ἡδεῖα ἀλλὰ καὶ ὠϕελίμη πρὸς τὰς πολιτείας καὶ τὸν βίον τὸν ἀνθρώπινόν ἐστιν καὶ εὐμενῶς ἀκουσόμεθα. κερδανοῦμεν γάρ που ἐὰν μὴ μόνον ἡδεῖα ϕανῇ ἀλλὰ καὶ ὠϕελίμη. Is it not fair then for her to return, having defended herself in melos or in any other kind of metre? Of course it is. We would surely then grant her champions, those who are not actual poets but rather lovers of poetry, the right to make a defence on her behalf in prose, on the grounds that she is not only pleasant but also beneficial both to polities and to the human way of living; and we shall listen kindly. For we shall profit in some degree, if she appears to be not solely pleasant but also useful. R.607d4 e2

The distinction between the two kinds of defence Poetry might receive draws attention to the poetic character of her defence: Poetry will defend herself poetically and as a result self-reflectively, whereas the philopoetai will defend her in prose, a difference that presumably foregrounds the inability of the lovers of poetry to protect themselves from poetry’s enchantment. Poetry’s apology will therefore turn into a kind of poetic performance, but the poetic discourse will not be of her choice. The passage is precise: Poetry will defend ⁸ Halliwell (2011b) 166 78. ⁹ Ford (2002) 46. ¹⁰ Moes (1996). ¹¹ Halliwell (2011a) 254, 260 1; on the quasi trial atmosphere at the end of the Republic and the judicial imagery in the epilogue, Halliwell (2011a) 251 3 and (2011b) 190 6; Peponi (2012) 129 35 on how Socrates addresses the personified version of mimetic poetry as hetaira in R.607c 608a.

98

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

herself in melos or in any other kind of metre (ἐν μέλει ἤ τινι ἄλλῳ μέτρῳ), and her plea is explicitly distinguished from the a-metrical performance of the philopoetai (ἄνευ μέτρου λόγον). It could be claimed that melos in the above extract applies exclusively to the musical and acoustic features of Poetry’s apologia and that it defines the melodic nature and the tune of her song. Melos, however, is employed as an alternative to epos in another passage from the Republic, where Socrates toys with the idea of keeping Homer in the city. The distinction between melos and epos in this particular passage suggests that melos plausibly refers to a specific and recognizable poetic genre or type of song and not solely to its musical features, that is metre or musical harmonies. [λέγουσιν ] . . . καὶ συγχωρεῖν Ὅμηρον ποιητικώτατον εἶναι καὶ πρῶτον τῶν τραγῳδοποιῶν, εἰδέναι δὲ ὅτι ὅσον μόνον ὕμνους θεοῖς καὶ ἐγκώμια τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς ποιήσεως παραδεκτέον εἰς πόλιν; εἰ δὲ τὴν ἡδυσμένην Μοῦσαν παραδέξῃ ἐν μέλεσιν ἢ ἔπεσιν, ἡδονή σοι καὶ λύπη ἐν τῇ πόλει βασιλεύσετον ἀντὶ νόμου τε καὶ τοῦ κοινῇ ἀεὶ δόξαντος εἶναι βελτίστου λόγου. [they say] . . . that it is agreed that Homer is the most accomplished poet and the first of the tragic poets, while it is also recognized that the only forms of poetry that should be allowed in our city are hymns to the gods and eulogies to good men? But if you admit the Muse of delight in melē or epic, then both pleasure and sorrow will prevail in the city instead of law and what appears to be at all times the best for the common interest, reason. R.607a2 8

Socrates specifies in the above passage that hymns to the gods and encomia to good men would be accepted as poetic performances in Callipolis (ὕμνους θεοῖς καὶ ἐγκώμια τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς). His specification creates a polarization between permitted and non-permitted poetry, which is also reflected on the differentiation between melos and epos. Ἐν μέλεσιν ἢ ἔπεσιν in the above passage serve as broader categories that embrace hymns and encomia, and Homer respectively. Melos is thus perceived in the above passage as a type of poetic discourse that Socrates can juxtapose to epic poetry, and hymns and encomia are presented as the ideal melic song-types to be accepted and performed in the Republic.¹² Accordingly, melos does not refer solely to the musical and harmonious definition and embellishment of Poetry’s poetic defence but also to the type of song she will perform at the conclusion of the Republic. Poetry will therefore defend herself in melic poetry or more precisely in poetry of lyric or of any other type of metre. This specification suggests that she herself, the personification of the subject that was up to this moment to be banished from Callipolis, may employ an existing poetic and

¹² In the above classification of hymns and encomia as melic song types I do not ignore the fact that the Homeric hymns are hexametric, and I refer specifically to the hymns composed by a number of lyric poets (i.e. Alcaeus, Anacreon, Pindar, Bacchylides).

Plato, Poetry, and the Lyric Nine

99

musical form that her performance will eventually introduce in the city— melic poetry. Melic poetry has not been extensively discussed in scholarship under the headings of Plato’s banishment of poetry and hostility to the arts. Plato’s views on poetic discourse, as they unfold in the Republic and in other dialogues, should allow room for the poetry that was represented by the nine lyric poets. The above passage, where Socrates consents to encomiastic poetry for humans and hymns for the gods to be the only acceptable poetry in his Republic could be interpreted as a gesture towards such a suggestion. Scholars have attempted to explain this seeming inconsistency in Socrates’ decision to ban poetry bar hymns and encomia with no general agreement. Very selectively, Julia Annas claims with no substantial argumentation that Plato is not inconsistent in this exception because he knows that such productions are not real poetry; Christopher Janaway asserts that hymns and eulogies cannot be mimetic, as ‘they aim to benefit the citizens, not simply to please them’; Susan Levin then contends that ‘607a . . . concentrates on poetry’s civic role, which must be kept distinct from that pedagogical function previously assigned to it in the context of early education’; Ramona Naddaff points out that these hymns and enkōmia, which she characterizes as primitive poetic forms, are defined by the absence of tragic suffering; lastly, David Konstan suggests that hymns and encomia to virtuous people offer pleasure to the superior part of the soul, and could thus be kept in Callipolis.¹³ The above scholarly explanations on the possible reasons why eulogies for gods and men would be accepted in Plato’s Callipolis touch upon issues that the passage itself refutes. Though it is difficult to conclude from the reference to the two acceptable song-types whether their performances will acquire an educational role in the city or whether they will exclusively satisfy civic purposes, hymns and encomia are introduced in a passage where Homer is commented upon for the praise he receives as the educator of Greece (R.606e1–607a2). Hymns and encomia could thus be potentially perceived in a similar pedagogic framework. Magnesia’s choral performances, as they are described in the Laws, could additionally be perceived as the embodiment of Socrates’ poetic proposals in the above extract from the Republic. Performances of hymns and encomia are re-established in the Laws not only as means for social coherence but also as pedagogical instruments for the citizens.¹⁴ Though the above extract does not reveal the beneficial effect hymnic and encomiastic poetry might have on the citizens in the Republic, their public value is nonetheless hinted in the connection of their introduction with the ¹³ Annas (1981) 344; Janaway (1995) 131; Levin, S. (2001) 153; Naddaff (2002) 120 1; Konstan (2005) 5. ¹⁴ On choral performances in the Laws, Prauscello (2011), (2013a) 260 73, and (2014) 152 73; Calame (2013) 90 6, 99 106; Peponi (2013a) 6 7; Folch (2015) part II.

100

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

prevalence of law and reason in the city, and with the common good and civic unity.¹⁵ The possibility that eulogies might also please the citizens is raised in Socrates’ instructions on how encomia and hymns, thus melic poetry, as well as epic, in all probability Homer, could be permitted in the ideal city, as long as they are not solely composed for the purpose of pleasure and amusement (τὴν ἡδυσμένην Μοῦσαν), and by implication as long as their performances do not provoke any emotional reactions. Socrates’ pronouncement therefore that the permitted poetic genres are to serve the social order of Callipolis needs to be considered in association with the educative role of poetry, with Plato’s pedagogical programme, as that is outlined in the Republic and in the Laws, with his attempt to control any discourse that arouses emotions, as well as with his views about the soul.¹⁶ In this sense the permitted poetry is framed within a context that comprises of social, civic, and pedagogical functions, and, as demonstrated in the Laws, it is turned into the instrument of social coherence and communality. The terms ὕμνος and ἐγκώμιον are used vaguely in the above passage from the Republic, and this allows us to infer various melic song-types (secular and religious) if the two terms are interpreted broadly.¹⁷ Encomium, that is a praise song for humans, could refer to epinikia, thrēnoi, which to judge from the surviving fragments usually have a gnomic and consolatory character, while encomium could theoretically also apply to poems classified as erōtika or to songs that praise and admire the beloved’s beauty.¹⁸ Plato introduced a technical limitation for the term hymnos that is employed in his dialogues to denote a religious song, whereas hymnos-related words are used in Pindar and Bacchylides for songs sung for both men and gods.¹⁹ In Anacreon’s 356(b) PMG the term is even used self-reflectively to refer to the beautiful songs that are currently being sung with the accompaniment of wine (Anacr. 356(b).4–5 PMG καλοῖς ὑποπίνοντες ἐν ὕμνοις). The term hymnos is used in the Platonic dialogues to refer to specific song-types addressed to gods or generally to religious songs as opposed to secular (e.g. Lg.700b1–2, 801e1–4; Smp.177a5–7). Socrates’ hymns to the gods could thus encompass any non-secular melic song-types provided they do not tell morally problematic myths. This broad understanding of the term hymnos would also include the dithyramb which is classified in the Republic as the main narrative poetic genre (R.394b10–c3) and in retrospect as the main poetic genre that needs ¹⁵ Levin, S. (2001) 161 2. ¹⁶ The educative power of music in Plato has been explored by Pelosi (2010) esp. 29 67. ¹⁷ On the broad literal and rhetorical use of the term enkōmion in Plato, Harvey, A. (1955) 163 5 and 165 8 for the multifarious use of the term hymnos. ¹⁸ The Pindaric scholia at times refer to the victory odes as enkōmia (e.g. Σ O.11.8, P.11.63, N.7.112, I.4.42c); also Sapph. 16 and 31 V; Anacr. 360 PMG; B. frr.17 18 Maehler as examples of poems that include a praise of the beauty of the beloved or of the person admired. ¹⁹ e.g. Pi. O.2.1, O.7.14, Is.2.3, N.5.25, N.10.2; B.5.10, 6.11, 9.78, fr.4.80 Maehler.

Plato, Poetry, and the Lyric Nine

101

not be corrected. Although Socrates’ declaration on the discursive and non-mimetic character of dithyrambic poems is not absolutely confirmed by the extant lyric fragments, his choice is nevertheless rooted in the Athenian festival culture that would have made the dithyramb a recognizable genre.²⁰ Socrates’ approved and permitted melic song-types and lyric genres might as well correspond to Plato’s vision of chorality, as that is shaped in the Laws, which reflects the religious and cultic frame of Athenian performance- and song-culture.²¹ Hymns and encomia are introduced as the ideal performances in Magnesia, where they are envisioned as song-types with a broad semantic range, and are at times used interchangeably to refer to songs that could be performed in the Laws’ ideal city in honour of both gods and mortals (e.g. Lg.801e1–802a3, 822b1–7).²² One could further argue that the passage from the Republic reveals in retrospect the poetic genres and song-types that would not be accepted in Callipolis or in any other ideal Platonic city, as a matter of fact. According to Plato’s own ideal vision of education, as presented throughout the Republic, the iambic genre (and presumably comedy) would not have had a place in the poetic culture of his city due to its invective and often abusive language. Pindar similarly distances himself and his praise poetry from Archilochus’ iambic invective (P.2.52–6), which is consequently presented as the inverse to his praise poetry and by extension to Socrates’ eulogies for men. The problematic relationship with the iambic genre and with comedy is further revealed in the Laws, where comic and abusive language should be avoided by the adult citizens of Magnesia (Lg.935c7–e6).²³ As in the case of hymns and encomia that are depicted as the permitted song-types in the Republic’s Callipolis and whose performance is envisioned and embodied in the choral culture of the Laws’ Magnesia, the approach of the Athenian lawgiver in the Laws towards invective discourse and the comic genre could plausibly be linked with Plato’s educational programme, as that is unfolded in the Republic. The adult citizens in Magnesia are prohibited from performing comedies and other low genres (Lg.816d5–817a1), and, following Marcus Folch, a connection could be drawn between this prohibition in Magnesia and Plato’s concerns about imitating base characters in Callipolis.²⁴ This brief introduction to Plato’s view of poetry and to the envisioned and ideal poetic discourse that would be accommodated in his imaginary cities sets the background for considering the place of melic poetry and the status of the lyric poets within the Platonic agenda. As it will be shown, it becomes necessary to acknowledge the diversity of Plato’s reaction to the poetic tradition and, as cautioned by Andrew Ford, to avoid in this quest the usual consensus that ‘makes Plato’s main concern in discussing poetry to deny its ²⁰ On the interpretative problems of the above passage, Peponi (2013b) 355 9. ²¹ Prauscello (2011) 151 and (2013a) 161; Folch (2015) 2. ²² Folch (2015) 166 7. ²³ Prauscello (2013b) 333 5 and (2014) 211 13. ²⁴ Folch (2013) 350 2.

102

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

truth and value’.²⁵ This chapter will focus mainly on the position and status of the nine canonical lyric poets in the Platonic dialogues, and the discussion will analyse the different ways in which Plato uses melic poetry and the lyric poets in the dialogues. Emphasis will fall on those lyric poets who are named and cited in Plato as well as on the way in which they and their work are presented and integrated in the Platonic dialogues. The picture that the analysis will paint will be comparable to that in comedy, and will allow us to draw conclusions both on the status of the lyric nine in Plato and on the classicizing process in the reception of melic poetry.

LYRI C P OETS: AUTHORITIES AND M ODELS OF INSPIRATION The Platonic dialogues are important sources for our understanding of both the development and the survival of melic poetry. Not only does Plato attempt to evaluate the evolution of choral and monodic poetry and to argue for its gradual deterioration during his time but he also refers to lyric poets and cites a great number of fragments of small-scale poetry that are frequently accompanied by the poet’s name. Apart from quotations, his dialogues are filled with images, metaphors, themes, and language from melic, elegiac, and iambic poetry, all of which are subordinated to Plato’s philosophical purposes and to the specific aims of each dialogue.²⁶ As outlined in the brief analysis above, a reading of Plato’s use of melic poetry and of his standpoint on its potential within the ideal state strongly suggests that his attitude towards arts and poetry should not be generalized as blanket hostility. His disposition towards small-scale poetry, especially towards melic poetry, is different from the way he appears to treat epic and drama. In two detailed studies Elizabeth Pender has demonstrated the playfulness with which Plato alludes to melic poetry and the manner in which he signals these allusions in his Phaedrus and in his Timaeus.²⁷ As Pender’s work reveals, the melic colour and tone in the Platonic dialogues as well as their dramatic structure testify to Plato’s appreciation of melic poetry and drama respectively. Her analysis has also demonstrated the creative engagement with previous poetry, especially melic poetry, which provided Plato with well-established and recognizable images for allusion.²⁸ Plato’s interaction with melos is part of ²⁵ Ford (2011b) 5. ²⁶ On metaphors and themes from poetry in the Platonic dialogues, see, very selectively, Demos (1999); Pender (2007a) and (2007b); Petraki (2011); Capra (2014). ²⁷ Pender (2007a) and (2007b). ²⁸ On the poetic qualities of Plato’s dialogues, Murray (1996) 12 14.

Plato, Poetry, and the Lyric Nine

103

a larger strategy in which fragments of small-scale poetry, names and figures of melic, elegiac, and iambic poets are incorporated in the Platonic dialogues and within the Platonic philosophical vision with a specific aim. In most cases, as it will become obvious in the course of this chapter, small-scale poetry is used for rhetorical purposes: it either forms part of an argument or is presented as evidence in favour of the persuasiveness of a speaker’s viewpoint. Dorothy Tarrant argues that ‘Plato uses quotations sometimes as integral to his argument, sometimes as a mere embellishment’, and notes that these two types are not easily distinguishable; ‘any quotation usually occurs as in some degree appropriate or relevant to the context of discussion’.²⁹ Following Tarrant’s observations, Marian Demos has drawn attention to the interpretative difficulties of lyric quotations within the dialogues, while Halliwell has recently analysed the problems of contextualization that poetic quotations in Plato cause.³⁰ Most importantly, Halliwell points out that a double model of meaning is at work with quotations of poetry: meaning that is grounded in internal context, and meaning that is altered by an interpretative application.³¹ Over and above any aesthetic or rhetorical use, these poetic quotations and allusions lend refinement to the speech of each of the participants in the Platonic work, while they also serve as signs of a cultural milieu that is recognizable and acceptable both within and outside the context of the specific dialogue.³² Taken as a whole, Plato’s use of the poetry of the lyric nine falls under several categories. One can detect verbatim quotations, accurate or inaccurate, some of which are interpreted in the text, whereas others are left with no interpretation (e.g. Simonides’ poem to Scopas in the Protagoras, the singleline quotation from Ibycus in the Phaedrus, or the citation of Pindar in the Meno). In most of these cases the name of the lyric poet is mentioned beforehand, and marks the quotation (e.g. Stesichorus’ Palinode in the Phaedrus 243a2–b7). In other cases, the poet’s name is accompanied not by an exact quotation but by a paraphrase of a specific passage or by a summary of the main points of the poem in question (e.g. the paraphrase of Pindar in Lg.690b7–c3). Lastly, the lyric poet is often portrayed as exemplary model (e.g. Stesichorus in the Phaedrus), and this can be seen in parallel with cases where poets are imagined as real figures in the dialogues and whose role implies prior knowledge of their poetry (e.g. Tyrtaeus in the Laws, Solon in the Timaeus). Of the named lyric poets Simonides is seemingly the most frequently named poet in the dialogues, who is then followed by Pindar.³³ ²⁹ Tarrant (1951) 59. ³⁰ Demos (1999) 49 64; Halliwell (2000). ³¹ Halliwell (2000) 100 1. ³² Halliwell (2000) 96. ³³ The bulk of named references to Simonides is found in the Protagoras in association with his Ode to Scopas; the second part of his PMG 598/F308 Poltera τὸ δοκεῖν καὶ τὴν ἀλάθειαν βιᾶται is also cited in R.365c1 2. He is additionally mentioned in connection with the question of justice in the Republic (R.331d2 335e10), and is coupled with Anacreon as the two poets that

104

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

Anacreon is named four times (Phdr.235c2–4; Hipparch. [sp.] 228b–c; Chrm.157e4–158a2; Thg. [sp.] 125d10–e3), Stesichorus three and in every instance in association with his Palinode (Phdr.243a2–b3 and 243e9–244a5; R.586b7–c5), Ibycus twice (Phdr.242c8–d2; Prm.136e9–137a4), whereas Sappho is mentioned only once (Phdr.235b–c).³⁴ Although it is important to recognize that the name of a lyric poet is often repeated by the interlocutors who participate in a conversation and that the numbers might consequently not have an absolute value, the first conclusion we can draw is that similarly to Aristophanes references to Simonides in Plato’s work undoubtedly outnumber the named inclusions of other lyric poets. Simonides’ persona in Plato, though, does not resemble the Aristophanic caricature. A different strand of the biographical tradition had turned Simonides into a figure of wisdom, an image that is especially developed in Xenophon’s Hieron. Mary Lefkowitz observes that although none of the sayings attributed to Simonides by Xenophon or by later biographers bear any resemblance to his surviving poetry, they portray clearly the character of Simonides’ poetic style and discourse.³⁵ Representations and depictions of poets in literature do not exist in a vacuum, as analysed by scholars of ancient biography, and the moralizing tone that is often detected in Simonides’ poems testify in favour of his depiction as a figure of wisdom in later traditions.³⁶ It also explains the preoccupation of Socrates and Protagoras with his persona and his views on virtue in his Ode to Scopas, and the didactic role he is ascribed to in the Protagoras. Along with Homer and Hesiod Simonides is portrayed in the Protagoras as one of the old sophists who disguised their sophistry in verse (Prt.316d2–8). Uttered by Protagoras the statement is not meant to be interpreted in a Hipparchus brought to Athens (Hipparch. [sp.] 228b c). Pindar is named in the dialogues in twelve instances: Euthd.304a7 b4; Grg.484b1 2, 488b3; Lg.690b c, 715a1 2; Men.76d3, 81b1; Phdr.227b9 10; R.331a3, 365b2, 408b8; Tht.173e5. Quotations and paraphrases of Pindar are detected in Euthd.304b3 4 ~ Pi. O.1.1; Grg.484b, 488b ~ Pi. fr.169a M; Lg.690b c, 715a1 2 ~ Pi. fr.169a M; Men.76d3 ~ Pi. fr.105.1 M, Men.81a c ~ Pi. fr.133 M; Phdr.227b9 10 ~ Pi. I.1.2, Phdr.236d2 ~ Pi. fr.105a M; Prt.337d2 3 ~ Pi. fr.169a M; R.331a ~ Pi. fr.214 M, R.365b2 ~ Pi. fr.213 M, R.365b1 4 ~ Pi. fr.213 M, R.457b2 3 ~ Pi. fr.209 M; Tht.173e3 174a2 ~ Pi. fr.292 M; Ep.VIII [dub.] 354b8 c2 ~ Pi. fr.169a M. ³⁴ Ibycus’ 286 PMG is alluded to in Phdr.229b4 9 through a reference to Boreas in connection with a locus amoenus. ³⁵ Lefkowitz (2012) 56. Cf. Solon who had been established in the biographical tradition as a figure of wisdom, and both his inclusion in the group of the Seven Sages in Plato (Prt.343a1 5) and his role as Croesus’ adviser in Herodotus undeniably contributed to this depiction. On the list(s) of the Seven Sages in Plato, Busine (2002) 29 36; on Solon the sage, Noussia Fantuzzi (2010) 9 17. ³⁶ The themes of the predisposed human fate and of the fragility of life are often found in Simonides’ poems (e.g. PMG 519 fr.79/F4 Poltera, PMG 520 and 521/F21 and F244 Poltera, PMG 523/F245 Poltera), while Simonides also contemplates on ethical and moral issues in a number of his fragments (e.g. PMG 541/F256 Poltera, PMG 579/F257 Poltera, PMG 542/F260 Poltera on the nature of virtue).

Plato, Poetry, and the Lyric Nine

105

derogatory manner; Protagoras obviously claims authority for his own art from all three poets whom he presents as forerunners of the sophists. Simonides after all claims a place for himself in the list of the Seven Sages, when he uses his poetry to refute the authorities of Pittacus (PMG 542/F260 Poltera) and of Cleobulus (PMG 581/F262 Poltera). Plato similarly places him side by side with Bias and Pittacus and other unnamed wise men in his Republic (R.335e8–9). In the Protagoras in particular Simonides is presented as eager to prove that he himself is also wise, and he is described as entering in a competition with Pittacus where he addresses his laconic saying χαλεπὸν ἐσθλὸν ἔμμεναι. καὶ δὴ καὶ τοῦ Πιττακοῦ ἰδίᾳ περιεϕέρετο τοῦτο τὸ ῥῆμα ἐγκωμιαζόμενον ὑπὸ τῶν σοϕῶν, τὸ Χαλεπὸν ἐσθλὸν ἔμμεναι. ὁ οὖν Σιμωνίδης, ἅτε ϕιλότιμος ὢν ἐπὶ σοϕίᾳ, ἔγνω ὅτι εἰ καθέλοι τοῦτο τὸ ῥῆμα ὥσπερ εὐδοκιμοῦντα ἀθλητὴν καὶ περιγένοιτο αὐτοῦ, αὐτὸς εὐδοκιμήσει ἐν τοῖς τότε ἀνθρώποις. εἰς τοῦτο οὖν τὸ ῥῆμα καὶ τούτου ἕνεκα τούτῳ ἐπιβουλεύων κολοῦσαι αὐτὸ ἅπαν τὸ ᾆσμα πεποίηκεν, ὥς μοι ϕαίνεται. And in fact this saying of Pittacus passed from mouth to mouth and privately with high approbation among the sages that ‘It is hard to be good’. Simonides, for he was eager to be distinguished in wisdom, thought that, if he could overthrow this saying as one might do some famous athlete and if he prevailed over it, he himself would be highly esteemed among men of that time. It was against this saying therefore and for this reason that he composed this whole poem, covertly aiming to abase it, as it seems to me. Prt.343b5 343c5

Protagoras separates Simonides from the already established Seven Sages who praised Pittacus’ proverb, and heightens his competitive spirit by emphasizing how he composed an entire poem in his attempt to disprove a single saying (αὐτὸ ἅπαν τὸ ᾆσμα / τοῦτο τὸ ῥῆμα). The statement is in all probability introduced with a touch of irony that would potentially ridicule Simonides’ laborious efforts to challenge Pittacus’ three-word apophthegm. Nevertheless, Protagoras makes use of the material that Simonides’ poetic discourse and poetic image as a poet of praise provided; his reaction is metaphorically presented in the passage as the attempt to overthrow a renowned athlete at an athletic competition. Simonides’ portrayal as a competing athlete along with the combination of philotimia and sophia in his depiction as ambitious and wise reflects in all probability the poetic tradition that Simonides represented by Plato’s time: the epinician poet who composed competitively and with the aim to receive as many commissions of victory odes as possible, and the sage who disclosed his wisdom through the gnomic utterances in his poems.³⁷ Pindar, who occupies an intermediate position in terms of popularity in Plato, would seem to fall into the category of the wise poet due to the often

³⁷ On Simonides the sophos, Bell (1978) 77 83.

106

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

apophthegmatic nature of his poetry and to the didactic role his persona adopts in his poems. One might conceivably assume that this distinction of Pindar (and Simonides) from the rest of the nine was as much about the perceived and received persona of the poet as it was about the poetic corpus in whole or in part, and as such it is predominantly for the gnomic quality of his verses that Pindar features in the Platonic dialogues. The Vita Ambrosiana portrays Pindar in a hagiological light, but tradition never depicted him as a sophos. Notwithstanding the lack of a figure of wisdom in the biographical tradition for Pindar, he is the poet most often quoted or paraphrased in Plato for the quality of his almost proverbial verses. The imposing poetic persona of Pindar that is often tied with gnomai in his poems could also be an additional reason for which he was frequently cited and named in the Platonic dialogues. For instance, Socrates selects Pindar as the divine poet to name and cite with reference to the immortality of the soul in the Meno. ΣΩ. Οἱ μὲν λέγοντές εἰσι τῶν ἱερέων τε καὶ τῶν ἱερειῶν ὅσοις μεμέληκε περὶ ὧν μεταχειρίζονται λόγον οἵοις τ’ εἶναι διδόναι λέγει δὲ καὶ Πίνδαρος καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ τῶν ποιητῶν ὅσοι θεῖοί εἰσιν. ἃ δὲ λέγουσιν, ταυτί ἐστιν ἀλλὰ σκόπει εἴ σοι δοκοῦσιν ἀληθῆ λέγειν. ϕασὶ γὰρ τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἶναι ἀθάνατον, καὶ τοτὲ μὲν τελευτᾶν ὃ δὴ ἀποθνῄσκειν καλοῦσι τοτὲ δὲ πάλιν γίγνεσθαι, ἀπόλλυσθαι δ’ οὐδέποτε δεῖν δὴ διὰ ταῦτα ὡς ὁσιώτατα διαβιῶναι τὸν βίον οἷσιν γὰρ ἂν 81b Φερσεϕόνα ποινὰν παλαιοῦ πένθεος δέξεται, εἰς τὸν ὕπερθεν ἅλιον κείνων ἐνάτῳ ἔτεϊ ἀνδιδοῖ ψυχὰς πάλιν, ἐκ τᾶν βασιλῆες ἀγαυοὶ καὶ σθένει κραιπνοὶ σοϕίᾳ τε μέγιστοι ἄνδρες αὔξοντ’ ἐς δὲ τὸν λοιπὸν χρόνον ἥρωες ἁγνοὶ πρὸς ἀνθρώπων καλεῦνται.

81c

Ἅτε οὖν ἡ ψυχὴ ἀθάνατός τε οὖσα καὶ πολλάκις γεγονυῖα, καὶ ἑωρακυῖα καὶ τὰ ἐνθάδε καὶ τὰ ἐν Ἅιδου καὶ πάντα χρήματα, οὐκ ἔστιν ὅτι οὐ μεμάθηκεν ὥστε οὐδὲν θαυμαστὸν καὶ περὶ ἀρετῆς καὶ περὶ ἄλλων οἷόν τ’ εἶναι αὐτὴν ἀναμνησθῆναι, ἅ γε καὶ πρότερον ἠπίστατο. ἅτε γὰρ τῆς ϕύσεως ἁπάσης συγγενοῦς οὔσης, καὶ μεμαθηκυίας τῆς ψυχῆς ἅπαντα, οὐδὲν κωλύει ἓν μόνον ἀναμνησθέντα ὃ δὴ μάθησιν καλοῦσιν ἄνθρωποι τἆλλα πάντα αὐτὸν ἀνευρεῖν, ἐάν τις ἀνδρεῖος ᾖ καὶ μὴ ἀποκάμνῃ ζητῶν τὸ γὰρ ζητεῖν ἄρα καὶ τὸ μανθάνειν ἀνάμνησις ὅλον ἐστίν. So: And those priests and priestesses who have studied these in order to be in a position to give an account of their practice say, also Pindar and many other poets who are of divine nature. As to what they say, here it is. But pay attention now, and judge if they speak the truth. For they say that the human soul is immortal and at some point it comes to an end that they call dying and at another point it is reborn, but it never perishes. As a consequence one ought to live life as piously as possible. For those from whom Persephone shall accept requital for ancient wrongs, she restores their souls in the ninth year back to the upper sun. From them grow noble kings

Plato, Poetry, and the Lyric Nine

107

and men of swift strength and greatest wisdom. And for the rest of time they are called sacred heroes amongst mankind. Thus, since the soul is immortal and has been born many times, and has seen all things both in this world and in the Underworld, there is nothing that she has not acquired knowledge of. It is therefore no wonder that she should be able to remember all that it is to remember about virtue and about other things, all that she knew before [her birth]. And since all nature is akin and the soul has learnt everything, there is no reason why by remembering one thing what men call learning it is not possible to discover everything else, if one is courageous and does not grow weary in the search. Both research and learning are therefore recollection. Men.81a10 81d5

The poetic quotation in the above extract becomes part of Socrates’ digression on the anamnesis theory, and is identified as Pindaric by association (fr.133 M).³⁸ As a result the ethical authority of Pindar is integrated within Socrates’ viewpoint, and is conversely subordinated to the Socratic elenchos. Meno is asked to investigate if what theioi poets like Pindar say about the immortality of the soul seems to him true, a question that does not necessarily invite either an interpretation or an explanation of the specific poetic fragment. The poetic quotation is prompted by Socrates’ inference that humans have the duty to lead a pious life because of the immortality of their soul, and the post-mortem redeemed souls are portrayed in the fragment as reincarnated into sacred heroes. Socrates does not reflect on the Pindaric poem he cites, but interprets the quotation in such a way that eventually allows him to equate the request for knowledge and learning with anamnesis. Richard Bluck remarks that the digression is irrelevant to the possibility of inquiry and discovery, as well as to the acquisition of knowledge, the main issues under discussion at that point in the conversation between Socrates and Meno.³⁹ Arguably so, but the digression itself is a means through which Socrates tries to demonstrate to Meno that the paradox he puts forward is not a paradox at all (Men.80d5–8). Socrates is able to enquire into a subject even if he is completely ignorant of it mainly because his soul preserves a priori knowledge of every issue at hand.⁴⁰ Socrates’ position ultimately equates learning not with the acquisition of new knowledge through traditional modes of teaching but rather with the recollection of the knowledge which already exists in the soul. Though one cannot claim that Socrates or Plato himself were interested in the specific doctrine of Pindar in the cited poetic extract, the Pindaric quotation is nevertheless employed by Socrates as a ³⁸ On eschatology and metempsychosis in Pindar with particular reference to Olympian 2 and fr.133 M, von Fritz (1957); Bluck (1958), who also discusses Plato’s views in connection to those of Pindar as expressed in his two poems; Bowra (1964) 90 5; McGibbon (1964); Lloyd Jones (1984). ³⁹ Bluck (1961) 277 ad Men.81b5. ⁴⁰ On the ‘Meno paradox’, Scott, D. (2006) 75 91 with further bibliography.

108

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

stepping-stone that allows him to refer to both the immortality of the soul and the recollection of knowledge as well as to connect the two in his argument. Nonetheless, when Socrates concludes his arguments on the immortality of the soul he suggests that the soul’s perpetuity creates a duty for humans to recollect (Men.86b). He thus implicitly connects the ability and duty to recollect with high conduct and piety for the demonstration of which the Pindaric extract is cited.⁴¹ Pious living, which depends on the soul’s prior moral training, is presented as a form of knowledge that is acquired through the soul’s ability to remember, and the Pindaric fragment illustrates that the pious soul would be rewarded with a blessed life on earth. In a manner comparable to the treatment of Pindar in the Meno, Sappho and Anacreon are selected in the Phaedrus from the group of the wise men and women of old days who dealt with erōs. ΣΩ.

Τοῦτο ἐγώ σοι οὐκέτι οἷός τ’ ἔσομαι πιθέσθαι παλαιοὶ γὰρ καὶ σοϕοὶ ἄνδρες τε καὶ γυναῖκες περὶ αὐτῶν εἰρηκότες καὶ γεγραϕότες ἐξελέγξουσί με, ἐάν σοι χαριζόμενος συγχωρῶ. ΦΑΙ. Τίνες οὗτοι; καὶ ποῦ σὺ βελτίω τούτων ἀκήκοας; ΣΩ. Νῦν μὲν οὕτως οὐκ ἔχω εἰπεῖν δῆλον δὲ ὅτι τινῶν ἀκήκοα, ἤ που Σαπϕοῦς τῆς καλῆς ἢ Ἀνακρέοντος τοῦ σοϕοῦ ἢ καὶ συγγραϕέων τινῶν. So:

Ph: So:

At this point I can no longer agree with you; for the wise men and women of old who have spoken and written about these matters will challenge me, if I agree with you just to please you. Who are they? And where have you heard anything better than this? I cannot say at this point, just like that; it is obvious that I have heard something either by the fair Sappho or the wise Anacreon or even by some prose writers. Phdr.235b6 c4

Sappho and Anacreon are presented by Socrates as those who dealt with erōs par excellence. Anacreon is called σοϕός, a characterization that recognizes his expertise in erotic matters and the appropriateness of his role as Socrates’ authority on the topic.⁴² Sappho is characterized as καλή, an epithet that presumably draws on her preoccupation with female beauty, desire, and erōs in her poetry.⁴³ Pender notes that Sappho and Anacreon (Phdr.235c2), Ibycus (Phdr.242c8), and Stesichorus (Phdr.243a5, 244a2), also Alcaeus and Theognis, who are, however, not named in the dialogue, provide love-motifs for Plato as well as language and poetic images for Socrates’ second speech. As she points out, by naming Sappho and Anacreon Socrates gives advance ⁴¹ Cf. Phdr.249e4 250a on how the soul’s moral state affects its ability to remember. ⁴² Yunis (2011) 107 ad loc; Capra (2014) 32 3 remarks that Plato re appropriates Anacreon’s Athenian portrayal by characterizing him as sophos, which he relates to his portrait statue on the Acropolis, on which Shapiro (2012). ⁴³ e.g. Sapph. 22, 23, and 31 V; cf. Aelian VH 12.19 Dilts on how Plato called Sappho σοϕή (‘wise’), a characterization that is presumably based on the Phaedrus passage and is also made in association with Anacreon in the very passage.

Plato, Poetry, and the Lyric Nine

109

notice of his source material in his depiction of love as madness, and he thus emphasizes in retrospect the verbal, thematic, and situational intertextuality with these poetic predecessors.⁴⁴ Both Sappho and Anacreon are evoked as exemplars of erotic discourse, and as a result the output of their poetic corpus is implicitly employed paradigmatically for the manner in which good erotic poetry should be composed or for the way in which one should at least talk about erōs.⁴⁵ For the readers of the dialogue one effect of the named inclusion of Sappho and Anacreon is to prepare them for melic reminiscences in Socrates’ speech as well as to mark the infusion of the entire dialogue with features of erotic melic poetry.⁴⁶ In the process, it aims to recall (some of) the poems through which these two poets gained their fame as composers of erotic poems. Still, it is Stesichorus’ Palinode that becomes essential for Socrates in the Phaedrus. The paradigm of Stesichorus is employed as an exemplar for Socrates’ own Palinode, while Stesichorus’ blindness is turned into a temporal point of reference for Socrates that almost forces him to compose his own Palinode with no delay. ΣΩ. ἐμοὶ μὲν οὖν, ὦ ϕίλε, καθήρασθαι ἀνάγκη ἔστιν δὲ τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσι περὶ μυθολογίαν καθαρμὸς ἀρχαῖος, ὃν Ὅμηρος μὲν οὐκ ᾔσθετο, Στησίχορος δέ. τῶν γὰρ ὀμμάτων στερηθεὶς διὰ τὴν Ἑλένης κακηγορίαν οὐκ ἠγνόησεν ὥσπερ Ὅμηρος, ἀλλ’ ἅτε μουσικὸς ὢν ἔγνω τὴν αἰτίαν, καὶ ποιεῖ εὐθὺς Οὐκ ἔστ’ ἔτυμος λόγος οὗτος, οὐδ’ ἔβας ἐν νηυσὶν εὐσέλμοις, οὐδ’ ἵκεο Πέργαμα Τροίας

243b

καὶ ποιήσας δὴ πᾶσαν τὴν καλουμένην Παλινῳδίαν παραχρῆμα ἀνέβλεψεν. ἐγὼ οὖν σοϕώτερος ἐκείνων γενήσομαι κατ’ αὐτό γε τοῦτο πρὶν γάρ τι παθεῖν διὰ τὴν τοῦ Ἔρωτος κακηγορίαν πειράσομαι αὐτῷ ἀποδοῦναι τὴν παλινῳδίαν, γυμνῇ τῇ κεϕαλῇ καὶ οὐχ ὥσπερ τότε ὑπ’ αἰσχύνης ἐγκεκαλυμμένος. So: It is now necessary, my friend, that I purify myself. An ancient purification applies to those who have sinned in matters of mythology, something that Homer was not aware of, but Stesichorus was. For having been deprived of his eyesight because he spoke ill of Helen, he was not ignorant like Homer, but by being aware of the art of the Muses (mousikos) he recognized the reason, and writes straightaway That tale is not true; you did not step on the well oared ships nor did you come to the walls of Troy; ⁴⁴ Pender (2007b) 2, 14 22, 27 37, 54 5; contra Cairns (2013) 237 who sees an ironic reference to Sappho and Anacreon. ⁴⁵ Cf. Phdr.251a4 b2 for a Sapphic catalogue of symptoms, as Yunis (2011) 130 calls it; also the short note of Fortenbaugh (1966) on the allusions to specific poems of Sappho and Anacreon; on reminiscences of Sappho in the Phaedrus, Capra (2014) 69 71, 75 80. ⁴⁶ Pender (2007b) 48 50 and Cairns (2013) 243 5 note the debt of Plato to specific poems of Anacreon and Ibycus for the metaphors Socrates employs in his Palinode.

110

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

And having written the entire poem that is called Palinode, he regained his sight at once. I will become wiser than them in just this point: for before suffering any punish ment for speaking ill of Erōs, I will try to make atonement for it and to offer a palinode with my head bare this time and not covered from shame like the previous time. Phdr.243a2 b7 (my emphasis)

Stesichorus’ Palinode is employed as a structural device in the dialogue. In practical terms it divides Socrates’ two speeches on the nature of love and his two perceptions of erōs, and is presented in such a way as to favour Socrates’ second speech.⁴⁷ Socrates draws on Stesichorus, who corrected his defamatory story about Helen, because he needs an exemplar to make his own Palinode more powerful than his first speech on erōs. Stesichorus becomes Socrates’ model of rhetorical expiation, and through his persona Socrates subsequently bestows his second speech with authority and credibility. The characterization of Stesichorus’ subsequent recantation as καθαρμὸς ἀρχαῖος invites Phaedrus (and Plato’s readers) to accept the validity and superiority of Stesichorus’ Palinode, while it implicitly preconditions him (and the dialogue’s readers) to also receive Socrates’ Palinode favourably.⁴⁸ Socrates even adopts the persona of Stesichorus when he claims that his second speech is actually given by Stesichorus himself.⁴⁹ One should note that the specific extract from the Phaedrus is the first source that identifies Stesichorus as the son of Euphemus.⁵⁰ In her detailed study on euphēmia Susanne Gödde has demonstrated that euphēmia in Plato does not refer to the good content of a speech but to the effects the speech creates, including moral effects.⁵¹ As her analysis has shown, euphēmia in the Phaedrus is only metaphorically associated with the ritually correct speech and with religious laws: euphēmia in this case amounts neither to ritual silence nor to ritually appropriate utterance and performance, as depicted in the Laws.⁵² Socrates’ second speech is related to the how and not to the what, thus to the manner of presentation and not to the subject, and euphēmia is therefore connected exclusively with the philosophical manner of speaking. Through Stesichorus’ patronymic Socrates attributes to his second speech the

⁴⁷ On the role of Stesichorus’ Palinode in the dialogue and the themes in Socrates’ second speech, Demos (1999) 65 86; on the lyric images and language of the speech, Pender (2007a) 20 52; on the differences and similarities between commonly conceived erōs in the first speech and Platonic erōs in Socrates’ Palinode, Cairns (2013) 234 7. ⁴⁸ On the ritualistic significance of these terms in the dialogue and the significance of Socrates’ unveiling, Demos (1999) 79 80, who perceives Socrates’ actions as an apotropaic ritual; Cairns (2013) 242 with nn. 22 3. ⁴⁹ Capra (2014) 27 55 analyses the similarities between Socrates’ speech and Stesichorus’ poem. ⁵⁰ Phdr.244a2 3 ὃν δὲ μέλλω λέγειν, Στησιχόρου τοῦ Εὐϕήμου, Ἱμεραίου (‘the one I shall recount is by Stesichorus of Himera, son of Euphemus’); cf. Suda s.v. Στησίχορος (σ 1095 Adler); Steph. Byz. s.v. Μάταυρος, (p.437 Meineke). ⁵¹ Gödde (2011) 317, 323. ⁵² On euphēmia in the Laws, Folch (2015) 160 3.

Plato, Poetry, and the Lyric Nine

111

characterization euphēmos, which is thus described as philosophically and rhetorically correct, while the cleansing character of euphēmia that is applied to this second speech eliminates and denies in concrete terms Socrates’ first speech.⁵³ By presenting Stesichorus as the model for his behaviour Socrates achieves a threefold effect: he draws the desired attention to his second speech, as he implicitly underscores its importance, he emphasizes the legitimacy of his behaviour by drawing parallels with archaic poets, and he ultimately creates for himself a credible and more persuasive ethos.⁵⁴ At one level the use of the Palinode is merely a rhetorical embellishment designed to justify Socrates’ volteface; at another it testifies to the aesthetic pre-eminence of Socrates’ own Palinode. In retrospect, it values Stesichorus’ Palinode, too. One could equally look beyond the immediate context of named references to Anacreon, Sappho, and Stesichorus in the Phaedrus, and could also pay attention to Socrates’ introduction to his speech in both cases. The selfeffacing presentation of Socrates’ first attempt to speak about erōs further emphasizes the power and the artistic mastery of the erotic compositions of Sappho and Anacreon (Phdr.235c4–d1). Socrates openly undermines the value of his first speech by drawing attention to his non-poetic stature and lack of expertise in poetry when he implicitly compares himself to the two lyric poets—Sappho and Anacreon—whom he introduced as experts in erōs: being an amateur he will embarrass himself, if his speech is compared to the compositions of a skilful poet. ΣΩ. Ἀλλ’, ὦ μακάριε Φαῖδρε, γελοῖος ἔσομαι παρ’ ἀγαθὸν ποιητὴν ἰδιώτης αὐτοσχεδιάζων περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν. So: But, my dear Phaedrus, I shall ridicule myself, if I, a mere amateur in comparison to a skilful poet, try to speak offhand on the same subject. Phdr.236d4 5

In contrast to this humble facade Socrates presents himself as a better and wiser poet than his poetic model for his second speech—namely, Stesichorus. He himself puts forward the idea that his Palinode will not only be better than his first speech but will also be better than Stesichorus’ Palinode, the poem that is supposedly employed as a paradigm for his altered behaviour. Whereas verbs of knowledge and ignorance (οὐκ ἠγνόησεν, ἔγνω) underline Stesichorus’ superiority in comparison to Homer when his Palinode becomes Socrates’ model (Phdr.243a3–7), Stesichorus is grouped with Homer when Socrates embarks on his second speech, and when he claims that he will prove himself to be wiser than both Homer and Stesichorus (Phdr.243b3–4). It is additionally ⁵³ On the connotations of the term in the Phaedrus, Gödde (2011) 323 9. ⁵⁴ Later sources presumably built on the association between Socrates and Stesichorus in the Phaedrus cf. Amm.Marc. RG 28.4.15 on Socrates’ last wish to be taught the song of Stesichorus that a musician had performed, with den Boeft et al. (2011) 196 ad loc.

112

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

necessary to connect both these observations with the relationship Socrates presents himself to have with the Muses with reference to the composition of his two speeches. In his first speech Socrates invokes the Muses for assistance but not for inspiration (Phdr.237a7–9 ἄγετε δή, ὦ Μοῦσαι . . . ‘ξύμ μοι λάβεσθε’ τοῦ μύθου, ‘come then, Muses . . . “grant me your aid” in this tale’), whereas in his Palinode he clarifies how a poet is able to reach the doors of poetry and become a competent poet only when he receives from the Muses a kind of inspiration that takes the form of divine mania. τρίτη δὲ ἀπὸ Μουσῶν κατοκωχή τε καὶ μανία, λαβοῦσα ἁπαλὴν καὶ ἄβατον ψυχήν, ἐγείρουσα καὶ ἐκβακχεύουσα κατά τε ᾠδὰς καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἄλλην ποίησιν, μυρία τῶν παλαιῶν ἔργα κοσμοῦσα τοὺς ἐπιγιγνομένους παιδεύει ὃς δ’ ἂν ἄνευ μανίας Μουσῶν ἐπὶ ποιητικὰς θύρας ἀϕίκηται, πεισθεὶς ὡς ἄρα ἐκ τέχνης ἱκανὸς ποιητὴς ἐσόμενος, ἀτελὴς αὐτός τε καὶ ἡ ποίησις ὑπὸ τῆς τῶν μαινομένων ἡ τοῦ σωϕρονοῦντος ἠϕανίσθη. A third kind of possession and madness comes from the Muses that, having taken hold upon the gentle and pure soul that it arouses and fills with Bacchic frenzy to songs and other poetry, educates the future generations by adorning the countless deeds of the past; he who reaches the doors of poetry without the Muses’ madness, being thus confident that he will become a capable poet by craft, does not manage to accomplish his purpose and the poetry of the sane man vanishes before that of the inspired madmen. Phdr.245a1 9

Though one could agree with Harvey Yunis that Socrates associates divine madness with poetry ironically—this association will be eclipsed by his ‘divinely inspired, philosophically informed erotic rhetoric’—Socrates’ divine inspiration suggests that his philosophical Palinode is initiated and inspired in the same way as poetic compositions.⁵⁵ The image of the inspired poet in Socrates’ description of his divine inspiration, which he relates to the Muses and connects with the Palinode he will compose and subsequently narrate, brings him closer to Stesichorus the μουσικός (Phdr.243a6–7). Penelope Murray points out that the term mousikē in Plato sometimes refers to music in the modern sense, other times it gains a broader meaning and refers to all the arts over which the Muses preside, while it is often associated with philosophy.⁵⁶ Accordingly, the mousikos, the expert in the art of music, would be revealed as the follower of the Muses, while mousikos would also gain a Platonic meaning as the ‘person devoted to philosophical pursuits’ and who is consequently depicted as ‘a model of both understanding

⁵⁵ Yunis (2011) 134 ad Phdr.245a1; cf. Ion 533d 534e. ⁵⁶ Murray (2002); cf. Phd.60e6 61a4 μουσικὴν ποίειν καὶ ἐργάζου . . . ὡς ϕιλοσοϕίας μὲν οὔσης μεγίστης μουσικῆς (‘make mousikē and work at it . . . since philosophy is the greatest kind of mousikē’). See also the essays in the edited volume by Koch, Männlein Robert, and Weidtmann (2012) on the multifarious nature of mousikē in Plato.

Plato, Poetry, and the Lyric Nine

113

and conduct’.⁵⁷ Mousikos is employed in the Phaedrus predominantly with a meaning that brings the term closer to the philosopher, the seeker of truth, and this concept is revealed in Socrates’ description of the origin of the souls before they lose their wings and descend into human bodies (Phdr.248a–249d). In this narration Socrates groups together the characters and professional abilities of men whose bodies may be induced by divine souls (Phdr.248c5–e3). The presentation of these categories in the particular passage is telling: they are given in a descending order, and the first category includes the philosopher, the lover of beauty, the mousikos, and the erōtikos. τότε νόμος ταύτην μὴ ϕυτεῦσαι εἰς μηδεμίαν θήρειον ϕύσιν ἐν τῇ πρῶτῃ γενέσει, ἀλλὰ τὴν μὲν πλεῖστα ἰδοῦσαν εἰς γονὴν ἀνδρὸς γενησομένου ϕιλοσόϕου ἢ ϕιλοκάλου ἢ μουσικοῦ τινος καὶ ἐρωτικοῦ, τὴν δὲ δευτέραν εἰς βασιλέως ἐννόμου ἢ πολεμικοῦ καὶ ἀρχικοῦ, τρίτην εἰς πολιτικοῦ ἤ τινος οἰκονομικοῦ ἢ χρηματιστικοῦ, τετάρτην εἰς ϕιλοπόνου γυμναστικοῦ ἢ περὶ σώματος ἴασίν τινος ἐσομένου, πέμπτην μαντικὸν βίον ἤ τινα τελεστικὸν ἕξουσαν ἕκτῃ ποιητικὸς ἢ τῶν περὶ μίμησίν τις ἄλλος ἁρμόσει, ἑβδόμῃ δημιουργικὸς ἢ γεωργικός, ὀγδόῃ σοϕιστικὸς ἢ δημοκοπικός, ἐνάτῃ τυραννικός. At this point according to the law this soul shall never be implanted into any beast at its first birth, but the soul that has seen the most shall enter into the birth of a man who will become a lover of wisdom or a lover of beauty or a follower of the Muses or a follower of Erōs, and the second soul into that of a lawful king or a warlike and a man fit for rule, and the third into that of a statesman or of that who is in charge of the management of the household or of a man of business, the fourth into that of a hard working man or of someone skilled in athletics or one who will be concerned with the cure of the body, the fifth will lead the life of a prophet or of someone who conducts mystic rites; to the sixth birth will be appropriate a poet or some other imitative artist, to the seventh a craftsman or a farmer, to the eighth a sophist or a demagogue, to the ninth a tyrant. Phdr.248c8 e3

The mousikos is mentioned in Socrates’ list at the same level with the philosopher, the true lover of the Muses, and is also positioned at a great distance from the poet (ποιητικός), who is coupled with the imitative artist closer to the basis of Socrates’ catalogue. Diotima in the Symposium points at the technical meaning of the terms ποίησις and ποιητής as the art of making verses and the maker of verses respectively when she argues that the two terms are reserved for the field concerned with the art of music and with compositions in verse (Smp.205c6 τὸ περὶ τὴν μουσικὴν καὶ τὰ μέτρα). In a manner analogous to Diotima’s explanation the distinction between sung poetry and mousikē is almost spelled out in Phdr.237a7–b1. When he expresses his ignorance about the origin of the Muses’ name, Socrates distinguishes explicitly between the two ingredients of ⁵⁷ Yunis (2011) 205 ad Phdr.268e1 2; cf. Phdr.248d3, 259b4 d7, 278b5 d6; R.591d.

114

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

poetic experience and composition: song (δι’ ᾠδῆς εἶδος) and music (διὰ γένος μουσικόν). ΣΩ. Ἄγετε δή, ὦ Μοῦσαι, εἴτε δι ’ ᾠδῆς εἶδος λίγειαι, εἴτε διὰ γένος μουσικὸν τὸ Λιγύων ταύτην ἔσχετ’ ἐπωνυμίαν, ‘ξύμ μοι λάβεσθε’ τοῦ μύθου, ὅν με ἀναγκάζει ὁ βέλτιστος οὑτοσὶ λέγειν, ἵν’ ὁ ἑταῖρος αὐτοῦ, καὶ πρότερον δοκῶν τούτῳ σοϕὸς εἶναι, νῦν ἔτι μᾶλλον δόξῃ. So: Come then, Muses, you received the name clear toned either from the quality of your song or from the musical race of the Ligyans, ‘grant me your aid’ in the tale this most excellent man here compels me to narrate so that his friend, whom he has hitherto considered wise, may now still seem to him wiser. Phdr.237a7 b1

While one should not dissociate any poetic product or song from the Muses, a connection that is tightly expressed in Socrates’ narration of their genealogy (Phdr.259b6–d8), mousikē in Socrates’ genealogical account is associated predominantly with the Muses of philosophy, Calliope and Ourania, and with those who live a philosophical life (ἐν ϕιλοσοϕίᾳ).⁵⁸ Τερψιχόρᾳ μὲν οὖν τοὺς ἐν τοῖς χοροῖς τετιμηκότας αὐτὴν ἀπαγγέλλοντες ποιοῦσι προσϕιλεστέρους, τῇ δὲ Ἐρατοῖ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς ἐρωτικοῖς, καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις οὕτως, κατὰ τὸ εἶδος ἑκάστης τιμῆς τῇ δὲ πρεσβυτάτῃ Καλλιόπῃ καὶ τῇ μετ’ αὐτὴν Οὐρανίᾳ τοὺς ἐν ϕιλοσοϕίᾳ διάγοντάς τε καὶ τιμῶντας τὴν ἐκείνων μουσικὴν ἀγγέλλουσιν, αἳ δὴ μάλιστα τῶν Μουσῶν περί τε οὐρανὸν καὶ λόγους οὖσαι θείους τε καὶ ἀνθρωπίνους ἱᾶσιν καλλίστην ϕωνήν. To Terpsichore they report those who have honoured her in the kind of dances that are made dearer to her, to Erato those who have honoured her in love poetry, and similarly to the other Muses, according to the various ways of honouring each of them; and to the eldest Calliope and to Urania who comes after her they report those who both live their lives in philosophy and honour their type of mousikē, especially of those Muses who are concerned with both heaven and thought, divine and human, and who sing in the sweetest voice. Phdr.259c6 d7

The mousikos Stesichorus therefore is a follower of the philosophical Muse (Phdr.248d3, 259d2–7) and a keeper of the truth (Phdr.243a7 ὢν ἔγνω τὴν αἰτίαν), which he reached under her tutelage.⁵⁹ In turn, Socrates, who is nonetheless inspired by the Muses for his own Palinode, has the ability to speak not only of beautiful things (Phdr.245a3–5) but also of themes that touch upon the realm of philosophy (Phdr.257a3–b6). Thus, Stesichorus the lyric poet is depicted as closely connected with the kind of philosophy Socrates serves in the Phaedrus. He thus becomes Socrates’ role model not only because

⁵⁸ Capra (2014) 115 argues that ‘the four Muses of the myth embody the old yet new inspiration of Plato’s dialogues, both in their mythical components such as myths, allegories, fairy tales and in their dialectical argumentative character’. ⁵⁹ Yunis (2011) 124 ad Phdr.243a6; cf. Ercoles pp. 313 16.

Plato, Poetry, and the Lyric Nine

115

of his own poetic Palinode but also, if not mainly, for his relationship with the philosophical Muse. A further quotation, Simonides’ Ode to Scopas in the Protagoras (Prt.338e6–348a), perhaps the most controversial lyric quotation in Plato, can also shed some light on the position of the lyric poet in the dialogues. Protagoras cites Simonides’ poem to Scopas in order to demonstrate his educational background and his skill in literary analysis, and he consequently reverses the philosophical elenchos. As a result, Protagoras and not Socrates leads the discussion related to the fragment. The exchange between Protagoras and Socrates and the various often conflicting interpretations of the poem in the course of their discussion suggest that poetry cannot be cited as authoritative witness, and reinforce the idea that poets cannot be profitably subjected to scrutiny (Prt.347e).⁶⁰ Poetry, as presented in the specific passage, is found wanting, while the discussion itself concurrently disputes Simonides’ authority.⁶¹ Nonetheless, Simonides’ poem holds an important position in the Protagoras not because it proves and displays the limits of literary criticism, as Andrew Ford proposes, or because it arguably reveals how poetry does not offer much to the philosophical method of enquiry, as Marian Demos suggests.⁶² Simonides’ poem is quoted intentionally, and functions as the starting point of a discussion and of a kind of dialectic elenchos that opens up larger questions on the nature of philosophical discourse itself. One should recognize, as Andrew Ford and Glenn Most have argued, that the critical problems concerning the interpretation of Simonides’ poem have to do with contextualization.⁶³ In addition, it is essential to accept that the main issue and reason for reaching a dead end in the process of literary criticism in this discussion is the identification of the poem with the poet and of the poetic argument with the poetic voice, both of which are looked for in the quotation. Socrates’ dismissal of poetry as witness for philosophical scrutiny (Prt.347c–e) derives from his frustration that none of the interlocutors can say with certainty what Simonides expresses in his poem—Prt.339e4–5 τί λέγοι ὁ ποιητής (‘what would the poet say’).⁶⁴ The quest for what the poet actually says, or more often the inclusion in conversations of a paraphrase or of a quotation of that which the poet says

⁶⁰ The philosophical reasoning behind the interpretation of the Scopas poem in the dialogue will not be discussed in the above analysis. For an interpretation of this fragment in the context of the Protagoras, see, very selectively, Most (1994) 134 46; Demos (1999) 11 38; McCoy (1999); Ledbetter (2003) 99 114; Beresford (2008) 246 56; Ford (2011b) 3 23. ⁶¹ Halliwell (2000) 104 6; Ledbetter (2003) 102, 113 14. ⁶² Ford (2011b) 7; Demos (1999) 37 8. ⁶³ Most (1994) 132; Ford (2011b) 23. ⁶⁴ The figure of Tyrtaeus in the Laws is comparable to this supposedly (in )direct face to face interrogation of the poet. Having as a starting point the gist of Tyrtaeus’ 12 IEG², the Athenian in the Laws gets involved in an imaginary dialogue with Tyrtaeus on military issues, in the course of which he quotes his poetry (Lg.629a4 e).

116

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

occurs frequently in the Platonic dialogues. Stesichorus says (ϕησι) that the Trojan War took place despite the fact that the phantom of Helen and not Helen herself went to Troy (R.586c4–5); Pindar’s saying on ἄριστον ὕδωρ is employed by Socrates in Euthydemus in order to qualify and characterize the ideal way of teaching (Euth.304b3–4 ὡς ἔϕη Πίνδαρος, ‘as Pindar says’); Pindar’s fr.214 M is quoted in the Republic as part of the argument for the agathē nature of elpis and as an utterance of the poet (R.331a2–3 ὡς καὶ Πίνδαρος λέγει, ‘as Pindar also says’); the Pindaric quotation in the Meno is introduced as something that Pindar pronounced, and a number of other instances where Pindar’s verses in particular are cited or paraphrased as a saying of the poet (e.g. Lg.690b8 ὡς ὁ Θηβαῖος ἔϕη ποτὲ Πίνδαρος, ‘as the Theban Pindar once said’). In all these cases the poetic dictum or the lyric fragment is cited and integrated in the argument but does not become the argument per se. On the contrary, the discussion between Socrates and Protagoras in the Protagoras centres on Simonides’ poem to Scopas, more specifically on what Simonides actually says in his poem to Scopas, and ultimately on what he, that is Simonides, believes on the topic. Protagoras creates the problem by firstly quoting in piecemeal the poem of Simonides, a technique that does not offer the full picture of the poetic argument, and secondly by directing the philosophical elenchos to what Simonides aimed to put forward in the cited poem. λέγει γάρ που Σιμωνίδης πρὸς Σκόπαν τὸν Κρέοντος υἱὸν τοῦ Θετταλοῦ For Simonides somewhere says to Scopas, the son of Creon, who is the son of Thessalos Prt.339a6 7 Δοκεῖ δέ σοι καλῶς πεποιῆσθαι, εἰ ἐναντία λέγει αὐτὸς αὑτῷ ὁ ποιητής; Now do you regard it as finely composed, if the poet contradicts himself? Prt.339b9 10

Simonides is once more the subject of discussion in Republic book 1 (R.331d1–336a8), wherein Socrates explores the poet’s view on justice. The main question of the discussion between Polemarchus and Socrates is what the first supposes that Simonides believes. Polemarchus paraphrases Simonides (PMG 642/T86a Poltera) in order to attempt to track the voice and intention of the poet within and through his poetry. In both the Protagoras and the Republic the questioning aims to bring to the forefront Simonides’ thoughts and ideas, as those are expressed in his poems. In the process and eventually Socrates questions the claims and interpretations of both Polemarchus and Protagoras, while in the Protagoras he also questions Simonides himself.⁶⁵ Although in both cases the voice of the poet seems to blend in with the

⁶⁵ On both these passages and the process of philosophical elenchos, Halliwell (2000) 104 8.

Plato, Poetry, and the Lyric Nine

117

interpretation offered by the speaker, in the case of Polemarchus in the Republic the elenchos is directed to his interpretation of Simonides, and focuses on what he himself makes out of the poem. Λέγε δή, εἶπον ἐγώ, σὺ ὁ τοῦ λόγου κληρονόμος, τί ϕῂς τὸν Σιμωνίδην λέγοντα ὀρθῶς λέγειν περὶ δικαιοσύνης; So tell me, I said, you as heir to the discussion, what do you believe that Simonides says correctly when he speaks about justice? R.331e1 2

In the Protagoras the charge of contradiction arises partly from the inclusion of an exact quotation of the poem that becomes almost an obstacle to any attempt for interpretation. The reached conclusion is therefore similar to the one put forward in the Phaedrus as regards to writing and the materiality of texts. Socrates explicitly distinguishes in the Phaedrus between written representation of philosophical activity and doing philosophy itself when he contends that true philosophizing and real teaching consists of conversations and dialectic exchanges between the interlocutors and not of reading; the written text stands always in solemn silence (Phdr.275d4–e5, 277d–278b4). Despite Socrates’ exaggeration and overreaction about poetry’s position in philosophical and dialectical discussion in the Protagoras, his conclusion is best not to be taken at face value. A comparison between the specific quotation from Simonides and the other quotations of lyric poets in the Platonic dialogues reveals that in no other case does a poetic excerpt become the starting point upon which the philosophical reasoning of a discussion rests. Extended lyric quotations are included in philosophical arguments more often to support the view of the interlocutor and also to add an aesthetic touch to it. They are not, however, examined line by line in order to reach a definite conclusion about the poet’s view. In all cases—quotations, allusions, paraphrases—the voice and logos of the poet are incorporated in the philosophical argument and are integrated in the view of the speaker, who nonetheless recalls the authority of the poet mentioned in the passage. The quotation of Simonides in the Protagoras is unique in this respect: the interlocutors attempt to reveal the poet’s aim in composing the poem, and the discussion relies on the poem’s interpretation, which ultimately rests on the poet’s authority and voice, as those can be detected in the quotation itself.

AWARENESS, KNOWLEDGE, AND RECOGNITION One can draw an essential conclusion from the above analysis. Plato’s characters were at liberty to cite and allude to melic poetry in the confident expectation that their interlocutors would recognize the poetic passage and the named lyric poet. The cultural importance of poetic performances in both

118

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

private and civic occasions, the large amount of poetry that was used in education, as well as possible (oral or textual) circulation of melic songs are factors that had shaped the melic background of Athenian audiences and readers.⁶⁶ Recognition and awareness, however, should not imply that we can suppose or even expect that Athenian audiences and readers would have known the original melic poems in their entirety and in all cases. For example, just before accepting the challenge to participate in the question and answer conversation on deductions, the aged Parmenides draws parallels between himself and the aged horse in Ibycus (PMG 287) that trembles with fear before entering the race (Prm.136e9–137a6). This is done with the confident expectation that his interlocutors (and Plato’s readers) will recognize the poem he summarizes, and in case they do not that they will accept the parallels drawn between the two situations. Then again, single-lined (named) quotations, which are frequent for Pindar flag, firstly the poet, especially when his name accompanies the quotation, secondly the short cited extract and its connection to either its immediate context and/or the argument made, and lastly, the poem from which the lines are taken.⁶⁷ Although the Socratic dialectic method controls and frames the way in which passages from melic poetry are included and recalled in the dialogues, quotations, paraphrases, and summaries operate as an alert to the reader. This kind of incorporated melic poetry is still relatively undemanding; it does not necessarily request from the interlocutors in the dialogue or from Plato’s readership to recall more than what the text itself offers. As a rule in these cases, the association between the recalled (Pindaric) poem and the receiving context in the dialogue or between the lyric poet and the argument gets across by the speaker himself. For instance, the Athenian summarizes and somehow interprets Pindar’s nomos-poem in Lg.690b7–c3, a poem that he mentions again in Lg.714e6–715a2; in R.408b7–c4 Socrates recalls Pindar’s P.3 where Asclepius is presented as the son of Apollo within a group recollection with lines from Aeschylus’ Agamemnon (A.1022ff) and from Euripides’ Alcestis (Alc.3–4) in order to refute Asclepius’ associations with the divine. This is also the case in the spurious Theages (125d8–e2) regarding Anacreon’s Kallikritē. ΣΩ. Ταῦτ’ ἐστὶν ἅπερ ἔϕη Ἀνακρέων τὴν Καλλικρίτην ἐπίστασθαι ἢ οὐκ οἶσθα τὸ ᾆσμα; ΘΕ. Ἔγωγε. ΣΩ. Τί οὖν; τοιαύτης τινὸς καὶ σὺ συνουσίας ἐπιθυμεῖς ἀνδρὸς ὅστις τυγχάνει ὁμότεχνος ὢν Καλλικρίτῃ τῇ Κυάνης καὶ ‘ἐπίσταται τυραννικά’, ὥσπερ ἐκείνην ἔϕη ὁ ποιητής, ἵνα καὶ σὺ ἡμῖν τύραννος γένῃ καὶ τῇ πόλει;

⁶⁶ On poetry in the Greek curriculum, Morgan, T. (1998) 15 16; Griffith (2001) 70. ⁶⁷ e.g. R.365b1 4; Phdr.227b9 10; Tht.173e4 6; Euthd.304b34; also Ibycus (PMG 310) in Phdr.242c7 d2.

Plato, Poetry, and the Lyric Nine

119

Soc.

These are the same themes that Anacreon says that Kallikritē knew very well; or do you not know the ode? The. I do. Soc. Well then, do you as well want to take part in companies of that sort with a man who happens to be a fellow craftsman of Kallikritē, daughter of Kyanē, and who ‘knows all about despotism’ as she did, according to the poet, so that you may also become an absolute ruler over us and our city? Thg. [sp.] 125d10 e3

When Socrates mentions Καλλικρίτην Theages confirms that he knows the poem of Anacreon which Socrates asks him to recall, wherein apparently she featured, and Socrates’ negative question ‘do you not know the poem’ implies that he expects Theages not only to have been aware of it but also to confirm his knowledge. Still, Socrates cites the line that is important for the argument he currently develops.⁶⁸ Only in the Charmides does the reference to Anacreon demand in some sense a recollection of those poem(s) that praised the house of Critias in Athens (ἐγκεκωμιασμένη), a case similar to the association of Sappho and Anacreon with erotic compositions in the Phaedrus. ἥ τε γὰρ πατρῴα ὑμῖν οἰκία, ἡ Κριτίου τοῦ Δρωπίδου, καὶ ὑπὸ Ἀνακρέοντος καὶ ὑπὸ Σόλωνος καὶ ὑπ ’ ἄλλων πολλῶν ποιητῶν ἐγκεκωμιασμένη παραδέδοται ἡμῖν, ὡς διαϕέρουσα κάλλει τε καὶ ἀρετῇ καὶ τῇ ἄλλῃ λεγομένῃ εὐδαιμονίᾳ, καὶ αὖ ἡ πρὸς μητρὸς ὡσαύτως For your family from your father’s side which descends from Critias son of Dropides was handed over to us having been praised by Anacreon and Solon and by many other poets for being preeminent in beauty and virtue and every thing else that is accounted as happiness; likewise as well that of your mother’s. Chrm.157e4 158a2

The passage in the Charmides that is cited above along with the reference to Simonides and Anacreon in the spurious Hipparchus are the sole two cases where the names of lyric poets are incorporated in the narrative without contributing to any substantial argument. Simonides and Anacreon are mentioned as two of the poets Hipparchus brought to Athens, and the reference testifies in favour of the speaker’s knowledge of the facts (Hipparch. [sp.] 228b–c). In this regard the specific passage rests on historical or biographical details that are nonetheless included in the text in order to make the reference to the two poets and their presence in Athens comprehensible. In the passage from the Charmides both Anacreon and Solon, who apparently celebrated in verse the house of Kritias, are named with the aim to illustrate that the beauty and virtue of Charmides’ family did deserve to be celebrated in song. Their inclusion gains a self-reflective function, too: the ⁶⁸ Joyal (2000) 30 2 for the importance of the quotation to the structure of the dialogue; also Joyal (1990a) and (1990b) for the interpretation of the quotation in its original context.

120

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

named reference to Anacreon and Solon by Socrates testifies to the already acquired fame the two poets had gained, and also increases the prestige of Critias’ house. An important but often neglected detail in connection with Simonides’ poem in the Protagoras strengthens the above conclusions on awareness and knowledge. When Protagoras begins to discuss Simonides’ poem to Scopas he quotes three lines and then pauses to confirm that Socrates knows the poem before he goes on. Socrates replies that not only does he know the poem but he had also devoted time to study it. τοῦτο ἐπίστασαι τὸ ᾆσμα, ἢ πᾶν σοι διεξέλθω; Καὶ ἐγὼ εἶπον ὅτι Οὐδὲν δεῖ ἐπίσταμαί τε γάρ, καὶ πάνυ μοι τυγχάνει μεμεληκὸς τοῦ ᾄσματος. Do you know the ode, or shall I go through it in detail? And I replied the following, There is no need, because I know it. In fact so it happens that I have taken a great interest in the ode and have studied it. Prt.339b4 6

Although this response is perhaps expected from Socrates who often cites melic poetry, it also allows us to conclude that it was possible to discuss and to study a specific poem in certain contexts. Socrates’ response in the Protagoras implies that he might have studied the poem carefully, perhaps also that he might have come across a text of the poem. Knowledge of it from memory certainly would not have offered fruitful ground for a good analysis nor did reliance on hearsay or familiarity with the poem from poetic performances at festivals and other occasions. Even in the case of Callicles who infamously misquotes Pindar’s nomos in the Gorgias and claims that he does not know the poem his supposed ignorance is actually a game with both Socrates and the reader. I print in the passage below the Pindaric quotation with the supposedly misquotation βιαίων τὸ δικαιότατον, as this is the reading found in all primary manuscripts of the dialogue. δοκεῖ δέ μοι καὶ Πίνδαρος ἅπερ ἐγὼ λέγω ἐνδείκνυσθαι ἐν τῷ ᾄσματι ἐν ᾧ λέγει ὅτι νόμος ὁ πάντων βασιλεὺς θνατῶν τε καὶ ἀθανάτων

484b5

οὗτος δὲ δή, ϕησίν, ἄγει βιαίων τὸ δικαιότατον ὑπερτάτᾳ χειρί τεκμαίρομαι ἔργοισιν Ἡρακλέος, ἐπεὶ ἀπριάτας λέγει οὕτω πως τὸ γὰρ ᾆσμα οὐκ ἐπίσταμαι λέγει δ’ ὅτι οὔτε πριάμενος οὔτε δόντος τοῦ Γηρυόνου ἠλάσατο τὰς βοῦς, ὡς τούτου ὄντος τοῦ δικαίου ϕύσει, καὶ βοῦς καὶ τἆλλα κτήματα εἶναι πάντα τοῦ βελτίονός τε καὶ κρείττονος τὰ τῶν χειρόνων τε καὶ ἡττόνων.

Plato, Poetry, and the Lyric Nine

121

b7 δικαιῶν τὸ βιαιότατον V marg., Aristides, et schol. Pind. (cf. etiam Lg.715a1 ἄγειν δικαιούντα τὸ βιαιότατον): βιαίων τὸ δικαιότατον BTWF: βιαιῶν τὸ δικαιότατον Libanius ut vid., Wilamowitz.⁶⁹ And it seems to me that Pindar demonstrates what I say in the ode where he says that Law is the king of all, both mortals and immortals, This law, so he continues, brings forth with sovereign hand the ultimate form of justice by making it violent; in proof I take the deeds of Hercules, for unpurchased it goes something like that I do not know the poem well but it narrates that he drove off the cattle of Geryon without purchasing them and without being given them as a gift in the way that is just by nature and that the cattle and all the other possessions of those who are inferior and weaker belong to those who are superior and stronger. Grg.484b1 c3

Callicles’ declaration that he does not know the poem can be interpreted as a device that Plato uses in his narrative in order to avoid a long quotation, as Eric Dodds suggests.⁷⁰ Even with Simonides’ poem to Scopas, Protagoras only cites the poem in short extracts in order to gradually build his argument and to question Socrates on his interpretation of it. In this case Callicles’ supposedly honest confession after he cites the first five lines of the fragment, which is in fact followed by an accurate paraphrase of the poem he claims he does not know, adds an ironic touch to the whole passage, even to the quotation itself. It suggests that he, being ignorant of the poem, will not paraphrase it correctly, a conclusion that is proven wrong. The actual quotation has puzzled commentators since antiquity, and has been the subject of much controversy in modern times mainly because of the misquotation of the crucial phrase δικαιῶν τὸ βιαιότατον—what Pindar must in all probability have written—and of the meaning of the word νόμος.⁷¹ These problematic issues have been discussed by a great number of scholars, whose opinions range from deliberate misquotation with the aim to comically colour the figure of Callicles to corruption of the text by the scribe.⁷² I will only comment briefly on how the misquotation is received by Socrates, a remark that may allow us to reach a more secure conclusion on whether or not this is a deliberate misquotation.

⁶⁹ The apparatus criticus is that of Dodds (1959) 123 ad loc. ⁷⁰ Dodds (1959) 271. ⁷¹ Cf. Aristid. XLV.52 (ii.68 9 Dindorf ), Σ Pi. N.9.35 (Dr. iii, p. 154). ⁷² e.g. Wilamowitz (1919) ii.95 7 has interpreted this as an oversight of Plato who might have not been able to remember the Pindaric line correctly; Taylor (1929) 117 18n. 2 and Grote (1994) who both suggest that Plato intentionally misquoted Pindar; Dodds (1959) 270 2 calls the corruption of the text ‘spoonerism’; Demos (1999) 39 64.

122

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

Socrates wraps up the discussion on nomos, physis, and justice by asking for a reminder of the common belief Pindar and Callicles have on the topic. ἐξ ἀρχῆς δέ μοι ἐπανάλαβε πῶς ϕῂς τὸ δίκαιον ἔχειν καὶ σὺ καὶ Πίνδαρος τὸ κατὰ ϕύσιν; ἄγειν βίᾳ τὸν κρείττω τὰ τῶν ἡττόνων καὶ ἄρχειν τὸν βελτίω τῶν χειρόνων καὶ πλέον ἔχειν τὸν ἀμείνω τοῦ ϕαυλοτέρου; μή τι ἄλλο λέγεις τὸ δίκαιον εἶναι, ἢ ὀρθῶς μέμνημαι; ΚΑΛ. Ἀλλὰ ταῦτα ἔλεγον καὶ τότε καὶ νῦν λέγω. Now repeat to me from the beginning what you and Pindar hold natural justice to consist in? Is it that the superior should forcibly despoil the inferior, that the better should rule the worse, and that the nobler should have more than the meaner? Do you have some other account to give of justice, or do I remember well? Cal: Why that is what I said then, and I also say it now. Grg.488b2 6

As Dodds has observed, Socrates’ response supports the view that the purpose for which violence is used can be justified when it serves justice and that the law of nature is perceived as the ultimate form of violence that nature justifies (δικαιῶν τὸ βιαιότατον, ‘justifying violence’).⁷³ After accepting Callicles’ (mis-) quotation, which suggests that Pindar spoke of the law of nature as conducting the utmost form of justice that nature itself, however, violates (βιαίων τὸ δικαιότατον, ‘violating justice’), Socrates’ conclusive remarks sound more like a misinterpretation of what Callicles had already cited. It is even more paradoxical that Socrates does not correct Callicles’ mistake, or even that he does not draw attention to his mistake, especially since it is the crucial line upon which Callicles rests his interpretation of νόμος as νόμον γε τὸν τῆς ϕύσεως (Grg.483e3 ‘the law of nature’). The quotation is implemented in the conversation of Socrates and Callicles in the Gorgias and is interpreted in such a way that suggests that Plato uses the Pindaric passage to have the two interlocutors ‘explain the sophistic doctrine of the “law of nature”, which justifies the right of the strongest.’⁷⁴ Supposing that Callicles’ mistake could be either a deliberate misquotation by Plato or a scribal error, one cannot claim that Plato did not know his Pindar. The nomos-passage is both paraphrased and quasi-cited again in the Laws where it is given correctly (Lg.715a1–2).⁷⁵ More specifically, Pindar’s passage on nomos is mentioned and recalled six times in total in the Platonic dialogues.⁷⁶ One may conclude that by Plato’s time Pindar’s nomos

⁷³ Dodds (1959) 271. ⁷⁴ Asheri (2007) 437. ⁷⁵ Lg.715a1 καὶ ἔϕαμέν που κατὰ ϕύσιν τὸν Πίνδαρον ἄγειν δικαιοῦντα τὸ βιαιότατον, ὡς ϕάναι (‘and we said that naturally the law brings forth the ultimate of violence by making it just, as Pindar has said’). ⁷⁶ i.e. Grg.484b, 488b2 6; Lg.690b7 c3, 715a1 2. The passage is also alluded to in Prt.337c5 d3 and Ep.VIII [dub.] 354b8 c2; cf. Lg.889e 890a5 with Wilamowitz (1919) ii.97 8 who sees another accidental misquotation of Pindar, and Dodds (1959) 271 who argues that there is nothing to prove that Plato had Pindar in mind in this passage.

Plato, Poetry, and the Lyric Nine

123

had presumably become memorable independent of its context, so memorable that the passage was often adapted differently in every single case, and the meaning of the word nomos was associated each time with the receiving context and author. The quasi-quotation of the nomos-passage in Herodotus proves the above point (Hdt. 3.38.4). Herodotus concludes his description of Cambyses’ insanity and sacrilegious behaviour in book 3 by focusing on different religious traditions and customs. His aim is to prove the relative character of religious nomoi and human customs and to demonstrate as well their dependence on cultural and geographical factors.⁷⁷ Herodotus’ belief about the relative character of tradition is supported by a specific example which portrays the different attitudes of peoples: Indians would find the Greek custom of cremating their fathers’ corpses appalling, and under no circumstances would the Greeks ever consider eating their fathers like the Indians do. Although the criticism towards Cambyses’ behaviour and his lack of religious respect shows that Herodotus believes that religious nomoi should be respected, he proceeds to elaborate on the dependence of these and of other nomoi on cultural and geographical factors.⁷⁸ The bulk of the paragraph centres on customs that ultimately function as cultural and ethnographical points of differentiation, and Herodotus closes with a quasi-quotation of the first line of Pindar’s fr.169a M, the famous nomos-passage.⁷⁹ Πανταχῇ ὦν μοι δῆλά ἐστι ὅτι ἐμάνη μεγάλως ὁ Καμβύσης οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἱροῖσί τε καὶ νομαίοισι ἐπεχείρησε καταγελᾶν. . . . Οὕτω μέν νυν ταῦτα νενόμισται, καὶ ὀρθῶς μοι δοκέει Πίνδαρος ποιῆσαι νόμον πάντων βασιλέα ϕήσας εἶναι. It becomes in every way obvious to me that Cambyses was completely mad. Otherwise he would not have tried to mock sacred laws and cultural customs. . . . These practices have thus now become established as customs, and it seems to me that Pindar rightly said in his poem that custom is king of all. Hdt. 3.38 ⁷⁷ Scholarship has interpreted Herodotus’ relativistic view of nomos in connection with the sophistic interpretation of nomos, on which Heinimann (1945) 79 82 and Thomas (2000) 124 9 with further bibliography. ⁷⁸ Hymphreys (1987) 211 points out that by Herodotus’ time nomos could mean either a formal law enacted at a known date or custom, and it would thus refer to aspects of human behaviour that varied from one culture to another. ⁷⁹ It has been claimed that Herodotus may be referring to another fragment of Pindar’s with similar sentiments to fr.169a M: fr.215a M that adopts a relativistic theory of nomos unlike the universal law that Pindar introduces in fr.169a M. Ferrari, F. (1992) 77 adopts the view that Herodotus was mistaken in citing Pindar’s fr.169a M for a relativistic view of νόμος and meant to cite fr.215a M instead: ἄλλ⌞α⌟ δ᾽ ἄλλ⌞οι⌟σιν ν⌞όμιμα, σϕετέραν | δ᾽ αἰνεῖ δίκαν ἀνδρῶν ἕκαστος (‘different people have different customs, and each man praises his own justice’), which is quoted in Artem. Oneirocritica 4.2.11 12, p. 243 Pack, on which Ferrari, F. (1992) and Rutherford, I. (2001b) 387 9; contra Heinimann (1945) 67 73, who interprets the Pindaric fr.169a M within the context of relativity. Herodotus’ interpretation of Pindar might agree with the sentiment of fr.215a M, the text, however, does not support any assumptions that Herodotus paraphrases fr.215a M here.

124

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

Pindar is cited in this passage from Herodotus as a thinker, whose belief is justified by the factual data and the historiographical details that Herodotus puts forward. His nomos-fragment is climactically connected with the entire paragraph, and only implicitly and in retrospect does the reference to Pindar support Herodotus’ view and his entire argumentation.⁸⁰ Herodotus brings in his narrative culturally dependent examples, but the generalizing Pindaric conclusion broadens the focus of his discussion. More importantly, it suggests that nomos is not relative; it is rather a force imposed to all humans, and only its specifics are culturally defined.⁸¹ Notwithstanding that Herodotus’ interpretation of Pindar does not align itself with the sentiment of fr.169a M, his words still read like a paraphrase of this passage, even down to word order. The Pindaric verse, which is incorporated roughly as a quotation, is removed from its immediate poetic context, and this decontextualization allows Herodotus to interpret the cited line as it suits his narrative: the unquestionable power of the law of nature that controls mortals and immortals is turned in Herodotus’ passage into custom with culture-specific and relative value. Even if we assume that Herodotus was mistaken either in his quotation or in his interpretation, the Pindaric verse is not simply a vague reference to an idea. Martin Ostwald points out that the manner in which the specific Pindaric fragment is mentioned from its earliest reference down to Hesychius’ time suggests ‘that the beginning of the poem may have become proverbial soon after Pindar wrote it and remained so throughout antiquity.’⁸² The fragment, specifically its opening verse, is cited and paraphrased a number of times in the Platonic dialogues, as we have seen, and these examples verify Ostwald’s conclusion that its first line might have attained the status of a proverb. Above all, the allusion to the fragment in Herodotus allows us to deduce that at least some Pindaric poems were widely known and diffused in some form. The contextual isolation and (quasi-)quotation of the Pindaric line in all the instances in Plato and in Herodotus demonstrate that part of their readership would have recognized it either as a gnomic utterance or as little more than an apophthegm. Another part would have presumably recalled the poem. We can be reasonably confident that short excerpts from lyric poems would have circulated detached from their original poetic context. It is highly probable that some verses and poems had already become proverbial due to their gnomic character or due to their potential applicability to different occasions, and had ultimately survived in subsequent literature often as maxims or as widely circulated passages. The Pindaric phrase σύνες ὅ τοι λέγω, for example, is often included with a comic touch in the Platonic dialogues implicitly mirroring the context within which the phrase is used in ⁸⁰ Cf. Hdt.7.102 4, where Demaratus explains Xerxes how nomos is the ruler of the Greeks. ⁸¹ On the non relativistic reading of nomos pantōn basileus, Humphreys (1987). ⁸² Ostwald (1965) 109.

Plato, Poetry, and the Lyric Nine

125

Aristophanes’ Birds as well as the connotations it had acquired presumably thanks to the comic framework within which it was received in Athens. Socrates in Meno 76d3 playfully uses the phrase in order to add to the general air of sophistication and self-profundity in the passage. The saying, accompanied by Pindar’s name, often prepares the reader for the Pindaric flavour of the whole passage. In Phaedrus 236d2 it adds to Phaedrus’ playful tone as he throws in some Pindar in his attempt to show Socrates how to compose poetry. The context is sarcastic, and the ‘slogan’ corresponds to Socrates’ ironic reaction to Phaedrus’ suggestion to hear Lysias’ thesis on Erōs, which is expressed once more through another Pindaric quotation (Phdr.227b9–10 καὶ ἀσχολίας ὑπέρτερον ~ Pi. Is.1.2).⁸³ In all these instances the speaker foregrounds each time the name of the lyric poet, and thus underlines both the authority of the poetic persona and the relevance of the particular poetic passage or phrase to his argument or to the sentiment he expresses. Such a technique, as the examples demonstrate, is particularly characteristic and striking in summaries of or quick references to Pindaric passages where both Pindar’s named figure and persona mark the authority of the summarized poetic extract and of the cited saying. The association between the recalled poem and the receiving context becomes complicated in cases where the name of the poet does not accompany any poetic excerpt or any paraphrase, especially in cases of poems whose frequency with which they are (not) quoted cannot be used as evidence for their popularity. One can detect instances where the identification of the melic model depends exclusively on the scholia. The Platonic scholia pick up an allusion to Alcaeus in Smp.217e3–4, and the scholia to Aelius Aristides detect an allusion to Alcman in Lg.705a2–4.⁸⁴ In other cases, such as the hint to Bacchylides’ Ode 17 in Phd.58a10–b3, the echoes to Sappho’s 31 V in Phdr.251a–b, the allusion to Sapph. 1 V in Phdr.241a–b, and the integration of Anacreon’s charioteer from PMG 360 in Phdr.246a3–e3 the connection is left to the knowledgeable reader to make.⁸⁵ Unnamed paraphrases and quotations may recall the verse or under the best of conditions the poem, and lastly, if at all, the poet.⁸⁶ Even if one manages to recognize the unmarked verse or allusion, the text itself does not demand this recognition for its understanding ⁸³ Moore (2014) identifies parallels between the Phaedrus and Pindar’s Isthmian 1, and reads the Platonic dialogue as an epinician for the philosophical lover. ⁸⁴ Σ Smp.217e3 4 ~ Alc. 366 V; Σ Aristid. II.206.2 (iii.635 Dindorf ) ~ Alcm. 108 PMG. ⁸⁵ On Sapph. 31 V and the Sapphic echoes in Phdr.251a b, Nightingale (1995) 158 9; Pender (2007b) 30; Yunis (2011) 152 3 ad loc. On Anacr. 360 PMG in Phdr.246a 248e, Ferrari, G. (1987) 154 with n. 21 at 265; Nightingale (1995) 158n. 51. ⁸⁶ e.g. Prt.337c5 d3 and Ep.VIII [dub.] 354b8 c2 for Pindar’s nomos poem; a semi quotation of Pindar’s fr.209 M in R.457b2 3; a recollection of Ibycus’ 286 PMG in Phdr.229b4 9. Unconvincingly, in my opinion, Brandwood (1976) sees a quotation of Pindar’s O.9.32 40 (he cites O.9.21 6) in Phil.66a4 5, and of Simonides 581 PMG/F262 Poltera in Phd.111d5 7, the latter solely because of καὶ ἀενάων ποταμῶν in Plato’s text.

126

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

and for the development of its argument. It is expected nonetheless that an astute reader would have been able to detect it and ideally to associate it with melic poetry at a first stage, with the lyric poet who composed it, even with a specific melic poem.

SOPHOI L Y R I C P OE T S AND T HE I R TRANSHISTORICAL TRUTHS The above discussion has demonstrated Plato’s interest in and constant reference to melic poetry and the lyric poets, sometimes in quotations or paraphrases, in other cases by recalling the name of the poet. A conclusive claim one can make from this melic painting in Plato is that the lyric poets are in almost all cases presented as authorities on ethical matters. They are cited in the course of philosophical arguments, and are also employed as means of exploring modes of communication and larger philosophical themes. The chapter opened by drawing attention to the frequency with which Simonides is namely included in the dialogues, and concluded as a preliminary that Plato drew on a tradition that had established him as sophos. In a number of instances Plato characterizes the lyric poets he recalls or whose poetry he cites as sophoi or theioi: Anacreon in the Phaedrus (235c3–4); Pindar in the Meno (81a5 and 81b1–2) and in the Laws (690c1); Simonides in the Republic (331e5–6 and in retrospect in 365c1 where PMG 598/F308 Poltera is cited as a saying uttered collectively by the wise men); implicitly Stesichorus in the Phaedrus (243a5–b4) where the comparison with Homer, the emphasis on his ability to realize the cause of his blindness and to correct his mistake by composing his Palinode, his characterization as mousikos, and the comparative σοϕώτερος implies that Stesichorus was already sophos. James Adam points out that the phrase σοϕὸς καὶ θεῖος (‘wise and divine’), though fashionable words of praise, are generally ironic in the words of Socrates.⁸⁷ Ramona Naddaff equally interprets Simonides’ characterization as sophos in R.331e5–6 in an ironic light, given how the portrayal of divine inspiration in the Apology and the Ion does not allow the poet to understand what he means when he speaks (cf. Ap.22a–b, Ion 542a).⁸⁸ It is indeed reasonable to accept that a touch of irony could apply to such characterizations, but the role that these figures and their poetry are assigned in certain passages in the dialogues and the reasons why they are often cited and named dismiss any assumptions that the adjectives are used with sarcasm or irony. ⁸⁷ Adam (1902) 13. ⁸⁸ Naddaff (2002) 14; cf. Men.99c6 d5 the connotations of the word theios, on which Bluck (1961) 424 30 and 434 6 ad Men.100a1.

Plato, Poetry, and the Lyric Nine

127

As has already been analysed, Anacreon and Stesichorus become role models for Socrates’ presentation on erōs in the Phaedrus, and Pindar and Simonides are characterized so in those cases where specific claims in their poetry become significant for the argument the speaker wishes to put forward. Their characterization agrees at once with two Platonic theories on poets and knowledge: the poets are divinely inspired, and for this exact reason they possess no knowledge of what they say (Ion 533a–534e, Ap.22b8–c6), and the poets have authority precisely because they are divinely inspired (Lg.682a3–5, Men.99c3–d5). As Robert Sharples comments, ‘Plato indeed sees divine inspiration as akin to the passion which is the driving force in the philosopher’s search for truth (Phdr.244aff., 265b) and Socrates’ mission is attributed in the Apology (33c) to a divine dispensation.’⁸⁹ It is nonetheless those who are wise and divinely inspired who can contribute to reaching the truth, philosophical truth for Socrates and Plato, and both are characterizations that are saved predominantly for the nine lyric poets among the poetic figures Plato names and quotes in his dialogues.⁹⁰ The presentation and characterization of the canonical nine comes in marked contrast to the way in which Plato cites and refers to the tragedians. None of the three tragedians, when they are named and quoted in the dialogues, is characterized as wise or divine, a remark that may be reasonably associated with Plato’s judgements in the Republic against both the specifics and performances of the tragic genre.⁹¹ This differentiation between melic poetry and tragedy and the status that the canonical lyric poets acquire in Plato’s works ultimately allows Poetry in the Republic to speak for herself in melos, a poetic discourse and mode that Plato would not mind keeping in his politeia. The frequent depiction of the lyric poets in the dialogues as sophoi and mousikoi is nonetheless not simply a counter-representation to the status of the tragedians in the dialogues nor is it exclusively grounded on Plato’s criticism of the Athenian tragedy. The very reception of the lyric nine as authoritative figures whose poetry would support various arguments in a number of Platonic dialogues and would ultimately contribute to the pursuit of philosophical truth both prefigure and are proclaimed in the poetics of their compositions. This is ⁸⁹ Sharples (1985) 187. ⁹⁰ Cf. Solon (Tim.20d7 e1, 21c1), Tyrtaeus, (Lg.629b9 c1), Archilochus (R.365c4 6), and Hesiod (R.466c2 3) who are characterized as sophoi, with Koning (2010) on the contradictory portrayals of Hesiod in Plato. ⁹¹ e.g. Aeschylus: R.361b5 362c8, 379e3 380c2, 383a9 c5, 550c4 6; Smp.180a4 7; Phd.107e5; Euthd.291c7 d3. Sophocles: R.329b6 d7; Phdr.268c5 269a3. Euripides: Smp.177a2 3; Phdr.268c5 d2; Grg.484e3 7, 492e 493a1; Tht.154c10 d2; Alc.I [sp.] 113c2 7; Alc.II [sp.] 151b5 1; Thg. [sp.] 125b5 d7; Ep.I [dub.] 309d1 4; cf. R.568a4 d1 where Euripides is ironically portrayed as the wisest of the tragedians for praising tyrants. I leave aside Homer, as Plato’s relationship with him is complex and deserves separate treatment. As an introductory work, Yamagata (2012) 131 8 illustrates comprehensively the ways in which Plato uses Homeric references; also Howes (1895) 174 210; Benardete (1963); Mitscherling (2005).

128

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

particularly the case for Pindar; at times also for Simonides. The extracts from their poetry that are chosen to be included or to be alluded to in certain passages in the dialogues as well as the way in which these are incorporated in the course of each discussion support this evaluation. The gnomic language that is employed to express truth claims and the generalizing tone that is detected in a number of their poems endow the poetic voice with wisdom and authority. Both these features depict by association the lyric poet as a figure of wisdom, too—as a sophos. In his analysis of the Pindaric nomos-passage in Plato’s Gorgias and in Hölderlin’s Pindar Fragments Mark Payne has demonstrated that the gnomic statements in Pindar invite in themselves isolation, decontextualization, and re-inscription in differentiated contexts as stimuli and incentives to further reflection.⁹² The atemporal character, the openness and abstract formulation, and the potential universal application of such gnomai and truth claims attach to them a transhistorical quality that presupposes not only their own future reception but also their recirculation. Payne focuses on the nomos-passage as the perfect example of the broad cultural applicability of Pindar’s gnomic language, since, as we have also seen, the first lines of Pindar’s fr.169a M get detached from their immediate context, and are recalled and appropriated in both Herodotus and Plato. In each case Pindar’s thought is adjusted to the new context and to the new constructed world. Payne’s conclusions hold water for the majority of the cases where Pindar is cited in Plato, if not for every single case, as the interlocutors neither question the validity of the recalled Pindaric statement nor do they raise objections to the quotation’s integration in the passage and to its relevance to the argument. As already mentioned and at times analysed in this chapter, extracts from Pindar and allusions to some of his poems are often incorporated in the course of a discussion with the aim to support the interlocutors’ arguments, or are perceived as the starting point for certain theories and as the basis for ethical reflection: Pindar’s fr.169a M is quoted to support Callicles’ view on the natural right of the strong to dispose the weak in the Gorgias, and his fr.133 M is incorporated as supporting evidence in Socrates’ anamnesis theory in the Meno. The ease with which gnomic and generalizing Pindaric statements may be detached from their immediate poetic context in order to be reused and adapted to a different receiving framework is also obvious in Cephalus’ quotation of Pindar’s fr.214 M in the Republic when he attempts to convince Socrates that it is not so much his wealth but mainly his character that makes him happy (R.329d8–331b7). Just before he closes his explanation Cephalus cites fr.214 M as the climactic conclusion of his claim that a just and pious man has nothing to fear when he reaches old age and approaches death, and connects wealth with paying off debt to gods and men.

⁹² Payne (2006).

Plato, Poetry, and the Lyric Nine

129

τῷ δὲ μηδὲν ἑαυτῷ ἄδικον συνειδότι ἡδεῖα ἐλπὶς ἀεὶ πάρεστι καὶ ἀγαθὴ γηροτρόϕος, ὡς καὶ Πίνδαρος λέγει. χαριέντως γάρ τοι, ὦ Σώκρατες, τοῦτ’ἐκεῖνος εἶπεν, ὅτι ὃς ἂν δικαίως καὶ ὁσίως τὸν βίον διαγάγῃ, γλυκεῖά οἱ καρδίαν ἀτάλλοισα γηροτρόϕος συναορεῖ ἐλπὶς, ἃ μάλιστα θνατῶν πολύστροϕον γνώμαν κυβερνᾷ. εὖ οὖν λέγει θαυμαστῶς ὡς σϕόδρα. But sweet hope is ever present as the good nourisher of old age, as Pindar puts it, to the one who is conscious of having committed nothing of an unjust nature. He said this beautifully, Socrates, how he who lives his life are justice and piety, sweet hope that nurtures old age, fosters and accompanies his heart, and above all guides the versatile mind of mortals. He puts it so wonderfully well! R.331a1 9

Cephalus’ vocabulary prefigures the introduction of the fragment in his argumentation: his ἡδεῖα points to Pindar’s γλυκεῖα, the words ἐλπίς and γηροτρόϕος are in all probability chosen because they are found in the fragment itself, and the adverb χαριέντως encapsulates the positive tone of the quotation. It is difficult to make any assumptions on the position of these four lines within the overall cognitive structure of the poem which we do not possess, and on how they were contextualized in their original context. It is also impossible to draw any conclusions on how their appropriation in Cephalus’ reasoning may be at all relevant to the overall character and theme of Pindar’s poem. Cephalus sees hope that may sustain old age and rejoice the mortal heart, as Pindar claims, as the characteristic of a man who lives a just and pious life. Unless we assume that such a connection was made in the missing lines of the poem, the reference to dikaiosynē may simply function as a cue so that Socrates enquires about its definition.⁹³ The contingency that characterizes truth claims and generalizing gnomic language in Pindar’s poems, as Payne has concluded and as the quotation of fr.214 M by Cephalus also suggests, is a feature that could also apply to Simonides’ poetics, at least to judge from his Ode to Scopas in the Protagoras (Prt.338e6–348a) and from the way in which his views on justice are analysed in the Republic (R.331d3–336a8). Undeniably, the interlocutors deal with

⁹³ The same fragment is alluded to with the phrase τῆς Πινδαρικῆς γηροτρόϕου ἐλπίδος in a passage from Plutarch’s De Tranquilitate Animis (477a13 b22) which builds on Cephalus’ argumentation on the connection between wealth and pious soul, proposing, however, that a pure soul is superior from both wealth and the Pindaric hope.

130

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

Simonides in the Republic and in the Protagoras differently from the way they approach the poetic sayings and quotations from Pindar. Unlike the Pindaric sayings that are unquestionably received as generally accepted claims, a conclusion that also applies to other melic quotations and allusions in the dialogues, Simonides himself is questioned about his ethical views and is therefore charged in the Protagoras with contradiction. This imaginary conversation with a poet hidden behind his poem pushes the discussion back to the time of the poem’s composition, and frames temporally the gnomic character of the cited extract. The return to the zero-point of composition consequently recontextualizes the extracts and allusions in their original poetic context, limiting as a result their transhistorical force and their applicable character. However, the poetic recontextualization of Simonides neither restricts the authoritative or eternal character of Simonides’ poetry nor should it be seen as a criterion for us to claim that Simonides is not perceived as sophos as Pindar. Decontextualized passages from Simonides still carry seeds of wisdom, and this is proven in the Protagoras itself. The piecemeal quotation of the Ode to Scopas is internally and critically contextualized in the passage, as the search for the voice of the poet becomes the starting point for a discussion on ethical matters.⁹⁴ The cases of Pindar and Simonides are additionally examples of the different way in which Plato and comedy employ the canonical lyric poets. The comic genre and more specifically Aristophanes often distinguish between anecdote and poetics, and incorporate accordingly lyric poets in comic scenes. At times Aristophanes takes advantage of the amusing features in the biographical tradition of Simonides, while for Pindar he relies mostly on his poetics. The overall impression one gets from the Platonic dialogues is that Plato emphasizes predominantly the didactic value of the lyric poets, the educational and philosophical impact they might have on the interlocutors in his dialogues, and their authoritative status as pursuers of wisdom and as poetic exemplars. This essential distinction and distance from the way comedy employs the lyric nine, one that is grounded on the difference in genre and the desirable outcome, marks the tone with which Plato includes these lyric figures in his dialogues. Both melic poetry and the lyric poets are integrated in an authoritative tone into the arguments of Plato’s characters, and are mostly employed in those cases in which the speakers make an effort to endow their viewpoint with validity, ethical wisdom, and insight. As demonstrated in the course of this chapter, quotations, summaries, and paraphrases of melic poems become part of the interlocutors’ line of reasoning in order to support and endorse the speaker’s opinion.⁹⁵ Despite Plato’s scepticism in the Republic ⁹⁴ On ‘critical contextualism’ see Halliwell (2000) 110 11. ⁹⁵ On poets as witnesses: e.g. Pl. Lg.630a3 and 680c6 d3; Arist. Metaph.995a7 8, Rh.1375b28 9.

Plato, Poetry, and the Lyric Nine

131

towards the value of current poetry as educative instrument, lyric poets are employed as authoritative educators of the past, and their poems are depicted as applicable at Plato’s time, too, at least in the world he crafts in his dialogues and in Socrates’ philosophical argumentation. This is especially evident in the Pindaric extracts that are included with an authoritative, often apophthegmatic, tone in the dialogues. To be sure, Plato likely gave priority to passages which were recognizable to the interlocutors and his readership, as some poetry had a higher recognition factor. The same could have been valid for poets.

4 The Peripatos Aristotle’s Project on Greek Culture

The most ambitious cultural project before the Alexandrian Library was possibly Aristotle’s Peripatos. One observes in the Peripatetic school a conscious and intensive attempt to approach Greek literature critically and a methodical and systematic approach to previous literature with the sole purpose of explaining, understanding, and interpreting it critically.¹ The Peripatetic treatises have primarily an explanatory and instructive tone, and the surviving titles and fragments indicate a voracious and comprehensive curiosity, as well as a focus on antiquarianism with an effort of historical documentation.² The entire corpus of the Peripatos demonstrates that the philosophers had a broad range of interests from the beginning of the foundation of the school until the late Hellenistic period which covered most of the areas of human life: politics, education, ethics, literature, music, culture, poetry, philosophy, and science. The Peripatetic influence and teaching did not cease with the decline of the school after the headship of Straton (288–268/ 7 ), and some of its tenets were further elaborated upon during the Hellenistic era. Any author of a systematic and explanatory treatise—the synagōgē (peri tou deina)—that was established by the Peripatos under Aristotle could claim the title Peripatetic, and this reflects accurately the cultural continuity.³ The body of knowledge displayed in their treatises demonstrates a peculiar

¹ Podlecki (1969) 114; cf. Wright, M. (2012) 2; commenting on the work of Demetrius of Phalerum Montanari (2000) 397 notes how the Peripatetic treatises were grounded on inter pretation of texts, and showed a ‘close relationship between hermeneutic and literary criticism.’ ² Montanari (2012) 349 50. ³ On the name Περιπατητικός, its gradually altered meaning in antiquity, and its continuous link with Aristotle’s Peripatos, Brink (1940) cols.899 908. The Hellenistic philosophers who have been characterized as ‘outsiders’ continued the Peripatetic interest in literature and criticism, the most important of which were the late third century Satyrus, on whom West, S. (1974) and Momigliano (1993) 80 8, and Hermippus of Smyrna, the ‘Peripatetic’, as called by Jerome, and ‘Callimachean’, according to Athenaeus, on whom Momigliano (1993) 79 80; Bollansée (1999a) 1 18; Hägg (2012) 84 9.

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon. Theodora A. Hadjimichael, Oxford University Press (2019). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198810865.003.0005

134

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

kind of empiricism that involved the systematic collection of information, mainly from written records, and also the collection of views of earlier scholars.⁴ Both these features led to the establishment of encyclopaedic knowledge,⁵ while the scale and nature of their works involving Greek literature and its representatives have turned the Peripatetics into one of the most important chapters in the history of criticism and transmission.⁶ As it will be demonstrated, the Peripatetics were actively involved in the process of transmission and canonization of lyric poetry, and they can thus be justifiably considered a watershed in Greek literary criticism, especially in connection with the nine canonical lyric poets. This role of the Peripatos as one of the mediators for lyric poetry turns them into the crucial bridge between both the Platonic and the comic views on specific poetic genres, including melic, and the Hellenistic attitude towards sixth- and fifth-century melic poetry.⁷

T H E P ER I P A T E T I C P R O J E C T The Peripatos⁸ is renowned among modern scholars for its so-called biographies.⁹ The treatises under question, however, were not solely biographical works or even exclusively discursive works devoted to the poetic corpus, the ⁴ Aristotle outlines the methodology of his ‘research’ in Top.105a34 b19, where he clarifies how propositions and opinions should be collected and grouped together (προτάσεις ἐκλεκτέον, δόξας) and written acquisitions should be sources of information (ἐκλέγειν δὲ χρὴ καὶ ἐκ τῶν γεγραμμένων λόγων); cf. Arist. EN.1145b2 5. Also Strabo who uses the verb ἀριστοτελίζειν (13.1.54, p. 609C.14 Radt) as probably an indication that the development of systematic empiricism was Aristotle’s achievement. ⁵ Gibson (2005) 29. ⁶ Podlecki (1969) is one of the few studies that is exclusively devoted to the value of the Peripatetics as literary critics. ⁷ I follow in this chapter the numbering of the Peripatetic fragments in the edition of Wehrli (2nd rev. edn) and where needed I give the relevant numbering of the volumes. The edition of Athenaeus is that of Olson, S. D. in the LCL, and in most cases I give Olson’s text rather than Wehrli’s when quoting lyric fragments, as he follows the standard editions of the lyric poets. A note is made when the text varies. The titles of the Peripatetic treatises are either transliterated in the main text or given in Greek. ⁸ The title of the section is chosen with the aim to denote the complete dearth of the philosophers’ works in the Lyceum of Aristotle, especially those works in association with social and cultural themes. For an overview of the whole of the Peripatetic treatises, Wehrli (1969f ) x.95 128. ⁹ Hägg (2012) 70 emphasizes the importance of the second half of the fourth century and of the Peripatos for the history of ancient biography, and follows Dihle (1956) 57 87 and (1998) 130 1, 138 and Momigliano (1993) 84, who see a continuation between the Peripatetic and Hellenistic practice, and also Arrighetti (1987) 162 3, Brugnoli (1995) 80, and Gallo (1995) 20 2 and (2005) 23, who point out that the Peripatos developed the techniques that later resulted in ‘true’ biography; cf. Cooper (2002) 317 who suggests that ‘the important issue is not whether the Peripatetics actually wrote biography or even imagined they were writing biography, but whether later readers regarded their writings as bioi.’

The Peripatos: Aristotle’s Project on Greek Culture

135

kind of which we find in the Hellenistic period.¹⁰ They were mixed works which concerned themselves with genre, the content of poetry, poetic language and style, lexicographical issues, the corpus of a specific poet, and biographical details.¹¹ The entire literary project of the Peripatos could be perceived as an attempt to register and memorialize Greek social and cultural history. The philosophers investigated consistently and systematically musical festivals and competitions, poetic performances, rituals, and customs that were related to performances of song. Thus, poetry—epic, tragedy, and melic—as a cultural phenomenon of the Archaic and Classical period was incorporated in a broader cultural and musical context, and became an object of discussion not only in treatises that dealt with specific poetic genres, poets. or poems but also in works that dealt with broader themes, poetic or other: e.g. the Περὶ Μελοποιίας by Aristoxenus (frr.92–3 W²), the Περὶ Μουσικῶν ἀγώνων by Dicaearchus (frr.73–89 W²), or the Συναγωγή τῶν ἐν μουσικῇ by Heracleides Ponticus (frr.157–63 W²). As the titles in connection with poetry reveal, some treatises dealt with cultural and musical issues, such as erotic and sympotic contexts of performance and the kind of behaviour one would expect in such contexts, and others with large generic contexts, such as tragedy, comedy, the Homeric epics, and, finally, with specific poets. The process of establishing previously more fluid generic categories is intensifying at the time of the Peripatos, as this is the period when ideas of genre were in the process of becoming fixed; generic works are therefore to be expected.¹² Undeniably, Homer and Pindar had already used generic lyric terms in their work, and had listed occasions of performances of melic poetry, and fifth-century comedy showed an explicit awareness of generic tendencies, too.¹³ Nevertheless, it is in the fourth century that we can detect an explicit interest in poetic genres and their features. The great interest of the Peripatetics in Greek culture has to be additionally related to the need to retain, infuse, and transmit Greek culture and Greek identity at a period of immense change not only geographically but also culturally.¹⁴ ¹⁰ Bing (1993) refers to ‘the bios tradition’ and notes that, whilst it was prominent in the fourth century, it fully flourished in the Hellenistic era. ¹¹ e.g. the story of Pindar and the honeycomb at Helicon in Chamaeleon’s Περὶ Πινδάρου (fr.32a b W²), fr.33 W² from his Περὶ Σιμωνίδου on Simonides’ avidity, and fr.34 W² on Simonides’ time in Carthaea instructing choruses (with a riddling and biographical interpret ation of his fr.70 ALG²), fr.43 W² in his Περὶ Κωμῳδίας on Anaxandrides’ aggressiveness and appearance while directing a dithyramb in Athens, and fr.31 W² from the Περὶ Ποιητῶν of Hieronymus of Rhodes on Sophocles’ piety. ¹² The observation made by Most (2000) 17 18 is suitable in this case: ‘genre is often formulated as a set of rules, but it may be better to understand it as a historically contingent and flexible reciprocal system of mutually calibrated expectations’. ¹³ Hom. Il.1.472 4, Il.22.391 2 paean (παιήονα); Il.18.492 3 hymenaios (ὑμέναιος); Il.24.719 22 thrēnos (θρήνων, ἐθρήνεον); Pi. fr.128c M paean and hymenaios (παιάνιδες, Ὑμέναιον | ἐν γάμοισι); cf. Archil. fr.120 IEG² dithyramb (διθύραμβον). ¹⁴ Grayeff (1974) 26 41 and Anagnostopoulos (2009) 2 13 on how the political situation in Greece at the time affected Aristotle’s life and the Lyceum.

136

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

With reference to melic poetry in particular it is striking that, although we have Peripatetic treatises dealing with specific lyric poets, we have no general and generic works for melic poetry or for kinds of melic poetry, except perhaps Aristoxenus’ Σύμμικτα Συμποτικά (frr.122–7 W²) and the Ἐρωτικά of Clearchus of Soli (frr.21–35 W²). The few surviving fragments from these two treatises are indicative of their context. They reveal that the theme of discussion was not so much poetry or kinds of poetry per se as customs at symposia and behavioural issues concerning erotic or musical matters, what I have called above cultural history or more precisely antiquarianism. Fragments from Aristoxenus’ Σύμμικτα Συμποτικά suggest that in a number of passages Aristoxenus was concerned with customs related to the symposium and other celebratory contexts (e.g. fr.125 W² = Suda s.v. σκολιόν on marital contexts, σ 643 Adler), in some fragments he expressed his views on the proper type of mousikē and harmoniai that were meant to accompany the drinking of the symposiasts (e.g. fr.122 W² = Plu. [De mus.]1146c–436), while in other extracts from his work he also revealed his beliefs on the psychagogic power of music and on its ability to affect the ethos of people (e.g. fr.123 W² = Str. 1.2, p. 15C–16C.12 Radt). Lyric poets were often named in a number of fragments from the two treatises of both Clearchus and Aristoxenus, and their compositions were also employed in the course of their discussion. According to Athenaeus, Sappho and Anacreon were mentioned in an extract from Clearchus’ Ἐρωτικά on erotic and Locrian poems. Κλέαρχος δὲ ἐν δευτέρῳ Ἐρωτικῶν τὰ ἐρωτικά ϕησιν ᾄσματα καὶ τὰ Λοκρικὰ καλούμενα οὐδὲν τῶν Σαπϕοῦς καὶ Ἀνακρέοντος διαϕέρειν. Clearchus in the second book of the Erōtika claims that the erotic songs and the so called Lokrika are no different from those of Sappho and Anacreon. Clearchus Erōtika fr.33 W² = Ath. 14.639a

Clearchus takes for granted in the above passage that Sappho and Anacreon were known. The ease with which both names are introduced suggests that they were expected to recall the poetry Clearchus has in mind, presumably only at a general level. The poems of Sappho and Anacreon are in some sense employed as a yardstick in the above passage in order to define the erotic songs that were called Locrian. They are thus recalled as a parallel in Clearchus’ attempt to explain the nature of these Locrian songs, which suggests that the two named lyric poets were probably thought of as paradigms of erotic song compositions. One can observe from Plato this persistence in the status and recognition of Sappho and Anacreon as the erotic poets par excellence.¹⁵ In another fragment from the Erōtika, the assimilation works the other way ¹⁵ See the discussion on the Phaedrus in Chapter 3 in this book, ‘Lyric Poets: Authorities and Models of Inspiration’.

The Peripatos: Aristotle’s Project on Greek Culture

137

round. Clearchus presumably attempted to explain a specific verse from Sappho’s 122 V by positioning it within a cultural and anthropological context. In 122 V Sappho draws attention to a girl collecting flowers. Κλέαρχος δ’ ὁ Σολεὺς ἐν τοῖς Ἐρωτικοῖς, διὰ τί, ϕησί, μετὰ χεῖρας ἄνθη καὶ μῆλα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ϕέρομεν; . . . ἢ δυοῖν χάριν ταῦτα περιϕέρουσιν; ἀρχή τε γὰρ ἐντυχίας καὶ παράδειγμα τῆς βουλήσεως αὐτοῖς γίνεται διὰ τούτων, αἰτηθεῖσι μὲν τὸ προσαγορευθῆναι, δοῦσι δὲ προυπογράϕειν ὅτι δεῖ καὶ αὐτοὺς μεταδιδόναι 554a τῆς ὥρας. ἡ γὰρ τῶν ὡραίων ἀνθῶν καὶ καρπῶν αἴτησις εἰς ἀντίδοσιν τῆς τοῦ σώματος ὥρας προκαλεῖται τοὺς λαβόντας. ἢ τὴν τούτων ὥραν παραψυχὴν καὶ παραμυθίαν τῆς ἐπὶ τῶν ἐρωμένων ὥρας ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις χαίροντες ἔχουσιν αὐτοῖς ἐκκρούεται γὰρ ὑπὸ τῆς τούτων παρουσίας ὁ τῶν ἐρωμένων πόθος. εἰ μὴ ἄρα τοῦ περὶ αὑτοὺς κόσμου χάριν καθάπερ ἄλλο τι τῶν πρὸς καλλωπισμὸν συντεινόντων ἔχουσί τε ταῦτα καὶ χαίρουσιν αὐτοῖς οὐ γὰρ μόνον στεϕανουμένων τοῖς ὡραίοις ἄνθεσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ μετὰ χεῖρας ἐχόντων τὸ πᾶν εἶδος ἐπικοσμεῖται. b τάχα δ’ ἴσως διὰ τὸ ϕιλοκάλους εἶναι . . . ϕυσικὸν γὰρ δή τι τὸ τοὺς οἰομένους εἶναι καλοὺς καὶ ὡραίους ἀνθολογεῖν. ὅθεν αἵ τε περὶ τὴν Περσεϕόνην ἀνθολογεῖν λέγονται, καὶ Σαπϕώ ϕησιν ἰδεῖν ἄνθε’ ἀμέργοισαν παῖδ’ ἄγαν ἀπάλαν.* * Olson LCL, Lobel Page (PLF 122), Voigt (Sapph. 122 V): ἄνθε’ ἀμέργουσαν παῖδ’ ἄγαν ἁπαλάν Wehrli iii: ἄνθε’ ἀμέργοισαν παῖδ’ †ἄγαν† ἀπάλαν fr.122 Campbell Clearchus of Soli says in his Erōtika: for what reason do we carry in our hands flowers, apples, and the like? . . . Or do they carry them around for two reasons? Because through them it is possible to initiate a conversation and to show what they want; for those who would like to be greeted and for those who offer gifts, their indicating in advance that others need to share their youthful beauty (hōra). For the request of flowers and fruits that are in season (hōraia) invites those who accept them as gifts to offer the youthful beauty (hōra) of their body in return. Or perhaps they cling to them enjoying their desires as a consolation and as a relief from the youthful beauty of their beloved. The longing of their objects of love is disturbed by the presence of such items. Unless perhaps they hold these items and enjoy them because they make them look more attractive, just like anything else that serves to the attractiveness of someone. Because the appearance in general is made to look more attractive not only when they wear garlands of flowers that are in season (hōraiois) but also when they hold them in their hands. It might also perhaps be because they are fond of beauty and elegance; . . . for it is natural for those who believe that they are handsome and full of youthful beauty (hōraious) to gather flowers. For this exact reason the girls who accompanied Persephone are described as gathering flowers, and Sappho claims that she saw a very delicate girl picking flowers. Clearchus Erōtika fr.25 W² = Ath. 12.553e 554b

Clearchus’ explanatory notes on the theme of youthful beauty, on the way in which people use the seasonal gifts of nature, and on the manner in which individuals attract and desire each other position Sappho’s fragment in a

138

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

threefold interpretative frame: (i) the girl, who is called delicate by Sappho (παῖδ’ἄγαν ἀπάλαν), collects flowers because it is natural for those who are young and beautiful to collect flowers; (ii) Sappho draws attention to the collecting of flowers because it is a sign of the girl’s wish to be observed, perhaps also of her desire to initiate a meeting, and most importantly of her beauty; (iii) Sappho gazes at beauty, more specifically at the beauty of the object of her desire, but her lust is both reduced and distracted by the beauty of the flowers in the object’s hands. In this passage Clearchus obviously does not focus on the specific verse from Sappho, nor is he concerned with its interpretation. He rather focuses on the attractiveness of both humans and nature, and on the behaviour of those who are aware of their beauty and of their desirability. The verse is employed as literary evidence, one may say, for a certain kind of human conduct that could be perceived as erotic and more specifically for Clearchus’ portrayal of a delightful and luxurious way of life.¹⁶ This emphasis of the Peripatetics on social contexts of poetry and, as it will become obvious, their preference for sympotic contexts of performance suggest that they were interested in patterns of behaviour in certain circumstances.¹⁷ Evidence for this interest is Dicaearchus’ reference in his treatise Περὶ Μουσικῶν Ἀγώνων (fr.88 W²) to the three kinds of skolia which were sung at the symposium (= Suda s.v. σκολιόν, σ 643 Adler; Σ Pl. Grg.451e).¹⁸ Σκολιόν: ἡ παροίνιος ᾠδή, ὡς μὲν Δικαίαρχος ἐν τῷ περὶ μουσικῶν ἀγώνων, ὅτι τρία γένη ἦν ᾠδῶν, τὸ μὲν ὑπὸ πάντων ᾀδόμενον καθ’ ἕνα ἑξῆς, τὸ δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν συνετωτάτων ὡς ἔτυχε τῇ τάξει. ὃ δὴ καλεῖσθαι διὰ τὴν τάξιν σκολιόν.¹⁹ τὸ δὲ suppl. Wehrli post Hermann Skolion: a drinking song, for Dicaearchus says in his On Musical Contests that there are three kinds of songs: one that is sung by everyone; another by each sequentially; another sung by the most talented apparently in order. That one is called crooked (skolion) due to the order of the singers.

Dicaearchus uses the term skolion to denote both a type of song and a generic label of a type of song, as explained in the Suda (σκολιόν: ἡ παροίνιος ᾠδή), and he comments predominantly on its performative features: performance context, mode of performance, and performers. According to Dicaearchus’ ¹⁶ Cf. Clearchus’ fr.41 W² Περὶ Βίων (= Ath.15.687a) where Sappho’s 58.25 7 V is presented in the treatise as evidence that Sappho herself did not dissociate honour from beauty and luxury. ¹⁷ Although the preference of the Peripatos for social and performative contexts of poetry is undeniably based on the Peripatetic fragments, it is still important to recognize that the sources wherein the passages of Dicaearchus or of other Peripatetics are quoted may to some degree distort the picture. ¹⁸ On the skolion, see the seminal work of Reitzenstein (1893) who discusses both the passages that refer to skolia and the ancient sources that attempt to explain the term from Dicaearchus to Tzetzes. ¹⁹ The text is that of Wehrli i.

The Peripatos: Aristotle’s Project on Greek Culture

139

testimony, skolia were songs sung while drinking wine (ἡ παροίνιος ᾠδή), that is in all probability at symposia or at banquets, and were of three types (τρία γένη ἦν ᾠδῶν): one type was sung by all the participants (ὑπὸ πάντων ᾀδόμενον), another type by each individual (καθ’ ἕνα ἑξῆς), and a third type by those who have been judged to be the wisest or the most talented in singing (ὑπὸ τῶν συνετωτάτων ὡς ἔτυχε τῇ τάξει).²⁰ Dicaearchus’ descriptive and directorial comments on the performances of skolia reveal the continuous role of the symposium at his time. His fr.89 W² from his Περὶ Μουσικῆς/Περὶ Μουσικῶν Ἀγώνων, which the scholia to Aristophanes’ Clouds quote verbatim, is essential for such a conclusion. Δικαίαρχος ἐν τῷ περὶ μουσικῆς ‘ἐπεὶ δὲ κοινόν τι πάθος ἀεὶ ϕαίνεται συνακολουθεῖν τοῖς διερχομένοις εἴτε μετὰ μέλους εἴτε ἄνευ μέλους ἔχοντα ἐν τῇ χειρὶ ποιεῖσθαι τὴν ἀϕήγησιν. οἵ τε γὰρ ᾄδοντες ἐν τοῖς συμποσίοις ἐκ παλαιᾶς τινος παραδόσεως κλῶνα δάϕνης ἢ μυρρίνης λαβόντες ᾄδουσιν’. ἐν τῷ περὶ μουσικῶν Wehrli: ἀγώνων suppl. Dindorf Σ ad loc ἔτι Hermann: ἐπεὶ codd. Dicaearchus in his Peri Mousikēs: ‘for it still appears to be a common affectation associated with those performing either with musical accompaniment or without to hold something in their hand while reciting. Following some old tradition those singing at the symposia sing while holding a twig of laurel or myrtle’. Dicaearchus Peri Mousikēs/Peri Mousikōn Agōnōn fr.89 W² = Σv Ar. Nu.1364c²¹

The scholiast attempts to prove that Strepsiades’ request from Pheidippides to hold a branch of myrtle before his song kicks off is not a creation of Aristophanes’ imagination, and the quotation from Dicaearchus is incorporated as evidence for the realistic representation of the sympotic scene in the Clouds. The fragment should be coupled with his fr.88 W², as preserved in the Suda, where Dicaearchus focuses once more on the symposium, and comments on the singing habits of the participants. Fr.89 W² goes one step further, however. It depicts a visual picture of the sympotic environment where the participants hold in their hands branches of laurel or myrtle while singing. Dicaearchus’ wording bears more attention; the passage presents a sympotic scenario which allegedly rests on an old tradition (ἐκ παλαιᾶς τινος παραδόσεως). Dicaearchus’ interest in the origins of singing while carrying laurel or myrtle ties in with a number of passages in the Peripatetic treatises where the philosophers attempt

²⁰ Having as a starting point Aristophanes’ Wasps 1219 48, Liberman (2016) 51 60 questions the correctness of the explanation of the skolion offered by Dicaearchus and Aristoxenus (fr. 125 W²). He interprets the testimonies in a way that suggests that skolion would only be the song that was sung to an irregular order and only by some of the guests, thus the third type in Dicaearchus’ fragment, and would not apply to the other two kinds mentioned, a view which I do not find favourable. ²¹ The text is that of the scholia vetera on Aristophanes’ Clouds (ed. Koster).

140

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

to track down the aition of a ritual and of a custom connected with poetic and musical performances and also the origin of a number of cultural traits and habits, or it ties in with passages where they aim to explain the reason for the existence of certain practices in a number of geographical locations.²² Dicaearchus presents the symposiasts who take the leading role in singing as continuing a tradition that was established in the past, a conclusion that is not clear whether it is drawn from Strepsiades’ symposium in the Clouds (assuming that this might have been his source) or from other sources the Peripatos might have had access to at the time. The passage in fr.89 W² creates a chronological distinction between the past and Dicaearchus’ present, which becomes explicit with the use of the present tense for the habits Dicaearchus aims to explain in his passage (ϕαίνεται, συνακολουθεῖν, ᾄδοντες, ᾄδουσιν) in correlation with the phrase παλαιὰ παράδοσις. By offering a picture that draws on the past while explaining the present the extract also creates links with the time of writing. The previous sympotic manners were presumably still in existence in Dicaearchus’ time, and it is therefore plausible that Dicaearchus refers to the current circumstances of the symposium and to long established customs that could still be observed in sympotic contexts in Athens at his time.²³ It is important to couple Dicaearchus’ performative remarks with the interest of Aristoxenus in the musical accompaniment of wine-drinking at sympotic gatherings, with his comments on the singing of skolia with braches of myrtle and on erotic harmonies at weddings (e.g. fr.125 W² = Suda s.v. σκολιόν, σ 643 Adler), and also with his opinions on the moral influence and the calming effect of music at symposia (e.g. fr.122 W² = Plu. [De mus.] 1146e436).²⁴ One may conclude from the emphasis on the types of songs and on the kind of music that were associated with the symposium in the works of both Dicaearchus and Aristoxenus that this social institution was still in practice in their time. Subsequently, the symposium, as one reads in the Peripatetic fragments, may have provided a suitable environment for performance of small-scale poetry, and may have thereafter given a longer life to songs of erotic nature or to songs with an ethical character in connection with sympotic behaviour. The symposia that the prostitute Lais attended in Epicrates’ Antilais, for instance, provided the context where she learnt how to ²² e.g. Dicaearchus fr.97 W² on the Sicilian origin of the kottabos at symposia (= Ath.11.479d2 e) with his fr.95 W² (= Ath.15.667b9 c3, contra Wehrli i and Mirhadi fr.106 who suggest that the fragment of Dicaearchus begins from Ath.15.666b1) and fr.96 W² (= Ath. 15.666b6 c4l); Aristoxenus fr.89 W² on the aition of the singing of kalykē and fr.129 W² on the singing contest among maidens called harpalykē, both of which are analysed in the course of this chapter; Chamaeleon fr.28 W² from his Περὶ Στησιχόρου on how the poems of Homer, Hesiod, Archilochus, Mimnermus, and Phocylides were put to music (= Ath. 14.620c1 4). ²³ Contra Węcowski (2014) 12 who concludes that the institution of the symposium already belonged to the past in the fourth century and thus skolia were no longer sung. ²⁴ On the branches of myrtle or laurel that the symposiasts held while singing the skolia, Liberman (2016) 43 51.

The Peripatos: Aristotle’s Project on Greek Culture

141

sing the erotic songs of Sappho among other poets, as we read in Epicrates’ fragment (4 PCG v). Performed mousikē is clearly associated with the symposium not only in Aristoxenus (frr.122, 125, 127 W²) but also in Aristotle’s Politics 8 (Pol.1338a21–30). A number of passages from Aristotle’s Politics support the conclusion that the song-culture was still vibrant at the time of the Peripatos, and additionally provide evidence to suggest that mousikē was still meant to be an important component of education in late fifth and early fourth centuries. One of the social functions of mousikē, according to Aristotle, was character formation, and mousikē is highly praised when it is turned into the means for the moral and intellectual development of children. As outlined in Politics 8 (Pol.1339a11–26, 1340b38f), musical activity is linked with intellectual development and improvement, it has the potential to promote excellence (πρός ἀρετήν), to mould characters (τὸ ἦθος ποιόν τι ποιεῖν), to habituate to true pleasures (χαῖρειν ὀρθῶς), as well as to contribute to mental cultivation, virtue, and wisdom (πρὸς διαγωγήν τι συμβάλλεται καὶ πρός ϕρόνησιν). Aristotle further emphasizes the recreational quality of mousikē and its natural capacity to please, and he displays the same sensitivity as Aristoxenus does with reference to the harmoniai that are employed for the type of mousikē that was meant for relaxation and amusement (Pol.1339b10–42, 1340a14–23). Aristotle’s extensive instructions on the appropriate nature of both the sung medium and the accompanying melodies, along with the pragmatic and practical evaluation of music in the Politics and in the fragments of Aristoxenus, coupled as well with his emphasis on relaxation and rejuvenation through mousikē could be used as evidence in favour of the suggestion that melic songs were still sung and performed in a number of private and public gatherings, including the symposium. Aristotle’s Hymn to Hermias, which presents itself as a work meant to be performed, is another piece of evidence in favour of the view that certain kinds of poems were still performed in fourth-century drinking parties. The hymn is quoted in Athenaeus after a series of songs that are identified as skolia and are presented as having been recited at banquets (Ath. 15.693f7–696a10). It is therefore contextualized and identified as a drinking song, and the main setting that Athenaeus’ text puts forward for its performance is private symposia at the Peripatos; the hymn would have allegedly been performed in such occasions on a regular basis (Ath. 15.696a10–e9).²⁵ The view that a great deal of public song was still in performance in the fourth century is further supported by epigraphic evidence. The religious character of poems such as the hymn to Health by Ariphron of Sicyon (late fourth/early third century ), the Erythrean paean to Asclepius (380/60 ),

²⁵ On the poem’s possible performance scenarios, Ford (2011a) 46 60; LeVen (2013) 271 6.

142

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

Aristonoos’ Delphic hymns to Hestia and Apollo (third quarter of fourth century ), Isyllus’ paean to Asclepius (last quarter of fourth century ), and the paean to Dionysus by Philodamus of Scarphea (340/39 ), all of which are preserved on stone, recalls the public character of songs that were framed by a ritual and were also meant to be performed by communities often as offerings.²⁶ The persistence of public occasions for poetic performances can also be deduced from a number of Peripatetic fragments. Aristoxenus in his Περὶ Μουσικῆς refers to a poem by Stesichorus in which a woman called Καλύκη prays to Aphrodite for the love of a young man (Stesich. 277 PMG/ 326 Finglass).²⁷ From this song, he claims, originated a custom where women performed the particular poem, which was since then given as a label the name of this woman. As a result, the poem kalykē came into existence. Ἀριστόξενος δὲ ἐν τετάρτῳ Περὶ Μουσικῆς, ᾖδον, ϕησίν, αἱ ἀρχαῖαι γυναῖκες καλύκην* τινὰ ᾠδήν. Στησιχόρου δ’ ἦν ποίημα, ἐν ᾧ Καλύκη τις ὄνομα ἐρῶσα Εὐάθλου νεανίσκου εὔχεται τῇ Ἀϕροδίτῃ γαμηθῆναι αὐτῷ ἐπεὶ δὲ ὑπερεῖδεν ὁ νεανίσκος, κατεκρήμνισεν ἑαυτήν. ἐγένετο δὲ τὸ πάθος περὶ Λευκάδα. σωϕρονικὸν δὲ πάνυ κατεσκεύασεν ὁ ποιητὴς τὸ τῆς παρθένου ἦθος, οὐκ ἐκ παντὸς τρόπου θελούσης συγγενέσθαι τῷ νεανίσκῳ, ἀλλ’ εὐχομένης εἰ δύναιτο γυνὴ τοῦ Εὐάθλου γενέσθαι κουριδία ἢ εἰ τοῦτο μὴ δυνατόν, ἀπαλλαγῆναι τοῦ βίου. * Καλύκην Olson LCL Aristoxenus says in the fourth book of his Peri Mousikēs: women of old days were singing a song called kalykē. This was a poem by Stesichorus, in which someone named Kalykē, who was in love with a young man called Euathlus, prays to Aphrodite, asking to marry him. When the young man showed no interest in her, she threw herself over a cliff. This misfortune took place in Leucada. The poet presented the girl as extremely chaste, for under no circumstances did she want to have sex with the young man, but prayed that it might be possible to become Euathlus’ bride or, if that was impossible, that she may die. Aristoxenus Peri Mousikēs fr.89 W² = Ath. 14.619d5 e5

Stesichorus’ poem is paraphrased and not cited in the passage presumably because Aristoxenus’ interest was not the poem itself but rather this custom of women singing that very song called kalykē. It is especially worth commenting in this case how Aristoxenus relates the gender of the performers (αἱ ἀρχαῖαι γυναῖκες) to the story narrated in Stesichorus’ poem, and how he connects the name of the girl whose story is sung in the poem (Καλύκη) with what had presumably been identified as a quasi-generic label in subsequent performances (καλύκην τινὰ ᾠδήν). Stesichorus’ poem is perceived in the above ²⁶ The dating of the inscribed hymns follows the suggested dates in Furley and Bremer (2001) i.224 7, i.212 4, i.116 21, i.233 6, and i.124 6 respectively. On the hymns’ performative context, LeVen (2014) 283 329. ²⁷ Cf. the love story of Sappho and Phaon: Men. Leucad. fr.258 Körte (= Str. 10.2.9, p. 452C.19 22 Radt); Suda s.v. Σαπϕώ (σ 108 Adler).

The Peripatos: Aristotle’s Project on Greek Culture

143

fragment as the aition of a female ritual that might still have been in practice at Aristoxenus’ time. This aetiological connection between the poem and the ancient custom reveals the characteristics of the song’s performative context and certain features of its actual performance. As it seems, female performers performed the same song at regular intervals (ᾖδον), certainly in a public setting, if not in front of the community. Most importantly, the fragment reveals the poem’s continuous re-performance from the time of the classic poet Stesichorus.²⁸ Aristoxenus was undeniably famous for his musical interests. Both the above fragment from the Peri Mousikēs on the kalykē and fr.129 W² from his Abbreviated Commentaries on the origin of the singing contest Harpalykē between maidens are similarly strong enough evidence for his interest in ethnographical material (ἐν τοῖς Κατὰ Βραχὺ Ὑπομνήμασιν fr.129 W² = Ath. 14.619e5–9). We read in the fragment how a singing-contest known as Harpalykē was established in honour of the heart-broken and deceased Harpalykē. ἐν δὲ τοῖς Κατὰ Βραχὺ Ὑπομνήμασιν ὁ Ἀριστόξενος, Ἴϕικλος, ϕησίν, Ἁρπαλύκην ἐρασθεῖσαν ὑπερεῖδεν. ἡ δὲ ἀπέθανεν καὶ γίνεται ἐπ’ αὐτῇ παρθένοις ἀγὼν ᾠδῆς, ἥτις Ἁρπαλύκη, ϕησί, καλεῖται. In his Abbreviated Commentaries Aristoxenus says: Iphiclus showed no interest in Harpalykē who was in love with him. She died, and a singing contest for maidens is held in her honour, which is called, he reports, Harpalykē. Aristoxenus fr.129 W² = Ath. 14.619e5 9

This material, which mostly touches upon certain customs connected with poetic performances and competitions, was interpreted in Aristoxenus’ work aetiologically, and his interpretation was often based on songs as they were perceived within the broader frame of their performance-context: the song kalykē that narrated the tragic story of Kalykē was sung by women to commemorate her, and the singing contest Harpalykē among maidens was established in memory of Harpalykē. This information, as deduced from Aristoxenus’ fragments, in correlation to both his and Dicaearchus’ interests in sympotic contexts allow one to conclusively surmise that performances of songs as old as those of Stesichorus, in all probability also of other classical lyric poets, plausibly persisted in public and private settings in Athens long after the pinnacle of Greek melic compositions in the fifth century.

²⁸ Contra LeVen (2014) 228 30, who suggests that the alluded poem is a composition of Stesichorus of Himera the Second, whose victory the Parian Marble dates to the early fourth century  (Marm.Par. FGrHist IIB 239 A73). The performers of the poem are characterized as women of the past (ἀρχαῖαι) which could potentially be used as evidence to refute such suggestions. The debate concerning Kalykē’s authorship is already expressed in Rose, H. (1932).

144

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

THE PERI-TREATISES ON THE L YRIC POETS Beyond generic and performative contexts for melic poetry a number of poets also received individual works by the Peripatetics, and the titles of these works bore as a rule the poet’s name. Of the lyric poets, Anacreon, Sappho, Simonides, Pindar, and Stesichorus received a treatise by Chamaeleon, and Alcaeus by Dicaearchus.²⁹ Chamaeleon even dedicated a treatise to Lasus. Obviously, the project on poets and poetry of the past was a priority for the Peripatetic philosophers, since evidence of their focus can be traced to the school’s foundation. The principal philosophers involved lived broadly in the same period, some of them were immediate students of Aristotle, and others belonged to the second generation of Peripatetics at the Lyceum when Theophrastus was the Head of the school. Heracleides Ponticus produced separate treatises on Homer and Hesiod (frr.169–70 and frr.176–7 W²) and a work on both Homer and Archilochus, which Diogenes Laertius classified as grammatical, as it apparently dealt with language and style (fr.178 W²); Chamaeleon, the Peripatetic who worked predominantly on the lyric poets, prepared separate treatises on Thespis and Aeschylus (fr.38 and frr.39–42 W²);³⁰ we have a treatise on Alcaeus from Dicaearchus; lastly, Praxiphanes, who probably worked on Sophocles and also studied individually Homer and Hesiod (frr.20–1, 22 W²). The Peripatetic school apparently flourished under Theophrastus (317–7 ), and the term of his headship constitutes the most significant period in its development.³¹ Empirical studies were further extended at Theophrastus’ time, and, as the surviving titles suggest, the works at the Lyceum gradually became specialized and monographic in character.³² Praxiphanes and Chamaeleon are justifiably considered those who awarded the study of literature a significant place in the Peripatos, and the work of Theophrastus’ most famous students and associates illustrates the simultaneous expansion of the work of the Lyceum and its specialization in certain areas: Aristoxenus the mousikos introduced the science of musicology; Eudemus of Rhodes wrote a history of geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy;

²⁹ Momigliano (1993) 70 stresses that although Dicaearchus’ works were full of references to details (true or imaginary) of the poet’s life, they ‘do not appear to have been biographies’, and he emphasizes that ‘no biography is quoted as coming from his pen’ (p. 71). ³⁰ Momigliano (1993) 73 and Bollansée (1999b) 430 call Chamaeleon’s works ‘commentaries’, while Gallo (2005) 25 has interpreted them as works closer to biographies; Montanari (2012) 412 argues that Dicaearchus’ peri tou deina treatises were biographies in the ancient sense of the word, that is ‘exegetical and literary historical treatises in which biographical aspects also played a role.’ ³¹ The catalogue of Theophrastus’ writings (5.42 50) is the longest of the five catalogues of titles in Diogenes Laertius, who also includes the catalogue of writings of Aristotle (5.22 7), Straton (5.58.2 60), Demetrius of Pharerum (5.80 1), and Heracleides Ponticus (5.86.11 88), on which Sollenberger (1992) 3849 55. ³² Sollenberger (1992) 3851.

The Peripatos: Aristotle’s Project on Greek Culture

145

Demetrius of Phalerum prepared various treatises that touched a great number of scholarly interests.³³ With reference to the treatises on lyric poets, the existing titles reveal the supplementary character of the Peripatetic project. Chamaeleon may plausibly be considered the first to have initiated work on the lyric poets, and yet he produced no treatise on Alcaeus. The treatise is supplied by Dicaearchus who made no attempt to duplicate Chamaeleon’s work on the other lyric poets but only to fill in the gaps in his list. Thus, he prepared a treatise on Alcaeus. If we broaden the meaning of lyric to include elegy and iambos, the Callimachean and Alexandrian Hermippus of Smyrna also supplemented this list with a treatise on Hipponax, which might have consisted of more than one books (Ath. 7.327b–c ἐν τοῖς περὶ Ἱππώνακτος).³⁴ The nature of Hermippus’ periwork on Hipponax cannot be revealed with certainty from the sole extant fragment. Nonetheless, the attention drawn to the rare word ὕκη that was probably found in Hipponax’s text, which must have been at Alexandria by Hermippus’ time, is strong enough evidence to suggest that the treatise included linguistic discussions, and could plausibly therefore have been lexicographical (Hermippus’ fr.93 W² = FGrHist IVA 1026 F55, Ath. 7.327b–c).³⁵ The hierarchy of poetic and musical interests of the early Peripatos shows the palpable influence of Platonic views. Plato was renowned for his hostility towards the musical experimentations of his time that led to that new type of music and poetry. In a well-known passage from the Laws Plato mirrors comedy’s dual opposition between the then (τότε) and the now (τὰ νῦν), and creates a chronological and cultural division between a melic past that was composed of clearly defined religious song-types and genres and Athens’ melic present that was characterized by paranomia in mousikē (Lg.700a–701a3; cf. Grg.501e8–502a). This musical pandemonium led to the chaotic New Music, which remains for the Peripatetics the boundary they never cross when they deal with melic poetry. The same hierarchy also shows the influence of Aristotle’s attempts to reassert specific poetic genres that were criticized and censored in Plato. Tragedy, which Plato had dismissed from his Callipolis, is re-established and brought back to the table not only in Aristotle’s Poetics but also within the broader frame of the Lyceum. A number of Peripatetics worked on the three tragedians, who were treated either as a group or individually, collected information on the didaskaliai of tragedies, and wrote hypotheseis for ³³ Sharples (1999) 148 for a list with the interests of those Peripatetics who produced works based on their specializations. ³⁴ Hermippus’ interest in Hipponax was in all probability shaped by his teacher Callimachus, who regarded Hipponax as an important predecessor and intertext for his own iamboi, on which Kerkhecker (1999) 28 9; Acosta Hughes (2002) 21; Fantuzzi and Hunter (2004) 15 16: i.e. Call. fr.191.1 4 Pf. (Iamb.1) with Kerkhecker (1999) 11 48; Acosta Hughes (2002) 21 59. ³⁵ Thus Bollansée (1999b) 428; contra Degani (1984) 23, 35 who identifies Hermippus’ treatise on Hipponax as a biography.

146

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

specific plays.³⁶ The project as a whole suggests that the approach of the Lyceum to literary issues was conservative, and this in turn determined the scale and sequence of cataloguing and explicating. The Peripatetics never worked on any contemporary literary achievement, and as a result the project is always backward-looking. The time lag differs according to genre studied, however. The philosophers begin their analysis and critique often only a few decades after the ‘text’ was created in all areas but drama and melic poetry. Treatises dealing with historical, philosophical, and rhetorical works including treatises devoted to important representative figures start to appear only at the time of Demetrius of Phalerum and Hieronymus of Rhodes, both of whom lived at the end of the fourth and beginning of third century , and culminate at the time of Hermippus of Smyrna. The lateness of the orators as object of Peripatetic explication reflects the fact that oratory as written form is largely a fourth-century phenomenon, and supports the view of a chronological arrangement of Peripatetic treatises. It similarly relates to the issue of ongoing canonization. Unlike the Lyric Canon that is evident already in the fifthcentury Athenian literary landscape with the primary example of the comic genre and its role in voicing the distinction between classic and non-classic, the canon of the orators was fluid throughout antiquity.³⁷ For tragedy and melic poetry the rules were already set before the time of the Peripatos. Tragedy is one of those ‘fixed’ literary fields. For the Peripatetics, as indeed for comedy, the clock stops at the end of the fifth century. With the exception of Thespis as prōtos heuretēs (Chamaeleon fr.38 W²) only fifthcentury tragedians are included in the Peripatetic project, and only the big three receive a monograph. In the case of melic poetry and the lyric poets, we are obviously dealing with a closed list; the chronological development of the Peripatetic corpus omitted the new poetic and musical developments of mid to late fifth century. The striking absence of separate or even collective treatments devoted to the New Music and to individual New Poets suggests that, as far as we can see from the extant fragments, the Peripatetics had no scholarly interest in the New Music. We can observe the persistence of this silence right down to Hermippus of Smyrna, whose treatise on Hipponax confirms the supplementary and conservative character of the Peripatetic project. The obsession with an idealized past is also evident in the musical treatises of Aristoxenus of Tarentum whose work is endowed in melancholic nostalgia. Although Aristoxenus writes after the end of the cultural politics within which the New Music had developed, he still attacks its performative

³⁶ e.g. Dicaearchus frr.73 89 W²; Heracleides Ponticus frr.179 80 W²; Chamaeleon frr.39 42 W²; Dicaearchus fr.78 W² on hypotheseis of Euripides and Sophocles, fr.79 W² on Sophocles’ Ajax, fr.80 W² on Sophocles’ OT, fr.81 W² on the hypothesis of Rhesus; Hermippus of Smyrna additionally produced a treatise on Euripides (fr.94 W²). ³⁷ See Chapter 6 in this book, ‘Canonizing Lyric: The “Hellenistic” Lyric Canon’.

The Peripatos: Aristotle’s Project on Greek Culture

147

novelties that, according to the philosopher, denoted barbarization and degeneration in the later fifth century (e.g. fr.124 W²).³⁸ The dismissal of the New Music, even as a subject worthy of study, is directly contrary to what we know of the popular reception. Aristotle in his Metaphysics (993b15–16) underlines the major contribution of both Timotheus and Phrynis in the art of making melody (μελοποιίαν); Melanippides is presented in Xenophon’s Memorabilia (1.4.3) as the best dithyrambic poet, and is ranked at the same level with Homer in epic and Sophocles in tragedy; Polybius states that Timotheus and Philoxenus were included in the school curriculum in Arcadia in the second century  (4.20.8–9); Pausanias (8.50.3) and Plutarch (Philop.11.1) record that Timotheus’ poems were still performed in the second century . The Peripatetic scholarly tradition evidently ignored the contemporary performative culture and was at odds with fourth-century popular taste. Timothy Power points out that in Aristoxenus’ work we get the ‘sense of a profound disconnection between Aristoxenus’ elitist conservatism and the demotic experience of music in the later fourth century polis’, a remark that could apply to the entire Peripatetic project on melic poetry.³⁹ The influence of pre-Aristotelian conservative agendas—Aristophanes (and Old Comedy more generally) and Plato—is evident in this. Chamaeleon himself worked on comedy (Περί Κωμῳδίας frr.43–4 W²), and his familiarity with the surviving comedies probably influenced his interpretation of poets and literary works, as well as his views on literary history and criticism.⁴⁰ A fragment from his Περὶ Αἰσχύλου shows how comedy was used as source of information for the Peripatetic treatises. Χαμαιλέων γοῦν πρῶτον αὐτόν ϕησι σχηματίσαι τοὺς χοροὺς ὀρχηστοδιδασκάλοις οὐ χρησάμενον, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸν τοῖς χοροῖς τὰ σχήματα ποιοῦντα τῶν ὀρχήσεων, καὶ ὅλως πᾶσαν τὴν τῆς τραγῳδίας οἰκονομίαν εἰς ἑαυτὸν περιιστᾶν. ὑπεκρίνετο οὖν μετὰ τοῦ εἰκότος τὰ δράματα. Ἀριστοϕάνης γοῦν (παρὰ δὲ τοῖς κωμικοῖς ἡ περὶ τῶν τραγικῶν ἀπόκειται πίστις) ποιεῖ αὐτὸν Αἰσχύλον λέγοντα τοῖσι χοροῖς αὐτὸς τὰ σχήματ’ ἐποίουν Chamaeleon in any case says that he [sc. Aeschylus] was the first to have formed choruses without the help of dance teachers, but he instead prepared the dance figures for the choruses himself and in general that he took the entire management of the tragedy upon himself. It seems therefore very likely that he

³⁸ See Power (2012) 129 33. ³⁹ Power (2012) 131. ⁴⁰ In the two passages where Athenaeus mentions Chamaeleon’s work on comedy, he refers to it differently: ‘in the sixth book from his Peri Kōmōidias’ (ἐν ἔκτῳ Περί Κωμῳδίας Ath. 9.373f 374a) and ‘in the sixth book from his Peri tēs Archaias Kōmōidias’ (ἐν ἔκτῳ Περί τῆς Ἀρχαίας Κωμῳδίας Ath. 9.406e). Athenaeus cites extracts from the two treatises: in the first case a poet of Middle Comedy, Anaxandrides, and in the second a poet of Old Comedy, Hegemon, become objects of discussion, which could suggest that Chamaeleon produced two treatises on comedy: one on the comic genre in toto and a second separate treatise exclusively on Old Comedy.

148

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

participated in his own plays. Indeed, Aristophanes (for comic playwrights are credible concerning tragic playwrights) portrays Aeschylus saying: I myself prepared the dance figures for the choruses Chamaeleon Peri Aeschylou fr.41 W² = Ath. 1.21e4 f3

Although the comment on the reliability of Aristophanes and of the comic genre in general as authority for the representation of the tragic poets is probably of Athenaeus, it is nonetheless a conclusion drawn from the fragments of Chamaeleon. Apparently, Aristophanes portrayed Aeschylus (either in a lost redaction of Frogs or in Gērytadēs) saying how he himself composed the movements of the choruses (τοῖσι χοροῖς αὐτὸς τὰ σχήματ’ ἐποίουν Ar. 696 PCG iii.2), and it is on this portrayal that Chamaeleon maps his representation of Aeschylus as skilful choreographer.⁴¹ Stefan Schorn suggests that ‘comedy is primarily used to reconstruct the history of literature’ in Chamaeleon’s extant fragments.⁴² Fragments from the Peripatetic treatises on the lyric poets are additionally suggestive evidence that Chamaeleon plausibly used comedy as reference for his depictions of the lyric poets. In his Περὶ Σιμωνίδου Chamaeleon describes a scene where Simonides dines at the court of Hieron in order to portray Simonides as greedy (fr.33 W²). Chamaeleon bases his conclusion on a joke that ironically builts on Hom. Il.14.33 and is presented as being wittily fabricated by Simonides, and also on an anecdote about him selling Hieron’s gifts, which Chamaeleon may well have invented. Περὶ δὲ λαγῶν Χαμαιλέων ϕησὶν ἐν τῷ Περὶ Σιμωνίδου ὡς δειπνῶν παρὰ τῷ Ἱέρωνι ὁ Σιμωνίδης, οὐ παρατεθέντος αὐτῷ ἐπὶ τὴν τράπεζαν καθάπερ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις λαγωοῦ, ἀλλ’ ὕστερον μεταδιδόντος τοῦ Ἱέρωνος, ἀπεσχεδίασεν οὐδὲ γὰρ < . . . > εὐρύς περ ἐὼν ἐξίκετο δεῦρο. ὄντως δ’ ἦν ὡς ἀληθῶς κίμβιξ ὁ Σιμωνίδης καὶ αἰσχροκερδής, ὡς Χαμαιλέων ϕησίν. ἐν Συρακούσαις γοῦν τοῦ Ἱέρωνος ἀποστέλλοντος αὐτῷ τὰ καθ’ ἡμέραν λαμπρῶς πωλῶν τὰ πλείω ὁ Σιμωνίδης τῶν παρ’ ἐκείνου πεμπομένων ἑαυτῷ μικρὸν μέρος ἀπετίθετο. ἐρομένου δέ τινος τὴν αἰτίαν ‘ὅπως,’ εἶπεν, ‘ἥ τε Ἱέρωνος μεγαλοπρέπεια καταϕανὴς ᾖ καὶ ἡ ἐμὴ κοσμιότης.’ suppl. Wehrli ix About hares Chamaeleon says in his treatise Peri Simonidou that when Simonides was dining by the side of Hieron and the hare was not served to him at the table as it was to the others but was instead offered to him later by Hieron, he extremporised It is indeed broad, but it has not reached here.

⁴¹ Cf. Ar. Γηρυτάδης Catal. Fab. (T 2a14) PCG iii.2, p. 101, where Kassel and Austin report that Kaibel suggests that Ar. 696 PCG iii.2 could belong to the play Gērytadēs, where Aeschylus himself speaks about his tragic art; see also other opinions in PCG iii.2, p. 358; cf. Chamaeleon fr.42 W² where the play Skeuai is mentioned as a source (= Ath. 14.628d e). ⁴² Schorn (2012b) 430.

The Peripatos: Aristotle’s Project on Greek Culture

149

Simonides was in fact truly a skinflint and greedy, as Chamaeleon claims. For in Syracuse, although Hieron provided his daily needs handsomely, Simonides sold most of what was sent by him and kept for himself only a small part. When he was asked of the reason, he said, ‘so that Hieron’s magnificence and my propriety may be manifested clearly.’ Chamaeleon Peri Simonidou fr.33 W² = Ath. 14.656c9 e2

Chamaeleon sketches in the above fragment a scene with the three features of the commissioning process—poet (Simonides), patron (Hieron), and payment (hospitality, food, and gifts)—portraying an image of a Simonides who would attach himself to rich patrons, who would eventually become his source of income. This picture of the greedy Simonides does not originate in Chamaeleon, however; the figure of Simonides as a miser was well established before the Peripatos. Biographical anecdotes as well as Simonides’ proverbial attitude for money are recorded in a number of fifth-century sources, and Aristotle himself even contributed with a number of anecdotal stories to the development of his image as a scandalous figure of miserliness and as a court-poet associated with wealthy tyrants.⁴³ Though Chamaeleon plausibly picks up the κίμβιξ characterization of Simonides from Xenophanes (21 IEG²), one of the first sources to have portrayed Simonides as a figure of avarice was Aristophanes in his Peace, as we have seen.⁴⁴ Most likely, Chamaeleon follows a long anecdotal tradition that was already at work in the fifth century, and also probably established Simonides as the greedy poet par excellence. It is on this tradition, which was presumably initiated by Aristophanes, that Simonides’ portrayal in Chamaeleon’s Περὶ Σιμωνίδου is built. That Chamaeleon’s depiction of the lyric poets depended in most cases on already established representations is evident also in the fragment that survives from his Περί Λάσου (fr.30 W²). The surviving fragment from the treatise is the source for two anecdotes that in all probability have no connection with Lasus’ poetry. οἶδα δὲ καὶ ἃ ὁ Ἑρμιονεὺς Λᾶσος ἔπαιξε περὶ ἰχθύων, ἅπερ Χαμαιλέων ἀνέγραψεν ὁ Ἡρακλεώτης ἐν τῷ περὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Λάσου συγγράμματι λέγων ὧδε τὸν Λᾶσόν ϕησι τὸν ὠμὸν ἰχθὺν ὀπτὸν εἶναι ϕάσκειν. θαυμαζόντων δὲ πολλῶν ἐπιχειρεῖν λέγοντα ὡς ὃ ἔστιν ἀκοῦσαι τοῦτό ἐστιν ἀκουστὸν, καὶ ὃ ἔστιν νοῆσαι τοῦτό ἐστιν νοητόν ὡσαύτως οὖν καὶ ὃ ἔστιν ἰδεῖν τοῦτ’ εἶναι ὀπτόν ὥστ’ ἐπειδὴ τὸν ἰχθὺν ἦν ἰδεῖν, ὀπτὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι. καὶ παίζων δέ ποτε ἰχθὺν παρά τινος τῶν ἁλιέων ὑϕείλετο καὶ λαβὼν ἔδωκέ τινι τῶν παρεστώτων. ὁρκίζοντος δὲ ὤμοσεν μήτ’ αὐτὸς ἔχειν τὸν ἰχθὺν μήτ’ ἄλλῳ συνειδέναι λαβόντι, διὰ τὸ λαβεῖν μὲν αὐτόν, ἔχειν δὲ ἕτερον, ὃν ἐδίδαξεν ἀπομόσαι πάλιν ὅτι οὔτ’ αὐτὸς ἔλαβεν οὔτ’ ἄλλον ἔχοντα οἶδεν εἰλήϕει μὲν γὰρ ὁ Λᾶσος, εἶχεν δὲ αὐτός. ⁴³ See Chapter 2, n. 60, in this book; on the anecdotes about literary figures found in Aristotle, Huxley (1974). ⁴⁴ See Chapter 2 in this book,‘Melic Poems, Quotations, and Caricatures’.

150

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

I know also what Lasus of Hermione joked about fish, which Chamaeleon of Heraclea recorded in his work on this very Lasus saying the following: he says that Lasus claims that raw fish is optos (roasted). As many were surprised, he tried to explain by saying that what can be heard (estin akousai) is hearable (akoustos), and what can be thought (estin noēsai) is thinkable (noētos). In the same way then also what can be seen (estin idein) is visible (optos), and thus because it is possible to see the fish (idein), the fish is thus visible (optos). For game’s sake he once snatched a fish from some fishermen and having taken it, he gave it to one of the bystanders. As he was put on oath, he swore that he neither had the fish himself nor that he knew of anyone who had taken it, because he took it himself, but someone else had it, and he instructed someone once again to deny on oath that he had taken it himself or that he knew anyone else who had it. For Lasus had taken it and he himself had it. Chamaeleon Peri Lasou fr.30 W² = Ath. 8.338b

Chamaeleon presumably invents the story of Lasus’ encounter with the fishermen, and builds his depiction upon a well-known belief that Lasus was drawn to linguistic games and witticisms. Although we cannot be certain that Chamaeleon found the word optos in Lasus’ poetry, admittedly a rather odd word to be found in a dithyramb or in a hymn, the fragment invites us to assume that the philosopher builds upon an image of Lasus that presented him as a figure among the sophoi and among the circles of the sophists.⁴⁵ Chamaeleon’s interpretation of the word ὀπτόν and the use of λαβεῖν and ἔχειν in the anecdote are typical examples of amphibology, as practiced by the sophists.⁴⁶ Lasus’ game, as presented by Chamaeleon, rests, on the one hand, on the phenomena of homōnymia and synōnymia and, on the other, on the confusion that homōphōnia creates. It is on this wordplay with ὀπτόν (‘roasted’ < ὀπτάω or ‘visible’ < ὁράω/ὄπωπα), as well as with λαβεῖν and ἔχειν that Chamaeleon focuses with the ultimate purpose of depicting Lasus as witty and sophist-like in his treatise.⁴⁷ That Lasus was fond of linguistic riddles and games with words which played upon ὀρθοέπεια (‘correctness of diction’) and that he became known for this fondness is also evident in his response to the possibility of participating in a choral competition against Simonides in Aristophanes’ Wasps (V.1411 ὀλίγον μοι μέλει).⁴⁸ In this particular case the confusion would potentially have been caused by μέλει (‘care’ < μέλω), which literally points to Lasus’ aloof reaction to the possibility of competing with Simonides. Acoustically, however, the same word could have been perceived as a form of μέλος (‘song’), an interpretation that, though grammatically odd, would not have been inappropriate within the context of the imaginary poetic ⁴⁵ See Privitera (1965) 47 63 and T6 8 Brussich with relevant commentary ad loc. ⁴⁶ Privitera (1965) 52 3; Wehrli (1969e) ix.81; Brussich p. 60; Martano (2012) 245. ⁴⁷ Cf. Pl. La.197d on precision in speech as a feature of Prodicus. ⁴⁸ See the relevant discussion in Chapter 2 in this book, ‘Lyric Figures and Vivid Comic Portrayals’.

The Peripatos: Aristotle’s Project on Greek Culture

151

competition which is crafted in the passage. The game with witticisms in the fragment from Chamaeleon as a characteristic feature of Lasus became a topos in his portrayals in antiquity, as revealed in Hesychius’ entry λασίσματα (λ 372 Latte), and comedy was in all probability one of the first authorities to have contributed to this connection. The only exception to the picture presented above with reference to the silence surrounding the New Music in the Lyceum is Aristoxenus’ life of Telestes, Βίος Τελέστου (fr.117 W²). The choice of Telestes could indeed be explained if one considers the common western and Sicilian origin and background of both Aristoxenus (Tarentum) and Telestes (Selinus).⁴⁹ The one surviving fragment that is reported in Apollonius’ Marvelous Stories 40 reveals the difference in character between this treatise and the works of Chamaeleon that were devoted to the classical lyric poets. Ἀριστόξενος ὁ μουσικὸς ἐν τῷ Τελέστου βίῳ ϕησίν, ᾧπερ ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ συνεκύρησεν, ὑπὸ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρὸν γίγνεσθαι πάθη, ὧν ἓν εἶναι καὶ τὸ περὶ τὰς γυναῖκας γενόμενον ἄτοπον. ἐκστάσεις γὰρ γίγνεσθαι τοιαύτας, ὥστε ἐνίοτε καθημένας καὶ δειπνούσας ὡς καλοῦντός τινος ὑπακούειν, εἶτα ἐκπηδᾶν ἀκατασχέτους γιγνομένας καὶ τρέχειν ἐκτὸς τῆς πόλεως. μαντευομένοις δὲ τοῖς Λοκροῖς καὶ Ῥηγίνοις περὶ τῆς ἀπαλλαγῆς τοῦ πάθους εἰπεῖν τὸν θεόν, Παιᾶνας ᾄδειν ἐαρινοὺς [δωδεκάτης] ἡμέρας ξʹ, ὅθεν πολλοὺς γενέσθαι παιανογράϕους ἐν τῇ Ἰταλίᾳ. Aristoxenus the music theorist says in his Life of Telestes that misfortunes were afoot at around the time when Telestes visited Italy, of which one was this untoward thing that befell the women: there were such frenzies that sometimes when they were sitting at dinner they would hear somebody as if he were calling them and then in an unrestrainable state they would jump to their feet and run out of the city. When the Locrians and the Rhegians consulted an oracle on how to get rid of the misfortune, the god responded that they should sing [twelve] springtime Paeans for sixty days. For this reason there are so many writers of paeans in Italy. Aristoxenus Bios Telestou fr.117 W²

Both the title of the treatise and the extant fragment suggest that Aristoxenus’ work was indeed biographical. The title explicitly states that the treatise is a Life (Βίος) and this comes in marked contrast to the treatises on the nine lyric poets wherein the preposition περί is used in conjunction to their names. Aristoxenus was renowned for his biographies, especially for the polemical judgements in these biographies, and for the often gossipy orientation of his discussions, and he has been perceived both in ancient sources and in modern

⁴⁹ When dealing with the sole Peripatetic treatise on the New Poets Aristoxenus’ interests in musical matters should be taken into account, as the transition from the fifth to the fourth century melic poetry and the harmonic alterations undoubtedly provided good ground for musical discussions and criticism.

152

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

scholarship as the writer who initiated the writing of literary biographies and influenced the formation of the genre.⁵⁰ The fragment informs us about the frenzy of Italian women and about peanic music in Italy, but attention is drawn to details from Telestes’ life. Seemingly, his travels to Italy sprang the comments related to these two anthropological and ethnographical characteristics of the Italian landscape. It is not possible to know if any of Telestes’ poems were discussed in this treatise, and Satyrus’ Life of Euripides suggests that poetic art was also brought into the discussion in such works.⁵¹ But if we are to judge from this one fragment, focus presumably fell on Telestes’ life and on information related to or derived from events in his vita rather than on his compositions as such. In the De Musica, for instance, ps-Plutarch mentions how Aristoxenus uses as example the musical education of Telesias in both the old and new melic poetry in his attempt to show that musical training had an impact on the ethos and character of an individual; his conclusion is not drawn from Telesias’ compositions, but from biographical details (Aristoxenus fr.76W² = Pl. [De mus.]1142b316). This could have also been the case with the treatise on Telestes. Fragments from the peri-works on the lyric poets, a number of which has been discussed above, designate their varied character. As the titles suggest, the focus of each treatise as a whole might have been the lyric poet, but the focus of the discussion that is revealed in the extant fragments was not always the poet as such or events related to his life. The discussion in Chamaeleon’s treatises on the canonical lyric and on other poets was often, if not always, mapped on their poetry. Although the analysis inevitably led to biographical interpretations of the material, this was invariably and more often than not presented as a conclusion drawn from the poet’s compositions.

THE ‘ LYRI C’ LIBRARY OF THE P ERIPATOS The Aristotelian approach to phenomenology and the doxographical tradition that Aristotle initiated defined the nature of the Peripatetic project. Following Aristotle’s method of empirical inquiry and doxography, the Peripatetics were principally compilers.⁵² Their common task was to gather the opinions ⁵⁰ On the leading role of Aristoxenus and his influence on the shaping of biography as literary form, Leo (1901) 102 3; Momigliano (1993) 76; Cooper (2002) 336 7; Sonnabend (2002) 70 1; Schorn (2012a) who attempts to define the character of Aristoxenus’ biographies and reappraise Aristoxenus both as a biographer and as a historical source; Hägg (2012) 93. ⁵¹ On Satyrus’ Life of Euripides, Hägg (2012) 77 84. ⁵² The modern term ‘doxography’ was introduced by Hermann Diels to characterize the trend of the Aristotelian school to record and list the views that were held by various people in order to reach the truth. Diels used the term to indicate the authors of a rather strictly specified type of

The Peripatos: Aristotle’s Project on Greek Culture

153

of others, mainly from written records, and to retain what seemed valid adding, lastly, their own comment.⁵³ This observation is also confirmed by the fragments. The philosopher producing a specific treatise often states explicitly the opinion of others, usually by using the verb ϕησίν, or names the source for the information he includes in his work.⁵⁴ The Peripatos thus created learned compilations, while it also accumulated writings of the past.⁵⁵ The activity in the Lyceum subsequently led to the formation of the Peripatetic library, the first comprehensive collection of books and written works in history, as stated in our sources (i.e. Ath. 1.3a; Str. 13.1.54, p. 608C.31–3 Radt), which was created principally for private and scholarly use within the textual community of the Peripatos rather than for public use by those who did not belong to the school.⁵⁶ It appears therefore that the scholars of the Lyceum were working with written texts and presumably with (collected) poems of individual poets.⁵⁷ The surviving fragments indicate that the comments of the Peripatetics in a number of treatises have the actual material text as a starting point. Fragments of Praxiphanes’ works are probably the best evidence in favour of the existence of poetic texts in the Peripatetic library. Μοῦσαι Πιερίηθεν: ἰστέον ὅτι Ἀρίσταρχος καὶ ἕτεροι ὀβελίζουσι τὸ προοίμιον, καὶ Πραξιϕάνης ὁ μαθητὴς Θεοϕράστου, λέγων ἀπροοιμιάστῳ βιβλίῳ ἐντυχεῖν, ἀρχομένῳ ἐντεῦθεν οὐκ ἄρα μοῦνον ἔην Ἐρίδων γένος. Muses from Pieria: it must be known that Aristarchus and others obelize the proem, as does Praxiphanes the student of Theophrastus, who says that he came upon the book without the proem and that it began from this: there is not, after all, just one kind of strife. Tzetzes In Hesiodi Opera commentarii = Praxiphanes Commentary on Hesiod fr.22b W²

literature that he studied and edited in his Doxographi Graeci of 1879; cf. the more recent analysis by Zhmud (2013) on the doxographical tradition. ⁵³ Grayeff (1974) 64. ⁵⁴ e.g. Chamaeleon in Περὶ Μέθης fr.10 W² (= Ath. 10.427b) ϕασὶν οἱ Λάκωνες (‘the Laconians report’); in his Περὶ Σαπϕοῦς fr.26 W² (= Ath. 13.599c) λέγειν τινάς ϕησιν (‘he reports that some say’), fr.25 W² (= Ath. 13.600f 601a) Ἀρχύτας δ’ ὁ ἁρμονικός, ὥς ϕησι (‘Archytas the harmonist, as he reports’), fr.42 W² (= Ath. 14.628e) διὸ καὶ Ἀριστοϕάνης ἢ Πλάτων ἐν ταῖς Σκευαῖς, ὡς Χαμαιλέων ϕησίν, εἴρηκε οὕτως (‘for Aristophanes or Plato in his Skeuai, as Chamaeleon reports, has spoken in this way’). ⁵⁵ Lynch (1972) 105. ⁵⁶ ‘Textual community’ is a phrase coined by Woolf (2013) 12 13. Düring (1957) 338 postulates that Aristotle’s library was not stored in the Lyceum but in the house where he lived. Keepers of the books were probably the Heads of the school, since the care of the collection became the responsibility of the successor. ⁵⁷ Lynch (1972) 94 6, 98, Grayeff (1974) 33, and Anagnostopoulos (2009) 4, 8 point out that Macedonian support presumably provided material for the Lyceum. Aristotle retained a close friendship with Antipater whom he appointed in his will as the executer of his last wishes (D.L. 5.11.9 11), on which Sollenberger (1992) 3862 4.

154

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

Tzetzes couples Praxiphanes with Aristarchus in his commentary, and this ultimately places both of them on similar grounds: they both dealt with or commented upon poems, as those appeared as material texts. It is difficult to suggest, however, that their activities were identical. The two scholars probably shared common interests, and their observations consequently had a number of similar features. Praxiphanes was thought to have been the first grammarian in antiquity, according to Clement of Alexandria, and the scholiast to Dionysius Thrax reports that Praxiphanes and Aristotle were the two philosophers from the Peripatetic school who worked on grammatikē, that is the elucidation of writings and presumably the critical exegesis of texts.⁵⁸ The fragment quoted above suggests not only that Aristarchus’ comment on the proem of Hesiod reflects and reacts to that of Praxiphanes but also that Aristarchus builds on Praxiphanes’ observation. The latter is supported by other sources through which a number of Praxiphanes’ fragments survive and where Aristarchus is mentioned in either agreement or disagreement with him. The many comparisons of the two scholars in our sources conclusively suggest that the Alexandrian Aristarchus drew at times on the Peripatetic Praxiphanes for a number of textual and interpretational issues, and the surviving fragments from his treatises similarly share features with Hellenistic commentaries. Praxiphanes apparently dealt with the meaning of words (fr.21 W²), with interpolations and emendations (frr.22a–b W²), and with what we would call literary explanations of poems or of certain poetic passages (fr.20 W² = P. Oxy. 8.1086, Σ on Il.2.763).⁵⁹ Tzetzes’ testimony in his commentary on Hesiod is an important piece of evidence. It illustrates that textual matters concerned the Peripatetic school already at the end of the fourth century. More importantly, the above fragment from Praxiphanes’ Commentary on Hesiod allows us to conclude that Praxiphanes is in a position to make a remark on the missing proem because he had Hesiod’s text of Work and Days at hand.⁶⁰ With reference to melic poetry a number of fragments from other treatises foreground the materiality of the sources of the Peripatetics, and confirm that the philosophers were working with material texts. In his treatise Περὶ Σαπϕοῦς Chamaeleon refers to a possible erotic relationship between Anacreon and Sappho, which appears to be based on two of their fragments, with the ultimate ⁵⁸ Clem.Al. Strom.1.16.79.3 4 (= Praxiphanes fr.10 W²); Σ Londinense in Dionysum Thra cem p. 448 Hilg. and Σ Vaticanum in Dionysium Thracem p. 164 Hilg. (= Praxiphanes fr.8 9 W²) where the use of the verb τετέλεσται and the participle τελεσθεῖσα possibly imply that Praxiphanes and Aristotle had also executed the art to perfection; cf. Praxiphanes fr.13 W² (= Demetrius of Phalerum De elocutione 5) with reference to style and word composition and Praxiphanes’ comment on conjunctions that express sighing in Hom. Od.16.220; Praxiphanes fr. 23 W² on S. OC 900 and his interpretation of the phrase ἀπὸ ῥυτῆρος (= Σ S. OC 900). ⁵⁹ On Praxiphanes fr.20 W², see Wehrli (1969e) ix.113 ad loc. ⁶⁰ Wehrli (1969e) ix.114 comments on the word βιβλίον in the fragment by pointing out that we should not identify the copy of Hesiod’s Works and Days that Praxiphanes presumably had with the main book roll of the work.

The Peripatos: Aristotle’s Project on Greek Culture

155

aim to dismiss the authenticity of the Sapphic fragment. Athenaeus mentions how Chamaeleon records that Anacreon composed his PMG 358 for Sappho and that she equally replied with one of her poems (250 V/PMG adesp.953). Athenaeus refers specifically to the content of Chamaeleon’s treatise. Χαμαιλέων δ’ ἐν τῷ Περὶ Σαπϕοῦς καὶ λέγειν τινάς ϕησιν εἰς αὐτὴν πεποιῆσθαι ὑπὸ Ἀνακρέοντος τάδε σϕαίρῃ δηὖτέ με πορϕυρῇ βάλλων χρυσοκόμης Ἔρως νήνι ποικιλοσαμβάλῳ συμπαίζειν προκαλεῖται ἡ δ’, ἐστὶν γὰρ ἀπ’ εὐκτίτου Λέσβου, τὴν μὲν ἐμὴν κόμην, λευκὴ γάρ, καταμέμϕεται, πρὸς δ’ ἄλλην τινὰ χάσκει καὶ τὴν Σαπϕὼ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ταῦτά ϕησιν εἰπεῖν κεῖνον, ὦ χρυσόθρονε Μοῦσ’, ἔνισπες ὕμνον, ἐκ τᾶς καλλιγύναικος ἐσθλᾶς Τήιος χώρας ὃν ἄειδε τερπνῶς πρέσβυς ἀγαυός.

1

5

ὅτι δὲ οὔκ ἐστι Σαπϕοῦς τοῦτο τὸ ᾆσμα παντί που δῆλον ἐγὼ δὲ ἡγοῦμαι παίζειν τὸν Ἑρμησιάνακτα περὶ τούτου τοῦ ἔρωτος. καὶ γὰρ Δίϕιλος ὁ κωμῳδιοποιὸς πεποίηκεν ἐν Σαπϕοῖ δράματι Σαπϕοῦς ἐραστὰς Ἀρχίλοχον καὶ Ἱππώνακτα. 1 Olson LCL: δεῦτέ με πορϕυρέῃ Wehrli ix Chamaeleon in his Peri Sapphous claims that some say that Anacreon composed the following for her: once again golden haired Erōs strikes me with a purple ball and challenges me to play with the maiden of the embroidered sandal. But she, for she comes from beautifully built Lesbos, mocks my hair, for it is white, and gazes at another and he claims that Sappho said the following in response to him: golden throned Muse, you evoked that hymn from Teos, the noble land of beautiful women, which the glorious old man sang pleasantly. That this poem is not by Sappho is evident to all; but I think that Hermesianax jokes about this love affair. For the comic poet Diphilus also portrayed Archilo chus and Hipponax as Sappho’s lovers in his play Sappho. Chamaeleon Peri Sapphous fr.26 W² = Ath.13.599c4 d (my emphasis)

That Chamaeleon included the two poems in his treatise on Sappho and that the quotation from his book runs between Χαμαιλέων and δῆλον is evident from the revelation of Athenaeus’ persona in the passage with which his commentary on the issue of the contemporaneity between the two poets

156

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

begins (ἐγὼ δὲ ἡγοῦμαι).⁶¹ His comment responds to Hermesianax’s narrative that Anacreon was an envious rival of Alcaeus for the love of Sappho, which inevitably presents Sappho and Anacreon as contemporaries (F7.51–5 Powell = Ath.13.598b6–c3). As it appears in the extract from Athenaeus, Chamaeleon is not concerned with the period at which the two poets lived but with the content of their poems, as well as with the erotic context of their compositions, perhaps also with the dialogic relationship between the two poems. The pronouns τάδε and ταῦτα in Athenaeus, with which each fragment is introduced, also provide consistent evidence for close attention to detail in the Peripatetic treatise, especially on matters of morphology and vocabulary. This would only have been possible if the fragments were included in the treatise. As it seems, Chamaeleon similarly cited (προθείς) a poem by Anacreon (PMG 372) in his treatise Περὶ Ἀνακρέοντος. Χαμαιλέων δ’ ὁ Ποντικὸς ἐν τῷ Περὶ Ἀνακρέοντος προθεὶς τὸ ξανθῇ δ’ Εὐρυπύλῃ μέλει ὁ περιϕόρητος Ἀρτέμων, τὴν προσηγορίαν ταύτην λαβεῖν τὸν Ἀρτέμωνα διὰ τὸ τρυϕερῶς βιοῦντα περιϕέρεσθαι ἐπὶ κλίνης. καὶ γὰρ Ἀνακρέων αὐτὸν ἐκ πενίας εἰς τρυϕὴν ὁρμῆσαί ϕησιν ἐν τούτοις πρὶν μὲν ἔχων βερβέριον, καλύμματ’ ἐσϕηκωμένα, καί ξυλίνους ἀστραγάλους ἐν ὠσὶ καὶ ψιλὸν περὶ πλευρῇσι < ͝ > βοός, νήπλυτον εἴλυμα κακῆς ἀσπίδος, ἀρτοπώλισιν κἀθελοπόρνοισιν ὁμιλέων ὁ πονηρὸς Ἀρτέμων, κίβδηλον εὑρίσκων βίον, πολλὰ μὲν ἐν δουρὶ τιθεὶς αὐχένα, πολλὰ δ’ ἐν τροχῷ, πολλὰ δὲ νῶτον σκυτίνῃ μάστιγι θωμιχθείς, κόμην πώγωνά τ’ ἐκτετιλμένος νῦν δ’ ἐπιβαίνει σατινέων χρύσεα ϕορέων καθέρματα †παῖς Κύκης† καὶ σκιαδίσκην ἐλεϕαντίνην ϕορεῖ γυναιξὶν αὔτως < ⏑ >.

5

10

3 Page (PMG 388): suppl. Campbell: suppl. Martano 11 Page (PMG 388), Olson LCL: πάις Κύκης, καὶ σκιαδίσκην ἐλεϕαντίνην ϕορέει Martano 12 Page (PMG 388), Olson LCL: suppl. Campbell Chamaeleon of Pontus having quoted in his Peri Anakreontos the blond Eurypyle is in love with litter borne Artemon, explains that Artemon got this name because he lived luxuriously and was borne about in a litter. For even Anacreon says in the following lines that he leaped from poverty to luxury: ⁶¹ Martano (2012) 231; Schorn (2012b) 423n. 51.

The Peripatos: Aristotle’s Project on Greek Culture

157

he used to go about in a shabby garment, a waspy hood, and wooden earings in his ears as well as having a hairless oxhide around his ribs, the unwashed wrapping of a poor shield, that wretch Artemon conversing with bread women and willing prostitutes, devising a life of fraud, at times putting his neck on the pillory, at times on the wheel, at times being flogged in the back with a leather strap, his hair and beard being plucked. But now he rides in a carriage wearing gold earrings, †the son of Cyce†, and an ivory sunshade, just like the ladies. Chamaeleon Peri Anakreontos fr.36 W² = Ath. 12.533e8 534b (my emphasis)

Schorn observes that Athenaeus employs the participle προθεὶς in different ways in his Deipnosophistae: ‘it can mean “to write under a lemma (in a commentary),” but also “to set first” and “to quote before”,’ and concludes that the participle in Athenaeus ‘can mean any kind of mention, account, or quotation that comes before an explanation or addition.’⁶² This conclusion is instructive on the issue raised above related to the existence of poetic quotations in Chamaeleon’s work, as well as to the existence of lyric and other texts in the Peripatetic library. The participle in the above passage from Athenaeus points specifically to the format of Chamaeleon’s treatise on Anacreon: he apparently first quoted the verses of Anacreon’s 372 PMG, and subsequently explained the reason why Artemon, who was of low status, was portrayed in the poem as living luxuriously. It appears that a similar method is followed in Chamaeleon’s Περὶ Αἰσχύλου (fr.39 W²), wherein Chamaeleon quoted Aeschylus’ incerta F309–11 TrGF 2. Comparably to the way in which Chamaeleon’s frr.26 and 36 W² from his Peri Sapphous and Peri Anakreontos are incorporated in Athenaeus’ text, the pronoun ταῦτα in connection with παρέθετο in his fr.39 W² rounds off the extract from the Peripatetic treatise on Aeschylus— Ath. 9.375d10–f1 ταῦτα δὲ παρέθετο Χαμαιλέων ἐν τῷ Περὶ Αἰσχύλου (‘these Chamaeleon quoted in his Peri Aeschylou’). Athenaeus’ closing reference to the Peri Aeschylou conclusively suggests that the tragic fragment that is found in Athenaeus is material provided from Chamaeleon’s treatise. Both the above passages from Chamaeleon’s Περὶ Σαπϕοῦς and Περὶ Ἀνακρέοντος, as well as the example from his Περὶ Αἰσχύλου are suggestive of the existence of poetic quotations in Chamaeleon’s treatises, which in certain cases provided the material for Chamaeleon’s argument. The poems themselves ⁶² Schorn (2012b) 420 with nn. 39 41 for examples from Athenaeus’ text. Both Leo (1960) 369 70 and Schorn (2012b) 420 1 refer to the above passage and to the participle προθείς to draw conclusions on the nature of Chamaeleon’s work, i.e. whether Chamaeleon’s treatises were commentaries or not.

158

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

and their interpretation were evidently not always the subject of discussion in the work of the philosophers. Athenaeus’ references (passim) to Chamaeleon’s work suggest that the philosopher often used information deduced from individual poetic fragments to prove or reinforce claims in favour of the existence of specific customs and rituals. In his treatise Περὶ Πινδάρου (fr.31 W² = Ath. 13.573c) Chamaeleon employs Pindar’s enkōmion to Xenophon (fr.122 M) and Simonides’ epigram 14 FGE in a manner similar to the case of Stesichorus and the poem kalykē in Aristoxenus (fr.89 W²). Passages from these two poems are used as evidence in the treatise in order to report on the existence of a Corinthian custom and ritual at which the city included prostitutes every time its citizens prayed to Aphrodite.⁶³ The extract from Chamaeleon’s Peri Pindarou, which further includes a short reference to the first two lines of Pindar’s Olympian 13, is incorporated in a long discussion in Athenaeus on the theme of courtesans, in the course of which he offers information derived from a number of sources. These sources are explicitly mentioned in his narrative.⁶⁴ I do not cite the Pindaric fr.122 M in the extract below. νόμιμόν ἐστιν ἀρχαῖον ἐν Κορίνθῳ, ὡς καὶ Χαμαιλέων ὁ Ἡρακλεώτης ἱστορεῖ ἐν τῷ Περὶ Πινδάρου, ὅταν ἡ πόλις εὔχηται περὶ μεγάλων τῇ Ἀϕροδίτῃ, συμπαραλαμβάνεσθαι πρὸς τὴν ἱκετείαν τὰς ἑταίρας ὡς πλείστας, καὶ ταύτας προσεύχεσθαι τῇ θεῷ καὶ ὕστερον ἐπὶ τοῖς ἱεροῖς παρεῖναι. καὶ ὅτε δὴ ἐπὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα τὴν στρατείαν ἦγεν ὁ Πέρσης, ὡς καὶ Θεόπομπος ἱστορεῖ καὶ Τίμαιος ἐν τῇ ἑβδόμῃ, αἱ Κορίνθιαι ἑταῖραι εὔξαντο ὑπὲρ τῆς τῶν Ἑλλήνων σωτηρίας εἰς τὸν τῆς Ἀϕροδίτης ἐλθοῦσαι νεών. διὸ καὶ Σιμωνίδης ἀναθέντων τῶν Κορινθίων πίνακα τῇ θεῷ τὸν ἔτι καὶ νῦν διαμένοντα καὶ τὰς ἑταίρας ἰδίᾳ γραψάντων τὰς τότε ποιησαμένας τὴν ἱκετείαν καὶ ὕστερον παρούσας συνέθηκε τόδε τὸ ἐπίγραμμα αἵδ’ ὑπὲρ Ἑλλήνων τε καὶ εὐθυμάχων πολιητᾶν ἐστάθεν εὔχεσθαι Κύπριδι δαιμονίᾳ οὐ γὰρ τοξοϕόροισιν ἐμήσατο δῖ ’ Ἀϕροδίτα Πέρσαις Ἑλλάνων ἀκρόπολιν προδόμεν.

e

καὶ οἱ ἰδιῶται δὲ κατεύχονται τῇ θεῷ τελεσθέντων περὶ ὧν ἂν ποιῶνται τὴν δέησιν ἀπάξειν αὐτῇ καὶ τὰς ἑταίρας. ὑπάρχοντος οὖν τοῦ τοιούτου νομίμου περὶ τὴν θεὸν Ξενοϕῶν ὁ

⁶³ On the connection between the Pindaric narrative and such Corinthian rituals, see, among others, Calame (1989); Kurke (1996); Budin (2008a) 112 52 with criticism by Pirenne Delforge in her review (BMCR 2009.04.28); on the specifics of Simonides’ epigram, particularly the problematic δαιμονίᾳ in the second line, and for an analysis of its three preserved versions, see, very selectively, van Groningen (1956); Page FGE pp. 207 11; Brown (1991); Budin (2008b). ⁶⁴ Ath. 13.571c 574b: Apollodorus Περὶ Θεῶν FGrHist II B 244 F112; Sappho 160 and 142 V; Menander Παρακαταθήκη 287 PCG vi.2; Ephippus Ἐμπολή 6 PCG v; Eubulus Καμπυλίων 41 PCG v; Antiphanes Ὑδρία 210 PCG ii; Anaxilas Νεοττίς 21 PCG ii; Alexis Ὕπνος 244 PCG ii; Ephippus Σαπϕώ 20 PCG v; Aeschines Κατὰ Τιμάρχου 1.75; Philetaerus Κυνηγίς 8 PCG vii; Hegesander ἐν Ὑπομνήμασι FHG iv, p. 418 fr.25; Pamphilus fr.29 Schmidt; Neanthes Μυθικά FGrHist II A 84 F9; Alexis Ὥραι Σαμιακαί FGrHist III B 539 F1; Eualces Ἐϕεσιακά FGrHist III B 418 F2; Clearchus Ἐρωτικά fr.29 W²; Demosthenes Κατὰ Νεαίρας [D.] 59.122; Aeschylus 313a TrGF 3; Chamaeleon fr.31 W²; Alexis Φιλούσα 255 PCG ii; Polemon Περὶ τῶν Ἐν Λακεδαίμονι Ἀναθημάτων fr.18; adesp. com. 123 PCG viii.

The Peripatos: Aristotle’s Project on Greek Culture

159

Κορίνθιος ἐξιὼν εἰς Ὀλυμπίαν ἐπὶ τὸν ἀγῶνα καὶ αὐτὸς ἀπάξειν ἑταίρας εὔξατο τῇ θεῷ νικήσας. Πίνδαρός τε τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἔγραψεν εἰς αὐτὸν ἐγκώμιον, οὗ ἡ ἀρχή τρισολυμπιονίκαν ἐπαινέων οἶκον, ὕστερον δὲ καὶ σκόλιον τὸ παρὰ τὴν θυσίαν ᾀσθέν, ἐν ᾧ τὴν ἀρχὴν εὐθέως πεποίηται πρὸς τὰς ἑταίρας, αἳ παραγενομένου τοῦ Ξενοϕῶντος καὶ θύοντος τῇ Ἀϕροδίτῃ συνέθυσαν. Διόπερ ἔϕη [Pi. fr.122.17 20 M] ἤρξατο δ’ οὕτως τοῦ μέλους [Pi. fr.122.1 9 M] ἀρξάμενος δ’ οὕτως ἑξῆς ϕησιν [Pi. fr.122.10 15 M] δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι πρὸς τὰς ἑταίρας διαλεγόμενος ἠγωνία ποῖόν τι ϕανήσεται τοῖς Κορινθίοις τὸ πρᾶγμα. πιστεύων δέ, ὡς ἔοικεν, αὐτὸς αὑτῷ πεποίηκεν εὐθέως [Pi. fr.122.6 M] An old custom exists in Corinth, as Chamaeleon of Heraclea reports in his Peri Pindarou, that whenever the city prays to Aphrodite about important matters they include in their supplication as many prostitutes as possible and that they [sc. the prostitutes] also pray to the goddess and later attend the sacrifices. Indeed, when the Persian led the expedition against Greece, as Theopompus reports and also Timaeus in his seventh book, the Corinthian prostitutes prayed for the safety of the Greeks by going to the temple of Aphrodite. For this reason, when the Corinthians set up a plaque to the goddess, which remains there even now, and wrote down individually the names of the prostitutes who made the supplication and were later present at the sacrifices, Simonides composed this epigram here: These women stood in prayer to heavenly Kypris on behalf of the Greeks and their fair fighting fellow citizens, for divine Aphrodite did not plan to betray the acropolis of the Greeks to the arrow bearing Persians. Individuals also pray privately to the goddess and promise that they will bring to her prostitutes, if what they make their request about is fulfilled. As this custom existed in connection with the goddess, Xenophon of Corinth, when he went to Olympia for the competition, promised that he would also bring prostitutes to the goddess, if he won. And in the first place Pindar wrote an enkōmion for him, the beginning of which was I praise a house that was thrice victorious at Olympia. and he later wrote a skolion that was sung at a sacrifice, the beginning of which he immediately addressed to the prostitutes who joined the sacrifice when Xeno phon was on hand and sacrificing to Aphrodite. He thus said: [Pi. fr.122.17 20 M] But he began the song in this way [Pi. fr.122.1 9 M] Having begun in this way, he then continues [Pi. fr.122.10 15 M]

160

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

For it is obvious that in addressing the prostitutes he was concerned about how the whole thing would look to the Corinthians. But with confidence in himself, as it seems, he thereafter wrote: [Pi. fr.122.16 M] Chamaeleon Peri Pindarou fr.31 W² = Ath. 13.573c 574b

Chamaeleon’s narrative on the worship of Aphrodite in Corinth is created by combining data from both Simonides’ epigram and the Pindaric skolion, as Chamaeleon’s calls the enkōmion to Xenophon.⁶⁵ One may say that Chamaeleon interprets the poems historically in the specific fragment, or that he attempts to deduce information on customs that may (or may not) have been in practice at the time of the poems’ composition, even at the time of Chamaeleon (ἔτι καὶ νῦν).⁶⁶ The narrative from his treatise probably does not break off with the reference to Theopompus and Timaeus in Athenaeus (καὶ . . . νεών). Although Chamaeleon explains the custom of the Corinthian prostitutes differently—the prostitutes are invited as suppliants to Aphrodite every time Corinth prays for important matters—he might still have brought in the testimonies of Theopompus and Timaeus on the role of prostitutes in prayers to Aphrodite at the time of the Persian invasion to support his claim on the existence of the custom.⁶⁷ Simonides’ epigram was in all probability included in the narrative of either of the two historians (διὸ καί), and was consequently included in that of Chamaeleon in his Peri Pindarou.⁶⁸ The method of Athenaeus in the entire discussion about prostitutes may be helpful in concluding whether Pindar’s enkōmion to Xenophon was also included in the treatise. The narrative on prostitutes in Athenaeus is actually formed by accumulating sources related to that single topic, and Athenaeus neither interprets nor analyses extensively any of them. It is enough for him to include them in his work by introducing the name of the author and by citing the passage relevant to the discussion. Thus, the name of the author functions as a heading; it becomes clear that the source changes only when another author is introduced. Chamaeleon’s narrative, for instance, ends before the reference to Alexis’ Φιλούσα (255 PCG ii). The phrases therefore with which the compositions of Pindar and the epigram of Simonides are introduced ιn the extract from Chamaeleon’s Peri Pindarou were in all probability found in the actual work of Chamaeleon, and these were followed by the quotations ⁶⁵ van Groningen (1956) 16 17, 46 50 for the suggestion that Pindar’s fr.122 M, which he identifies as skolion rather than as enkōmion, was performed at the symposium. ⁶⁶ On autopsy as an important factor in Chamaeleon’s method of historical research, Schorn (2012b) 431; contra Budin (2008b) 347 9 who argues that Chamaeleon invented the Corinthian custom in order to explain Pindar’s enkōmion and Simonides’ epigram. ⁶⁷ Theopompus FGrHist III B 115 F285 (cf. Σ Pi. O.13.32b, Dr. i, p.364), Timaeus FGrHist III B 566 F10; cf. Plu. De malig. Herod. 871a b. ⁶⁸ Simonides’ epigram 14 FGE is found in different versions in the three main sources that deliver it (the scholia to Pindar, Plutarch, and Athenaeus whose source is presumably Chamae leon), on which Budin (2008b) with further bibliography.

The Peripatos: Aristotle’s Project on Greek Culture

161

included in Athenaeus’ text: συνέθηκε τόδε τὸ ἐπίγραμμα for Simonides’ epigram; ἐγκώμιον, οὗ ἡ ἀρχή for lines 1–2 of Pindar’s Olympian 13; ὕστερον δὲ καὶ σκόλιον τὸ παρὰ τὴν θυσίαν ᾀσθέν, ἐν ᾧ τὴν ἀρχὴν, ἤρξατο δ’ οὕτως τοῦ μέλους, αὐτὸς αὑτῷ πεποίηκεν εὐθέως for introducing in piecemeal Pindar’s enkōmion for Xenophon. It should be stated that the existence of lyric texts in the Peripatetic library does not imply that the Peripatos possessed the complete corpus of the lyric poets, or even of any lyric poet, or that the philosophers created editions of their work in the Alexandrian sense.⁶⁹ They did not therefore collect all the poems of each poet with the aim to correct the text and to compile and organize them using classificatory or other compilatory criteria. Pindar’s verses from his fr.122 M are in any case not quoted in their original order in Chamaeleon’s fr.31 W²—the first fifteen lines of the poem follow the invocation to Aphrodite that is originally found in lines 17–20. The incorrect order with which the Pindaric lines are included in the treatise implies in itself that in this particular instance the Peripatetics, or at least Chamaeleon, were not interested in the poem as textual and material object, but they were rather interested in its usage as cultural perhaps also as anthropological source. The surviving titles of their treatises and the nature of the fragments are strong evidence that the Peripatetics did not approach the works of the lyric poets with the aim to organize, classify, or edit the written text. With the exception of Clearchus’ Erōtika that plausibly included references to some lyric poets and poems with erotic character, no title reveals a generic categorization of melic poetry or any other form of classification. Even in treatises where one can recognize specific generic categories of poetry, we have no evidence for systematic generic categorization of melic poetry in the Peripatos. Beyond question, terms that refer to song-types and that were in the Hellenistic period used for generic classification of melic poems are found in passing in Peripatetic treatises. In Chamaeleon’s fr.31 W² from his Περὶ Πινδάρου, for instance, Chamaeleon uses the terms enkōmion and skolion to identify Pindar’s Olympian 13 and the poem in honour of Xenophon respectively, the latter of which he presumably found in the text of Pindar (ἀρχὰν εὑρόμενον σκολίου fr.122.13–14 M). The work of the Peripatos on melic poetry was ultimately work on the lyric poets; the name of the poet was often the criterion for the compilation of each treatise. The classification is closely related to the need to organize texts, which the Peripatetics did not do. It is left to the Alexandrians to classify the text of lyric. ⁶⁹ Commenting on Chamaeleon’s Περὶ Πινδάρου Schorn (2012b) 422 concludes that ‘the book was a commented edition, and not a commentary’, a conclusion that is based on Chamae leon’s fr.31 W², but cannot be inferred from the other fragments. It is uncertain whether Schorn implies that the Peripatetic treatises were edited works in the Alexandrian sense or that they included the whole corpus of a poet. His comments on both Chamaeleon’s fr.31 W² and on the nature of his other fragments suggest that he probably uses the phrase ‘commented edition’ to discard the characterization ‘commentary’ that Leo attached to Chamaeleon’s works.

162

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

We are left with some intriguing lacunae in the Peripatetic project and some striking gaps in the study of melic poetry and its representatives which merit further discussion here. Interest in classic lyric poets in the Peripatos does not account for Alcman, Ibycus, and Bacchylides. We have no evidence for monographs on Bacchylides and Ibycus, and Alcman eventually receives a Peripatetic treatise at the time of Callimachus’ Pinakes, thus chronologically late compared to the other classic lyric poets. Philochorus, a Hellenistic scholar-historian (c.340–263/2 ) is the first to have produced a Περὶ Ἀλκμᾶνος (FGrHist III B 328 T1.F91 = Suda s.v. Φιλόχορος (ϕ 441 Adler) ἔγραψεν . . . Περὶ Ἀλκμᾶνος), and the Laconian commentator Sosibius might also have produced a work with the same title sometime in the second century  (Ath. 14.646a Σωσίβιος ἐν τρίτῳ περὶ Ἀλκμᾶνος).⁷⁰ Still, Alcman is mentioned in the Peripatos as the pioneer of love-songs, and Chamaeleon is explicit as to the authority of the information. Ἀρχύτας δ ὁ ἁρμονικός, ὥς ϕησι Χαμαιλέων, Ἀλκμᾶνα γεγονέναι τῶν ἐρωτικῶν μελῶν ἡγεμόνα καὶ ἐκδοῦναι πρῶτον μέλος ἀκόλαστον, ὄντα καὶ περὶ τὰς γυναῖκας καὶ τὴν τοιαύτην μοῦσαν εἰς τὰς διατριβάς. διὸ καὶ λέγειν ἔν τινι τῶν μελῶν Ἔρως με δηὖτε Κύπριδος ϝέκατι γλυκὺς κατείβων καρδίαν ἰαίνει. ϝέκατι Page (PMG 59(a)): έκατι Wehrli ix Archytas the theorist of musical harmonies, as Chamaeleon says, claimed that Alcman became the leading figure in erotic melē and that he was the first to have prepared a licentious melos, as he would spend his time being occupied with women and with that sort of muse. For this reason he says in one of his melē: Once again for Kypris’ sake Erōs flows sweet and melts my heart. Chamaeleon fr.25 W² = Ath. 13.600f

Athenaeus does not specify in which work Chamaeleon makes that claim, and his silence with regards to the work wherein Chamaeleon’s statement about Alcman is included comes in marked contrast to the manner in which he refers to this kind of works for other lyric poets.⁷¹ One can discern a pattern. For all the Peripatetic treatises on lyric poets Athenaeus is very precise; he refers to the actual work. Thus: ἐν τῷ Περὶ Σαπϕοῦς (fr.26 W² = Ath. 13.599c), ἐν τῷ Περὶ Πινδάρου (fr.31 W² = Ath. 13.573c), ἐν τῷ Περὶ Στησιχόρου (fr.28 W² = Ath.14.620c), ἐν τῷ Περὶ Σιμωνίδου (fr.33 W² = Ath. 13.656c, fr.34 W² = Ath. 10.456c, and fr.35 W² = Ath. 13.611a), ἐν τῷ Περὶ Ανακρέοντος

⁷⁰ On Philochorus’ treatise, Wehrli (1969e) ix.79; Hinge (2006) 308. ⁷¹ Cf. Chamaeleon fr.24 W² on the mimetic character of ancient music, where he quotes Alcman’s 39 PMG to demonstrate that Alcman is the exemplar poet in portraying the ability of music and poetry to imitate natural sounds (= Ath. 9.389f 390a).

The Peripatos: Aristotle’s Project on Greek Culture

163

(fr.36 W² = Ath. 12.533e), ἐν τῷ περὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Λάσου (fr.30 W² = Ath. 8.338b), ἐν τῷ Περὶ Ἀλκαίῳ (fr.95 W² = Ath. 15.668e).⁷² This suggests that Chamaeleon probably produced no work dedicated to Alcman and that he refers to Alcman either in a work dedicated to music or melic poetry, or in a discussion devoted to the origin of certain song-types or poetic modes.⁷³ Information of this sort could have derived from Alcman’s established reputation and from re-performances of his poetry down to the third century . Despite the protest in Eupolis’ Heilotes that Alcman was no longer trendy (148 PCG v), and depending as well on whether we want to take Eupolis’ word about the complete silence of Alcman’s work in Athens, it is plausible that by the third century  Alcman had an established reputation in Athens as a poet of erotic compositions, some of which might still have been re-performed in a number of occasions, including symposic gatherings.⁷⁴ These lacunae in the Peripatetic project on the classic lyric poets raise tantalizing questions about the pace of textualization, and the nature and scale of collected works of poets. If indeed, as suggested, texts were necessary for the kind of analysis the Peripatetics pursued, one possible reason for absences or for the late appearance of treatises is that the philosophers in the Lyceum did not possess the texts of the poets in question, at least until the end of the third century. The shift to the written word as the primary medium of preservation does not automatically imply that all texts were readily available even in a major cultural centre such as Athens. If the silence of our sources about Peripatetic works on Ibycus and Bacchylides reflect the absence of a treatise, it may be the case that the Peripatos did not possess their text, or at least not a text they could rely on. The complete picture of the Peripatetic treatises reveals their broad knowledge of Greek culture, literature, and prose, and their great interest in musical matters and festivals. It is therefore difficult to assume that they did not know of or that they at least had not heard of these two lyric poets, both of whom were members of the Canon. Thus, although they were presumably aware of their existence, lack of a (good) text did not allow them to prepare separate monographs for them where their poetry would have been discussed. Ibycus’ presence in the Athenian landscape but his absence from the Peripatos reinforces this assumption. As already demonstrated, Ibycus is mentioned by Agathon in Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae together with Anacreon and Alcaeus (vv.159–63), the aged Parmenides

⁷² It should be noted that Wehrli does not capitalize the first letter of the preposition περί in his edition of Chamaeleon and puts in brackets [τοῦ Λάσου] (fr. 30 W²), whereas Olson capitalizes the first letter of Περί with the exception of περὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Λάσου (Ath. 8.338b) in his LCL edition. ⁷³ Cf. Martano (2012) 229. ⁷⁴ See Chapter 2 in this book, ‘Lyric Names for the Symposium’ with the discussion on Eupolis 148 PCG v and Carey (2011) 433 4.

164

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

quotes in Plato’s Parmenides Ibycus’ 287 PMG (136e9–137a4), a poem that he identifies by the phrase τὸ τοῦ Ἰβυκείου ἵππου πεπονθέναι, and Socrates quotes his 310 PMG in the Phaedrus (242c6–b1). A fragment from a papyrus commentary that is concerned with the origin of Alcman is another important piece of evidence for the suggestion that a substantial text was necessary for the compilation of a monograph (P.Oxy. 24.2389, fr.9 col.i). The commentator mentions how Aristotle assumed that Alcman was a Lydian because he and those who agreed with him were misled (ἀπατηθέντες) by a poem where Alcman claimed that he did not belong to the Thessalian race but came from the edges of Sardis. The column on the papyrus breaks after the quotation of the first line of one of Alcman’s fragments where the reference is made to a man who was not rustic (PMGF 16 ἀγρεῖος οὐ οὐδ̣[έ). Sardis is mentioned only in the last line of the fragment, which conclusively suggests that the fragment was possibly quoted in its entirety in the papyrus commentary. If we trust the commentary that the source of such a claim in the Lyceum was the words of the poet himself, which were consequently interpreted autobiographically, then this testimony provides evidence for the presence of Alcman’s text in the Peripatetic library. What’s more, it confirms the above assumption that a substantial amount of text was necessary for the compilation of a treatise on a lyric poet. It is obvious that even in cases of pure biographies or biographical anecdotes the starting point of any assumption was the text of the poet and conclusions were often drawn from his poetry.⁷⁵ The attitude of these philosophers towards the rest of the nine, particularly Alcman, also Hipponax, and also the timing of the production of a treatise for each of them support the above proposition. The fact that both Ibycus and Bacchylides receive no treatise, even later in the Hellenistic era, could suggest not only that their text was not available in the Peripatetic library but also that it reached Alexandria at a time when editions of the poetic corpus became more important than monographs on lyric figures. An alternative is that these poets were purposely neglected in the Peripatos in favour of the witty and playful poetry of Anacreon in the case of Ibycus and the work of Pindar and Simonides in the case of Bacchylides.

PASSING ON THE INHERITED L YRIC AG EN DA We may reasonably conclude that the Peripatetic agenda on melic poetry converged around the aesthetic, moral, and ethical judgement of Aristophanes, ⁷⁵ e.g. Fairweather (1974) 232 9; Lefkowitz (2012) 2; Momigliano (1993) 70 emphasizes that the inclination of the Peripatetics to infer personal details from the poetic text contributed to the technique of biographical research.

The Peripatos: Aristotle’s Project on Greek Culture

165

as illustrated in a number of his comedies, as well as of Plato, both of whom distinguished explicitly between the representatives of classical melic poetry and the New Music, a distinction that is also a crucial feature of Old Comedy in general.⁷⁶ Although one should be cautious with generalizing comments, both Plato and Aristophanes seem to treat the New in melic poetry with apparent condemnation. This attitude, which is also prominent in fragmentary comedy, demonstrates without doubt that the classicizing process is already evident in their works. The evolution of melic poetry and its performance in late fifthcentury  led to the decadence of musical and poetic performances in fourthcentury Athens, as claimed in our conservative fifth- and fourth-century sources (e.g. Eupolis 398 PCG v; Pl. Lg.700a–701a3; Arist. Pol.1341b10–23). Chamaeleon embodies in a way this bleak view of the changing character of mousikē when he interprets Plato Comicus’ 138 PCG vii as evidence for the degeneration of hyporchēmata (fr.42 W²). ὥστ᾿ εἴ τις ὀρχοῖτ᾿ εὖ, θέαμ᾿ ἦν νῦν δὲ δρῶσιν οὐδέν, ἀλλ᾿ ὥσπερ ἀπόπληκτοι στάδην ἑστῶτες ὠρύονται and so if someone danced well, it was a spectacle. But now they do nothing other than stand stock still and astounded and howl Plato Comicus’ 138 PCG vii

The fragment itself creates both a temporal and an aesthetic distinction between old performances of hyporchēmata and its current choreographic features, which Athenaeus notionally contextualizes within the broader criticism of the state of mousikē in late fifth and early fourth centuries  by following Chamaeleon’s lead (Ath. 14.628d–e). The vocabulary that Athenaeus uses to characterize the changing character of the hyporchēma creates a juxtaposition in his text between the nobility and gracefulness at the time of its invention in old days (ἐξ ἀρχῆς, τὸ εὐγενὲς καὶ ἀνδρῶδες, εὔσχημον τότε καὶ μεγαλοπρεπές) and the excessiveness and unpleasant character of the dance at the time of Plato Comicus (ἀδόκιμος, ἀμέτρως, ἀπόπληκτοι). Though the Peripatetic agenda is also and once more a classicized agenda, it would not be quite true to say that the Peripatetics ignore the New Music entirely. One finds in a number of Peripatetic fragments quotations from the New Music: Clearchus quotes Lycophronides (frr.22, 24 W²) and Castorion (fr.88 W²), he shows knowledge of Lamynthius’ Lyde (fr.34 W²), and even ridicules Philoxenus for his bottomless appetite (fr.57 W²), while Phanias’ fr.13 W² is our main source for the anecdote on Philoxenus’ Galateia and

⁷⁶ The Platonic influence on the Lyceum is to a certain degree to be expected, since a couple of Peripatetics were students of Plato, as we can judge from D.L. 3.46, Simplicius In Aristotelis Physica 3.4, p.202b36, 19 22 Diels; cf. Heracleides Ponticus fr.7 W² on how he with other pupils of Plato, including Aristotle, wrote down Plato’s lectures On the Good.

166

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

Dionysius of Syracuse.⁷⁷ Extant fragments from the Peripatetic treatises equally demonstrate knowledge of musicians who belonged in the movement of the New Music: Clearchus reports an anecdotal exchange between two fourthcentury musicians, Stratonicus the kitharist and Propis the kitharōdos (fr.80 W²), which is reflected in Theophrastus’ explanation of the proverb οὐδεὶς κακὸς μέγας ἰχθύς that allegedly originated from Stratonicus’ response to Propis (fr.710 Fort. II); the late fifth- and early fourth-century aulētēs Andron of Catana is also depicted in Theophrastus as the first pipe-player who moved his body to the rhythm of his music while playing his aulos (fr.718 Fort. II).⁷⁸ Nevertheless, the philosophers did not produce separate treatises on any of the representatives of the New Music, which implies that they consciously did not turn them into a scholarly object that deserved to be studied. Even with the existence of Aristoxenus’ biographical work on Telestes, the very rarity of Peripatetic treatises on the representatives of the New Music indicates that the Peripatetics dealt predominantly with poets and poetry which had been established as classic by the time of Aristotle and the Peripatos, following therefore the classizing view of melic poetry that was set in comedy and Plato. Lasus is the odd one out in the group of lyric poets; he receives a Peripatetic treatise, but he is neither included in the Lyric Canon nor is he ever grouped with the poets of the New Music. The sole extant fragment from Chamaeleon’s Περὶ Λάσου includes no discussion of the poetry that Lasus allegedly composed. It rather fabricates a biographical anecdote that is framed both as a puzzle-joke and as an intellectual game—the verbs ἔπαιξε and παίζων introduce Lasus’ behaviour—and maps its specifics on to a portrait of Lasus as sound-theorist, proto-sophist, and a wise man. Lasus is depicted in a number of other fragments in the Peripatos as the initiator of empirical acoustic experimentations, thus as a musical innovator, and as a figure of wisdom. Hermippus includes him in his list of wise men in his Περὶ τῶν σοϕῶν (FGrHist IVA 1026 F10 = D.L. 1.42), providing as it is the appropriate conclusion that could be drawn from Chamaeleon’s fragment (cf. Dicaearchus fr.32 W²).⁷⁹ In other cases Lasus is commemorated for the loud and resonant Aeolian mode he used for the composition of his ode to Demeter, which Heracleides Ponticus quotes in his fr.163 W². Still, Lasus is primarily recalled for his experimentations with the consonant sigma. Heracleides quotes once more in his third book of Περὶ Μουσικῆς the first line from Lasus’ ἄσιγμον ὕμνον to Demeter (fr.161 W² with οὗ ἐστιν ἀρχή, ‘whose beginning is’ that introduces PMG 702), and Clearchus identifies his ⁷⁷ Also Praxiphanes fr.18 W² where he synchronized Melanippides with Plato Comicus, the tragic poet Agathon, and with the epic poets Choerilus and Niceratus. ⁷⁸ Clearchus fr.80 W² = Ath.8.347f5 348a3; Theophrastus fr.710 Fort. II = Ath. 8.348a3 7; Theophrastus fr.718 Fort. II = Ath. 1.22c6 9. ⁷⁹ See the commentary in Bollansée (1999b) 168 76 ad loc.

The Peripatos: Aristotle’s Project on Greek Culture

167

work Κένταυροι as another asigmatic hymn (fr.88 W²). Lasus’ asigmatic hymns are identified in these fragments through Pindar’s fr.70b.1–3 M which is quoted both in Clearchus (fr.88 W²) and in Aristoxenus (fr.87 W²) as alluding to a quiet poetic past where the sigma was avoided in dithyrambic compositions. In all cases where lipogrammatic practice is commemorated in the Peripatetic fragments the actual composition of odes that suppress letters and sounds is interpreted as a riddle. According to Clearchus, the Pindaric asigmos ode is a riddle set forth in the area of melic composition (οἱονεὶ γρίϕου τινὸς ἐν μελοποιίᾳ), and is also a representative example of the kind of riddles that depend on missing letters, both of which go back to Lasus of Hermione (Clearchus’ Περὶ Γρίϕων frr.88 and 86 W² respectively).⁸⁰ In all cases where Lasus appears in the Peripatetic fragments, including Chamaeleon’s Peri Lasou, he is never recalled exclusively as a poet whose work was worth discussing as source for cultural and anthropological data. In every single instance his persona is rather connected with ludic riddles and linguistic games of the kind that would be characteristic of a proto-sophist.⁸¹ That Simonides was also recalled for his enigmatic compositions is evident in Chamaeleon’s Περί Σιμωνίδου fr.34 W², where Chamaeleon includes and interprets biographically the doubtful frr.69–70 ALG². The difference between Lasus and Simonides in this instance rests on the fact that the latter, no matter how anecdotally heavy his figure might have been in the tradition, is also portrayed in the treatises as a figure of poetry, and that at times a number of his compositions were interpreted as revealing habits and customs in certain geographical locations and in specific communities (cf. Chamaeleon fr.31 W²). That melic poems were often used as trustworthy witness and as reliable sources is additionally evident in the story that Plutarch delivers on how Heracleides Ponticus went through the poems of Anacreon to refute Ephorus’ story on periphorētos Artemon (fr.60 W² = Pl. Per.27.3.4). The plural τοῖς Ἀνακρέοντος ποιήμασιν reveals that the Lyceum presumably possessed quite a good number of poems of Anacreon that Heracleides had to go through. The anecdote reveals more than that, however. It demonstrates that the Peripatetics had the skills and were thus capable to identify the poems as of a certain lyric poet and to group them together. For instance, Chamaeleon in his Peri Sapphous mentions the disputed authenticity of Sappho’s 250 V/PMG adesp.953, which he nonetheless identifies as Sapphic and includes in his treatise (fr.26 W²), and the commentator in P.Oxy. 13.1611, fr.6. col.i (= Chamaeleon fr.29c W²) refers to Chamaeleon’s uncertainty about whether

⁸⁰ On Lasus, Pindar, and the sigma, D’Angour (1997); Porter (2007) and (2010) 365 404. ⁸¹ See in more detail, Privitera (1965) 47 63. In Herodotus Lasus is the one who reveals the scam of Onomacritus by catching him interpolating a fake oracle into the writings of Musaeus (Hdt. 7.6.10 17) which Privitera (1965) 51 63 interprets as an example of sophistic competition.

168

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

a certain line was composed by Stesichorus or by Lamprocles.⁸² The two examples associated with Chamaeleon suggest that the Peripatetics were concerned with, and thus made comments on, the authorship and authenticity of certain melic poems, but they did not dismiss a poem with disputed authenticity. The case of the Sapphic fragment in the Peri Sapphous is, moreover, a telling example of the doxographic approach of the Peripatos, whereby a scholar would readily collect and trasmit different opinions on certain poems without necessarily agreeing with any of them. A commentator also records that Chamaeleon, presumably in his Peri Stesichorou, identified and wrote down the openings of two Palinodes, suggesting that the poem he had in front of him was a synthesis of two different poems (Δεύρ’αὖτε θεὰ ϕιλόμολπε and χρυσόπτερε παρθένε P.Oxy. 29.2506, fr.26 col.i.2–26 = PMG 193/fr.32 Martano).⁸³ The Peripatetics did not make drastic textual changes to the material they possessed in their library and most importantly to the text of melic poems, which is the main topic in this chapter. This conclusion becomes evident not only from the above reference to the two Palinodes but also from the testimony of Athenaeus on Callias from Mytilene and his treatise on the word λεπάς in Alcaeus.⁸⁴ Καλλίας δ᾿ ὁ Μιτυληναῖος ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῆς Παρ᾿ Ἀλκαίῳ Λεπάδος παρὰ τῷ Ἀλκαίῳ ϕησὶν εἶναι ᾠδὴν ἧς ἡ ἀρχή. πέτρας καὶ πολιᾶς θαλάσσας τέκνον, ἧς ἐπὶ τέλει γεγράϕθαι ἐκ δὲ παίδων χαύνως ϕρένας, ἀ θαλασσία λεπάς. ὁ δ᾿ Ἀριστοϕάνης γράϕει ἀντὶ τοῦ λεπὰς ‘χέλυς’ καὶ ϕησιν οὐκ εὖ Δικαίαρχον ἐκδεξάμενον λέγειν τὰς λεπάδας Callias of Mitylene in his On the Limpet in Alcaeus says that the beginning of one of Alcaeus’ songs is child of the rock and of the gray sea, and its end runs may you puff up the minds of children, sea limpet. Aristophanes writes ‘tortoise’ instead of ‘limpet’, and says that Dicaearchus did not do well to discuss limpets having had accepted the reading. Dicaearchus fr.99 W² = Ath. 3.85e10 f8

⁸² The poetic line is PMG 735/322 Finglass with Davies and Finglass (2014) 595 6 ad loc; see also Σv Ar. Nu.967b.α β (= Chamaeleon fr.29a W²) and Martano (2012) 239 with further bibliography. ⁸³ See the discussion of this fragment in Martano (2012) 241 3 ad loc, where he summarizes the scholarly opinions on the two Palinodes; Davies and Finglass (2014) 308 17; Page (1963) 35 6 remains useful. ⁸⁴ According to Strabo, Callias of Mytilene treated Sappho and Alcaeus exegetically (Καλλίας ὁ τὴν Σαπϕὼ καὶ τὸν Ἀλκαῖον ἐξηγησάμενος Str. 13.2.4, p.618C Radt).

The Peripatos: Aristotle’s Project on Greek Culture

169

The specific fragment is incorporated in a discussion on limpets, and follows the reference to the treatise Περὶ τῆς Ἀχνυμένης Σκυτάλης by the grammarian Aristophanes, as identified in Athenaeus (Ἀριστοϕάνης ὁ γραμματικὸς), which strongly suggests that the Aristophanes mentioned is Aristophanes of Byzantium. Athenaeus’ testimony is of exceptional importance. Similarly to the connection made in our sources between Praxiphanes and Aristarchus and their activities, Athenaeus associates Aristophanes of Byzantium with Dicaearchus, and specifies that Aristophanes’ attention is drawn to the word λεπάς, which Dicaearchus apparently accepted in the text of Alcaeus.⁸⁵ His disagreement and replacement of the word with χέλυς indicate undoubtedly that Aristophanes of Byzantium was in a position to consult the work of Dicaearchus where he dealt with the specific poem and the specific word. Most importantly, it points to the fact that Dicaearchus was in all probability concerned with the correctness of the text of certain poems but that he made no radical decisions to change any readings he might have disagreed with. Though this is an unprovable assumption, it is probable that he made a note of his comments somewhere on the text itself or in the margin, a practice that might also apply to Chamaeleon’s observations on Stesichorus and Lamprocles and also on the two Palinodes. The above passages are strong evidence to suggest that in the critical reading of poems with compositional problems, in the identification of songs with dubious authorship, and in the attention drawn to the correctness of the written text the Peripatetics employed methods that the Hellenistic scholars later developed into their philology and scholarship. The Peripatetics arguably paved the way for the Alexandrians. The move towards textuality has important implications. The use of a tangible text as the raw material means that the text itself now becomes the central point, and consequently the poetry itself, and the poet. This is a radical shift of focus. Although one can frequently find in Plato’s dialogues quotations, paraphrases, and discussions of specific passages of melic poetry, the most substantial of which is Simonides’ ode to Scopas in the Protagoras, their incorporation in his dialogues is made for the sake of the Platonic argument. The same applies at times to Aristotle. Aristotle often uses the lyric poets as historical, cultural, or political sources—a practice that we have also detected in Chamaeleon’s Peri Pindarou and Peri Stesichorou—he refers to them as paradigms of his rhetorical instructions, and also frequently quotes selected melic works.⁸⁶ One could suggest that Aristotle gradually lays the foundation ⁸⁵ Cf. Dicaearchus fr.91 W² where it is stated that Aristarchus favoured a reading of Dicaearchus in Hom. Il.3.244 (= A.D. Pron. 60B, i.48 Schneider Uhlig). ⁸⁶ Quotations of lyric poets in Aristotle accompanied by the name of the poet are found in: Rh.1401a17 (quotation of Pindar’s Partheneion 1 on false enthymeme); Rh.1367a5 15 (Alcaeus and Sappho on what is noble with Campbell’s note on Sappho’s fr.137); Rh.1393b8 1394a1 and Rh.1394b4 1395a2 (Stesichorus’ 281(a) and (b) PMG on using maxims and witty apophthegms); Rh.1363a15 (Aristotle quotes Simonides’ 572 PMG/F290 Poltera on deliberation), Rh.1367b20

170

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

for the Peripatetic approach. The melic poems themselves now become an object of discussion by the Peripatetics, and their attempts to explicate and analyse them are made possible by focusing on details that become available only because of the existence of books and texts.⁸⁷ When it comes to the Peripatetic project as embodied in the Lyceum poetry itself was the starting point for a treatise. We have entered an era of literary study. In this respect as well as in the Peripatetic prioritization of texts for study and in the critical reading of poetic compositions with the aim at interpreting, explaining, perhaps also restoring the written text, the Peripatetics set the agenda for Alexandria.

(Simonides’ 26(a).3 FGE is found in the section on things noble and praiseworthy), Rh.1405b16 27 (quotation of Simonides’ 515 PMG/F2 Poltera on the use of metaphors drawn from beautiful words); H.A.542b4 10 (Simonides’ 508 PMG/F17 Poltera is quoted as part of Aristotle’s definition of the halkuōn days); Pol.1285a31 b3 (reference to Alcaeus’ exile from Mytilene accompanied by a quotation of his 348 V as example of a time when tyrants were chosen by the people). ⁸⁷ Pfeiffer (1968) 62 also suggested that the Academy and the Peripatos used books.

5 Towards a Written Text As argued in the previous chapter, the volume, specificity, and details of the Peripatetic explications provide evidence in favour of the conclusion that Aristotle’s Lyceum operated with written texts. The scholarly use of texts is also evident several generations earlier at the time of Plato; the scale and frequency with which Plato made use of the lyric poets and especially the detailed quotations from their poems in his dialogues should probably be taken as evidence for his access to lyric poems as textual entities. The key difference between Plato and the Peripatetics in their use of material texts (if one can claim that for Plato) is that the Peripatetics were studying them for their own sake. Their mission was a self-conscious attempt to collect as many texts as possible and to focus on their explication and on the cultural information they could gather from these poems. A number of questions of critical importance regarding the transmission and diffusion of lyric song as material object, as text, arise from the above picture. We need to ask ourselves what we mean by text and to distinguish between public availability of these texts in Athenian book markets and copies owned by individuals in a private collection. Another factor to bear in mind is the non-Athenian origin of the lyric poets, thus the non-Athenian origin of their poems, and consequently the non-Athenian origin of these texts in order to avoid generalizations based solely on Athenian evidence. Geographical distinctions are significant, as they could signify differences in volume and differences in kind of what is available in various locations, as well as differences in local taste and interests. The central theme of this chapter therefore will be the physical life of melic poems, as well as the existence, diffusion, availability, and circulation of written lyric texts in more locations than Athens. The picture that will be sketched in the following pages takes into account the possibility that no single model can account for the movement towards books in the archaic and classical period. Studies on literacy and orality in ancient Greece have increased in the last thirty years, as the question of writing and Greek literate culture continues to

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon. Theodora A. Hadjimichael, Oxford University Press (2019). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198810865.003.0006

172

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

fascinate cultural and literary historians.¹ The majority of these studies are anthropological, or they approach these two notions primarily from the perspective of a cultural historian. Literacy is thus perceived as the logical and expected stage of the progress of a society that is predominantly characterized as oral. Although the spread of literacy with all the connotations it carries—writing, education, books and writing material, reading and readership—is a social and cultural transformation, it has often been mechanically perceived as an accomplishment which was achieved simultaneously for every aspect of Greek literature and culture, even in unrelated geographical locations. The name of Rosalind Thomas has become almost synonymous with research in literacy and orality in antiquity, and her work is a constant point of reference in other studies. It is therefore worth summarizing her views throughout the years. In her Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens Thomas observes that social, political, and cultural factors frame manifestations of orality and literacy, and rightly stresses the coexistence of orality and literacy in the culture of the fourth century. She appears, though, to be schematic in approaching the subject, and there seems to be a tendency in her work to generalize for Greece as a whole on the basis of classical Athens.² She also uses a model for approaching the topic literacy and orality that is exclusively based on oratory, which she further develops in her Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece.³ More recently, Thomas has argued for a more complex and diverse picture for Greece with reference to literacy and orality, but, although she recognizes a multitude of literacies that depend on different social contexts and political habits, she still appears to be more interested in the actual processes that led from oral to written.⁴ Rosalind Thomas is a single example from contemporary scholarship that has sketched a picture of an evolution that is less complex than the evidence suggests. For a better understanding of such a process one needs to take into account the nature of each literary genre and the difficulties that come with the diffusion of poetry as oral culture—primary performances followed by re-performances— and its transmission as actual physical text.⁵ The circumstances under which

¹ e.g. Kenyon (1951); Turner (1952); Havelock (1971), (1982), (1986); Harris (1989); Thomas (1989), (1992), (2009), (2011); Robb (1994); Missiou (2011); the collections edited by Yunis (2003b) and Mackie (2004), in particular for my purposes Ford (2003), Thomas (2003), Yunis (2003a); Currie (2004); Hubbard (2004); Uhlig (2011); Anderson and Dix (2014). Werner (2009) offers an instrumental overview of scholarship on ancient literacy in the last twenty years, including a bibliographical essay with published works up to 2009. ² Thomas (1989) 15 21, 61 8. ³ Thomas (1992) 101 7. ⁴ Thomas (2003), (2009) and (2011). ⁵ The theme of poetic re performance, especially for Pindaric victory odes, has received much attention. See in particular Morgan, K. (1993) 10 15; Carey (1995) 85 90; Loscalzo (2003) 85 119; Currie (2004); Hubbard (2004); Morrison (2007) and (2012); Hornblower (2012); Revermann (2006a) 66 95 also discusses the theme of possible re performances of comic plays; on re performances of tragedies, see n. 115 in this chapter.

Towards a Written Text

173

the geographical distribution of non-Athenian poetry took place raise additional important issues that need to be considered. My aim in this chapter is to look at the advent of books in general and also specifically at the evolution of lyric from melic song to written text by also considering the gradual and accreted nature of such a cultural change. The image that will arise is one of complexity, coexistence, and change, where I multiply the variables by necessarily looking at differentiation by genre, author, geography, and time-period. As it will become clear in the course of the analysis, I distinguish between written texts as material and physical objects and books in the post-Alexandrian understanding, that is the collected and edited work of a specific literary genre, poet, or author. Most of the evidence we possess on this subject is both Athenian in origin and narrowly focused on specific Athenian literary achievements, more frequently prose than verse.⁶ Given the paucity of information on lyric textualization and on the diffusion of the material texts of melic poems, even in Athens, it is vital to avoid generalizations. Evidence of the existence of Athenian texts, such as oratorical speeches, tragedy or comedy, and plausible circulation of copies of these texts in Athenian markets cannot be ignored. A number of literary accomplishments had a different geographical origin, however, and if we wish to understand the process whereby written texts were created and circulated, it becomes essential to recognize how circulation and availability of written forms of literature can be defined by geography. Drama, oratory, and philosophy were undeniably Athenian works, but a great number of compositions of melic poetry, as represented by the nine canonical lyric poets, was originally not Athenian; it was composed in areas outside Athens, and was at some point imported into the Athenian cultural context, as we have seen. This geographical distinction suggests that what takes place in Athens in connection with its own technological achievements cannot be safely used as a comprehensive model either for the Athenian treatment of all literary forms or for the process of transmission and pace of change elsewhere in Greece. It is plausible that areas beyond the Greek metropolis showed interest in literary products other than those that were preeminent in Athens. Such a difference in taste might consequently have led to the circulation outside Athens of works that would have been different from those that would have been favoured in Athens. Complementary to the issue of circulation of written texts is also evidence for private libraries and for informal and private circulation of specific texts, and also the existence of book markets. It is important to take such factors

⁶ The Athenian origin of evidence for literacy has as a result the concentration of a number of works on Athenian democracy and literacy: e.g. Harvey, F. (1966); Hedrick (1994); Sickinger (1999) on literacy and record keeping; Pébarthe (2000) on literacy, writing practices, and democracy in classical Athens; Thomas (2009) and (2011); Missiou (2011), who is concerned with Athenian literacy in connection with Athenian democracy and its citizens.

174

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

into account, especially with reference to melic poems. In order to gain a complete picture in this chapter of the plausible circulation of book-rolls with (extracts from) melic poems, iconographical evidence will supplement the ancient sources that refer to the existence and circulation of books.

ORALITY AND/OR TEXTUALITY? Scholars have lately argued in favour of the plausibility that melic poems were re-performed either on occasions evoking the primary performance or under new social and oral performative circumstances, wherein the poems were embedded, and the epinician odes of Pindar have been particularly the focus of such scholarly studies.⁷ The prominence of the victory ode in discussions of re-performance is understandable, as the primary performance of a victory ode can be anchored to a specific point in time, on many occasions to a historical moment, as well as to a certain performative occasion. This often accurate grounding allows scenarios of re-performance to be perceived more precisely as occasions that would be defined in connection with the song’s premiere.⁸ Epinician poetry itself promises the victor remembrance and future commemoration through the words of the song that would travel throughout the Greek world and spread the news of victory (e.g. Pi. P.1.92–8; N.7.11–16; I.4.40–1). The pan-Hellenic stature and attention the odes claim for their honorands can in fact be justified exclusively by potential re-performances of the victory odes.⁹ It is plausible therefore that the better or the luckier of these poems were re-performed formally or informally. A number of suggestions have been made about the question of epinician re-performance. Bruno Currie analyses extensively a number of informal, semi-formal, and formal re-performance scenarios for the Pindaric victory ode, where either the family would be in charge for planning the poem’s re-performance within the context of the symposium or the entire polis would get involved; Simon Hornblower as well makes a case for Pindaric odes being re-performed by and for the descendants of families who were celebrated by Pindar;¹⁰ Andrew Morrison points out that ‘the best evidence . . . suggests that the principal way of reperforming a victory ode was at symposia, with the song sung solo, typically to the ⁷ e.g. Currie (2004) and (2017); Hubbard (2004); Morrison (2007) with 5 19 for an overview of Pindaric scholarship with reference to the question of re performance, and (2012); Athanassaki (2012); Stamatopoulou (2014) on a close reading of the expectations Olympian 6 creates of a future re performance in Syracuse; Budelmann (2017); Rutherford, I. (2001b) 175 8 briefly mentions possible scenarios of re performance for Pindar’s paeans; Hubbard (2011) makes a speculative attempt to explain the dissemination of Pindar’s non epinician choral lyric. ⁸ See Budelmann (2017) 46 7, 59 60. ⁹ Hubbard (2004) 80. ¹⁰ Currie (2004) 51 69; Hornblower (2012).

Towards a Written Text

175

accompaniment of the lyre.’¹¹ Given the inevitable cost and organizational implications, informal re-performances at symposia organized by the family seem to have been a more likely scenario. They would also potentially have retained within the familial circle not only the task of planning the event but also the epinician song itself. Another possibility with regards to the circulation of an epinician song would be that portions of these poems might have travelled independently, and might have become known separately from the rest of the victory ode. Currie points out that the gnomic and ethical passages in the Pindaric poems, which were precisely the parts that had least to do with the laudandus himself, must have had the greatest appeal to secondary performers.¹² The Pindaric extracts that are included in the Platonic dialogues strongly support Currie’s claim, and they also raise the possibility that specific verses with ethical character might have circulated with no reference or connection to their original poetic context. Though Plato seems to be generally reluctant to include in his work extracts from the Pindaric epinician, in the cases where one might detect quotations from Pindaric victory odes, the occasion for which the ode was composed (i.e. the public celebration of a victor at a competition) is not revealed in the Platonic context.¹³ This decontextualization distances as a result the extracts from the occasionality of the poetics of the epinician ode and from its very performance. While the distancing from the occasion of the victory’s celebration might have been made with the aim to have such allusions or passages adjust to Plato’s social, ethical, and educational programme, it nonetheless suggests that non-personalized and decontextualized epinician extracts were indeed more famous than sections of the poem in connection with either the epinician victor or the occasion. Despite the emphasis placed on the question of Pindar’s re-performance and thus the oral circulation of the songs, no scholar excludes the possibility of written preservation and circulation. For instance, Currie expresses his scepticism with reference to the likelihood of the odes’ circulation in written form and of written texts being transported overseas, but he does not find it implausible: ‘in the culture of limited literacy of the fifth century , continual re-performance seems more likely to have been the issue than the survival of any written text’;¹⁴ Thomas Hubbard on the other hand assumes that some measure of writing must have been in use for the survival and diffusion of Pindar’s texts, as the length, the dialectical variety, and the metrical complexity ¹¹ Morrison (2012) 112 with Currie (2017) 202 3, 208 on how the epinician itself does not promote a sympotic re performance scenario; cf. Strepsiades’ request in Clouds to hear Simoni des’ victory ode for the Aeginetan Krios. ¹² Currie (2004) 54. ¹³ Quotations and paraphrases of Pindaric victory odes in Plato: Phdr.227b9 10 ~ I.1.1; Tht.173e5 6 ~ N.10.87f (paraphrase) or fr.292 M (quotation); Euthyd.304b3 4 ~ O.1.7. ¹⁴ Currie (2004) 50 2, quotation from p. 50.

176

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

of the victory odes are factors that make oral tradition unreliable for preservation;¹⁵ lastly, Morrison suggests that ‘by the middle of the fifth century . . . it seems reasonable to posit the diffusion of texts of Pindar’s victory odes as the basis for reperformances’, and although he argues that the distribution of these texts would have been slower than the oral diffusion of Pindar’s poems, he claims that ‘relatively early after the first performance of an ode copies of the text of the ode . . . spread to professional singers and poets, and to teachers in aristocratic schools as the basis for their teaching of odes for oral reperformance.’¹⁶ We possess, however, no evidence to argue, as Morrison does, for a textual transmission of Pindar’s odes or for re-performances based on written texts that would be available relatively close to the primary performance. Although clearly the conclusions of these scholars differ, all three still entertain the possibility of Pindar’s poems being simultaneously disseminated through writing. The following analysis will both challenge and endorse this simultaneous written transmission and oral diffusion of melic song. The ‘circulation of copies of books among the general public, and the growth of a habit of reading’ is doubtful in the early part of the fifth-century, as Frederic Kenyon points out.¹⁷ The later part of the century—the period between 425–5 —was one of rapid change, especially ‘in the relationship between literary production and the culture of the book’.¹⁸ Our evidence for the period before 425  is indeed very limited, as our earliest literary sources for diffusion and use of books belong in the second half of the fifth century.¹⁹ Book production in the fifth century seems to have been restricted, and an extensive book trade at this period is highly improbable.²⁰ The existence of an initially modest book trade that was established by the fifth century, as E. G. Turner suggests, or at least of book-rolls containing text can reasonably be deduced from various ancient sources: comedy, Xenophon, and Plato.²¹ Though these sources cannot be interpreted in a way that would create a single picture in order to draw general conclusions on book circulation and on fifth- or fourth-century book trade, the chronological connection between the comic genre, Xenophon, and Plato and the chronological range they cover allow us to perceive them as evidence for the gradual growth of the book-culture both in Athens and beyond Attica in the fifth and fourth centuries .²²

¹⁵ Hubbard (2004) 85 with 89 93 on Pindaric metaphors of writing and passages that suggest that Pindar ‘viewed his poems as material artefacts to be distributed throughout all Greece contemporaneously with their composition’ (p. 89). ¹⁶ Morrison (2007) 117. ¹⁷ Kenyon (1951) 31. ¹⁸ Lowe (1993) 63. ¹⁹ Pöhlmann (1994) 19 25 offers a concise picture of the beginning of the book culture in the sixth century and its acceleration in the fifth century . ²⁰ Kenyon (1951) 20. ²¹ Turner (1952) 21. ²² Harris (1989) 92 3 offers a comprehensive chronology for the use of written texts at Athens based on monuments and literary sources.

Towards a Written Text

177

Comedy in particular gives the impression that books were slowly being incorporated in Athenian culture and in the everyday life of Athenian citizens. Comic fragments and passages from specific comedies emphasize the ideological ambivalence of the book in the fifth century,²³ and also strongly suggest a socially defined differentiation in the access to books, in the attitudes of the public towards texts, and in the usage of books itself. Specific plays of Aristophanes demonstrate the changing character of the manner in which references to books are made in the course of the comic plot, and consequently allow us to observe the stages through which the book culture was slowly being established.²⁴ Books might have been enough of a novelty to be used as a cue for laughter in comedy, as Steward Flory proposes, but early fifth-century comedy perceived them with suspicion due to their potential negative and corruptive influence.²⁵ The speaking character in Theopompus Comicus expresses his loathing of booksellers, for example, and a book is enlisted in Aristophanes’ Tagenistae along with a youth and Prodicus as a potential source of corruption (Theopomp. Com. 79 PCG vii; Ar. Tagenistae 506 PCG iii.2).²⁶ It has in fact been claimed that it is possible to generate an evolutionary narrative from the work of Aristophanes on the availability of texts in the fifth century. Nick Lowe points out that Aristophanes’ position towards the nature of books in several of his plays reveals the range and availability of early Attic books, and also depicts a possible chronological order of the use of specific kinds of books. Based on Birds Lowe claims that books of legal nature and civic documents (Ar. Av.1037–9) and also collections of verse oracles (Ar. Av.980–2) might have been part of the Athenians’ textual landscape earlier than the time when literary books with dramatic plays might have been available.²⁷ To be sure, it is no sooner than in Frogs that we find a reference to a book of tragedy, but however attractive as the neat evolutionary model is, one ought to be sceptical. Scholars have interpreted the scenes in Birds with the oracle-monger and the law inspector as providing evidence for the public availability and circulation of written texts of laws and oracles. Nial Slater interprets Av.1037–8 and the reference to selling new laws at face value, and perceives it as ‘evidence for a private trade at Athens in copies of assembly decrees’, while James Sickinger points out that the scene with the law-monger in Birds could reflect the

²³ Pöhlmann (1994) 67; Wright, M. (2012) 64; Anderson and Dix (2014) 78, 85. ²⁴ Lowe (1993) 63. Aristophanes’ Clouds is of particular importance for the issue of textuality; it offers a contemporary perspective on the textual process of textual revisions and on the creation of a literary text, on which see especially Rosen (1997). ²⁵ Flory (1980) 18 19. ²⁶ Theopomp. Com. 79 PCG vii τοὺς βυβλιοπώλας †λεύσομαι (‘I shall stone the booksellers’); Ar. Tagenistae 506 PCG iii.2 (= Σv Nu.361a) τοῦτον τὸν ἄνδρ’ἢ βιβλίον διέϕθορεν | ἤ Πρόδικος ἤ τῶν ἀδολεσχῶν εἷς γέ τις (‘a book or Prodicus or one of those praters ruined this man’). ²⁷ Lowe (1993) 67 8 based on Ar. Av.959 91 and Av.1037 9.

178

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

practice of Athenian officials who travelled throughout the Athenian empire and carried texts of decrees with the duties of the allies.²⁸ Both interpretations corroborate to the idea that legal texts were part of the Athenian experience, but we possess no evidence to support the view that legal texts circulated publicly or that they were available for purchase in the open market.²⁹ Laws were in addition never written in books that were meant to be circulated; they were always preserved as inscriptions, and this tells us nothing about the growing availability of texts in the fifth century.³⁰ The existence of laws in epigraphic form goes back two centuries, and the inscriptional nature of laws from the seventh century may only tell us something about reading and writing. As far as we know, the first attempt to record and assemble Athenian laws and decrees was in the last decade of the fifth century with the creation of the state archive in the Metrōon.³¹ Based on features of epigraphical texts and allusions in literary sources, James Sickinger concludes that the documents that were preserved on stone were often extracts taken from fuller archival documents that were preserved in other format.³² His conclusion does not affect the above suggestion that laws never circulated freely in the form of books, as these legal documents would have circulated neither individually nor as a collection; they would rather have been archived as collections presumably preserved in book-rolls. The existence of fifth-century archived decrees and laws is also a conclusion that can be drawn not only from their use by Athenian orators but also from fourth-century compilations or collections of laws, such as Theophrastus’ Politika and Nomoi (frr.590–9 and 628–58 Fort. II) and also Krateros’ Συναγωγή τῶν Ψηϕισμάτων (FGrHist IIIB 342 F1–10, 16a, 20 where the title of his treatise ‘Collection of Decrees’ is attested).³³ A similar objection is raised with reference to the open availability of collections of verse-oracles as books; verse-oracles never appear to have publicly circulated as texts.³⁴ As one might deduce from Herodotus’ narrative, verse-oracles existed as texts a priori, as they were often recorded in writing at the time of delivery.³⁵ The very term χρησμολόγος (< χρησμός + λέγω ‘expounder

²⁸ Slater, N. (1996) 100 1; Sickinger (1999) 8. ²⁹ Cf. Lowe (1993) 67 ‘there is no suggestion, however, that such documentary papyri were ever a marketed commodity’. ³⁰ Davies (2003) 332 remarks that law codes are better seen as documents rather than as texts, an observation to be taken into account in questions of the public circulation of written texts in general and of decrees in particular. ³¹ On the Metrōon, MacDowell (1978) 48; Todd (1993) 58; Sickinger (1999) 105 16. ³² Sickinger (1999) 5, 63 4. ³³ Cf. the treatise by Demetrius of Phalerum Περί τῆς Ἀθήνησι Νομοθεσίας (frr.139 47 W² On the Legislation of the Athenians). ³⁴ In an attempt to make sense of book and oracles in the scene, Slater, N. (1996) 101 suggests that ‘the notion of a book and its association with oracle sellers must be familiar enough to the audience for the joke to be intelligible.’ ³⁵ Steiner (1994) 80 2; e.g. Hdt. 1.48 (the Lydians at Delphi).

Towards a Written Text

179

of oracles’) with which the figure on stage in the Birds identifies itself and which is also found in Herodotus reveals that these people ‘possessed a book or a collection of oracles that a god or former mantis had reputedly spoken.’³⁶ We have evidence of collections of oracles attributed to Musaeus, Bakis, Lykus, Orpheus, and to the various Sibyls, and each of these collections was meant not to be mixed and to remain pure. Herodotus reports that Lasus of Hermione caught Onomacritus in the act of inserting a spurious prophesy into his collection of Musaeus’ oracles (Hdt. 7.6.3–4), which demonstrates as well that collections were created around the figure of divine or mythological seers and that their compilation depended upon authorship and authenticity. Undeniably, oracles circulated orally, but it is unlikely that these written collections were widely diffused or that they even circulated at all, and it is additionally unlikely that anyone could have had unauthorized access to them.³⁷ A number of Greek cities might have kept collections of oracles in their archives, but we do not possess enough evidence to draw any conclusions on their possible circulation. The little information we have from Herodotus concerns the Athenian and Spartan oracle collections (Hdt. 5.90–1 on the Peisistratidae; Hdt. 6.56–7 on the Spartans).³⁸ As one may conclude from the Herodotean narrative, only the Peisistratidae in Athens, the kings and the officially appointed officers Pythioi in Sparta had access to the archived collections and were also aware of the collection’s contents.³⁹ Such evidence suggests the existence of oracles as textual entities that were stored in official archives, but not their public and open availability in the form of books or as collected texts. Lowe is on much firmer ground when it comes to the evidence for tragedy as text. He proposes that the references to Euripides’ Andromeda (Ra.52–3 ἀναγιγνώσκοντί μοι | τὴν Ἀνδρομέδαν πρὸς ἐμαυτόν, ‘I was reading Andromeda to myself ’) and to the copies of the performed comedy the spectators had in their hands in Aristophanes’ Frogs (Ra.1114 βιβλίον τ’ἔχων ἕκαστος μανθάνει τὰ δεξιά, ‘each one of them has a book and learns the clever things’) imply ‘that book-texts of contemporary plays were by 406 publicly available for private reading, and presumably by open purchase in the market rather than as limited circulating copies.’⁴⁰ The scene with Dionysus reading Euripides’ Andromeda for pleasure is revealing. Andromeda was performed c.425  ³⁶ Fontenrose (1978) 153. ³⁷ See Fontenrose (1978) 145 65 and recently Dillon (2017) 19 24. ³⁸ Fontenrose (1978) 164 5 and Flower, M. (2008) 218; the archive in Athens was most probably the Metrōon, on which Sickinger (1999) 136. ³⁹ Hdt. 5.90 1 implies that Cleomenes had access to the oracles that were in the possession of the Peisistratidae only after he took over Athens and the Acropolis. ⁴⁰ Lowe (1993) 69. Following Wilamowitz (1907) 120 52, Page (1934) 1 argues that ‘the texts of the tragedians in the fifth century were the first books in Hellas’, with criticism in Turner (1952) 16 25; cf. Kenyon (1951) 23, ‘certain amount of book knowledge of literature could now be presumed, though formerly it was not the case.’ Also Anderson and Dix (2014) 82, who propose that Aristophanes makes a joke in Ra.1114 at the audience’s expense.

180

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

and Frogs in 405 , one year after the death of Euripides.⁴¹ It is expected that the text of a tragedy was written down before the performance, since it was needed for rehearsal, and it is in fact logical to assume that multiple copies were necessary in order to accommodate the play’s rehearsals. Irrespective of any publication by the author these texts probably circulated shortly after the performance of the specific tragedy. The reference to a Euripidean play being read as written text so soon after Euripides’ death implies that at least some of Euripides’ tragedies were being circulated in the Athenian markets while Euripides was still alive. Such a suggestion does not infer that these texts were available before the actual performance of each play or that they were in all cases formally released for circulation by Euripides. The chronological connection between the performance of Andromeda and the performance of Frogs indicates that the corpus of a tragedian, in this case Euripides, was possibly gradually growing with each performance year, and was being circulated almost simultaneously with (or at least shortly after) the performance of every play. The detailed engagement of Thesmophoriazusae with Euripides’ Helen and Andromeda offers corroborative evidence in favour of the existence of a written text of Euripides’ tragedies, as it hints at the possibility that Aristophanes consulted Euripides’ text.⁴² These intertextual indications in Thesmophoriazusae suggest that Aristophanes might have had a text of both tragedies in his private collection, and the reference to a script of the tragic play Andromeda in Frogs is enough to suggest that he might be alluding to the existence of some tragedies that were presumably available in the market in book form. The casual reference to books in his Frogs makes privately copied texts less likely in this case. The view of Kenneth Dover is nevertheless valid when he points out that, although at the time of the production of Frogs the dissemination of books was increasing, the text suggests that possession of a book still deserved remark.⁴³ Most importantly, one could assume that Helen and Andromeda were presumably part of Aristophanes’ private collection. I do not wish to imply here that Aristophanes had the entire corpus of Euripides on his bookshelves, as one needs to accept that plays and scripts might also have travelled individually or in small clusters. Dionysus is after all reading Andromeda, not the complete works of Euripides.⁴⁴

⁴¹ Allan (2000) 150 1 with n. 1, who clarifies that the date is based on stylistic and metrical evidence; contra Stanford (1963) and Dover (1993) 196 ad loc, who propose a performance in 413/12 . ⁴² Rau (1967) 215 offers a detailed account of the tragic scenes that Aristophanes reuses in his Thesmophoriazusae: the Prologue and the anagnōrisis in Euripides’ Helen in Th.850 928, and a few scenes from Andromeda; the entrance monody in Th.1065ff, the monody from the parodos in Th.1015ff, the Perseus scene in Th.1098ff; the list with the intertextual connections with Helen is also compiled in Zogg (2017) 7 8. ⁴³ Dover (1993) 34 5. ⁴⁴ Anderson and Dix (2014) 83 interpret this reference as evidence for how literacy could rescue a poet’s works.

Towards a Written Text

181

Apart from the passages from Aristophanes mentioned above, various sources (comic and other) refer to the existence and public availability of written texts in Athens. Eupolis, for instance, mentions the part of the market where books are sold—apparently, the same place where one would buy onions and garlic (327 PCG v).⁴⁵ William Harris points out that Eupolis’ fragment is the earliest reference to a book trade (420s–410s), and references to booksellers are also made in the late fifth-century comic poets Aristomenes and Nicophon, which suggests that the profession was recognizable by then, if not broadly spread.⁴⁶ Athenaeus quotes a fragment from Alexis’ Linus (140 PCG ii) wherein Heracles is urged to select a book (βιβλίον) from a book collection that includes Orpheus, Hesiod, tragedies, Choerilus, Homer, and Epicharmus (ἀπὸ βιβλίων πολλῶν). δῆλον ἐξ ὧν καὶ Ἄλεξις ἐν τῷ ἐπιγραϕομένῳ Λίνῳ ἱστορεῖ. ὑποτίθεται δὲ τὸν Ἡρακλέα παρὰ τῷ Λίνῳ παιδευόμενον καὶ κελευσθέντα ἀπὸ βιβλίων πολλῶν παρακειμένων λαβόντα ἐντυχεῖν. Ἐκεῖνος δ᾿ ὀψαρτυτικὸν λαβὼν βιβλίον ἐν χεροῖν περισπουδάστως ἐκράτει. Λέγει δὲ οὕτως ὁ Λίνος· (Λι.) βιβλίον ἐντεῦθεν ὅ τι βούλει προσελθὼν γὰρ λαβέ, ἔπειτ’ ἀναγνώσει πάνυ γε διασκοπῶν ἀπὸ τῶν ἐπιγραμμάτων ἀτρέμα τε καὶ σχολῇ. Ὀρϕεὺς ἔνεστιν, Ἡσίοδος, τραγῳδίαι, Χοιρίλος, Ὅμηρος, † Ἐπίχαρμος, συγγράμματα παντοδαπά. It is clear from what Alexis records in his play entitled Linus. Supposedly, Heracles is being educated in Linus’ house and was ordered to pick up one of the many books that were lying beside him and read it. He picked up a cookbook and was holding it enthusiastically in his hands. Linus responds in the following way: (Li.) Go over and pick from there any book you like, and then read it after carefully examining their labels quietly and at your leisure. Orpheus is in there, Hesiod, tragedies, Choerilus, Homer, † Epicharmus, all sorts of prose treatises. Alexis Linus 140.1 8 PCG ii = Ath. 4.164b4 c6⁴⁷

⁴⁵ Eupolis 327 PCG v οὗ τὰ βυβλί ’ ὤνια | περιῆλθον ἐς τὰ σκόροδα καὶ τὰ κρόμμυα | καὶ τὸν λιβανωτόν, κεὐθὺ τῶν ἀρωμάτων, | καὶ περὶ τὰ γέλγη (‘where books are for sale; I went around the garlic and the onion stalls and the incense market straight through the spice market, and then around the fripperies’). ⁴⁶ Harris (1989) 93. Aristomenes 9 PCG ii καὶ βιβλιοπώλην (βυβλ Kock) μὲν παρὰ Ἀριστομένει ( ϕάνει FSA, corr. ed. pr.) εὑρήσεις ἐν Γόησιν (= Pollux VII.211 Bethe, where see for more comic references); Nicophon 10.4 PCG vii βιβλιοπώλαις. ⁴⁷ The text follows that of PCG.

182

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

Unless the reference is to spurious ‘orphic’ texts, Alexis presents in this fragment a mixture of real and unreal, which conforms to comedy’s tendency to distort and exaggerate. The appearance of Epicharmus in this list of texts is as puzzling as the appearance of Orpheus. The Epicharmus mentioned in the fragment is in all probability the comic poet, and this might be the single reference we have to books/written texts of comedy and more specifically to written texts of non-Athenian comedy.⁴⁸ Epicharmus, who was active in the Greek West (540–450 ), is plausibly mentioned in the fragment because of his role in establishing, so to speak, the comic genre. Aristotle credits him with the invention of comic plots (Po.1449b5–9), and Plato calls him the great master of comedy (Tht.152e). The inclusion of his name could therefore be a tribute to his contribution to the comic genre without necessarily insinuating that written texts of his comedies did in fact circulate in Athens at the time of the performance of Alexis’ Linus. Choerilus, another figure mentioned by Linus, might be the fifth-century epic poet of Samos, as Douglas Olson proposes, or the Athenian tragic poet who exhibited plays as early as 524 .⁴⁹ Choerilus’ identification with the early Athenian tragedian seems, however, more plausible, given that Alexis’ list goes chronologically back to the initiators of specific kinds/genres of poetry: Hesiod for didactic poetry, Homer for epic poetry, Epicharmus for comedy, and consequently Choerilus for tragedy. The inclusion of Choerilus may thus be justified by his career in very early tragedy. Overall, the comfortable tone with which Alexis mentions books in comparison to Aristophanes’ references to scripts and to the implicitness with which the dramatist might allude to his private collection also marks a cultural change over a relatively short interval. The variety and large number of texts that are mentioned in the Linus fragment reveal the naturalness of books; the scepticism on the nature and value of books in Aristophanes disappears by Alexis’ time.⁵⁰ Books were obviously by the fourth century part of the Athenian landscape. Xenophon and Plato, the latter of whom is more precise with regards to the content of the books he refers to, are important sources on the subject of the circulation of books in the late fifth and early fourth centuries. Xenophon is probably our main source for the actual existence of a book trade beyond the boundaries of Athens. He mentions in his Anabasis how a great number of written books were among the cargoes of ships that were wrecked near Salmydessus, a reference that alludes to the active book trade that was ⁴⁸ Arnott (1996) 410; contra Olson (2007) 267 who assumes that Linus refers to the author of pseudo philosophical wisdom. On Epicharmus and his work, see recently Willi (2012); Rodríguez Noriega Guillén (2012). ⁴⁹ Cf. Olson (2007) 267 where he argues that the tragic works are mentioned collectively in the passage (τραγῳδίαι) and do not refer specifically to Choerilus’ works. ⁵⁰ e.g. Ar. Tagenistae 506 PCG iii.2; Av.1037 τουτὶ τί ἐστιν αὖ κακὸν, τὸ βυβλίον; (‘Once more what kind of trouble is this book here?’).

Towards a Written Text

183

established by 401  with the Black Sea cities (An.7.5.12–14 πολλαὶ δὲ βίβλοι γεγραμμέναι, ‘many inscribed books’).⁵¹ In his Memorabilia he refers both to the preservation in written form of morals and sayings by the old sages themselves (Mem.1.6.14),⁵² and to the private collection of Euthydemus, a younger contemporary of Socrates, which contained the works of the best poets and philosophers, turning as a result the passage into an important testimony of book-collecting practices and private collections (Mem.4.2.1).⁵³ Though perceived in an ironic light, books are introduced in Plato’s Phaedo as sources of information that could be both useful and useless (Phd.98b4–6), and in the Symposium as the format one would use to explore a specific topic that was analysed by a wise man, in this case the usefulness of salt (Smp.177b4–7). The above passages from Plato, who is also our sole source for the earliest stages of literate education, reinforce the assumption of Kenyon that by the end of the fifth century and the early part of the fourth century ‘books existed in Athens in considerable quantity, and were easily accessible. A habit of reading was growing, but was not yet firmly established.’⁵⁴ Evidently, these sources testify to the gradual encroachment of books into everyday life in the latter part of the fifth century and to the establishment of a culture in which books were no longer a strange phenomenon. The casualness with which these authors allude to books seems to indicate, as Kenyon claims, ‘that the accessibility of books might be taken for granted.’⁵⁵ Equally significant is how Plato is specific when he refers to their content. He mentions the name of the author who almost always belongs to the sphere of prose and who would be either an orator or a philosopher: Lysias in Phdr.227c5–8, 228a6–b5, and Anaxagoras of Clazomenae in Ap.26d6–e5 and Phd.97b–c. References to philosophical book treatises in the Platonic dialogues and to a written work by Lysias in a dialogue that revolves around the art of rhetoric are perhaps unsurprising. A number of other sources verify as well the public textual circulation of oratorical speeches: Dionysius Halicarnasseus reports that according to Aristotle many of Isocrates’ forensic speeches were published

⁵¹ See Davison (1962) 219; Pébarthe (2000) 61 2 interprets βίβλοι as official documentation carried by merchants on ships. One should not be restrictive in the word’s interpretation; βίβλος and βιβλίον were often used both for works of literature and for official documents or letters, cf. A. Supp.944 51 on ἐν πτυχαῖς βίβλων as a reference to official documents held at the Metrōon; see the examples on the word βιβλίον in the course of the chapter referring to works of prose. ⁵² Mem.1.6.14 καὶ τοὺς θησαυροὺς τῶν πάλαι σοϕῶν ἀνδρῶν, οὓς ἐκεῖνοι κατέλιπον ἐν βιβλίοις γράψαντες (‘and the treasures of the wise men of old, which they left behind having written them down in books’). ⁵³ Mem.4.2.1 γράμματα πολλὰ συνειλεγμένον ποιητῶν τε καὶ σοϕιστῶν τῶν εὐδοκιμωτάτων (‘he had collected many treatises of the most famous poets and sophists’), cf. Xen. Smp.4.27 ὅτε παρὰ τῷ γραμματιστῇ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ βιβλίῳ ἀμϕότεροι ἐμαστεύετέ τι (‘when the two of you were looking for something in the same book at the schoolmaster’s place’). On the emerging practice of preserving and collecting books, Pinto (2013). ⁵⁴ Kenyon (1951) 24. ⁵⁵ Kenyon (1951) 22.

184

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

by booksellers and were also presumably found on sale on bookstalls (D.H. Isoc.18.2); we read in Plutarch that Lysias wrote a speech for a client who took the text, read it, and returned it the next day complaining that it had flaws (Plu. De garrulitate 504c5); Clement of Alexandria states that the orator Antiphon, who died in 411 , was the first to have published an oratorical speech in the second half of the fifth century  (Strom.1.16.79, 3.14–17 πρῶτον δικανικὸν λόγον εἰς ἔκδοσιν γραψάμενον).⁵⁶ Such references are to be expected, given both the public scope these speeches had and the involvement of orators in the public domain. The specificity of our sources with regards to the content of this publicly available written texts/books is strong enough evidence to suggest that one would probably have encountered in the marketplace more often a prose text in book form rather than a poetic text. The timeframe that is covered from the years of Antiphon, as the first to have made publicly available written versions of his speeches, and the earliest references to oratorical speeches or philosophical works that were preserved in writing is too narrow for us to derive a sequence in terms of the relative chronology of prose and verse circulation. Poetry was obviously included in the educational curriculum. We read in the Protagoras (Prt.325d7–326a4) that as soon as pupils learned the alphabet they were made to read and learn the poems of noble poets where old men were praised, presumably from books of collected poems (ἀναγιγνώσκειν ποιητῶν ἀγαθῶν ποιήματα καὶ ἐκμανθάνειν ἀναγκάζουσιν), and that they were also taught how to set these poems to music (μελοποιῶν). Plato does not specify the actual poetic texts that were being read at school or the poets who were chosen in education, and becomes specific only when it comes to learning from Homer and his epics (R.377d2–6 referring also to Hesiod and other unnamed poets; Hp.mi.363a6–c2). Homer’s predominance in literate education is already visible in comedy (Ar. Daitaleis 233 PCG iii.2), and his continuing educational importance down to the Hellenistic period is also confirmed by the papyri.⁵⁷ The poetic curriculum that pupils had to familiarize themselves with at school is an issue that is extensively discussed in Aristophanes’ Clouds and in his Daitaleis, as far as we can judge from the fragments of the latter. No mention is made to poetic books and reading in any of the two comedies, even when the topic becomes the Homeric words and phrases or tragic characters in the Daitaleis (Ar. 233 and 234 PCG iii.2), or when Better Argument describes in Clouds the process through which pupils learnt the poems that the school master would introduce them to (Nu.966 εἷτ’ αὗ προμαθεῖν ᾆσμ’ ἐδίδασκεν, ‘he would then instruct them to gradually learn a poem’). The impression given, at least in comedy’s world of schooling, is that the teacher in a fifth-/fourth-century school in ⁵⁶ On the chronology of Antiphon’s speeches, Dover (1950), repr. (1988); on the issue of speeches being revised before publication, Todd (1990) 164 7. ⁵⁷ Morgan, T. (1998) 308 9 with tables 11 and 12.

Towards a Written Text

185

Athens would make the students familiar with these poetic compositions orally and without the aid of any written material. Evidence from vases and amphorae also agree with the picture sketched in the literary sources. Representations of writing and writing material on Attic pottery began at about 500–490 , reflecting as a result the growing spread of literacy, and when papyrus rolls are represented on vases in the fifth century, they are always meant for books of poetry.⁵⁸ In surveying the illustrations of this period, Henry Immerwahr refers to the only two school scenes on vases where a book-roll occurs—the cup of Douris, dated 490–80  (Berlin F 2285; Figs. 5.1 and 5.2), and a cup by Onesimos which dates c.480  (Oxford G.138.3.a; Fig. 5.3)—and concludes that both book-rolls contain a literary text.⁵⁹ The presence of papyrus rolls on these two vases, both of which presumably recall realistic conditions in fifth-century schools, could imply that book-rolls of literary texts were used for recitation and dictation in schools. In the second half of the fifth century vases with book-rolls also feature female figures, some of whom may be mortal women and some may represent Muses. The frequent depiction of Muses on musical scenes symbolizes the idealized and finest form of literature and music, and their divine identity becomes explicit through a number of attributes: they either carry the lyre, or are identified with inscriptions, pictorial signs, such as plants, or they may be seated on a rock.⁶⁰ When a woman (presumably the Muse) carries a book-roll, she is always accompanied by a companion carrying or playing Apollo’s lyre.⁶¹ Roll and lyre are on all occasions combined in vase representations in the second half of the fifth century, and Immerwahr has accordingly reached a crucial interpretation: scenes with a book-roll and a lyre give the impression that the poems contained in the rolls are ‘meant to be sung to the accompaniment of the lyre’, as well as that the rolls themselves function as ‘a mnemonic device facilitating recitation’ (cf. Pl. Phdr.274b–278b4).⁶² Immerwahr’s survey invites multiple conclusions. Although the evidence is scanty, the visual representation of a female readership other than the Muse is a sign of a developing interest in literature and of a more general use of books in private life.⁶³ Their depiction on vases may be a sign of the public commercial availability of written texts in the form of books, as well as their private

⁵⁸ Immerwahr (1964) 17 18 and (1973) 143. In only one instance, a red figure cup by the Eucharides Painter in the Vatican (ARV² 231.83) could the inscription be identified as that of a mythological book, on which Immerwahr (1973) 144. ⁵⁹ Immerwahr (1964) 19 20. A third school scene on a cup by the Eretria Painter that is dated c.430  and depicts Linus as the tutor and Musaeus as the pupil probably recalls mythological context (Louvre G457). ⁶⁰ See the analysis in Immerwahr (1964) 27 34; Yatromanolakis (2007) 144 52 for a descrip tion of a number of the vases depicting Muses. ⁶¹ All the details on the description of vases are found in Immerwahr (1964) 34 47. ⁶² Immerwahr (1964) 46 and 37 respectively. ⁶³ Immerwahr (1964) 24.

186

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

Fig. 5.1. Douris cup. F 2285. Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin Preußischer Kulturbesitz. Photographer: Johannes Laurentius. © bpk-Bildagentur / Antikensammlung, SMB / Johannes Laurentius.

possession and circulation. These texts need not have been substantial nor do they need to have included the complete work of a poet. The depictions of book-rolls on vases in contexts other than schools suggest that poetic texts were not solely meant for educational purposes. Their use in the private domain adds an additional dimension. These poetic texts were obviously meant to be read or performed for pleasure, a view that is consistent with what we learn from Aristophanes about the reading of tragedy: Dionysus reads the Andromeda for his own leisure. The distinction between the two contexts possibly reflects a distinction between two different purposes of reading: reading for educational reasons at school, and reading for pleasure in the oikos. In contract to the sole reader Dionysus in Frogs, reading, as depicted on vases, would almost in every case take place within a social context, i.e. the school or the oikos.⁶⁴ Immerwahr sees a continuous development for poetic books with a sequential transition from the public to the private when he concludes that ‘books were used in school and came to be used more and more ⁶⁴ See Immerwahr (1964) 36 7. The exception is ‘Der einsame Leser’ on the funerary relief Grottaferrata that is dated in the last quarter of the fifth century, on which Birt (1907) 156 7.

Towards a Written Text

187

for private recitation in the course of the century.’⁶⁵ We do not necessarily need to see these developments as two distinct and successive stages, however; we can accept them as two synchronous or overlapping trends. Obviously, poetic texts were used for educational reasons, and most of the evidence we have point to that direction. Nevertheless, we cannot be sure whether it was due to their educational use that texts were pursued for private pleasure or whether their private use established them as educational material, too. It is also likely that some education took place at home, as evidence from a number of fifth-century vases would suggest, which consequently makes the distinction between school and oikos less hard and fast. A chronological distinction or any assumptions for a successive development need not necessarily be essential factors in the above picture, as long as we recognize that both these lines of diffusion were part of the culture of the written word in fifth century . A final conclusion can be drawn from the illustrations Immerwahr examined. Although we cannot preclude the possibility that written texts were publicly available and circulated openly, it is of vital importance not to attempt to see an absolute elimination or replacement of song-culture as a consequence of such availability. When book-rolls are depicted on the vases as being read in private, they are almost always accompanied by the lyre. Such a musical accompaniment might therefore be evidence enough that a written text may be consulted in private or in small circles, but in public the poem remained a work performed and sung to the lyre. Immerwahr’s reading of the inscriptions on the rolls reveals that they are all literary quotations, the majority of which is inspired by epic poetry.⁶⁶ The book-roll on the Douris school cup, for example, has a phrase inspired by the Homeric epic: Μοῖσά μοι | ἀϕὶ Σκάμανδρον | ἐύρΩν ἄρχομαι | ἀεί{ν}δεν (‘Muse, I begin to sing of the wide-flowing Scamander’) (see Fig. 5.2).⁶⁷ This preference for inscriptions that either allude to or recall epic poetry is suggestive of the broad interest in epic, the Homeric epic more specifically, while it also possibly points to the literary taste of Attic and Athenian vase painters and public. In retrospect, this insistence coupled with the absence of vase inscriptions

⁶⁵ Immerwahr (1964) 36, quotation from p. 48. ⁶⁶ Immerwahr (1964) 22 and 46 7, where he lists examples from amphorae with epic quotations. ⁶⁷ I give the reading of Immerwahr (1964) 19. Diehl identifies this line as Stesichorus fr.26 ALG² but parenthetically as mel. adespoton 30A ALG²; Page classifies it as adespoton (PMG 938e), whereas the line is not discussed by the most recent editor of Stesichorus, Finglass (2014); Edmonds (1922) 5 assumes that this line is meant to be for the first line of an epic poem; Sider (2010) 544 reads the line as a complete dactylic hexameter consisting entirely of dactyls Μοῖσά μοι | ἀϕὶ Σκάμανδρον ἐύρροον | ἄρχομ’ ἀεί{ν}δειν and interprets it as the flawed homework in epic composition of the student depicted in the scene. For a description of the Berlin vase of Douris, Birt (1907) 138 9; Sider (2010) 541 3; on the omega in the line, Beazley (1948) 337 8; for a commentary and for an interpretation of the line as epic, Sider (2010) 544 52.

188

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

Fig. 5.2. Detail of Douris cup (Fig. 5.1). Photographer: Johannes Laurentius. © bpk-Bildagentur / Antikensammlung, SMB / Johannes Laurentius.

from melic poems could potentially be a sign of the absence of publicly circulated written lyric texts in Athens from which the painter could copy. The only suspicion of an implicit reference to a lyric text is on Onesimos’ school scene where the roll contains the words στεσιχορ | ον hυμνον | αγοισαι, the first words of which should plausibly be read στησιχόρων ὕμνων (cf. PMG 938c) (see Fig. 5.3).⁶⁸ The phrase cannot be identified with any of the surviving melic poems, but the metre might be dactyloepitrite, and the verse might thus plausibly be the beginning of a choral lyric poem.⁶⁹ The Sappho-hydria that belongs to the Group of Polygnotos (440–30 ; Athens 1260; Fig. 5.4) and the bizarre inscription on the book-roll that is depicted on the vase is another important piece of evidence that deserves closer attention.⁷⁰ The seated woman who is depicted reading on the vase and

⁶⁸ On the scansion of the line, Beazley (1948) 338; Immerwahr (1964) 19. Immerwahr (1964) 47 suspects a lyric text also for a hydria at the National Museum of Athens 1241 (c.450 ), on which see his discussion in pp. 28 9 for the proposed reading of the text; also Gerhard (1848 50) 33 6 with plates 17 18. Yatromanolakis (2007) 146 dates this hydria c.440 30 , for a description of which, see Birt (1907) 142. ⁶⁹ Immerwahr (1964) 19 20. ⁷⁰ For a description of the Sappho hydria, Birt (1907) 146 8; Beazley (1948) 339; Yatromanolakis (2007) 153 60.

Towards a Written Text

189

Fig. 5.3. AN1896 1908 G.138.3.a. Onesimos/Panaitios Painter. Attic red figure cup (kylix) fragments showing seated figure with scroll in front of bearded double flute (aulos) player. Image © Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford.

is presumably named ‘Sappho’ (ΣΑΠΠΩ) holds a roll that contains both a title and a text. The title on the rolled part is read ΕΠΕΑ ΠΤΕΡΟΕΤΑ̣ (ἔπεα πτερόετα), and the readable portion of the text on the open sheet is θεοι | ηερι | ων επε | ων αρχ | ομ | αια.⁷¹ The title of the book is a phrase that occurs very frequently in the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey, and would thus verify Immerwahr’s conclusion on the preference for epic tales and/or quotations. It is unfortunately not possible to discern the provenance of the readable words of the inscribed text. If the central female figure on the vase was meant to be Sappho, it would be logical to assume that the text would have been an extract from her own poetry. The name on the hydria, which is not clearly readable in its entirety, was probably in the genitive, as John Edmonds and Dimitrios Yatromanolakis point out (ΣΑΠΠΩΣ).⁷² In such a case the genitive would denote possession, which would suggest either that the representation was

⁷¹ I follow here the reading of Edmonds (1922) 2 and of Yatromanolakis (2007) 158; cf. PMG adesp.938d. The line has been supplemented in the following way: θεοὶ ἠερίων ἐπέων ἄρχομαι ἄλλ’ ὀνάτων. ⁷² Edmonds (1922) 2; Yatromanolakis (2007) 154.

190

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

Fig. 5.4. Attic red figure hydria of the Polygnotos Painter Group (Sappho hydria), National Archaeological Museum, Athens, inv. no. 1260. Photographer: Giannis Patrikianos. © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Archaeological Receipts Fund.

meant to be ‘of Sappho’, or that the roll was intended ‘to represent a book, or the book, of Sappho’s poems’.⁷³ After examining the metre, language, and sentiment of the line on the bookroll, Edmonds, who takes θεοί as introductory rather than as part of the quotation, argues that there is nothing that makes this line non-sapphic.⁷⁴ He goes too far, however, when he suggests that this representation and the ⁷³ Edmonds (1922) 2; a similar view is expressed in Yatromanolakis (2007) 154. ⁷⁴ Edmonds (1922) 4.

Towards a Written Text

191

‘Sapphic’ line could imply the existence of either an edition of the poems prepared by Sappho herself, or a pre-Alexandrian edition that circulated in Athens.⁷⁵ A single line on a vase is not enough evidence to draw general conclusions. We possess no evidence that Sappho was edited before the Hellenistic era, and this line could thus conceivably have been an artistic invention or an improvisation that the vase painter made based on known poems of Sappho. It could be, as Yatromanolakis proposes, that the line on the book-roll implies that Sappho was already written down and read in mid-fifth century .⁷⁶ Written preservation of Sappho’s poems is indeed conceivable and plausible, but it is still difficult to accept Edmond’s suggestion that the book-roll implies that Sappho was no longer sung.⁷⁷ The very fact that bookrolls are depicted on vases side by side with lyres suggests more strongly singing than simply reading. A lyre in the hand of a female figure is even depicted on the Sappho-hydria. This combination of book-rolls and lyres could thus be interpreted as a sign of the amount of melic poetry that was still being circulated through oral performance in Athens in the fifth century. The evidence provided by fifth- and fourth-century vases is essentially signs of caution against generalized assumptions that the introduction of written texts and reading had presumably replaced singing and had also have put an end to the circulation of poems in performance. The minimum one can conclude from the specific vase is that songs of Sappho were not only sung but they were also available in writing. It is still not possible, however, to express any opinions on how complete the available text of Sappho might have been. Immerwahr’s conclusion is still worth to be quoted in full: ‘we must free ourselves from the prejudice that fifth-century lyric poetry was altogether an oral phenomenon. In the second half of the century, the written word appears in the consciousness of the literate people of Athens and elsewhere—at the very time when we begin to get stories of books, book shop and the like.’⁷⁸ The question whether and to what degree these lyric texts were publicly available remains, however. The case of the Sappho-hydria additionally expresses clearly what the previous chapters have attempted to sketch for the lyric poets in general: by the late fifth-century  Sappho was established as classic, and the name on the vase proves how her persona, if not also her poetry, was widely known and thus widely recognized. It is more difficult to express certain views on the nature of the text on the roll that the female figure holds. It could be a hybrid text—Sappho singing Homer—but it could also be Sappho. On balance the form of the quotation favours lyric poetry.⁷⁹ ⁷⁵ Edmonds (1922) 6 and 6 15, where he elaborates on these assumptions. ⁷⁶ Yatromanolakis (2007) 160. ⁷⁷ Edmonds (1922) 12. ⁷⁸ Immerwahr (1964) 36. ⁷⁹ On the metre of the line, see Edmonds (1922) 3 who offers parallels from Sappho’s fragments to support the lyric, if not the Sapphic, origin of the line. He proposes to take the last syllable of ἄρχομαι as a short or an elided syllable or as the first element of a crasis.

192

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

All of the above evidence, literary and archaeological, invites a number of conclusions. Firstly books were becoming more broadly available in Athens towards the end of the fifth century. Secondly private collections might have existed earlier than the beginning of the public dissemination of texts. It is therefore essential to distinguish private collections from the active book market in Athens, while a distinction between availability of texts and a book market is also desirable. Thirdly it is probably significant to recognize stages through which the writing down of the majority of the genres took place. Aristophanes’ comedies suggest that dramatic works, certainly tragedy and possibly comedy, were available for public purchase from 406 . By the time of Alexis the comic poet can make jokes not only about the nature of texts secured in books—the characters even possess a book of Orpheus—but also about their extensive use by individuals. As noted above, the Homeric epics were already being used in education in the form of a written text. We read in Plutarch’s Alcibiades that a grammatodidaskalos owned a private copy of Homer which he himself corrected (Alc.7.1–3/194d12–e3). Though a later source, the anecdote reinforces the assumptions that private book collections were a common phenomenon and that the Homeric text was one of the first books a teacher would have on his bookshelves and would thus use with his pupils. The extensive use of the Homeric epics in education could suggest that they were the first to be dispersed and that they were widely available already from the fifth century. Their wide diffusion, however, does not imply the existence of a homogeneous text before the Hellenistic period, as research into the early papyri has shown.⁸⁰ Furthermore, the Platonic dialogues provide evidence for the public availability of written texts of prose before the general circulation of written texts of poetry; certain passages are suggestive of wider availability of oratorical speeches, as well as of philosophical and sophistic treatises. With reference specifically to written texts of tragedy in Athens Aristophanes is revealing; the text of a tragic play might have been available to be read a few years after the actual performance. Even so, tragic texts do not seem to have been available beyond Athens. In order for a tragic play to be staged beyond Athens in the early fifth century, the tragedian had to travel to the place of performance. Aeschylus, for instance, travels to Sicily in the 470s in order to produce his Aitnaiae (T A.1.33–4 TrGF 3 Vita).⁸¹ The Yatromanolakis (2007) 160 suggests that the painter possibly wrote θεοί together with ἠερίων ἐπέων ἄρχομαι without considering the kind of metre this would produce. On the metre of Sappho’s books, Page (1955) 318 23. ⁸⁰ Haslam (1997). ⁸¹ On Aeschylus’ presence in Sicily, Herington (1967); also Dearden (1999) 230 1 and (2012) 275; Taplin (1999) 41 and (2012) 228; Morgan, K. (2012) 39. Bosher (2012) and Palladini (2013) 29 35 go through the ancient sources related to the performance of both Aitnaiae and Persae in Syracuse, and discuss whether the Persae’s performance in Syracuse was a first performance or a re performance; cf. Biles (2006 7) 234 6 who treats the information about a possible

Towards a Written Text

193

above does not imply that an author-/performance-text did not exist at the time of Aeschylus. It rather suggests that they would not have circulated outside Athens as easily as they probably would have done in an Athenian context in late fifth-century. The above discussion has demonstrated that we need to be reserved regarding the simultaneous expansion and circulation of books for all kinds of poetry in antiquity. Public and private collective activities of Greek communities maintained and established the transient practices of poetic performance in the fifth and fourth centuries, which continued side by side with the development and expansion of the written word, as well as with the preservation of the poetic word in permanent writing.⁸²

LYRIC TEXTS, M ELIC PERFORMANCES, A N D LY R I C M E M O R Y In view of the picture painted in the above discussion one wonders if it is possible for us to speak of copies of Sappho or of copies of Pindar being circulated in the Athenian market already from the fifth century, or if we need to consider oral performance as the exclusive means that ensures survival and circulation of melic poetry down to the fourth century. The passage from song-culture to book-culture could not have happened overnight, and the transition was presumably not as clear-cut and simple as one would like it to be. An absolute dichotomy between song and text is unnecessary. As Gregory Nagy states with reference to marked and unmarked registers: We feel the need to define oral in terms of written: if something is oral, we tend to assume a conflict with the notion of written. From the general standpoint of social anthropology, however, it is written that has to be defined in terms of oral. Written is not something that is not oral; rather it is something in addition to being oral, and that additional something varies from society to society.⁸³

We have seen reason to believe that there is a big probability at least at the beginning of this process that such lyric texts, as were available, coexisted with the oral performance of the actual melic poems: e.g. Eupolis 148 PCG v on not singing Alcman or Simonides anymore, and his 327 PCG v on books in the market. It could be, as Andrew Ford and Harvey Yunis postulate, that lyric re performance of the Persae in Syracuse with scepticism. A first performance of the Persae in Syracuse in 476/5 , as Kiehl (1852) 363 7 had suggested, would solve the peculiarities in the text, but it would limit Aeschylus’ visits to two (476/5  and 459/8 ) and would thus require us to accept a simultaneous performance of the Persae with the Aitnaiae on his first visit. ⁸² Yunis (2003a) 4. ⁸³ Nagy (1990) 8.

194

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

poetry was transcribed in the seventh century  or as early as the actual poems were composed with the aim to preserve them, despite their being orally presented and circulated in performance.⁸⁴ The whole question of lyric composition with or without writing is still one of the biggest puzzles in the process of preservation of ancient Greek literature. None of the poems ever advertises its textuality; it always treats itself as song, and performance is either stated or implied (e.g. Pi. P.2.3–4; P.5.98–104; N.4.77–9; B.5.97–8). One cannot be absolutely sure of any answer proposed, but the combination of scale and metrical complexity of compositions such as those of Alcman or Pindar seem to call for writing at some point in the compositional process. Any answer we offer to the question ‘who put the songs in writing?’ must be hypothetical, but it is highly plausible that the poet him-/herself was the agent. In the case of choral poems, a performance text, presumably in multiple copies, was necessary for the choral rehearsals before the performance itself. We need to assume the existence of such a text either during the compositional process or afterwards. This is especially the case in poems such as Bacchylides’ Ode 5, or Pindar’s Pythian 2 and Isthmian 2 where the poet was evidently not present at the place of performance to drill the choir. The manuscript tradition of Pindar, for instance, delivers a very good text without many intrusions or corruptions, which would suggest that an authoritative authorial text existed at some point.⁸⁵ The solid textual preservation of a song could have aimed to preserve the poem either for subsequent re-performances, or as solid inheritance for future generations, or even for the plainest reason of compositional convenience. The poems themselves emphasize poetic fame and reputation based mainly on poetic performances and not on reading (e.g. Pi. O.10.91–4; B.3.94–8; B.13.91–4 and 221–5; Ibyc. 1.46–8 PMG). It may therefore be that writing was used principally (and initially) not for the purposes of preservation but for the easiness of the poem’s composition and for the song’s rehearsal.⁸⁶ Although we should not press the comparison between tragedy and lyric poetry too far, papyri of tragic texts with actors’ interpolations are a useful model for the assumption of the existence of performance texts (e.g. Σ E. Or.1366 Schwartz).⁸⁷ P.Oxy. 67.4546, dated by Dirk Obbink to the first century  or , contains only Admetus’ lines from Euripides’ Alcestis 344–82, and it is difficult not to interpret it as the copy that belonged to an actor memorizing his lines.⁸⁸ Despite its later date (c.400 ), the Pronomos ⁸⁴ Ford (2003) 20; Yunis (2003a) 7. ⁸⁵ On the codices Pindarici, Sn M viii. ⁸⁶ Cf. Nagy (1990) 18 who argues ‘against the need to assume that the medium of writing was necessary for the medium of composition or for the medium of performance and reperformance’. ⁸⁷ On histrionic interventions, see Page (1934); Scodel (2007) 142 6; Taplin (2012) 242 3. ⁸⁸ Obbink (2001a); on the particular papyrus fragment as evidence for the existence of rehearsal papyri, Marshall (2004); Revermann (2006a) 88 93. Also on scripts of tragedy in the fifth century, Kovacs (2005) 379 81.

Towards a Written Text

195

Vase is still an important source of information in favour of the assumption of the existence of performance scripts and rehearsal texts. The figure Demetrios, who has been interpreted as a playwright, a coach, or a trainer, has on his feet two rolls of papyri that were probably used in the process of tragikē didaskalia, as put forward by Edith Hall.⁸⁹ The two rolls differ in size, and it has been suggested that the larger papyrus roll would contain either the parts of the chorus or the whole play and the smaller roll the parts of individual actors.⁹⁰ Alternatively, the large book-roll would contain the tragic trilogy and the small roll Demetrios holds in his hand the script for the satyr play.⁹¹ The position of the lyric poet at rehearsals of melē could be mirrored in an anecdote recorded in Plutarch (De Audiendo 46b2–6).⁹² Euripides is described as dictating an ode to chorus members (ὡς ὑπολέγοντος αὐτοῦ τοῖς χορευταῖς), and is depicted as a voice teacher; he apparently exemplified the manner in which a choral ode is meant to be sung by singing it himself to the appropriate harmony, the mixolydian (ᾠδήν τινα πεποιημένην ἐϕ’ ἁρμονίας . . . ἐμοῦ μιξολυδιστὶ ᾄδοντος). Notably, the narrative focus in this anecdote falls not on the content of the poem but rather on the musical harmony chosen for its performance (μιξολυδιστὶ), and the very use of the term ‘ode’ (ᾠδή) brings the rehearsal scene in the passage close to the manner in which a rehearsal of a melic composition might have taken place. ‘Material recording’ of poems and their subsequent textualization do not necessarily imply that melic poems disseminated in textual form. As argued above, it is likely that traditional modes of oral discourse persisted long after the advent of writing. The earliest Homeric manuscripts, for example, are dated in the third century , and are characterized by a startling degree of difference from the text that prevailed in the Hellenistic period.⁹³ Michael Haslam conclusively argues that the open tradition of the Homeric manuscripts generated a range of textual variation and a certain degree of volatility, both of which are characteristics ‘of texts whose transmission is oral’. He also adds that the medium of Homer’s circulation was ‘predominantly oral down to the 5th century or beyond, and for many centuries was both oral and written, with various kinds of mostly unfathomable interplay between the two.’⁹⁴ The model of Homeric transmission cannot apply narrow-mindedly to lyric poetry, as it is not possible to assume the same practice and rate of re-performance for both complex melic poems and hexametric poetry. It can, however, be perceived as a plausibility that allows us to assume that literary texts coexisted with transmission through performance.

⁸⁹ ⁹⁰ ⁹¹ ⁹² ⁹⁴

Hall, E. (2010) 163. Parts of the chorus Immerwahr (1964) 36; the whole play Hall, E. (2010) 173. Hall, E. (2010) 176 where see for the full discussion. On this passage, see Pellicia (2003) 99 102. ⁹³ Haslam (1997) 63. Haslam (1997), quotations from 69 and 79.

196

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

If we extend Haslam’s assumption beyond the Homer text, song might have been the primary means of circulation throughout the fifth century presumably until the end of the third century , in spite of the existence of written texts for certain kings of poetry. As we have seen, Aristophanes complains in Clouds how songs of Simonides and of other ‘old’ poets are not sung anymore, and comic poets ‘mourn’ as a group for the silence of such melic poems; Aristotle in his Politics refers to songs sung at the symposium, and the Peripatetics choose to write separate treatises on sympotic and erotic performance contexts of songs, which denotes that such kind of songs played an important role in the past and were probably still part of the Athenians’ everyday experience. Despite the emphasis in our sources on the loss of those old and good melic songs, all the above evidence suggests that the song-culture was still vibrant until at least the fourth century . Any assumption we make about the introduction of texts and books in Greek culture should not be an attempt to eliminate or to replace the oral medium of transmission, especially in the case of melic poetry. Bacchylides, for instance, sends his Ode 5 to Hieron (B.5.10–12 ὕμνον . . . ξένος . . . πέμπειν, ‘the guestfriend sends the hymn’), but he still claims in Ode 3 that he will be remembered when his poem is sung again (B.3.97–8 καὶ μελιγλώσσου τις ὑμνήσει χάριν Κηΐας ἀηδόνος, ‘and someone will praise the grace of the honey-tongued Cean nightingale’).⁹⁵ It is difficult to give a definite answer on what Bacchylides actually sent to Syracuse, but it is more likely that he sent the script of the poem rather than a trained chorus from Ceos.⁹⁶ Nagy’s distinction between marked and unmarked language is useful, since marked language is always loaded and stands out.⁹⁷ In the case of the victory ode the language of ‘sending’ bears extra weight as extremely rare in comparison to the common language of ‘coming and singing’. The poem is referring to its movement as object, and ‘sending’ is understood in terms of this specific object. In some cases the poem itself allows us to assume that written texts were being sent in order for the chorus to perform the ode, which inevitably turns the existence of a text of a poem into a reasonable hypothesis.⁹⁸ In either case, the two extracts from Bacchylides’ odes and a number of other examples from other lyric compositions indicate that we may need to consider a combination of the two: writing ⁹⁵ Maehler (2004b) 99 100 ad loc follows Bundy’s formulation of the encomiastic future (Bundy (1962/digital version 2006) 58), and suggests that the verb ὑμνήσει (‘he shall sing a hymn’) refers to the present performance of the ode at Syracuse, even if it is in the future tense. ⁹⁶ Steffen (1961) 11 13, 19 20 and Brannan (1972) 201 5 use the ode’s proem to suggest that B.3 is not an epinician but a poetic epistle, a kind of propempticon that was sent to Hieron by Bacchylides in order to introduce himself, a claim I do not agree with; cf. Schmidt, D. (1987) for arguments against this claim. ⁹⁷ Nagy (1990) 5 8, 30 4. ⁹⁸ e.g. B. fr.20B.1 4, fr.20C.2 7 Maehler; Pi. P.2.58 68, N.3.76 80, fr.124a.1 2 M; Hdt. 5.95.2 and Herodotus’ claim that Alcaeus sent his 401B.a V/PLF 428 to Mytilene; Paus. 9.16.1 on Pindar sending a hymn for Ammon to Lybia.

Towards a Written Text

197

for the composition of the poem which would then be preserved on a papyrus, but dissemination of the poem in the form of a song in performance. The ode itself envisages song as the principle mode of circulation.⁹⁹ An additional complicating factor might nonetheless have affected the poem’s circulation: that of piecemeal dissemination either of individual songs in written form from ‘escaped’ choral scripts or of purple passages, and individual circulation of shorter melic songs from subsequent transcriptions from oral performances. Even if we do accept that writing was used for the composition of melic poems and that some works were available in written form, the evidence does not allow us to assume dissemination of these written lyric texts in the Athenian book market and exclusively in the form of papyrus rolls, at least not before the fourth century. Even then, the situation may not be straightforward. We have already observed that it would not have been feasible for the Peripatetics to concentrate on such amount of detail and specificity in their treatises on the lyric poets, had they lacked the material texts of the poems. The use of texts of lyric in the Peripatos implies the existence of texts of melic poems; it does not necessarily indicate their wide circulation. The case of Plato may still be more complicated. Plato frequently quotes from melic poems and from specific lyric poets, and the manner in which he treats Tyrtaeus’ figure and his poetry in his Laws implies that he was extremely familiar with his work. The precision of lyric quotations in Plato, especially in the case of Simonides’ Ode to Scopas in the Protagoras, implies something more than simple familiarity with the poems. It suggests, though it does not prove, the use of actual texts in at least some cases. Later sources preserve anecdotes of Plato as a book collector, and we could assume that he probably owned a number of books/rolls with texts in his private collection from which he could quote.¹⁰⁰ Still, we cannot be sure if both Plato and his readers encountered in written form the entirety of the poetic works one can discern in his dialogues, especially the melic poems. One suggestion can definitely be made: the setting of Plato’s dialogues as well as the casualness with which almost all the interlocutors refer to lines of small-scale poetry point to a continuous coexistence of poetry in written form and in (re-)performance, either public or private. It may be the case that some of the melic poems Plato cites were already textual entities in his time, while others were possibly included in his dialogues from memory. The picture becomes even more complicated when we add Plato’s readers to the equation. Certainly, we cannot assume that a work known or available to Plato in the form of a written text was ⁹⁹ The above view is analysed in Uhlig (2011) 1 23, who argues for a conceptual framework that she calls ‘scriptory poetics’, where the written script ‘must function in concepts with living agents of reperformance’ (p. 16). In her view, a poetic text functions ‘as a facilitator but not as a part of a poetic performance’ (p. 4), and she makes a case for the script being the mediator between poet and performer that enables and produces oral poetic performance. ¹⁰⁰ Gell. 3.17.1 3; D.L.2.81, 3.18.11 14, 8.85.8 15, 9.40.14 25.

198

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

necessarily known or available to his readers in the same form. It is entirely possible that a substantial number of his lyric allusions and quotations were known to the majority of his audience from memory and/or re-performance. It is therefore difficult to claim that melic poetry was widely available and circulated as physical and material text, in the same way that it is difficult to argue that the general public gained knowledge of melic poems as written entities. Even if Plato owned some texts of some poems, we cannot claim with certainty that those lyric texts were available to the wider public, or that textual preservation, where it occurred, interrupted or terminated probable re-performances of melē. We could also at this point connect the lyric references and quotations in Plato with the references to specific melic poems in Herodotus’ narrative. Although Herodotus does not quote from lyric sources nor does he ask for detailed knowledge of a specific poetic work, he implies in two cases that the source of certain information in his narrative is a specific melic poem from Sappho and Alcaeus. As we read in the narrative on Mycerinus’ pyramid, Sappho seemingly ridiculed in a poem her brother Charaxus for buying the freedom of the courtesan Rhodopis, and Alcaeus narrated in a poem his participation in the Sigeian war and his desertion of the battle, which poem he subsequently sent to Melannipus: Hdt. 2.135.6 ἐν μέλεϊ Σαπϕὼ πολλὰ κατεκερτόμησέ μιν (‘Sappho ridiculed him greatly in one of her poems’), and Hdt. 5.95 Ἀλκαῖος ἐν μέλεϊ ποιήσας ἐπιτιθεῖ ἐς Μυτιλήνην (‘Alcaeus narrates these in a poem he prepared and sent to Mytilene’). Herodotus does not cite the two poems in his narrative, but refers to them by using the phrase ἐν μέλεϊ (‘in song’) in order to mention the medium the poets chose for the purpose. One possibility may be that Herodotus came across the two poems as material texts in his travels and thus managed to read them. It is similarly plausible that both poems and the stories they tell were well known at a local level and that Herodotus might have been informed about their existence and about their content from local informants. The exclusive focus on the invective tone of Sappho’s poem, which is not summarized in his narrative, suggests that Herodotus might have been informed about it by habitants on Mytilene.¹⁰¹ A similar case might be hypothesized for the reference to Alcaeus’ 401B.a V/PLF 428 whose contents are summarized in the narrative. It is only thanks to Strabo that we know which of Alcaeus’ poems Herodotus refers to (Str. 13.1.38, p. 600C Radt). The three-line quotation confirms the details Herodotus presents in his narrative, but Strabo does not mention Melannipus as the poem’s recipient. Unless we assume that Alcaeus stated explicitly that he sent his poem to Melannipus and that the text of that ¹⁰¹ Herodotus takes pains to repudiate the suggestion that the courtesan Rhodopis built Mycerinus’ pyramid, and states explicitly the Greek origin of his informants or sources, among whom were probably also Mytileneans (Hdt. 2.134.4 5).

Towards a Written Text

199

poem somehow fell in Herodotus’ hands, Herodotus might have been informed about the addressee, the poem’s content, and the context within which it was composed by local informants. In both cases Herodotus focuses on the overall tone and content, and the lack of detail makes it unlikely that he might have come across the actual text of the poems. His specification that a small section of his narrative reflects what the two poets included as information in their poems suggests knowledge of the poems’ existence and of their content, which he might have acquired from local informants. Pindar’s nomos should also be added to these two references. As has already been discussed, the frequency with which the Pindaric passage on nomos is cited both in Herodotus and in Plato verifies the assumption that portions of melic poems were travelling as independent and authoritative maxims and morals. The broad geographical span of Herodotus’ audience makes it indeed difficult for us to use his allusions or references to melic poems as definite evidence for the availability of melic poetry in written form in specific geographical areas. Nevertheless, it makes one wonder if Pindar’s nomos-quotation circulated orally, either in performances or from mouth to mouth, or as textual entity. Admittedly, however, it might be necessary to combine all the above possibilities in the picture we decide to paint for the nomos-passage. The scale of use of lyric quotations in the Platonic dialogues and the Peripatetic treatises that are devoted both to specific categories of melos and to specific lyric poets invite us to assume that a number of melic poems were preserved and thus possessed in written form by at least some readers. In order to better understand the nature of this availability, three conditions need to be taken into account. As noted above, any attempts to reconstruct the textuality of lyric poetry need to take into consideration the nonAthenian origin of most of these lyric poets and consequently the nonAthenian origin of their compositions, which implies that texts of lyric might have circulated firstly in non-Athenian contexts. Equally important for understanding the dynamics of lyric textuality is the nature of the references to lyric works. None of the Platonic passages mentioned above refers to material texts or books of lyric poetry. This absence of acknowledging lyric textual materiality together with the first consideration might suggest a late circulation of lyric texts in Athens in comparison to other geographical locations (e.g. the hometown of a lyric poet). A third essential note is the possible existence of private collections, whose content could be similar or dissimilar to what circulated publicly.¹⁰² Euripides, for example, is portrayed already from the fifth century as possessing an impressive quantity of literature as books, from which he derived material for his tragedies, and ¹⁰² Pöhlmann (1994) 25 suggests that we should accept stories for the existence of private collections as facts.

200

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

this might have presumably been the reason why it was later inferred that he possessed a library.¹⁰³ It is of secondary importance if Euripides actually owned the books himself or if references to his book collection in our sources were pure fabrication. Such stories reveal that private collections of books were a valid product of the Athenians’ imagination already from the fifth century. They might even have been part of fifth-century life in Athens. The suggestion that texts of melic poetry were absent from the Athenian market in Plato’s time should not come as a surprise. The literary taste of the Athenian public must have been a determinant factor both of the nature of texts that circulated in Athens and of the content of the book markets. All markets respond to demand. It is possible that melic poetry was not what the Athenian reading public would have requested, and this would have made it second-order material. Given the focus on literary and non-literary accomplishments which projected and reflected Athenian traits and Athenian identity in the city of Athens, it is possible that the public was principally interested in Athenian literary achievements. This is consistent with the evidence of Aristophanes for the reading of tragedies. Substantial written lyric texts may not have been in high demand, although we could assume that private collections would have included individual lyric poems or groups of lyric poems. The Sappho-hydria, allusions to melic poems, and also distortions of the poetics of such poems in comedy indicate if not some interest in lyric, at least knowledge of some melic poems. Interest in melic poetry might have developed as the book market itself developed and as written lyric texts gradually became a more common phenomenon in the city of Athens. The situation obviously changes with the creation of the Peripatos and its library, as the philosophical inquiries of these scholars become empirical and textbased.¹⁰⁴ In this case, one may speak of lyric poems being presumably partly circulated in the Athenian market in written form or at least being part of the collection of the Peripatetic library. This need not imply the circulation or possession of the entire or even the greater part of the corpus of a lyric poet on the same book-roll. Individual poems could have been written down either separately or as part of a collection. Any a priori assumptions that the Peripatetics would have owned the entire corpus of a poet would be rash. Circumstances might have been very different outside Athens. The only poetic work which probably circulated unreservedly around Greece was the Homeric text, and this is suggested by the fact that texts of Homer were in circulation in different cities before the preparation of Homer’s Alexandrian edition. Those texts are classified as ‘from the cities’ by the Hellenistic scholars. The widespread availability of the Homeric text reveals not only its unique pan-Hellenic value and authority but also its individual and unique

¹⁰³ See Ar. Ra.941 3 and 1407 10; Ath. 1.3a b.

¹⁰⁴ Robb (1994) 234.

Towards a Written Text

201

pan-Hellenic circulation.¹⁰⁵ Just as Athenians regarded tragedy and comedy as specifically their own cultural achievements to the point that they made use of the dramatic performances for a whole range of civic displays before the Greek world and also made special efforts to preserve the quality of the texts used for civic purposes in Athens, so it is likely that other Greek cities paid particular attention to their own local poetic products, both publicly and privately. We read in Plutarch about Lycurgus’ law on fixing the text of the tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides (Plu. Vit. X Orat.841f). The stress on the permanent character of the text that is created upon the implementation of Lycurgus’ law suggests that, although tragedies were re-performed beyond Athens and were thus thought to be a pan-Hellenic achievement, tragedy was first and foremost considered to be a ‘unique cultural possession . . . for the Athenian state’, as Ruth Scodel notes.¹⁰⁶ The plays were thus interpreted as ‘sources of cultural capital’, as Johanna Hanink concludes.¹⁰⁷ Hanink further points out that Lycurgus’ law reflects a desire to preserve the tragic scripts, and assures an iconic status for the three tragedians by attributing to tragedy credit as distinctly Athenian possession.¹⁰⁸ One could argue that as Athens was proud of its own artistic achievements and attempted to preserve and advertise them as Athenian, so, too, the texts of melic poems may have been available in larger quantities and on a more substantial scale in the home-polis of a lyric poet. For instance, the Archilocheion on Paros with its hagiographic biography demonstrates a persisting local pride in a local poet (SEG 15.517, 15.518, 53.872).¹⁰⁹ This is unlikely to have been unique either to Paros or to Archilochus, and may have been especially strong in poleis where the number of poets with name recognition abroad was small (e.g. Thebes).¹¹⁰ The dialectal consistency of the surviving lyric texts—literary Doric for choral lyric and Lesbian/ Aeolic for the personal lyric of Sappho and Alcaeus—and the relative lack of corruption in complex metrical texts that travelled as prose show a remarkable degree of care in copying and preserving the original text. Unlike other texts, the extant lyric texts were not Atticized, and maintained their dialectical ¹⁰⁵ Carey (2007a) 141 points out that we cannot be sure what these selections mean and whether the city texts were actually locally authorized texts; on the local texts of Homer, West, M. (2001) 67 73. ¹⁰⁶ Scodel (2007) 126. ¹⁰⁷ Hanink (2010) 42. ¹⁰⁸ Hanink (2014) 60 and 63 with n. 11 on the verb παραναγινώσκειν that could be interpreted in the passage as ‘compare, collate’ suggesting that the actors possessed a copy of their own that they compared against that of the state’s for accuracy. ¹⁰⁹ On the Mnesiepes inscription, Clay (2004) 10 26 with text and translation on pp. 104 10 and Plates 4 9; on the Sosthenes inscription and the Vita composed by Sosthenes, pp. 32 3 with text and translation on pp. 110 18 and Plates 10 12. A substantial part of Clay’s text in lines 40 59 of the Sosthenes inscription differs from that of SEG 53.872. ¹¹⁰ Clay (2004) is interested in evidence for cults of poets, but the passages he collects in his Appendix that is accompanied by Figure 1 are equally instructive of the manner in which some lyric poets Sappho, Stesichorus, Pindar, and Corinna in particular might have been treated in their hometowns.

202

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

background.¹¹¹ The general integrity of the dialects of the poems argues more favourably for collective transmission. The chief questions that arise at this point are the possible locations where these lyric texts were initially preserved and the way in which they reached Athens. One possibility would be the existence of local archives that would be based either in the hometown of each of these poets (plausibly family archives) or in the hometown of those who were honoured in their poetry.¹¹² Solon’s manuscript with the Greek translation of Egyptian names was supposedly preserved in the house of Critias (Pl. Criti.113a–b), and the Peripatetic Praxiphanes of Mytilene seems to have come across Hesiod’s Work and Days without its proem, which he probably found at Hesiod’s hometown in Boetia Thespiae (Commentary on Hesiod fr.22b W²).¹¹³ Proclus mentions in his commentary on Plato’s Timaeus that Plato sent Heracleides Ponticus to Colophon to collect the poems of Antimachus of Colophon and bring them to Athens. Ἡρακλείδης γοῦν ὁ Ποντικός ϕησιν, ὅτι τῶν Χοιρίλου τότε εὐδοκιμούντων Πλάτων τὰ Ἀντιμάχου προὐτίμησε καὶ αὐτὸν ἔπεισε τὸν Ἡρακλείδην εἰς Κολοϕῶνα ἐλθόντα τὰ ποιήματα συλλέξαι τοῦ ἀνδρός. For Heracleides of Pontus says that even though the poems of Choerilus were held at the time in high esteem, Plato preferred those of Antimachus and convinced Heracleides to go to Colophon and collect the man’s poems. Proclus Comm. in Pl. Timaeus 21c21 4 Diehl = Heracleides Ponticus fr.6 W²

Plato’s instructions, as reported in Proclus, suggest that Antimachus’ poems were written down and preserved in his hometown, wherefrom they could thus be collected—the verb συλλέξαι is revealing—in order to be transferred to another city. Martin Revermann points out that ‘storing play scripts also makes sense as a mechanism for preserving memory within elite families’, a comment that could also similarly apply to the patrons of lyric poetry and the poems composed in their honour.¹¹⁴ Testimonia on the three tragedians refer to members of their families as having in their possession tragic texts, which were used for the (re-)performances of tragic plays, while references to postmortem performances could additionally be used as evidence in favour of the ¹¹¹ See Horrocks (2010) 50 4; Tribulato (2010) 393 5, where she discusses the perception of Lesbian/Aeolic dialect for Sappho and Alcaeus; on the Aeolic dialect of choral lyric, Cassio (2005) 13 44. ¹¹² On Pindar’s epinician odes and archives of the recipients’ families, Irigoin (1952) 8. Hornblower (2012) does not make any claims that the text of Pindar was stored in family or state archives, but his argument on re performance by the families who were once celebrated in epinician odes implicitly rests on the existence of a text that they could use in the future. ¹¹³ Pausanias reports that the Boetians who lived around Helicon had a tendency to remove the proem from Hesiod’s Work and Days (9.31.4). ¹¹⁴ Revermann (2006a) 84.

Towards a Written Text

203

existence of family archives that contained the scripts of tragic plays: Euphorion, the son of Aeschylus, was supposedly victorious after the death of Aeschylus with four of Aeschylus’ plays; Iophon, the son of Sophocles, possessed tragedies of Sophocles and participated in dramatic performances by presenting Sophocles’ plays as his own; Mnesilochos, the younger son of Euripides, is also reported to be performing some of his father’s plays.¹¹⁵ A number of testimonia equally refer to posthumous victorious re-performances of Aeschylus’ tragedies and to a posthumous victory of Euripides, while a passage in Quintilian is suggestive evidence of the Athenians allowing poets to correct the text of Aeschylus and to participate in dramatic competitions with these altered versions of his plays (T Gm.77 TrGF 3 = Quint. Inst.10.1.66 correctas eius fabulas in certamen deferre).¹¹⁶ Sanctuaries at which civic performances took place and the tyrannical courts where poets and artists gathered could also have been potential repositories for lyric poetry. Pausanias, for instance, mentions that the Ammonians of Libya inscribed Pindar’s Hymn to Ammon on a stēlē located probably at the vicinity of Ammon’s sanctuary (9.16.1), and it is stated in the Certamen that the Delians inscribed the Homeric Hymn to Apollo on tablets in the temple of Artemis (Certamen 320). These testimonies put forward the hypothesis that copies of important poems could have been kept in writing, or that they could have been inscribed in religious locations. This hypothesis is reinforced by the scholion to Pindar’s Olympian 7 for Diagoras of Rhodes, where it is recorded that the victory ode was dedicated in golden letters at the temple of Athena of Lindos.¹¹⁷ It is not certain if the scholiast can be trusted in the case of Diagoras; it could be that the specific comment was made in an attempt to enhance his already great prestige. If the scholion is reliable, the act of inscribing a victory ode is presumably to be perceived as a single instance, and it is probably such due to the honour the achievements of Diagoras and his family offered to his hometown, which is highly praised in the Pindaric ode (O.7.13–19, 71–89). Sources also suggest that it was not unusual to have certain categories of private documents being placed in a public archive: Epicurus deposited his will at the Athenian Metrōon (D.L. 10.16), and ¹¹⁵ Euphorion: T Gk.71 TrGF 3 = Suda s.v. Εὐϕόριων (ε 3800 Adler); Iophon: T L.63 6 TrGF 4 = Σv Ar. Ra.73 4ab, ΣrTz Ar. Ra.73a, Σv Ar. Ra.78ab, ΣTz Ar. Ra.78a, Suda s.v. Ἰοϕῶν (ι 451 Adler), and T Y.168 TrGF 4 = Val. Max.8.7.12; Mnesilochos: T IA.8 TrGF 5.1. ¹¹⁶ Cf. Fasti IG II² 2318.1009 11 Millis Olson on the institutionalization of revivals of classical tragedy in 387/6 , and Nervegna (2007) 15 18 on reviving old dramas in the classical era; Lamari (2015) evaluates the evidence for Aeschylus’ re performances in the fifth century ; cf. Biles (2006 7) 206 20, who expresses scepticism about the reliability of the tradition. ¹¹⁷ Σ Pi. O.7 inscr.C.13 14 (Dr. i, p.195) ταῦτην τὴν ὠδὴν ἀνακεῖσθαί ϕησι Γόργων ἐν τῷ τῆς Λινδίας Ἀθηναίας ἱερῷ χρυσοῖς γράμμασιν (‘Gorgon says that this ode was dedicated with gold letters in the altar of Athena of Lindos’). LeVen (2014) 285 6 comments on the restrictions the location imposes on the inscription; its disposition inside the sanctuary implies that the text is not intended for public reading, but it symbolically expresses prestige.

204

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

Heraclitus left his book Περὶ ϕύσεως in the temple of Artemis (D.L. 9.5–6). The Greek archives were mainly used as ‘public record offices’, which would probably have allowed room for civic poetry and for what would have been thought of as locally generated authoritative texts.¹¹⁸ It is stated in the relevant passage on Lycurgus’ law in Plutarch that the official city copies of the text of the three tragedians were deposited ἐν κοινῷ, probably in the state archive where the official records of the city’s competitions would have also been held (Plu. Vit. X Orat.841f.15–16). In an analogous way texts of civic melic poems and of poems that were significant testimonies of the city’s cultural identity might have been kept in various public archives. Though on grounds of probability there is a good case to be made for the existence of archived collections, these probably did not play a major or even any role in the larger Greek circulation of texts. Reference has already been made to the possible existence of private collections, which implies that texts and individual poems could potentially have been travelling from hand to hand and within closed circles. Any assumptions made on the possession of lyric texts do not necessarily imply possession of the entire corpus of a specific lyric poet. Private collections may have been highly disaggregated ‘selections’ from what was available and from the actual output of each poet. It is important to bear in mind the totality of the actual poetry involved in this process. A synchronic circulation of the entire lyric corpus or of the entire corpus of a poet is difficult to credit. It is entirely possible that circulation on a limited scale and involving private copies took place before the emergence of a wider demand and availability. This would not rule out the possibility that some poets and some poems achieved early popularity and circulated more widely and/or on a larger scale. Assuming a single answer would be oversimplified. In fact, it is plausible to have all of the above happening either simultaneously or in successive stages. If indeed individual works circulated from one private collection to the other, a further aspect needs to be taken into account: careless reproduction.¹¹⁹ If the text was privately copied by amateurs, possible careless copying would have had as a consequence the corruption of the text, and unlike the authoritative texts hypothesized above, the disaggregated texts in circulation would probably have been of variable quality. The question of how these texts reached Athens is more complicated. The disaggregated texts we have described might have reached the book trade by

¹¹⁸ On ancient archives, Brosius (2003); see also Sickinger (1999) 116 38 for a description of the holdings in the Athenian Metrōon. ¹¹⁹ Hubbard (2004) 84 postulates: ‘limited, informal, patronage based circulation of short texts among selective pan Hellenic networks who shared common interests must have preceded the more popularized market in books of which we hear only a few decades later.’ He repeats his view about an organized self promotion of the patrons in Hubbard (2011) 347.

Towards a Written Text

205

way of an Athenian private library.¹²⁰ Public performances of Athenian dramas could also have contributed to the spread of melos and of lyric texts in Athens. Comedy in particular, which often alludes to lyric songs and refers to named lyric poets and to specific famous melic poems, as we have seen, might have generated a continued interest in that kind of poetry. As well as being the marker of classic status for lyric poets and their work, comic performances may have stimulated demand for texts of melic poetry, both for privately circulated copies of the poems one would encounter in comedy, either in the form of extracts or of whole compositions, and for texts in the book markets. Another possible consequence of encountering certain songs through comedy would be writing from memory.¹²¹ The desire not to forget a poem, a poetic line, or an extract that an individual might have heard at a performance could have prompted him to write down what he could remember. Consequently, if memory failed, a poem would have been written and subsequently circulated with mistakes or lacunae. Beyond private collections, the biggest Athenian library (in the modern sense of a library that contained collections of books) was evidently the one in the Lyceum of Aristotle.¹²² The non-Athenian origin of the Peripatetics is thus an important piece of information to keep in mind. Local interest in literature, as mentioned above, would probably have been diverse and these philosophers might have transferred that interest to Athens when they joined the Peripatos. The desire to study the lyric poets would have stimulated in turn a need to acquire the actual texts. This could imply that lyric texts were looked for either in Athens or in other geographical locations that were connected with the poetic activity of each poet. In order to work on an author in a scholarly work one needed not only a portion of the text but also a substantial and a good text, and that is especially the case for the work the Peripatetics were doing in the Lyceum. The absentees from the fourth-century Peripatetic list—Alcman, Ibycus, and Bacchylides—may reflect this fact. It is not necessarily the case that good texts prevailed, since the free market lacked any means of quality control. Lack of control could be a feature of what we may call the panHellenic market rather than of the local market. Just as Athens sought to regulate the text of the tragedians, so, too, other cities might have sought to

¹²⁰ Too (2010) 223 observes that the initial libraries were book collections of individuals. The first institutional library in the Greek world was that of Peisistratus, but it is doubtful whether it was accessible to all the Athenians. ¹²¹ Cf. Plato who refers in two occasions to texts or books privately written at home: in Pl. Menex.236a8 c4 Aspasia is described as collating a funeral oration; in Pl. Tht.142d6 143c8 Euclid shows to Terpsion, who then hears the text read aloud by a slave, a book that he put together himself and contains Socrates’ conversations with other people as those were narrated to Euclid by Socrates himself. ¹²² Too (2010) 24 points out that the book collection of Aristotle is presented as ‘a genesis of the ancient library’.

206

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

protect and control texts which were important for their civic self-importance and for their identity. Local interest in this case coexists not only with interest in preserving a specific kind of local poetry but also with quality control of the circulated text in local markets when the text does circulate. It is important therefore to emphasize the link between supply and critical production, and between quality and critical production. When texts began to circulate beyond the boundaries of the home-city, the author/owner and the city itself might have been unable to control not only the physical status and quality of the text itself but also its course. As Dover’s survey on Lysias’ ‘Corpus and Corpusculum’ conclusively suggests, the author/poet loses control of the text the moment the performance takes place.¹²³ It is impossible to know with certainty how lyric texts reached Athens or if all of them actually reached Athens before they reached Alexandria. The only assumption we can make with anything approaching confidence is that (some) lyric texts were assembled collectively for the first time in the fourth century  presumably by Aristotle and his associates in the Peripatetic library. One can most definitely speak of texts and books being part of the landscape in Athens in the second half of the fifth century, but one cannot claim with confidence for the wide existence of lyric texts nor for the written circulation of melic poems in Athens at that time. The fame and dissemination of certain melic poems and lyric poets seems to have been attached to the oral character of their performance for the greater part of the classical period, though this does not exclude their preservation in written form. Nevertheless, the evidence we have at present excludes the widespread diffusion of lyric in written form. The textual pattern was not the same for melic poetry as it was for other literary genres, poetic and other. Though Athens controls the canonization of lyric, it does not control the text of lyric.¹²⁴ In order to sketch the whole picture, it is essential to make a number of distinctions and differentiations, which have formed the structure of the above argumentation. It is necessary to recognize a distinction between oral and written dissemination, between the existence of written texts and their diffusion, between individual texts and collected works, between partial and whole collections, and between the public availability of texts on the market and possessions of texts in private collections. Presumably the most important differentiation is in terms of geography, which foregrounds the significant differences that were probably observed in different parts of Greece: differences in volume and availability; differences in the nature of what is available which

¹²³ Dover (1968) 1 22. The sphragis of Theognis is an example of a poet’s attempt to control his work and preserve it under his name. ¹²⁴ Haslam (1997) 79 questions the role Athens had in the evolution and transmission of the Homeric poems, and West, M. (2001) 68 points out that ‘there is no real evidence even for this official Athenian Homer’.

Towards a Written Text

207

ultimately reflected local interests; lastly, differences in the volume and scale of literacy and interest in books. All these elements fracture the pan-Hellenic model for the issue of literacy and textuality. Alongside this continuous written production it is crucial to recognize some continuing oral re-production and re-performance. The transition is obviously slow and gradual. Greece gradually experiences a significant increase in texts and an incremental availability of texts, which are coming into Athens disaggregated rather than aggregated, presumably from different cities and in different periods of time.

THE S OCIO LO GY OF LYRIC RECEPTION AND TRANSMISSION Before this chapter comes to an end, a final yet speculative point has to be raised with regards to the sociology of lyric reception and transmission in late fifth- and early fourth-century democratic Athens. One observes in scholarly discussions a distinction between the elite intellectuals and the general public with reference to the possession of written texts, where the underlying argument is that accumulation of books in Athens was restricted to the intellectuals.¹²⁵ Tragedy and comedy have also been the main poetic genres for which the circulation of texts and the reception of their performances have been interpreted sociologically in scholarship. Ruth Scodel, for example, calls attention to the circulation of texts of tragedies at the same time with dramatic performances; while the latter would have been a spectacle for the majority, the former would have been restricted to the elite lovers of poetry.¹²⁶ Selfreflective comic passages have also been interpreted as evidence for the stratification of the audience at the theatre, and a number of passages have also been read within the dialogue between the ‘elite’ and the ‘masses’. Matthew Wright, for instance, maps this dialogue onto the debate regarding ‘poetry as literary text’ and ‘poetry as performance’, and concludes that books were the preserve of the intellectuals and thus not of the majority of the audience at comic performances.¹²⁷ The picture painted in the course of this chapter with reference to the possible existence of private collections of lyric texts and the continuation of public melic performances along with the evidence provided in the Platonic dialogues and in comedy offers fruitful ground to present a couple of hypotheses on the social stratification of lyric reception as well. Very tentative suggestions can be made with reference to questions of literary fashions, preferences of melē, and lyric taste which also tie with matters such as the ¹²⁵ e.g. Woodbury (1976) 354.

¹²⁶ Scodel (2007) 131.

¹²⁷ Wright, M. (2012) 65.

208

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

circulation of written texts of lyric and the continuation of the melic performance-culture in Athens. Decisions on lyric quotations and allusions to melē in both comedy and Plato were undeniably taken based on the effect they were meant to have in a comic passage or on the argument, philosophical or ethical, they were meant to support in a Platonic dialogue.¹²⁸ Not exclusively, however. The target audience was obviously an important factor that would have influenced any decision taken, and one observes the differences (and similarities) between the lyric figures that parade on the comic stage and the lyric quotations that are incorporated in the Platonic dialogues, as well as the general representational framework within which the lyric nine are depicted in Plato’s works and comedy. The similarities exhibit the continuity and the stable character of the reception of the lyric nine and of their poems, whereas the differences demonstrate dissimilarities in context and audiences. Plato himself distances his own work from what takes place in the theatres by distinguishing clearly in the Laws between the ideal performance-culture that would have aimed to the moral improvement of individuals in the way he (re-)shapes it in his Laws and the current and undisciplined state of theatrokratia that had as a consequence the implementation of unspeakable and unacceptable musical innovations during his time. Although his disappointment and criticism is mirrored in comedy’s depiction of a (sympotic) repertoire that was adjusted to the modern poetic trends and to the late fifth-century musical innovations, the Platonic portrayals of the lyric poets do not resemble the comic caricatures. This differentiation applies as well to the lyric passages that are selected to be incorporated in his dialogues. For instance, Plato’s Pindar is not the poor Poet in Birds who recycles and re-performs his hyporchēma to Hieron in order to draw the attention of his potential new patron Peisetairos. His Pindar is rather the wise poet, whose verses would reflect the moral and philosophical issues that are discussed in a dialogue (Meno) and whose philosophizing poetics would become exemplary of certain arguments. Plato’s Simonides is also the poet whose poetry would provide fruitful ground for discussion (Protagoras) and not the miser in Wasps or the public entertainer in Birds. The same would apply to Sappho, whose songs are sung by a prostitute in comedy, as well as Anacreon, who is the effeminate model for Agathon in Thesmophoriazusae, but both are the exemplar erotic poets for Socrates in the Phaedrus. One may want to go a bit further with the above observations and touch on questions of audience-differentiation and on distinct contexts of reception in order to foreground the broader socio-cultural circumstances of late fifth- and early fourth-century Athens. Plato’s term theatrokratia remains the pivotal

¹²⁸ The above point has been demonstrated in Chapters 2 and 3 in this book.

Towards a Written Text

209

point, as it suggests that the unruly and uneducated Athenian crowd which would have been gratified at theatres is to be held responsible for the changing character of mousikē in late fifth- and early fourth-century Athens. Scholars have analysed the social, cultural, political, and ideological conditions in the second half of the fifth century in Athens which affected the rhetoric of our elite sources with reference to the manner in which they portray the evolutionary and revolutionary character of the innovations in late classical melos.¹²⁹ They have emphasized especially the simultaneous rise of the New Music and of radical democracy, and have pointed out that mousikē is turned in the late fifth-century into the means through which ideological tensions, divisions, and developing trends are expressed.¹³⁰ Plato’s ‘cultural democracy’, as Eric Csapo interprets his coinage theatrokratia, and the association between the new musical and poetic style with the power given to ‘the people’ positions the altered new mousikē within the realm of popular and mass culture in Athens.¹³¹ If we are to trust both Plato and Aristotle, ‘the people’ were the uneducated and the vulgar, the unethical and the unsophisticated, those who would enjoy themselves at lowbrow performances at the theatre, including performances of comedy (Pl. Lg.700a–701a3; Arist. Pol.1341b10–18). Whilst comedy was as conscious of its social substance and of the social context within which it was received as it was self-aware of its position within the literary tradition, the inability of the masses to appreciate aesthetic value was for the comic genre as well the main reason why performances of canonical lyric were pushed away. Athenaeus documents as the reason for silencing performances of Pindar in Eupolis 398 PCG v the public’s lack of good aesthetic judgement (τῆς τῶν πολλῶν ἀϕιλοκαλίας), while singing to the lyre the songs of the old generation of lyric poets is not only old-fashioned, as stated in Eupolis’ Heilotes and as Pheidippides pronounces in Aristophanes’ Clouds; it is also a sign of a past that the comic genre declares to be obsolete and to hold no position in the melic and performative environment of Athens. In view of the distinction made in the course of the chapter between private collections of books and public performances of melic songs, as well as the emphasis on the existence of different literary preferences and tastes in various geographical areas, the above comments on the altered melic tunes and songs in late fifth- and early fourth-century Athens become crucial. Our sources might be conservative and elitist, but they still give the impression that the Athenian public replaced the performances of canonical melē with those of the New Music and that consequently songs of the nine lyric poets belonged to ¹²⁹ The detailed studies of Csapo (2004) and (2011) remain central. ¹³⁰ Wilson (2003b) 182. ¹³¹ Csapo (2011) 99; Grig (2017) analyses concisely the wide range of approaches to popular culture, and her detailed analysis illustrates the often ideological colour that definitions of popular culture have and the challenges one faces in accessing ancient popular culture in the ancient world.

210

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

the realm of the elite. Plato’s lyric quotations are not only taken exclusively from poems of the nine lyric poets, they are conversely presented as material suitable for philosophical discussions. Thus, sixth- and fifth-century melic poems are depicted as a unique interest of the intellectuals who might not have been aware of these songs exclusively from past performances or private (re-)performances; they might have had some of the texts of lyric on their bookshelves. The presence of the majority of the canonical nine in narrative frames of comic symposia, which would recall settings of the elite cultural life, would possibly have equally marked them as signs of a culture that was foreign to the comic genre, thus foreign to the Athenian masses, too.¹³² Although admittedly the Athenian public would not have been in a position to read the poems from a book because they might not have had access to one, they would plausibly have possessed deep knowledge of those poems from sixth- and fifthcentury private or public (re-)performances or from casual repetitions, even if they, as presented in our sources, preferred and chose to hear at the time the new musical tunes of the later half of the fifth century. Plato’s mob and Aristotle’s vulgar spectators, however, no doubt encompass a part of the audience of Aristophanes and Eupolis, and they are constantly being asked to recognize the canonical lyric figures that comedy draws on stage and to recall the alluded songs. As a result, the supposedly obsolete melē of the nine are reintroduced and re-performed on the comic stage through allusions to their own melic poems, and the seemingly unfavoured lyric poets re-appear in anecdotal representations and as comic caricatures. As it happens, the unintellectual and brutal Strepsiades unexpectedly and surprisingly requests a performance of Simonides’ Krios to the lyre, the prostitute Lais knows how to sing Sappho, and the poor and perhaps uneducated father in the Daitaleis asks to hear a skolion of either Anacreon or Alcaeus. Whilst these characters’ singing preferences and requests contextualize to a certain degree lyric re-performances in symposia, they also somewhat refute the claims of our sources that this poetry no longer spoke to ‘the people’. It might not have appealed to the majority and might consequently not have been popular, but it was in all probability still around, albeit in smaller circles. Assuming that the Athenian melic picture our sources paint is reliable and performances of melic oldies were restricted, one needs to accept that the availability of texts of lyric was even more restricted and not exclusively because these texts were not available in the open market. One is expected to have known that these poems mattered, even if they were no longer on popular demand, and that they existed as material texts. The latter has a number of implications. If these texts were not easily and openly available in ¹³² See the analysis of Canevaro (2017) 57 63; also Wilson (2000a) 70 and Wright, M. (2012) 58 60 on Amphis’ Dithyrambos 14 PCG ii and the distinct worlds and cultural identities of the symposium and the theatre.

Towards a Written Text

211

the Athenian market, they had to be looked for, and in order from them to be looked for, one had to be aware of their existence. This very chain of knowledge inevitably creates additional limitations, and equally adds another layer to the question on performances and texts of classical melē in Athens. Prior knowledge is consequently turned into memory, and both performances and texts of the canonical lyric become as a result objects of a tradition to which only our interpretative elites and intellectuals would have had access to.¹³³ The library in the Peripatos is the perfect example in this case, as it ultimately functions as an institution of preservation and re-embodiment. One observes in Aristotle’s Lyceum an attempt to accumulate lyric texts that would then be interpreted as sources of cultural memory, bringing also to the foreground their performative life. Although indeed one might have had to look for these lyric texts in archives, sanctuaries, or private collections, one might still have been in a position to experience these same melic poems in (re-)performances in various Athenian contexts, even if those contexts had to be looked for as well. That very claim that the classical melos was no longer part of the Athenian experience is called into question when comedy implicitly brings back on stage the poems and their representatives whose performances were claimed to have been pushed back by the public. The rhetoric of forgetting that our sources employ depicts classical melos as being preserved exclusively as books to be stored on bookshelves; they constantly express a nostalgic longing for performances of outdated kinds of lyric songs. Most importantly, this rhetoric shapes the reception of the canonical lyric which is consequently depicted as not being relevant to the likes of the Athenian public. Both lyric transmission and lyric canonization are therefore presented as processes that would only concern Athens’ elite intellectuals. It is therefore these intellectuals who would have kept the memory of the classical melos in re-performances and who would have also attempted to permanently preserve the text of lyric.

¹³³ Gehrke’s Intentionale Geschichte (intentional history) becomes relevant to this discussion as the frame within which the portrayal of lyric history in comedy and in fourth century sources could be viewed and interpreted, on which Gehrke (2001) 286, 297 8 and (2010); Foxhall and Luraghi (2010); cf. Harth (2008) 92, who points out that interpretative elites form the memory of tradition.

6 The Hellenistic Era Lyric Texts and the Lyric Canon

The previous chapters have demonstrated the role Athens played in creating and articulating the distinction between the popular new and the ‘forgotten’ old melic compositions in the fifth and fourth centuries and subsequently its role in forming the Lyric Canon. This distinction was always an implicit presence in the song- and performance-culture from the sixth to the fourth centuries , in the literary production of the fifth and fourth centuries, and in literary reflections on the melic (r-)evolution in fourth-century Athens, and it becomes obvious if one pauses to observe the difference in commissioning, role, and evaluation between popular song-forms and more formal melic compositions. As we move into the Hellenistic era, the question ‘what changes?’ begs to be answered. This period not only articulates the above distinction more firmly but it also employs it as the basis for scholarly decisions which play a significant role in the preservation of poetic texts. The difference is not hard and fast, and the dichotomy is in part the result of positioning both by comedy as a genre and by fifth- and fourth-century thinkers with specific educational and social agendas. Comedy attests a growing divergence between popular taste, which remained open to new developments in melic poetry, and a more nebulous conservative attitude, which continued to value the outputs of earlier generations of lyric poets. Plato and the Peripatos subsequently reflect this divergence in their cultural and literary criticism, and also in their treatises. As the discussion in this chapter will centre on the reception of earlier Greek poetry in the Hellenistic era, an era which, despite the continuation of civic lyric performances, experienced that poetry mainly as written texts and books, one is confronted with a major cultural evolution which prompts questions about the transmission and survival of literary texts, about the form and manner in which the texts arrived in Alexandria, as well as about

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon. Theodora A. Hadjimichael, Oxford University Press (2019). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198810865.003.0007

214

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

the sequence and timing of their arrival in the Library.¹ In the case of lyric, the quality of the texts we possess raises intriguing questions about this process of transmission. Comparison with lyric extracts that survive in other sources reveals that what circulated as quotation or as independent excerpts was often Atticized, normalized, or corrected in order to fit in with the language of the source-text. These features force us to confront the question of the form in which these texts travelled, of their geographical origin, and of the procedure through which they were established as the texts we now possess. The move of the lyric texts to the Alexandrian Library will be the focus of the first section of this chapter. The second section will return to the Lyric Canon, and will address the opinions expressed on the character and motivation behind the compilation of the list of the lyric nine and on the actual selection of these lyric poets, while it will bring more explicitly to the foreground the manner in which the Canon mirrors pre-Hellenistic lyric receptions.

TRAVELLING TEXTS, THE LIBRARY, AND S CHOLARSHIP There is no secure and objective answer to the question of when and how texts of lyric actually reached Alexandria. As it will become clear, possible reconstructions can be offered on this issue based on the connection between Alexandrian and Peripatetic scholars and ultimately on the association with the Peripatetic library. Equally important is information about the editing of the lyric poets and about commenting on lyric corpora in Alexandria. Answering questions related to the two libraries and the Hellenistic editions of lyric will allow us to understand the principles with which the Alexandrian scholars were working as well as their attitude towards lyric poetry as a whole, including the New Music. This will in turn enable us to better understand the criteria they used as they prioritized texts and as they chose authors to be edited and annotated. Understanding these principles is essential, if we are to properly evaluate the role of the Alexandrians not only in the reception and appreciation of previous poetry and scholarly activity but also in the formation and establishment of the Lyric Canon. It is unfortunate that all the information for the organization and function of the Library and for the critical activities and scholarly deeds of the Alexandrian scholars survives for us

¹ On the continuation of civic lyric performances in the Hellenistic era, see Cameron (1995) 38, 78; Bing (2009) 106 15; Barbantani (2009) 297; Ceccarrelli (2013); D’Alessio (2017) with evidence from the Hellenistic period down to the Imperial era.

The Hellenistic Era: Lyric Texts and the Lyric Canon

215

mainly in sources of the Imperial or Byzantine period and in the scholia.² Despite the fact that the scholiastic tradition incorporates much information from good sources, it does not offer as much detail as one would have liked to have on past editions, commentaries, and schools of critics nor does it record the reasons for certain judgements reported in these marginal notes. We can, however, draw probable conclusions on the ongoing process of editing and commenting on the representatives of lyric poetry in the Library. One of the important questions to answer in this case is how the texts that the Library possessed reached Alexandria.³

From Athens to the Alexandrian Library? It is possible to argue that a substantial number of the texts the Alexandrian Library acquired came from Athens and more specifically from the library of the Peripatetic Lyceum, as connections with Athenian intellectual life had already started from the beginning of the Ptolemaic dynasty. After the death of Alexander Ptolemy I attempted to present himself as Alexander’s legitimate successor, and consequently placed great emphasis on the cultural and educational development of the Ptolemaic kingdom.⁴ The establishment of both the Museum and the Library was therefore of crucial importance, as Andrew Erskine points out.⁵ The Peripatos played an equally important role in the attempt to grow the kingdom intellectually, and reinforced as intermediary the Ptolemaic connections with Alexander the Great. One needs only to consider that Aristotle had been at the court of Philip II of Macedon and acted as tutor to Alexander (D.L. 5.4.13–5.7).⁶ Being eager to follow the Peripatetic organization of learning, Ptolemy I Soter (reign 323–283 ) retained strong links with the Peripatos. He attempted, though unsuccessfully, to obtain the services of Theophrastus as a tutor to his son (D.L. 5.37.11–13), and his commitment to provide Peripatetic education to Ptolemy II Philadelphus resulted in his accepting the services of Strato, Theophrastus’ pupil and later principle of

² Fraser (1972) i.447; Dickey (2015) gathers and discusses all the sources that contribute to our knowledge of ancient scholarship. ³ The Library of Alexandria has been an attractive topic in scholarship. See, very selectively, Fraser (1972) i.309 36; Blum (1977); Bingen (1988); Canfora (1989); Erskine (1995); Jochum (1999); Collins (2000); MacLeod (2000); Bagnall (2002); El Abbadi (2004); Staikos (2004); the collected volume edited by El Abbabi and Fathallah (2008); Hatzimichali (2013). ⁴ It is reported that on the death of Alexander Ptolemy I acted as the guardian of his body and that he had a mausoleum built in Alexandria in his honour (Str. 17.1.8, p. 794C Radt). ⁵ Erskine (1995) 41. ⁶ According to Erskine (1995) 41, ‘by founding and sponsoring an intellectual community in the manner of Aristotle’s school, Ptolemy again emphasizes the connection and similarity between himself and Alexander.’

216

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

the Lyceum (D.L. 5.58.15–17). Although we possess only indirect and often historically and chronologically imprecise information on the Museum’s Library, the fleeing of Demetrius of Phalerum to Egypt in 297  after his expulsion from Athens links the Alexandrian Museum directly with the Museum of the Aristotelian Lyceum (Demetrius of Phalerum fr.17 W²).⁷ Demetrius survived into the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, and there is therefore no reason to deny Peripatetic influence upon aspects of intellectual activity in the Ptolemaic kingdom.⁸ The intellectual life of Alexandria placed emphasis on the ‘collection and comparison of material’⁹ and on preserving the knowledge of the past by selecting texts from earlier periods,¹⁰ both of which are activities with Peripatetic features. The Ptolemies were also aware of the teachings and works of the Peripatetic philosophers, and this awareness resulted in all probability into them recognizing as well the cultural importance of the Peripatetic project. Strabo, John Tzetzes, and the Letter of Aristeas are the main sources which preserve important information on the continuity between the intellectual activities, scholarship, and teaching of Peripatetic Athens and Hellenistic Alexandria, and also on the link between the two libraries.¹¹ The evidence of Strabo supports the likelihood of a direct Peripatetic influence on the establishment and organization of the Alexandrian Library. We read in his Geographica how the establishment of the Library in Alexandria was the outcome of Peripatetic influence; Aristotle ‘taught’ the kings of Egypt (i.e. provided a model for) the manner in which one establishes a library: [Ἀριστοτέλης] διδάξας τοὺς ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ βασιλέας βιβλιοθήκης σύνταξιν Str. 13.1.54, p.608C Radt. His observation obviously implies that the Library set-up was modelled after the organization of Aristotle’s own library in the Lyceum rather than that Aristotle himself practically helped the Ptolemies with founding the Library.¹² More specifically, Tzetzes and Aristeas report both the arrival of Demetrius of Phalerum in Alexandria and his participation in the formation and organization of the newly founded Alexandrian Library, which in turn supports ⁷ On similarities between the Alexandrian Museum, Plato’s Academy, and Aristotle’s Peripa tos, El Abbadi (1992) 84 5. Our main sources on the Museum’s Library are a letter by a man called Aristeas, Strabo, Galen, John Tzetzes, and the Suda entries on the various directors of the Library. ⁸ Nicolai (1992) 265 75 and Montana (2015) make connections between the Hellenistic and the Peripatetic thought and intellectual activity; Collis (2000) 58 74 is an important source of information for the chronological evidence of Demetrius’ presence in Alexandria. ⁹ Fraser (1972) i.320. ¹⁰ Barbantani (2009) 297. ¹¹ The letter of Aristeas (Ad Philocratem Epistula) is thought to have been written in the second century , perhaps during the reign of Ptolemy VI Philometor, and a number of scholars have questioned the accuracy of the events he narrates; see in particular, Staikos (2004) 172 3; Hunter (2011); more recently Wright, B. (2015) 6 15, 35 43 with further bibliography. ¹² On the chronological implausibility of the claim that Aristotle helped the Ptolemies, Keith Dix (2004) 64.

The Hellenistic Era: Lyric Texts and the Lyric Canon

217

Strabo’s emphasis on the Library’s Aristotelian foundation. Demetrius’ involvement could additionally mean that he or his acquaintances supplied the Library with a good amount of texts. This is in any case one of his activities presented in Aristeas’ Letter. Κατασταθεὶς ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ βασιλέως βιβλιοθήκης Δημήτριος ὁ Φαληρεὺς ἐχρηματίσθη πολλὰ διάϕορα πρὸς τὸ συναγαγεῖν, εἰ δυνατόν, ἅπαντα τὰ κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην βιβλία, καὶ ποιούμενος ἀγορασμοὺς καὶ μεταγραϕὰς ἐπὶ τέλος ἤγαγεν, ὅσον ἐϕ’ ἑαυτῷ, τὴν τοῦ βασιλέως πρόθεσιν. Having been appointed in charge of the king’s library, Demetrius of Phalerum received a large amount of money in order to collect, if possible, all the books in the world, and executed the king’s aim to the best of his ability through purchases and transcriptions. Aristeas Ad Phil.Ep.9 Wendland = Demetrius of Phalerum fr.66 W²

That the Peripatetics probably provided the Library with texts either during Demetrius’ regime in Athens or after he fled to Egypt emerges clearly from Tzetzes’ text in his Prolegomena to Comedy, where it is stated that Demetrius and other elders collected and brought to Alexandria books from all over the world (ἁπανταχόθεν). ὁ γὰρ ῥηθεὶς βασιλεὺς Πτολεμαῖος ἐκεῖνος, ἡ ϕιλοσοϕωτάτη τῷ ὄντι καὶ θεία ψυχή, καλοῦ παντὸς καὶ θεάματος καὶ ἔργου καὶ λόγου τελῶν ἐπιθυμητής, ἐπεὶ διὰ Δημητρίου τοῦ Φαληρέως καὶ γερουσίων ἑτέρων ἀνδρῶν δαπάναις βασιλικαῖς ἁπανταχόθεν τὰς βίβλους εἰς Ἀλεξάνδρειαν ἤθροισε, δυσὶ βιβλιοθήκαις ταύτας ἀπέθετο For that said king Ptolemy, a truly great lover of wisdom and a most excellent person, desired everything that was good by way of spectacle and deed and word, when he collected in Alexandria books from everywhere with the help of Deme trius of Phalerum and of other elders and by using royal funds, and then deposited them in two libraries Tzetzes Prolegom. Com. Proemium II 4 8 Koster

Admittedly, Tzetzes represents a feasible tradition when he draws attention to the cultural imperialism of the Ptolemies and to the close connection of Demetrius with the court. Such stories that imply a plausible linear connection between the libraries of the Peripatos and of Alexandria, and suggest as well continuous links between Peripatetic and Hellenistic scholarship inevitably raise questions concerning the fate of the Peripatetic library. We possess no evidence regarding the fate of the Peripatetic library either as a building or as the intellectual possessions and achievements of the philosophers. The only sources which deal with the books of the Peripatetics, that is with their personal works and the library’s possessions, are the actual testaments of the philosophers that are preserved in Diogenes Laertius and

218

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

in Strabo.¹³ We read in Theophrastus’ will that Neleus would inherit all the books (τὰ δὲ βιβλία πάντα), but the Lyceum’s garden and the house would be left to those friends who would want to study literature and philosophy. τὰ δὲ βιβλία πάντα Νηλεῖ. Τὸν δὲ κῆπον καὶ τὸν περίπατον καὶ τὰς οἰκίας τὰς πρὸς τῷ κήπῳ πάσας δίδωμι τῶν γεγραμμένων ϕίλων ἀεὶ τοῖς βουλομένοις συσχολάζειν καὶ συμϕιλοσοϕεῖν ἐν αὐταῖς. [I leave] all the books to Neleus. The garden and the walking trail and all the houses that adjoin the garden I give to those of my friends hereinafter named who may wish to study and pursue wisdom there together. Theophrastus’ will, D.L. 5.52.10 53.1

Strato, Theophrastus’ successor, selects Lyco, who took over the Lyceum’s headship after his death, to leave not only the school (τὴν μὲν διατριβήν) but also all the books, except for the treatises the philosophers themselves wrote (D.L. 5.62.7–11). Καταλείπω δὲ τὴν μὲν διατριβὴν Λύκωνι, ἐπειδὴ τῶν ἄλλων οἱ μέν εἰσι πρεσβύτεροι, οἱ δὲ ἄσχολοι. Καλῶς δ’ ἂν ποιοῖεν καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ συγκατασκευάζοντες τούτῳ. Καταλείπω δ’ αὐτῷ καὶ τὰ βιβλία πάντα, πλὴν ὧν αὐτοὶ γεγράϕαμεν I leave the school to Lyco, since of the others some are old, others very busy. It would be well if the rest also cooperate with him. I also leave to him all the books, except those of which we are the authors Strato’s will, D.L. 5.62.7 11

It is not clear on all occasions that the wills describe exclusively the transfer of the personal works of the Lyceum’s principles to their successors or that they refer to the entire collection of the school’s library that would have comprised of the Peripatetic treatises and of the literary works they had acquired. The philosophers use the phrase τὰ βιβλία πάντα (‘all the books’). Only Strato makes a distinction between all the books the library possessed (τὰ βιβλία πάντα) and the treatises the Peripatetics themselves wrote (πλὴν ὧν αὐτοὶ γεγράϕαμεν), the latter of which presumably remained in the Lyceum’s library and were accessible to all its members. Lyco (D.L. 5.69–74) mentions the building and the estate of the Peripatos, which he would leave to friends to use and extend, and refers solely to his own writings, published and unpublished, the first of which he left to his brother Lyco (τὰ ἐμὰ βιβλία τὰ ἀνεγνωσμένα), the latter to Callinus with the task to publish carefully (τὰ δ’ ἀνέκδοτα Καλλίνῳ ὅπως ἐπιμελῶς αὐτὰ ἐκδῷ, D.L. 5.73.15–17).

¹³ Only in the case of Strato’s testament does Diogenes Laertius cite Ariston of Ceos as his source (D.L. 5.64 = Ariston fr.31 W²), and it is unclear if Ariston’s compilation was Diogenes’ source for all the Peripatetic wills or only for the testament of Strato. The similarities in the introduction of the wills of Aristotle, Theophrastus, Strato, and Lyco favour the existence of a possible collection of Peripatetic testaments that was probably compiled by Ariston of Ceos, and Diogenes Laertius might have had access to it.

The Hellenistic Era: Lyric Texts and the Lyric Canon

219

In comparison to these philosophers, Aristotle must have written his will after he fled Athens, as he makes reference neither to the city nor to the Lyceum (D.L. 5.11.7–16.13). His main concern throughout his testament is the future of his daughter. One could assume therefore that in the case of Aristotle his writings remained in the library and were thus inherited by Theophrastus. That is what Strabo at least thought of their destiny. Strabo, who narrates the fate of both Aristotle’s and Theophrastus’ books, further reports that Theophrastus’ collection, presumably his works and what he had inherited from Aristotle, strangely enough ended up in Skepsis in the possession of someone called Neleus. This detail agrees in part with the text in Diogenes Laertius, where Neleus appears to have bequeathed the books of Theophrastus (D.L. 5.52.10–53). Νηλεύς, ἀνὴρ καὶ Ἀριστοτέλους ἠκροαμένος καὶ Θεοϕράστου, διαδεδεγμένος δὲ τὴν βιβλιοθήκην τοῦ Θεοϕράστου, ἐν ᾗ ἦν καὶ ἡ τοῦ Ἀριστοτέλους ὁ γοῦν Ἀριστοτέλης τὴν ἑαυτοῦ Θεοϕράστῳ παρέδωκεν, ᾧπερ καὶ τὴν σχολὴν ἀπέλιπε, πρῶτος ὧν ἴσμεν συναγαγὼν βιβλία καὶ διδάξας τοὺς ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ βασιλέας βιβλιοθήκης σύνταξιν. Θεόϕραστος δὲ Νηλεῖ παρέδωκεν, ὁ δ’ εἰς Σκῆψιν κομίσας τοῖς μετ’ αὐτὸν παρέδωκεν, ἰδιώταις ἀνθρώποις, οἳ κατάκλειστα εἶχον τὰ βιβλία οὐδ’ ἐπιμελῶς κείμενα Neleus, a man who heard the lectures of both Aristotle and Theophrastus, received the library of Theophrastus, in which was included also that of Aristotle. Aristotle then bequeathed his own library to Theophrastus, to whom he also left the school, having been the first man we know to have collected books and to have taught the kings of Egypt how to set up a library. Theophrastus bequeathed it [sc. the library] to Neleus, and he [sc. Neleus] took it to Scepsis and bequeathed it to his heirs, ordinary people, who kept the books locked up without storing them carefully. Str. 13.1.54, p. 608 609C Radt

Strabo adds a detail that reveals the fate of the books after they were given to Neleus. He claims that the citizens who ended up with Neleus’ collection hid the books from the Attalic kings, who were in search of books for the library of Pergamum, and years after sold the books to Appelicon of Teos (Str.13.1.54, p. 609C Radt).¹⁴ Strabo’s narrative, which emphatically states the provenance of Neleus’ collection—τά τε Ἀριστοτέλους καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοϕράστου βιβλία—agrees with the story we have in Plutarch on how the books of both Aristotle and Theophrastus were sold to Apellicon of Teos, and were ultimately transferred by Sulla to Athens (Sull.26.1–4). Strabo’s narrative refers as well to how, after Neleus took away the collection, the Lyceum had copies of only a small part of Aristotle’s works, chiefly the exoteric works which are now lost to us (καὶ μάλιστα τῶν ἐξωτερικῶν).¹⁵ ¹⁴ Jacob (2013) 66 76 analyses the passage in Str. 13.1.54, p. 609C Radt in great detail. ¹⁵ Interestingly, Strabo claims that Apellicon restored erroneously the books of both Aristotle and Theophrastus he had in his possession which he afterwards published (Str. 13.1.54, p. 609C Radt).

220

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

Athenaeus on the other hand offers a different account of the fate of these books: Neleus sold all the books to Ptolemy II Philadelphus, who then transferred them to Alexandria. ἦν δέ, ϕησί, καὶ βιβλίων κτῆσις αὐτῷ ἀρχαίων Ἑλληνικῶν τοσαύτη ὡς ὑπερβάλλειν πάντας τοὺς ἐπὶ συναγωγῇ τεθαυμασμένους . . . Ἀριστοτέλην τε τὸν ϕιλόσοϕον καὶ τὸν τὰ τούτων διατηρήσαντα βιβλία Νηλέα παρ’ οὗ πάντα, ϕησί, πριάμενος ὁ ἡμεδαπὸς βασιλεύς Πτολεμαῖος, Φιλάδελϕος δὲ ἐπίκλην, μετὰ τῶν Ἀθήνηθεν καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ Ῥόδου εἰς τὴν καλὴν Ἀλεξάνδρειαν μετήγαγε. [Athenaeus] says that he [sc. Larensius] had in his possession such a collection of old Greek books that he surpassed all those who were admired for their collec tions . . . Aristotle the philosopher and Neleus, who preserved their [sc. Aristotle and Theophrastus] books. Having purchased from him everything, he says, our king Ptolemy, who was called Philadelphus, transferred them to beautiful Alexan dria together with those which he had procured from Athens and from Rhodes. Ath. 1.3a3 b4

It is difficult to establish which of the two accounts represents the truth: Neleus’ bequeathed book collection being sold to Apellicon of Teos and being eventually brought to Athens by Sulla or being transferred to Alexandria by Ptolemy II? One can only claim with certainty that they both touch upon the enigma of the transmission of those parts of Aristotle’s work which came to Europe in Arabic versions.¹⁶ Apparently, each account serves a different purpose for each author. For Strabo, the reason for the decline of the Peripatetic school was the loss of the works of Aristotle and Theophrastus.¹⁷ Athenaeus on the other hand may reflect the attempts of the Ptolemies to connect their Library with the Peripatos, and may thus embody a tradition that wanted them to be connected with the Peripatetic library. Thus, the ‘books from Athens’ in his narrative (τῶν Ἀθήνηθεν) may represent a purchase from the Peripatetic school, and the ‘books from Rhodes’ (τῶν ἀπὸ Ῥόδου) a purchase from the books the Peripatetic Eudemus took to Rhodes after he left the Lyceum, and may thus indeed refer to a purchase from the library in Rhodes (see Map 6.1). It is difficult to know whether these accounts refer to the entire collection of the Peripatetic library, and as a consequence the narrative brings forward additional uncertainties. There is nonetheless some reason to believe that some Peripatetic texts found their way to Egypt by purchase.¹⁸ Purchase was not the only way in which texts from the Peripatetic library travelled to Egypt. The Peripatetics presumably brought with them texts when

¹⁶ For the two possible sources of information on the transmission of Aristotle’s work to the modern world, Tanner (2000) 79 81. ¹⁷ Gottschalk (1987) 1088 argues that Strabo’s account aimed to indicate that ‘serious philosophizing must start from written texts’; for the view that Strabo attempted to enhance the reputation of Apellicon’s edition of Aristotle’s text, Lindsay (1997). ¹⁸ See also the interpretation of these passages in Montana (2015) 167 70.

The Hellenistic Era: Lyric Texts and the Lyric Canon

221

Map 6.1. Locations of known libraries in the Mediterranean, in relation to lyric activity, from the fifth to the second century .

they were tutors at the Ptolemaic court. Thus, those texts that had Peripatetic origin and arrived in Alexandria could have been of two different kinds: the Peripatetic treatises themselves and texts of the literature the Peripatetics had already worked on and were in their possession in the library of the Lyceum. As far as our evidence allows us to conclude, no Alexandrian scholar who followed the Peripatetic method repeated the topics that had already been discussed in the Peripatos nor did any compose treatises on authors or poets who already had a Peripatetic treatise devoted to them. On the contrary, they either filled in lacunae in the Peripatetic project or they dealt in greater detail with certain genres and topics.¹⁹ For example, the Alexandrians show particular interest in iambus, which was not amply represented in the Peripatetic project: the Callimachean Hermippus of Smyrna produced a treatise Περὶ Ιππώνακτος, as already mentioned (fr.93 W² = FGrHist IVA 1026 F55, Ath. 7.304b); Apollonius of Rhodes wrote a Περὶ Ἀρχιλόχου (Ath. 10.451d); Aristarchus prepared the Ἀρχιλόχεια Ὑπομνήματα, presumably a running commentary

¹⁹ Cf. Lowe (2013) 347, 356, who detects an anti Peripatetic impetus in the literary poetics and the scholarly practice in the Alexandrian Library and Museum, especially on how comedy should be read.

222

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

on Archilochus’ text (Clem.Al. Strom.1.21.117.2; Σ Pi. O.6.154a, Dr. i, p. 189).²⁰ The monograph of Aristophanes of Byzantium Περὶ τῆς Ἀχνυμένης Σκυτάλης Σύγγραμμα (Treatise on the achnymenē skytalē Ath. 3.85e = fr.367 Slater) which discussed the phrase ἀχνυμένη σκυτάλη in Archilochus (185 IEG²) is worth mentioning, as this phrase was also interpreted in the treatise of Apollonius of Rhodes on Archilochus. A broader Hellenistic study on iambus, which in all probability included not only Archilochus and Hipponax but also Semonides, was presumably prepared by Lysanias of Cyrene, and was entitled Περὶ Ἰαμβο ποιῶν (On the Iambographers). Lysanias’ work apparently comprised more than one book (Ath. 14.620c ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ Περὶ Ἰαμβοποιῶν) wherein he discussed questions of iambic performances, and also included iambic fragments.²¹ In addition to the involvement of the Alexandrians in the study of iambus, scholarly interest in Greek comedy was increasing in the Alexandrian Library even before the time of Aristophanes of Byzantium. Lycophron from Chalcis wrote a Περὶ Κωμῳδίας (Ath. 13.555a–b); Eratosthenes, who is cited in the scholia to Aristophanes and in Athenaeus as disagreeing with Lycophron, apparently wrote a treatise also entitled Peri Kōmōidias which comprised at least of eleven books (Περὶ Κωμῳδίας Ath. 11.501d–e);²² Dionysiades’ work Χαρακτήρες ἤ Φιλοκώμῳδοι (Characters or Loving Comedies Suda s.v. Διονυσιάδης, δ 1169 Adler); Euphronius, who is cited in the scholia on Wasps and Birds, might have written commentaries on individual plays of Aristophanes (Ar. T113 PCG iii.2);²³ lastly, Callistratus of Alexandria is frequently cited in the scholia on Aristophanes’ Frogs, Birds, and Wasps.²⁴ Possibly, these early Hellenistic works on comedy were absorbed in the scholarly work of Aristophanes of Byzantium on comedy and in the works of other scholars in the Library.²⁵ This growing interest in the comic genre and the extensive activity of five Alexandrian scholars in the form of Peripatetic treatises in the early years of the Library comes again in contrast to the lack of extensive treatment of the comic genre in the Peripatetic project, an assertion that remains true even with the existence of Theophrastus’ specialized treatises Περὶ κωμῳδίας (On Comedy D.L. 5.47, Ath. 6.261d) and Περὶ γελοίου (On Ludicrous D.L. 5.46, Ath. 8.348a), as well as Chamaeleon’s six-books long Περὶ κωμῳδίας or Περί παλαιᾶς κωμῳδίας (On Comedy/On Old Comedy frr.43–4 W²). With regards to the editorial activity of the Alexandrians on comic texts, Aristophanes of Byzantium prepared the first critical edition of the comedies of Aristophanes, ²⁰ On Hermippus of Smyrna and his treatise on Hipponax, see Chapter 4 in this book, ‘The Peri Treatises on the Lyric Poets’. ²¹ Ath. 14.620c on the performance of Semonides’ iamboi; Ath. 7.304b with the quotation of a fragment of Hipponax. ²² e.g. Σ v Ar. V.239a; Plut.1194; Σ vTr Pax 199b. ²³ e.g. Σ v Ar. V.604c, 606a, 674c, 1086a; Σ vr Av.358c, 765a, 933a, 997a. ²⁴ e.g. Σ v Ar. Ra.790 1; Σ vr V.157a, 604c; Σ vr Av.440, 530a (Σ v), 933a, 997a. ²⁵ See in particular Lowe (2013) 351 4.

The Hellenistic Era: Lyric Texts and the Lyric Canon

223

wrote hypotheseis on Menander’s plays, he might in all likelihood have edited Menander’s Dyscolus²⁶ and have prepared a monograph on the charactertypes in Greek comedy (Περὶ προσώπων).²⁷ Aristarchus on the other hand commented on eight Aristophanic comedies.²⁸ The evidence is strong enough to suggest that either the Peripatetic treatises themselves somehow reached the Alexandrian Library or the Alexandrians were familiar with the work on comedy that was (not) completed in the Lyceum. It is more difficult to identify the primary texts that were transferred from the Peripatetic library to Alexandria, and for our purposes the primary texts of lyric. A comparison of the possessions of the two libraries reveals that some of the texts that might have been in the possession of the Peripatos never reached Egypt (e.g. Lasus), while others, which are not attested for the Peripatos, did and in fact became part of the Alexandrian collection (e.g. Ibycus, Bacchylides, and Hipponax). We need nevertheless to accept that a picture such as the above might be the result of our uneven evidence. If we collate and compare the sources related to the two libraries, we expectedly reach the conclusion that the library of the Peripatos cannot have moved in its entirety to Egypt, despite the significant degree of continuity between the two. We can only give partial and imprecise answers to the question of when the texts that were on the Library’s bookshelves actually reached Alexandria. With no doubt, the creation of both the Museum and the Library took place with the ultimate goal of gathering in book-rolls the most prestigious intellectual achievements and with the aim ‘to create the definitive collection of all extant written knowledge.’²⁹ Aristeas and Tzetzes report that Demetrius of Phalerum had received the order to assemble all the books that were available (συναγαγεῖν, ἤθροισε).³⁰ Other sources equally refer to non-Greek texts that the Ptolemies wanted to have in their possession and that were subsequently translated into Greek in order to be studied in the Library: Eusebius reports a letter of king Ptolemy II Philadelphus to the high priest Eleazar where he requested the Jewish Law to be translated into Greek so that it could be added to the royal books in the Alexandrian Library (PE 8.4), and Hermippus of Smyrna apparently commented on a Greek translation of the Zoroastrian ²⁶ Pfeiffer (1968) 190 2; Nervegna (2013) 56. ²⁷ Pfeiffer (1968) 208; the sole fragment deals with the comic character Μαίσων (Aristophanes of Byzantium fr.363 Slater = Ath. 14.659a). ²⁸ Pfeiffer (1968) 224; Pöhlmann (1994) 33. ²⁹ Barbantani (2009) 298. ³⁰ Evidence testifies for a bibliophile interest throughout Mesopotamia and the Near East long before the mid seventh century , and also indicates the existence of libraries, on which Potts (2000); Robson, E. (2013). The remains of a papyrus roll dated between the mid third to mid second century  and containing a philosophical dialogue has been discovered in the palace treasury in Ai Khanoum, a site in ancient Bactria, on which Lerner (2003). Notwithstanding its later date, the Ai Khanoum philosophical papyrus is suggestive of the possible existence of papyrus collections in geographical locations where the institution of the library might not have necessarily been officially established.

224

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

corpus for which he also provided indices (FGrHist IVA 1026 F57 = Plin. HN 30.2–4).³¹ Moreover, Vitruvius preserves an anecdote on how Aristophanes of Byzantium, relying upon his memory, produced a great amount of texts from the Library’s scrolls which he compared with the recitations at a poetic competition in order to prove that the poets who were favourably received did not produce original works but reproduced the works that were in the possession of the Library (Vitr. De arch. 7 praef. 4–7). The anecdote encompasses precisely the entire aim of the Alexandrian Library: to secure every available written work and to preserve as a result a worldwide cultural memory in an environment that secured control and invited scholarly judgment. This remarkably ambitious project gradually transformed the Alexandrian Library into a monument of Greek culture.³² It linked the new kingdom with a Greek past and present, and clearly had as its chief aim the establishment of Alexandria as the main cultural centre of the new Greek world. The presence of Demetrius of Phalerum in Alexandria and his activities at the court, the Peripatetic influence with regards to both the establishment of the Library and the principles of the early Hellenistic scholarly works, as well as the preoccupation of the Hellenistic scholars with gathering and studying all the texts of the Greeks are hard evidence that support the assumption that the Alexandrian court was both imitating Athens and seeking to borrow from Athens. Undoubtedly, Athens was the ultimate model for a centre of Greek culture.³³ It was not the sole model, however. The Ptolemies continued and revitalized a tradition of patronage that was established in courts which attempted to portray Greek identity: Sicily, Syracuse, and Macedonia. Athens, moreover, did not control all the (Greek) texts. The geographical origin of the majority of the canonical lyric texts was not Athenian, as already emphasized, and not all of them went through Athens to reach Alexandria. It is therefore probable that not all the texts that ended up in Alexandria were found in the city of Athens and that not all of them were previously in the possession of the Athenian Peripatos. Any attempts to answer questions regarding the timeframe within which the texts began to arrive into the Alexandrian Library need to take into account the date when editorial activity on the texts began. Tzetzes records that Ptolemy II Philadelphus (reign c.284–46 ) assigned to Alexander of Aetolia, Lycophron of Chalcis, and Zenodotus of Ephesus the task of editing the Homeric epics, and the texts of tragedy, comedy, and of the rest of the poets whose work was at that point in the Library (τῶν λοιπῶν ποιητῶν).³⁴ The ³¹ See the commentary in Bollansée (1999b) 438 44 ad loc. ³² Maehler (2004a) 7 characterizes this Ptolemaic policy as ‘cultural defensiveness’. ³³ Some points of contact are raised in Hunter (2011) 52 3. ³⁴ Cf. Tzetzes’ Prolegom. Com. Prooemium I 1 5 Koster, where Alexander the Aetolian and Lycophron are also associated with editorial work on satyr drama (καὶ τὰς [sc. βίβλους] τῶν σατύρων ϕημί ). Tzetzes’ testimony disagrees with the Scholion Plautinum as to the activity of the

The Hellenistic Era: Lyric Texts and the Lyric Canon

225

fourth collective and unidentified group that is assigned to Zenodotus along with Homer is of great importance with reference to the lyric texts that the Library might have possessed. Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Αἰτωλὸς καὶ Λυκόϕρων ὁ Χαλκιδεύς, ἀλλὰ καὶ Ζηνόδοτος ὁ Ἐϕέσιος τῷ Φιλαδέλϕῳ Πτολεμαίῳ συνωθηθέντες βασιλικῶς ὁ μὲν τὰς τῆς τραγῳδίας, Λυκόϕρων δὲ τὰς τῆς κωμῳδίας βίβλους διώρθωσαν, Ζηνόδοτος δὲ τὰς ὁμηρείους καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ποιητῶν. Alexander of Aetolia and Lycophron of Chalcis but also Zenodotus of Ephesus corrected the books after they were all brought together by the royal command of Ptolemy Philadelphus. He [sc. Alexander] those of tragedy, Lycophron the books of comedy, and Zenodotus those of Homer and of the rest of the poets. Tzetzes Prolegom. Com. Prooemium II 1 4 Koster

Zenodotus of Ephesus worked in the Library from the beginning of the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, and consequently 283/4  should be taken as terminus ante quem for the arrival of the first book-rolls. Strato probably brought books with him to Alexandria when he was the tutor to the son of Ptolemy I Soter, and Philitas of Cos presumably had books at his disposal when he also tutored the children of Ptolemy I Soter. Ultimately, the official collection of books presumably began when Demetrius of Phalerum was in Alexandria, who, although not recognized in any source as one of the librarians in the Alexandrian Library, was in all probability the one in charge not only of collecting books, as our texts testify, but also of setting up and organizing the Alexandrian Library.³⁵ Even if one ignores the role of Demetrius and accepts the traditional view that perceives Zenodotus as the first Head of the Library, it is logical to deduce that the beginning of the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus cannot be taken as a terminus post quem for the acquisition of books. Librarians become necessary when a library possesses books, and given that editorial activity began under Ptolemy II, if we trust Tzetzes, these texts probably pre-existed in the Library. Stories found in Galen describing the acquisition of books provide us with important information about the gradual accumulation of book-rolls in the Library. Galen reports three different explanations on how a papyrus with the third book of Hippocrates’ On Epidemics was identified in the Library with the name of the physician Mnemon of Side. According to some, Mnemon borrowed the book from the Library, and returned it with additions and comments on the margins (XVII.i, p. 606 Kühn); others assumed that

scholars; Tzetzes suggests that they were appointed to correct the texts assigned to them (διώρθωσαν), whereas we read in the Scholion (3 6) that they were meant to collect the texts and put them in order (collegerunt et in ordinem redegerunt). ³⁵ Collins (2000) 82 114 on the hypothesis that Demetrius of Phalerum was the first librarian in Alexandria.

226

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

the identification tag had the name of the papyrus’ owner, that is of Mnemon (XVII.i, pp. 606–7 Kühn); lastly, some claimed that Mnemon’s copy of the treatise was replaced in the Library after the enforcement of a decree of Ptolemy. Apparently, Ptolemy III Euergetes (reign 246–22 ) gave the order to unload any ships that reached Alexandria loaded with books, to seize and copy the books, and finally to return to their owners the copies, not the originals. ἔνιοι δὲ καὶ αὐτὸν ἐκ Παμϕυλίας κεκομικέναι καὶ ϕιλότιμον δὲ περὶ βιβλία τόν τε βασιλέα τῆς Αἰγύπτου Πτολεμαῖον οὕτω γενέσθαι ϕασίν, ὡς καὶ τῶν καταπλεόντων ἁπάντων τὰ βιβλία κελεῦσαι πρὸς αὐτὸν κομίζεσθαι καὶ ταῦτα εἰς καινοὺς χάρτας γράϕοντα διδόναι μὲν τὰ γραϕέντα τοῖς δεσπόταις, ὧν καταπλευσάντων ἐκομίσθησαν αἱ βίβλοι πρὸς αὐτόν, εἰς δὲ τὰς βιβλιοθήκας ἀποτίθεσθαι τὰ κομισθέντα καὶ εἶναι τὰς ἐπιγραϕὰς αὐτοῖς τῶν ἐκ πλοίων. ἓν δέ τι τοιοῦτόν ϕασιν εὑρεθῆναι καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῶν ἐπιδημιῶν ἐπιγεγραμμένον, τῶν ἐκ πλοίων κατὰ διορθωτὴν Μνήμονα Σιδίτην Others say that he had brought that copy with him from Pamphyles and that Ptolemy, the then king of Egypt, who had a passion for acquiring books, made things happen in the following way. He ordered that the books on all the ships sailing [into Alexandria] were to be brought to him and after he had copied them into new books that the copies were to be given to the owners, whose books had been brought to him from the ships that came ashore, and that the acquired books were to be deposited in the libraries and that they would be labelled ‘from the ships’. They say that one such book was found and it was the third book of On Epidemics which was inscribed ‘from the ships, emended by Galen Comm. II In Hipp. Epid. Γ XVII.i, p. 606 Kühn Mnemon of Side’

Narratives such as the above on Mnemon’s copy of On Epidemics are strong enough evidence to suggest that book-rolls were probably acquired not exclusively from legitimate sources (libraries or individuals) and that they were also obtained gradually and not always as corpora. This gradual acquisition of texts could partly explain the chronological order in which each genre was edited. Not in absolute terms, however. Acquisition and editing of the received texts should be perceived as two distinct and at times unrelated activities; the former does not necessarily presuppose the latter. We can also presume that the degree of importance and value of each author and genre might have played a role in both the editing process and the editing order in the Alexandrian Library. Galen’s account on Mnemon’s copy of the third book of Hippocrates’ On Epidemics is followed by the narration of a trick which Ptolemy III employed in order to get into his possession the official copies of the three tragedians from Athens. This, according to Galen, had as a result the copies and not the originals to be sent back to Athens. ὅτι δ’ οὕτως ἐσπούδαζε περὶ τὴν τῶν παλαιῶν βιβλίων κτῆσιν ὁ Πτολεμαῖος ἐκεῖνος οὐ μικρὸν εἶναι μαρτύριόν ϕασιν ὃ πρὸς Ἀθηναίους ἔπραξεν. δοὺς γὰρ αὐτοῖς

The Hellenistic Era: Lyric Texts and the Lyric Canon

227

ἐνέχυρα πεντεκαίδεκα τάλαντα ἀργυρίου καὶ λαβὼν τὰ Σοϕοκλέους καὶ Εὐριπίδου καὶ Αἰσχύλου βιβλία χάριν τοῦ γράψαι μόνον ἐξ αὐτῶν, εἶτ’ εὐθέως ἀποδοῦναι σῶα, κατασκευάσας πολυτελῶς ἐν χάρταις καλλίστοις, ἃ μὲν ἔλαβε παρὰ Ἀθηναίων κατέσχεν, ἃ δ’ αὐτὸς κατεσκεύασεν ἔπεμψεν αὐτοῖς παρακαλῶν ἔχειν τε τὰ πεντεκαίδεκα τάλαντα καὶ λαβεῖν ἀνθ’ ὧν ἕδοσαν βιβλίων παλαιῶν τὰ καινά. τοῖς μὲν οὖν Ἀθηναίοις, εἰ καὶ μὴ καινὰς ἐπεπόμϕει βίβλους, ἀλλὰ κατεσχήκει τὰς παλαιάς, οὐδὲν ἦν ἄλλο ποιεῖν, εἰληϕόσι γε τὸ ἀργύριον ἐπὶ συνθήκαις τοιαύταις, ὡς αὐτοὺς κατασχεῖν, εἰ κᾀκεῖνος κατάσχοι τὰ βιβλία, καὶ διὰ τοῦτ’ ἔλαβόν τε τὰ καινὰ καὶ κατέσχον καὶ τὸ ἀργύριον. They say that a big proof of the eagerness of that Ptolemy to acquire old books is what he did to the Athenians. Having put a deposit of fifteen talents of silver as security, he took the works of Sophocles, Euripides, and Aeschylus for the sole purpose of copying them, after which they were to be returned in good condition. Having made new and expensive copies on paper of the best quality, he kept those he received from the Athenians and sent them the ones he had made, asking them to keep the fifteen talents and to accept the new copies in lieu of the old books they gave to him. Under such circumstances the Athenians accepted the silver, since he had kept the books, as it would not have been possible for them to do anything else, even if he had not sent the new books but still had kept the old, or even in case that he had kept all the books. For this reason they received the new and kept the Galen Comm. II In Hipp. Epid. Γ XVII.i, p. 607 Kühn silver as well.

It is difficult to put much weight on Galen’s testimony, as some details in his narration cause problems. The reference to Ptolemy III places us in the third reign of the Ptolemies, during which scholarly work on texts had already begun in the Library. Given the pan-Hellenic status of Athenian drama that was established and was well recognized by the fourth century , it is surprising that the Library did not possess any copies of the Athenian texts of the tragedians by mid-third century . Is it implied that copies of the Athenian tragedies did not travel at all, even in the third century ? Tragic plays were travelling in the Greek world already from the fifth century , and there must at least have been actors’ copies of the most popular plays available. Nevertheless, it is plausible that the Ptolemies did not possess the entire corpus of each tragedian, and, if we assume that they were sent the official texts that were created under Lycurgus’ decree, they might only at that point have managed to get hold of the whole of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides. In terms of chronology, Galen’s chronological framework for the presence of the tragic texts in the Library (246–22 ) does not agree with the timeframe that Tzetzes presents in his Prolegomena with reference to the editorial activity on the texts of the tragedians (283/4–46 ). The amount of detail in Tzetzes’ text about the scholarly activity of specific scholars in the Library works nevertheless in favour of his testimony, according to which editorial work on specific texts started as early as Ptolemy II. Despite the chronological

228

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

discrepancy in these two sources, however, one probably needs to accept that the Athenian state-copy that was prepared under Lycurgus’ law was the ultimate source for the Alexandrian text of the tragedians, and this might ultimately have been the reason for the fabrication of Galen’s anecdote. One should necessarily confront anecdotes of the sort found in Galen about the early years of the Library cautiously, as a cultural project of this unprecedented scale would naturally have attracted legends.³⁶ Tragedy was one of the great Athenian cultural achievements, and was also presented and advertised as such. It is therefore difficult to believe that the Athenians, having gone to so much trouble and presumably expense to archive and maintain the fifth-century texts of tragedy, would voluntarily have surrendered the originals, even at the price of fifteen talents of silver.³⁷ It is surely more likely that they would have handed over copies. We are offered no information in the aforementioned passages on the geographical origin of the texts that arrived in Alexandria, but the Homeric scholia suggest that Athens was not the only source for books. Texts of Homer are often designated by place-names in the Homeric scholia to the Iliad, and these texts were known collectively to the scholiasts as αἱ κατὰ πόλεις (‘from the cities’).³⁸ The labels presumably refer to the provenance of the copies of the Homeric text that reached Alexandria. This geographical distinction clearly shows that texts of Homer circulated in different cities and some of them (we cannot be sure that it was all of them) found their way to Alexandria. The scholia report no other author-text that reached Alexandria with regional variants, and one cannot therefore generalize from Homer. Such an exception for the Homeric text may reasonably lead to the belief that a single source was at work in most cases, but one cannot be certain whether that source was exclusively the city of Athens. One can confidently claim an Athenian source only for Athenian authors. Without placing too much weight on the details of individual stories, one may reasonably conclude that all the texts the Library possessed were gathered mainly due to the Ptolemies’ desire to have in their possession any kind of written knowledge, establishing, as it were, ‘a monopoly of Greek culture’, ³⁶ On the disputable credibility of Galen as source for the Alexandrian Library, Johnstone (2014) 362 5. ³⁷ On the legislation for the preservation of texts of Athenian tragedies, see Chapter 5 in this book,‘Lyric Texts, Melic Performances, and Lyric Memory’. ³⁸ Σ Hom. Il.1.423 4 Erbse οὕτως δὲ εὕρομεν καὶ ἐν τῇ Μασσαλιωτικῇ καὶ Σινωπικῇ καὶ Κυπρίᾳ καὶ Ἀντιμαχείῳ καὶ Ἀριστοϕανείῳ (‘thus we found in the edition from Marseille and from Sinope and from Cyprus and in that by Antimachus and Aristophanes’); also Σ Hom. Il.21.11a, 86d, 535a1; Il.22.93c; Il.24.82c Erbse. It is ambigious in Σ Hom. Il.1.423 4 where τῇ refers to, but the conjunction of the books from the cities with Antimachus of Colophon and Aristophanes of Byzantium suggests that the pronoun refers to a correction or recension of the Homeric text. The product of Aristophanes’ work on the Homeric Iliad is called διόρθωσις (‘correction’) in Σ Hom. Il.2.192b, which is probably the implied noun in the case of the text from the cities.

The Hellenistic Era: Lyric Texts and the Lyric Canon

229

and not solely due to scholarly desire to retain, correct, and reproduce the texts of previous literature.³⁹ One can go, however, further and follow Steve Johnstone who treats the Alexandrian Library, among other ancient libraries, as ‘a political project of aristocratic euergetism’ and as an example of bibliomania, and not simply as a repository of knowledge.⁴⁰ Johnstone argues that books were valued in Alexandria because of their form rather than their content, and the anecdote in Galen with regards to the official Athenian copies of tragedy is the appropriate example in favour of his argument.⁴¹ Galen describes Ptolemy as being keen to acquire old books (παλαιῶν) not simply books, and the importance of this characterization is emphasized in the exchange that Ptolemy secretly made: he returned the new copies (τὰ καινά) in place of the old books (βιβλίων παλαιῶν), an important specification that juxtaposes chronologically the two texts of tragedy Ptolemy had in his possession after the copies were prepared. Books are presented therefore as prestigious objects, and our sources constantly draw attention to the Ptolemies’ obsession with possessing every single book in the world. In this particular case, however, it is the original books that would carry that prestige, and this association between the prototype and prestige connects as a result their value with their age: the older the books, the more valuable they were. As it is presented in Galen’s anecdote, the desired objects are the old and official books of Athenian tragedy, which adds to Ptolemy’s actions both a political and a cultural dimension. If Alexandria was to become the new cultural centre, it had to have on the bookshelves of its Library the greatest cultural achievement of Athens, and these achievements carried as well the city’s political identity and prestige in the fifth century .⁴²

Working on Lyric Texts in the Library Given the voracious attempts of the Ptolemies to obtain books and texts, one could conclude that the contents of the Library, at least before Zenodotus, were not limited to the best Greek texts or to the best versions of those texts, but simply to (Greek) texts which derived from every possible source. Accumulation therefore and not necessarily quality was probably the main characteristic of the Library at its initial stages of formation. The Alexandrians presumably had priorities—famous works which they especially wished to acquire—but the canon as a list of respectable older authors, as understood by Quintilian, was a secondary feature of the Library, in the sense that it postdates ³⁹ Quotation from Erskine (1995) 45. ⁴⁰ Johnstone (2014) 357. ⁴¹ Johnstone (2014) 368 73. ⁴² Cf. Hanink (2014) 1 22 and 241 6 on the fourth century status of classical tragedy as emblem of Athenian civic identity.

230

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

the first period of book acquisition. Knowledge of the existence of certain texts would probably have motivated both the Ptolemaic court and the Alexandrian scholars to attempt to acquire those specific texts and also any texts whatsoever. Alexandria’s status since 320  as a major cultural centre attracted as well the leading thinkers from the islands and from great eastern cities.⁴³ These visits probably offered another source for texts for the Library and an additional means of acquiring them. As the collection in the Library that was established by Ptolemy I Soter grew, a second library was created in the Serapeum Temple that was built by Ptolemy III Euergetes (reign 246–21 ).⁴⁴ Tzetzes mentions in his Prolegomena that the two libraries stored hundreds of thousands of papyrus rolls.⁴⁵ δυσὶ βιβλιοθήκαις ταύτας ἀπέθετο, ὧν τῆς ἐκτὸς μὲν ἦν ἀριθμὸς τετρακισμύριαι δισχίλιαι ὀκτακόσιαι, τῆς δ’ ἔσω τῶν ἀνακτόρων καὶ βασιλείου βίβλων μὲν συμμιγῶν ἀριθμὸς τεσσαράκοντα μυριάδες, ἁπλῶν δὲ καὶ ἀμιγῶν βίβλων μυριάδες ἐννέα, ὡς ὁ Καλλίμαχος νεανίσκος ὢν τῆς αὐλῆς ὑστέρως μετὰ τὴν ἀνόρθωσιν τοὺς πίνακας αὐτῶν ἀπεγράψατο. Ἐρατοσθένης δέ, ὁ ἡλικιώτης αὐτοῦ, παρά τοῦ βασιλέως τὸ τοσοῦτον ἐνεπιστεύθη βιβλιοϕυλάκιον. He then deposited these [books] in two libraries, of which the one outside contained 428,000 books and the one inside the palace grounds contained 400,000 composite and 90,000 simple unmixed books, as the young Callimachus wrote when he was at the court and after he had compiled the Pinakes for these books. Eratosthenes, who was the same age as he, was entrusted the royal book archive. Tzetzes Prolegom. Com. Prooemium II 8 14 Koster

Despite the probably unstructured manner in which texts were gradually arriving in Alexandria, the scholars in the Library attempted to catalogue them based on the totality of texts they possessed and on the information they had on a particular work.⁴⁶ Callimachus’ Pinakes suggest that the Library possessed by his time enough book-rolls from a substantial number of authors that allowed him to divide Greek literature in several classes grouped by genre. Evidently, Callimachus’ task was to develop an appropriate system for cataloguing and arranging the texts of all the writers who were collected in the

⁴³ Pfeiffer (1968) 93. ⁴⁴ Irenaeus Adv.Haer.3.21.2 (Fr.Gr.31.3 8) Doutreleau et al. is the only testimony for Ptolemy I Soter as the founder of the Alexandrian Library; cf. Eus. HE 5.8.11 who refers to Irenaeus. By implication also Str. 17.1.8, p. 794C Radt with reference to the Museum. On the branch library in the Serapeum, El Abbadi (1992) 74, 91 92; Barnes (2000) 62; Collins (2000) 112 14; MacLeod (2000) 5; Staikos (2004) 174 6; Hendrickson (2016) has recently gone through the information on the Serapeum library and suggests that it was established during the reign of Septimius Severus (193 211 ). ⁴⁵ Aulus Gellius (7.17.3) and Ammianus Marcellinus (RG 22.16.12.13) report that the books reached 700,000 volumes, and Ammianus refers to two libraries (in qui dui bibliothecae). A sceptical source that questions the credibility of the ancient sources with reference to the size of the Library is Bagnall (2002). ⁴⁶ On the labels of books in the Library, Fraser (1972) i.325 7.

The Hellenistic Era: Lyric Texts and the Lyric Canon

231

Library up to his time.⁴⁷ This resulted in the creation of a bibliographic and critical inventory of Greek literature in an attempt to both memorialize and control the accumulated knowledge. The fragments of this task of Callimachus, which was apparently driven by the Alexandrian’s encyclopaedic ambition in obtaining comprehensive knowledge, indicate that he divided the corpus of Greek literature in the Library into three classes: ῥητορικά (‘related to oratory’ frr.430–2, 443–8 Pf.), νόμοι (‘laws’ fr.433 Pf.), and παντοδαπὰ συγγράμματα (‘miscellanea’ frr.429, 434–5 Pf.).⁴⁸ Beyond the παντοδαπὰ συγγράμματα it seems that seven further subdivisions existed in Callimachus’ Pinakes, as we have references to epic (fr.452–3 Pf.), lyric (frr.441? presumably to epinicians, 450 Pf.), tragic (frr.449?, 451 Pf.), and comic poets and their works (frr.439–40 Pf.), philosophers (frr.438?, 442 Pf.), historians (fr.437 Pf.), and medical writers (fr.429? Pf.).⁴⁹ Each class included individual author-representatives in alphabetical order with a brief biography and the incipit of their works. Callimachus did not edit any authors nor did he produce any commentaries.⁵⁰ His taxonomy therefore implies that the bookrolls or the works he had at his disposal included both the title and the name of the author. His arrangement in the Pinakes also suggests that he had the necessary knowledge and was confident enough not only that he knew the author but also that he could identify the literary genre in order to be able to group texts together. The text of Tzetzes’ Prolegomena with reference to the editing of specific genres allows us to conclude that the Library held enough representative works from each genre for Callimachus to be in a position to catalogue the totality of knowledge in the Library. One should indeed consider the number of scattered (lyric) fragments that were probably in the Library in order to recognize the significance of Callimachus’ work in assembling, identifying, and categorizing the texts and fragments available.⁵¹ Tzetzes’ testimony also suggests that his Pinakes included only works that were in the possession of the Library (τοὺς πίνακας αὐτῶν [sc. βίβλων] ἀπεγράψατο); he reports that Callimachus registered in the Pinakes the books that were stored in the Library and whose keeper was Eratosthenes. This conclusion is, however, challenged in the Suda where one finds a different (perhaps the complete) title for Callimachus’ work Πίνακες τῶν ἐν πάσῃ παιδείᾳ διαλαμψάντων, καὶ ὧν συνέγραψαν, ἐν βιβλίοις κʹ καὶ ρʹ (Suda s.v. Καλλίμαχος, κ 227 Adler, ‘Tables of those who distinguished themselves in all fields of ⁴⁷ Pfeiffer (1968) 126. ⁴⁸ On encyclopaedism and the Alexandrian Library, Hatzimichali (2013). ⁴⁹ Pfeiffer (1968) 128 9. ⁵⁰ Krevans (2011) 119 points out that Callimachus responded to the already prepared editions by encoding his comments cleverly in his poetry. ⁵¹ Slater, W. (1976) illustrates some of the problems of cataloguing that the Alexandrian scholars faced; also Krevans (2011) 123 4.

232

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

culture, and of their writings in 120 book-rolls’).⁵² It is indeed possible that Callimachus listed in his Pinakes not solely the contents of the Library but, as Rudolf Pfeiffer points out, also works mentioned or cited in the already obtained literature.⁵³ Another possibility would be, as Fausto Montana proposes, that the Pinakes displayed an ‘intentional selectivity’ of the best authors (διαλαμψάντων = eminent), which would consequently suggest that Callimachus’ repertory did not include all the known authors and works, not even all those authors who were in the Library.⁵⁴ Still, Montana’s explanation implies that Callimachus assumed that the Library possessed the entire corpus of Greek literature from which he could choose the best authors. One cannot be absolutely certain if any of the above suggestions is valid. It is nonetheless conceivable that the Pinakes aimed to list ‘the totality of written wisdom’,⁵⁵ even if some of the works included in Callimachus’ work where not in the possession of the Library as physical texts.⁵⁶ Knowledge of their existence could after all have led the patrons of the Library to search for them. The important point in such a case is that, if the Pinakes included also works that were not in the Library at the time, their classification was based on information found in the already possessed texts and in the context of which these works might have been cited. The classification of lyric poetry came with a number of problems. The Pindaric scholia, for example, report a long-term disagreement about the classification of Pythian 2 by referring to a number of scholars who suggested different characterizations for the poem. According to the scholia (inscr. P.2, Dr. ii, p. 31), Timaius considered Pythian 2 θυσιαστικήν (‘sacrificial’), Callimachus Nemean (Νεμεακήν fr.450 Pf.), Ammonius and Callistratus, students of Aristarchus and Aristophanes of Byzantium respectively, wanted the poem to be an Olympian ode; some (ἔνιοι), the scholia state, among whom Apollonius the Eidograph, considered it a Pythian ode, others (ἔνιοι) wanted it to be a Panathenaic ode (Παναθηναϊκήν). According to Nick Lowe, ‘Aristophanes’ absence from the list is presumably an indication that the default classification [of the ode] as a Pythian in the standard edition was taken to represent his judgement.’⁵⁷ The mention of Callimachus here is highly significant. Possibly, when he was preparing his Pinakes, Callimachus had access to a number of Pindar’s poems and to a number of different kinds ⁵² See the analysis in Blum (1977) 224 8. ⁵³ Pfeiffer (1968) 128; cf. Pöhlmann (1994) 29 ‘Die “Pinakes” waren somit ein umfassendes Lexikon des gesamten in Alexandria bekannten Schrifttums.’ ⁵⁴ Montana (2015) 107. ⁵⁵ Hatzimichali (2013) 69; also Jacob (2013) 76 8 on the Pinakes as a ‘comprehensive map of written culture’ (p. 77). ⁵⁶ Bagnall (2002) 356n. 36 points out that Callimachus’ Pinakes were probably not themselves the Library’s catalogue, but were based on a catalogue, a suggestion which I find unlikely. ⁵⁷ Lowe (2007b) 172.

The Hellenistic Era: Lyric Texts and the Lyric Canon

233

of his poems that later became the seventeen books of the Pindaric corpus. In the case of the epinicians, which are under consideration here, Callimachus probably had at his disposal either all or the majority of Pindar’s victory odes. The scholion on Pythian 2 implies that he had access to many Pindaric victory odes from which he was able to distinguish features that were characteristic of each group. It also insinuates the idea that the organization of the Pindaric odes in books devoted to the Games began with Callimachus, who characterized the ode Pythian, and whose basic principles were later followed by Aristophanes of Byzantium. One can argue with confidence that scholarly work on the text of lyric poems, if not critical editions of lyric poets, had already begun at the time of Zenodotus. The group of texts assigned to Zenodotus, according to the testimony of Tzetzes, implies that it also presumably contained lyric poetry, among other kinds of poetry—τῶν λοιπῶν ποιητῶν (Prolegom. Com. Prooemium II 4 Koster). Zenodotus appears to have prepared the first critical editions of both Pindar and Anacreon, so evidently lyric texts were already on the Library’s shelves from his time.⁵⁸ One can almost securely conclude that work on Pindar’s victory odes had also begun with Zenodotus who, according to what one can infer from the scholia, possibly produced the first edition of the text. It is not certain which other lyric poets apart from Pindar and Anacreon reached Alexandria by Zenodotus’ time, and one cannot claim that all the nine lyric poets were represented in the Library in the early third century . If one accepts a close connection between the Peripatetic tradition and the library of Aristotle’s Lyceum, it is possible to conclude that a substantial amount of lyric texts reached the Library early. With reference to the presence of lyric poetry and with what was presumably in the Library in the early third century , the Pinakes are of great help. The arrangement in the Pinakes demonstrates not only that the Library had lyric poems already in its possession but also that it was significant to classify those poems into meaningful groups. In order therefore for Callimachus to be in a position to recognize similarities and differences between groups of poems, the Library presumably possessed enough lyric or at least enough poems of different lyric genres that allowed him to make these judgements and distinctions.⁵⁹ ⁵⁸ Anacreon: see Σ Pi. O.3.52a (Dr. i, p. 120), where the scholiast mentions a parallel from Anacreon (PMG 408) with the remark that Zenodotus corrected κεροέσσης in the Anacreontic text into ἐροέσσης. Two short notes in the scholia to Pindar’s Olympian odes point to Zenodotus’ variant readings, and verify the assumption that he dealt with the Pindaric text: i.e. Σ O.2.7a (Dr. i, p. 60), and O.6.92b (Dr. i, p. 174). Pindar: On the controversy of whether Zenodotus produced an edition (ἔκδοσις), a commen tary (ὑπόμνημα), or a correction (διόρθωσις) of the text of Pindar, Irigoin (1952) 31 3; Pfeiffer (1968) 117 18 with n. 4; Fraser (1972) ii.653 n. 34; Gentili et al. (1995) lxxiv; Phillips (2016) 54 5 who suggests that if Zenodotus did produce an edition of Pindar, that presumably included his epinicians and paeans. ⁵⁹ See Porro (2009) 186 8 on the steps that the process of preparing a lyric edition entailed.

234

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

If one is willing to argue for the continuity between the Peripatetic treatises on lyric poets and the lyric class in Callimachus’ Pinakes, one major exception is immediately revealed: Bacchylides. On present evidence the Peripatetics did not deal with Bacchylides or with any of his poetry. He nevertheless managed to reach Alexandria early in the third century , and was, as it seems, probably included in Callimachus’ Pinakes. A later source records the debate between Callimachus and Aristarchus concerning a poem of Bacchylides entitled Kassandra (P.Oxy. 23.2368). According to the scholiast, Callimachus classified it as a paean, whereas Aristarchus declared it to be a dithyramb. The commentary suggests that the Alexandrians obviously had adequate samples of (Bacchylides’?) poetry to be able to subdivide it into genres. The classification of the poem Kassandra as a paean would imply that, despite his erroneous categorization, Callimachus was able to distinguish generic characteristics between paeans and dithyrambs. With reference to Bacchylides in particular the evidence we have from Callimachus’ Pinakes suggests that the Library probably possessed by Callimachus’ time Bacchylides’ Paeans and Dithyrambs at the very least. One may even assume that both his paeanic and dithyrambic compositions arrived in Alexandria as corpora. It is, however, not possible to draw any conclusions on whether they arrived with Bacchylides’ victory odes or separated from his epinicians, which might also have been in the Library by that time.⁶⁰ The lyric corpus available to the Hellenistic scholars is mainly revealed in testimonia or scholia that refer to the work of Aristophanes of Byzantium and of Aristarchus on specific lyric poets. Although it is impossible to know exactly how many of the lyric poets Aristophanes of Byzantium edited, one can claim with certainty that he edited Alcaeus, Anacreon, presumably Alcman, and Pindar.⁶¹ Aristarchus produced commentaries on Archilochus, created a new edition of Alcaeus’ text that replaced that of Aristophanes, possibly prepared a second edition of Anacreon, wrote a commentary on the text of Alcman and

⁶⁰ Bacchylides will be the focus in Chapter 7. ⁶¹ Alcman: The Louvre papyrus notes twice on the margin of Alcman’s First Partheneion Aristophanes’ observations and readings (αριστο): the reading αϊδας (P.Louvre E 3320.32) and ν̣αῖ (P.Louvre E 3320.95), both proposed for prosodic reasons references to P.Louvre are taken from CLGP I.1 Fasc.2.1; cf. the commentary on Alcman in P.Oxy. 24.2390, fr.50 col.i.7 and Hephaest. De Signis 74.15 22 Consbruch on the diplē found in Alcman’s text, which was apparently introduced by Aristarchus as a new critical sēmeion. Pindar: Σ Pi. O.2.48c (Dr. i, p.73) reports that Aristophanes of Byzantium athetized a colon on metrical grounds, the Vita Thomana 14 17 (Dr. i, p.7) on how Aristophanes of Byzantium placed Olympian 1 first in his arrangement (συντάξαντος) of the Pindaric epinicians, and P.Oxy. 26.2438.35 41 where, according to Lobel (1961) 6, δ]ιήρηται δὲ α̣ὐ̣τ̣[ο]ῦ τ̣[ὰ ποιήματα ὑπ’Ἀριστοϕάν]ους in line 35 seems acceptable (‘his poems were divided by Aristophanes’). On the edition of Pindar by Aristophanes of Byzantium, Irigoin (1952) 35 50; Pfeiffer (1968) 181 9; Negri (2004) 16 43; Phillips (2016) 55 60.

The Hellenistic Era: Lyric Texts and the Lyric Canon

235

Anacreon, as well as a commentary on Pindar, presumably also a commentary on Bacchylides.⁶² Aristarchus might also have worked on Stesichorus and Sappho. A fragmentary papyrus from the first or early second century  (P.Oxy. 29.2506) preserves references to several lyric poets, along with biographical material, and records interpretational problems of selected passages from Alcman, Stesichorus, Sappho, and Alcaeus that were identified and presumably discussed by various scholars in different periods: the nationality of Alcman (fr.1, Alcman is also named in fr.4); the beardless Agesidamus (fr.5); Stesichorus’ innovation in mythology and his two Palinodes (fr.26); Sappho and her brothers, presumably also her daughter Kleis (fr.48, a reference to Sappho is found in fr.59); Alcaeus’ accusations of murder (fr.77), questions related to the death of his brother Antimenidas (fr.98) and also to Alcaeus’ two exiles or death (fr.98). Due to the nature of the information that the papyrus-text preserves, Rudolf Pfeiffer concludes that the papyrus is probably a treatise similar to the earlier Peripatetic treatises Περὶ τοῦ δείνα rather than a commentary that would usually have been devoted in its entirety to specific lyric poets.⁶³ Pfeiffer’s suggestion is conceivable; the author refers to Chamaeleon, Aristotle, presumably also to both Dicaearchus and Aristarchus as authorities for the information he offers (P.Oxy. 29.2506, fr.6a.3 Δικα[ιάρχου, fr.6a.4‒5 Ἀ]ριστοτέ[λ-, fr.6a.5‒6 ὑ]π’Ἀριστάρ[χου, fr.26 col.i.10‒11 Χαμαιλ[έω]ν, fr.79.6 Δι]καια[ρχ-?). The papyrus reads like a compilation of information as well as like a collection of different kinds of interpretation of selected lyric passages, especially as the writer seems to draw on other authors whom he names in his text.Given the kind of information preserved on the papyrus and the examples of Peripatetic treatises that deal with certain

⁶² Alcaeus: see Hephaest. De Signis 74.11 14 Consbruch on the different use of the asterisk in the editions of Alcaeus by Aristophanes of Byzantium and Aristarchus with Acosta Hughes (2010) 137 40. Anacreon: On the controversy whether Aristarchus produced an edition or a commentary on Anacreon, Gentili (1958) xxvi xxvii; Pfeiffer (1968) 185; Acosta Hughes (2010) 162. Alcman: Marginalia at Alcman’s Louvre Partheneion (P.Louvre E 3320.37) have αριχ that the editors supplement as Ἀρί(σταρ)χ(ος); cf. the commentary on the Partheneion in P.Oxy. 24.2389, fr.6 col. i.7, where Aristarchus’ opinion is cited. Pindar: The scholia on the epinician odes refer frequently to Aristarchus, who is credited by Grenfell and Hunt with five readings in the margins of P.Oxy. 5.841 that preserves a big part of the book of Pindar’s Paeans (II.61, fr.82.35, fr.94.3, frr.129 31.6, fr.134.9). On the scholia vetera in Pindar and the contribution of Aristarchus, Thomson Deas (1931) 5 11. Eratos thenes of Cyrene also took an interest in Pindar and he might as well have worked on Archilochus Σ Pi. O.9.1k.14 16 (Dr. i, p. 268) on the genre of Archilochus’ 324 IEG² (= FGrH II.B 241 F44). Bacchylides: see the disagreement between Aristarchus and Callimachus on the poem Kassan dra (P.Oxy. 23.2368), on which Hadjimichael (2014b) and Chapter 7 in this book. ⁶³ Pfeiffer (1968) 222; cf. Page (1963) 1: ‘It [sc. the papyrus] is not . . . a series of quotations, with comment, from a poem or poems by one author; it is not . . . discussion of a topic or series of topics illustrated by quotations, with comment, from a variety of authors.’

236

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

subjects,⁶⁴ I would suggest that the fragments presumably come from a treatise that unquestionably resembled the Peripatetic treatises but dealt instead with a specific topic rather than with a primary author or with several authors, as Pfeiffer postulates. The detail that is significant for the purpose of this discussion is the inclusion in the papyrus’ commentary of the name of Aristarchus along with the names of Chamaeleon, Aristotle, and Dicaearchus (fr.6a.5–6 ὑ]π’ Ἀριστάρ[χου, fr.79.7 Ἀρισ]ταρχο[). Fr.6a presumably deals with Alcaeus’ 129 V, as τὸν Ὕρ[ρ]ας or τὸν Ὕρ[ρ]αον (fr.6a.7) might refer to Pittacus’ father Hyrrhas (Alc. 129.13 V), but the subject of fr.79 where Aristarchus’ name is once more registered is uncertain. It may be connected with fr.77, where we read how Alcaeus was suspect of murder, or it may have to be perceived in connection with the fragments that follow it, where Stesichorus, Epicharmus, and Sophron are named (fr.90.4 Στησίχορον, fr.90.5 Ἐπίχαρμ[ον, fr.90.8 Σώϕρων, also fr.91.1 Ἀλ]καίος). As we can deduce from the almost complete fr.26 and the reference to Chamaeleon (fr.26 col.i.10–11 ὡς ἀνέγραψε ὁ Χαμαιλέων), the scholiast probably lists the authors whom he employed as sources for the information he provides in his own text, all of whom probably had discussed the passages or expressed opinions on the lyric poets the author chose to focus on in the papyrus.⁶⁵ This group also includes Aristarchus. The method of the scholiast in this papyrus allows us therefore to hypothesize that Aristarchus might have dealt with almost all of the lyric poets—Alcaeus, Alcman, Anacreon, Stesichorus, Sappho, and Pindar.⁶⁶ The sole lyric poet for whom we possess no information about the edition of his poems or about any commentaries written on his poetry is Ibycus. Still, the Suda claims that Ibycus wrote seven books of poems in the Dorian dialect, and Athenaeus mentions Ibycus’ fifth book of poems (Suda s.v. Ἴβυκος, ι 80 Adler; Ath. 2.57f–58a). Both references probably point to the Alexandrian arrangement of his poetic corpus.⁶⁷ Even with no evidence that would

⁶⁴ e.g. Dicaearchus’ Περὶ Ἀνθρώπων Φθοράς (On human death), Clearchus’ Περὶ Μέθης and Περὶ Φιλίας (On drunkenness, On Friendship). ⁶⁵ Cf. the Anacreontic hypomnēma P.Oxy. 54.3722, dated in all probability in the second half of the second century , where one reads the names of a number of scholars, who apparently either tried to interpret Anacreon or worked on his texts: e.g. Aristophanes of Byzantium at fr.1.16 (ὑπὸ Ἀρ[ι]στοϕάν[ους); perhaps Didymus at fr.2.4 5 (ὁ μὲν Δί̣[δυμος); Aristotle at fr.16, col.ii.16 ([Ἀριστο]τέλης) 54; Aristarchus at fr.20.4 (Ἀρίσταρχος) and in all probability also at fr.21, col.i.9 (ὡ]ς κα[ὶ] Ἀρι ); perhaps Clearchus of Soli at fr.57.4 (Κλέαρ[χος); a pupil of Aristarchus at fr.33.7 (Ἀμμώ]ν̣ι̣ο̣ς̣ ὁ̣ [Ἀρ]ιστάρχειος). ⁶⁶ Yatromanolakis (1999) 180, who questions the existence of a ninth book in Sappho’s edition, assumes that Aristarchus presumably also edited the text of Sappho; also Acosta Hughes (2010) 92 104 who suggests that Sappho’s edition(s) comprised certainly of seven books. ⁶⁷ On the texts of Ibycus from the pre Alexandrian time till the Byzantine era, Ucciardello (2005).

The Hellenistic Era: Lyric Texts and the Lyric Canon

237

eventually have connected explicitly Ibycus’ poetry with the scholarly work in the Library and with the activity of specific Alexandrian scholars, we may safely conclude that the greater part of the lyric corpus was present in the Library and available to the Hellenistic scholars probably by the time of Aristophanes of Byzantium, if not earlier. This timeframe is plausible, if one takes into account how Aristarchus presumably produced no substantial editions of lyric, and worked mainly on the lyric poets whom Aristophanes had edited and for whom he had subsequently prepared commentaries.⁶⁸ The only exceptions are Alcaeus and Anacreon. The dependence of Aristarchus’ exegetical works on the editions of Aristophanes of Byzantium implies that the lyric texts were not only in the Library’s possession by then but were also corrected, very likely already edited, and arranged into books. That Aristarchus depended for his own scholarly activity on work already done in the Library by previous scholars is hinted at in Tzetzes’ Prolegomena where Aristarchus is coupled with Zenodotus. οὗτοι μὲν τὰς σκηνικὰς διωρθώσαντο βίβλους, ὡς τὰς τῶν ποιητῶν ἐπεσκέψαντο Ἀρίσταρχοί τε καὶ Ζηνόδοτοι. ὕστερον δὲ ταύτας ἁπάσας πολλοὶ ἀνεϕάνησαν ὑποϕητεύοντες καὶ ἐπεξηγούμενοι, . . . πρότερος δὲ ἦν Ζηνόδοτος ὁ Ἐϕέσιος, πέμπτος δὲ ἢ τέταρτος μετ’ αὐτὸν ὁ Ἀρίσταρχος [...] Ζηνοδότου δὲ χρόνοις ὑστέροις ἐπὶ τοῦ Φιλαδέλϕου αὐτὸν [Ὅμηρον] ἀνορθώσαντος, ἔπειτα δὲ πάλιν τοῦ Ἀριστάρχου. [...] χρόνοις δ’, ὡς ἔϕην, τοῦ Φιλαδέλϕου παρὰ τοῦ Ζηνοδότου ὠρθώθησαν [αἱ ὁμηρικαὶ συγγραϕαί]. μετὰ δὲ Ζηνόδοτον Ἀριστάρχῳ πάλιν ὠρθώθησαν τετάρτῳ ἢ πέμπτῳ ἀπὸ Ζηνοδότου τελοῦντι They corrected the theatrical books, since those who followed the Aristarchean and Zenodotean method inspected those [. the books] of the poets. At a later time many produced all these by explaining and by interpreting them, . . . first was Zenodotus of Ephesus, and five or four scholars after him Aristarchus; In the following years, at the time of Philadelphus, Zenodotus corrected him [sc. Homer], then again Aristarchus. In the years of Philadelphus, as it is said, the Homeric writings were corrected by Zenodotus. After Zenodotus they were corrected again by Aristarchus who completed the task four or five scholars after the time of Zenodotus Tzetzes Prolegom. Com. Prooemium I 7 12, 149 50, and II 31 3 Koster

Tzetzes connects the scholarly work of Zenodotus and Aristarchus, and while this connection is restrictively focused on the Homeric text, it nonetheless conveys the suggestion that their activity was in all probability of similar ⁶⁸ See Montanari (1998b) 3 with n. 3 on the hypothesis that in Aristarchus’ case the ekdosis might have been identical with the hypomnēma.

238

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

nature. Both Zenodotus and Aristarchus are portrayed as having corrected (διωρθώσαντο) and restored (ἀνορθώσαντος) the text of Homer, and the end result of their work is characterized not only as a correction (διόρθωσιν) but also as a new composition (Prooemium II 36–7 σύνθεσίν τε καὶ διόρθωσιν). Most importantly, however, the insistent coupling of the two scholars in Tzetzes’ text and the emphasis on the similarity of their scholarly activity implicitly suggest that the same texts were corrected, presumably also commented upon, and studied by a number of different scholars in various periods and also that subsequent editions might have replaced those produced earlier in the Library. The constant scholarly work on the Pindaric corpus from the Hellenistic period down to the middle of the first century  would reinforce the suggestion that the same corpora were probably reworked in the Library.⁶⁹ I should point out that it is not implied in the above discussion that Aristophanes of Byzantium and Aristarchus worked exclusively on melic poetry and ignored iambus and elegy, or that the text of the poets who wrote elegies and iamboi was not in the Library by their time. The interest of the Alexandrians in iambus is revealed by the number of treatises they devoted to the genre and to its individual representatives, as mentioned already. Aristarchus’ commentary on the text of Archilochus is strong enough evidence to suggest as well that his text was edited by his time. In fact, testimonia reveal that the poems of Archilochus, Hipponax, and Semonides were edited at some point in Alexandria: Archilochus’ edition was arranged by metre (elegiac metre, trimetres, and tetrametres), and the poems of Semonides were edited in at least two books, as were the poems of Hipponax.⁷⁰ With reference to Greek elegy, though, other than the references in the Suda to the numerous books with Mimnermus’ poems and to the five books of Tyrtaeus’ poetry, we lack substantial information on editions and commentaries.⁷¹ It is unfortunately not possible to be absolutely certain of when exactly the lyric corpus became part of the Library’s possessions. Though the Peripatetic library might have been instrumental, it is important not to give all the credit ⁶⁹ The end title in the two final columns of Theon’s hypomnēma on P.12 (P.Oxy. 31.2536) suggests that Theon wrote a commentary on all the Pythian odes of Pindar. The Pindaric scholia also refer to Aristonicus’ comments on certain Pindaric phrases (e.g. Σ N.1.37, Dr. iii, p. 17; Σ O.3.31a, Dr. i, p. 113), to Hephaestion’s views on the position of I.5 in the corpus (Σ I.5. inscr.a, Dr. iii, p. 240), and to Herodian who might have turned to Pindar’s epinicians for examples of accentuation in his treatises (e.g. Σ O.1.18a, Dr. i, p. 23; P.3.65, Dr. ii, p. 72). ⁷⁰ Semonides: Suda s.v. Σιμωνίδης, σ 446 Alder), where two books of elegies are mentioned and no number for his books of iamboi. Hipponax: frr.20 and 24 IEG² on the first book of his iamboi, frr.118a and 142 IEG² on his second book of iamboi. ⁷¹ Mimnermus: Suda. s.v. Μίμνερμος (μ 1077 Adler); cf. Call. fr.1.11 12 Pf. (Aetia I) and Porphyr. ad Hor. Epist. II.2, 101 on the two books of Mimnermus. Tyrtaeus: Suda s.v. Τυρταῖος (τ 1205 Adler). Solon: Suda s.v. Σόλων (σ 776 Adler). Broggiato (2014) 54n. 25 interprets this lack of evidence on editions of elegy as an indication that elegy was not in itself recognized as a genre, but was considered a group of authors whose works was linked to a ‘single social occasion of performance’.

The Hellenistic Era: Lyric Texts and the Lyric Canon

239

to the Peripatetics or to their possessions when it comes to lyric poetry. One cannot securely argue for an absolute connection. In spite of the absence of a Peripatetic treatise on Bacchylides and Ibycus, both Bacchylides and Ibycus reach the Alexandrian Library at some point to be edited, and Bacchylides might in all probability have been included in the Callimachean Pinakes. Lasus on the other hand, to whom a treatise is devoted in the Peripatos, is neither mentioned in connection with any of the Hellenistic scholars nor is he included in the Lyric Canon. The absence of an edition of Lasus or of a commentary on his poetry could verify the view taken above: not all bookrolls reached Alexandria at the same time, not all of them came from the Peripatetic library, and some of the literature known in fourth-century Athens might have got lost in the interim.

Travelling Corpora and Travelling Poems The issue of the date when lyric texts began to arrive in Alexandria is as significant as the manner in which they travelled and the format of the actual material text. The principal questions are whether the text of the lyric poets or of all lyric poets reached Alexandria as individual corpora, or whether they arrived as individual poems that were assembled as corpora in the Library after piecemeal incorporation. Is it possible to argue for complete travelling corpora? Where would these corpora have been archived before reaching Alexandria? If there were corpora, how were they organized? If one argues for poetic collections travelling as corpora, then one would have to argue for a substantial number of papyrus rolls crossing the sea to Egypt together. At the same time, it should be assumed that the works of each author were assembled and possibly classified, even in a rudimentary way, before their arrival in Alexandria. If we imagine large texts, then we may have texts available in a book market, even if the collection of any given author was divided over multiple rolls, or we may owe the texts to local or family archives where the works of individual poets were stored.⁷² These of course are not mutually exclusive possibilities. But the existence of archives or local collections seems more plausible based on the little we know about book markets. If we suppose the intervention of the book market, the dispute about the forensic speeches of Isocrates that supposedly circulated in bundles in the market (Arist. fr.140 Rose) also raises a question about the ‘purity’ of such collections.⁷³ Evidently, ⁷² Pöhlmann (1994) 15 argues for the existence of local Lesbian collections that preserved Sappho’s poems; Carey (2011) 454 6 also suggests local Spartan archives for Alcman’s songs; see also Chapter 5 in this book, ‘Lyric Texts, Melic Performances, and Lyric Memory’. ⁷³ Dover (1968) 23 7, where he argues that Aristotle makes this claim in order to restore Isocrates’ reputation as a writer of forensic speeches.

240

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

there was every opportunity for spurious material to find its way into such corpora. Would it have been feasible to identify it in such a case? At the other end, could individual poems have been travelling to Alexandria as texts? Could those texts have reached the Alexandrian Library without being attached to a named collection? How would these texts have been identified and classified? In framing our reconstruction, we must also accept that the circumstances of circulation might have differed for certain texts and/or authors. The Athenian dramatic texts probably came to Alexandria as corpora from official Athenian archives, but we cannot assume that this is the case for all authors. The material upon which book-rolls were preserved needs also to be taken into account. Papyrus rolls were fragile and thus easily damaged. Practicalities such as rolling and unrolling and the height and weight of each book roll were the reasons for the small quantity of the text that could potentially be included on a papyrus. Leighton Reynolds and Nigel Wilson carried out an empirical study of the ancient books on papyri and concluded that the maximum capacity carried by an ancient book, that is by a papyrus roll, was ‘a substantial dialogue of Plato or a book of Thucydides, and books I and XVII of the late Hellenistic historian Diodorus Siculus, which occupy 167 and 177 pages in a modern printed edition, had to be subdivided.’⁷⁴ Concurrently, the necessity to use the papyrus economically forced preHellenistic scribes to write lyric verse continuously as prose. The existence of this format up to the establishment of colometry suggests that lyric texts reached the Library written down as prose.⁷⁵ Subsequently, lyric fragments were preserved from the first quarter of the third century with stichometric indications in the margin and with a recapitulation of the total lines at the end of each roll.⁷⁶ Jean Irigoin’s comparative presentation of these two characteristics in book-rolls of different lyric poets has shown that the normal length of one Hellenistic book was between one thousand and two thousand verses.⁷⁷ It is likely that scrolls arriving in the Library contained either the work of more than one poet, if each corpus was small, or different works of the same poet. The papyrus of the New Sappho (P.Köln. inv.21351 +21376r), which is considered as the oldest known papyrus of Sappho, according to the first editors, contains two fragments of Sappho and another unknown lyric text with an erotic theme (ll.9–21), written in a hand different

⁷⁴ Reynolds and Wilson (2013) 4; by ‘ancient book’ they mean the papyri that were in circulation before the Hellenistic era (pp. 1 5). ⁷⁵ In order to fully enjoy the musical and metrical complexities of a melic composition, a melic poem would have had to be experienced as performed song rather than as written text. Thus, the fact that lyric texts were preserved in continuous prose could support the assumption that, despite its preservation in writing, melic poetry circulated as well, if not predominantly, in performance. ⁷⁶ Irigoin (1952) 38 9. ⁷⁷ Irigoin (1952) 38 41.

The Hellenistic Era: Lyric Texts and the Lyric Canon

241

from that of the Sappho-fragments.⁷⁸ The papyrus could be an anthology, a collection of poems for a sympotic get-together, as Michael Gronewald and Robert Daniel have proposed.⁷⁹ The different hands in which the texts are written, the different origin of the texts (if the third fragment is not a Sapphic poem), and the date of the papyrus could suggest that anthologies often circulated in the Greek world before their arrival in the Alexandrian Library.⁸⁰ Thus, based also on the empirical study of the papyri and on the propositions made on the presumed size of each pre-Hellenistic papyrus book, we can reach a twofold conclusion: for the most part texts presumably survived largely in an accreted form before they reached Alexandria, and they could thus have arrived in the Library as large bodies. To be sure, given the possibility of multi-author scrolls, we cannot generalize and assume in every case that poetic corpora of every single author reached Alexandria either at the same time or as complete collections. The Pindaric epinicians, the largest lyric corpus upon which scholia have survived, illustrate the complex ways in which texts might have arrived at the Library. Pythian 2, on whose classification the Alexandrian scholars disagreed broadly, could also potentially support the hypothesis of a large travelling corpus that was probably unclassified and either untitled or with minimal titles (e.g. patron and city). It is Olympian 5, however, that offers some evidence in favour of the possibility that individual poems might have reached the Alexandrian Library separated from the corpus. At the same time, this poem strongly suggests that the rest of the Pindaric epinician corpus arrived in the Library collectively.⁸¹ The scholia inform us that the authenticity of the poem was questioned in the Hellenistic period. No other Pindaric poem raises doubts anywhere in the ancient tradition, which suggests both that the Alexandrian scholars had very good grounds to be confident about the epinician corpus as a whole and that there was something objective about this particular ode which caused suspicion. I return to this issue below. The Pindaric scholia report that Olympian 5 was not included ἐν τοῖς ἐδαϕίοις. What is the meaning of the phrase ἐν τοῖς ἐδαϕίοις and of the statement ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἐδαϕίοις οὐκ ἦν? The scholiast states that the ode was recognized as Pindaric by Didymus, and the wording implies that the poem was unambiguously accepted as Pindaric only in Didymus’ commentary: inscr. a Αὕτη ἡ ᾠδὴ ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἐδαϕίοις οὐκ ἦν δὲ τοῖς Διδύμου ὑπομνήμασιν ἐλέγετο Πινδάρου (Dr. i, p. 138, ‘this ode that was not in the edaphia and it was said to be of Pindar’s in the commentaries of Didymus’). The ode must ⁷⁸ Gronewald and Daniel (2004a) 1: early third century ; cf. West, M. (2005) 1. ⁷⁹ Gronewald and Daniel (2007b) 14. ⁸⁰ On the New Sappho, Gronewald and Daniel (2004a), (2004b), (2007a), (2007b); West, M. (2005); Di Benedetto (2005); Clayman (2009). Detailed images of the papyrus can be found in Hammerstaedt (2009) 29 40. ⁸¹ Assumptions on the collective nature of the corpus do not imply classification before its arrival in the Library.

242

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

therefore have been classified as Pindaric but with reservations. Does this imply that the ode was considered to be spurious and not Pindaric before the first century ? Could it be that the poem had already been classified as an epinikion but not as a Pindaric epinikion? These queries offer clues to help us understand both the process of textual diffusion in the Alexandrian Library and the organizational and editorial work of the Alexandrian scholars. The above statement on Olympian 5 reveals with certainty the problematic status of this poem at some point in the scholarly process in the Library. Equally certain is that τὰ ἐδάϕια must refer to an authoritative source. Peter Fraser, Jean Irigoin, Maurice Bowra, and Michela Ruffa have discussed in detail the significance of the specific scholion on Olympian 5.⁸² Fraser suggests that what the scholia call τὰ ἐδάϕια may have been the first basic edition of Pindar which was created by Zenodotus.⁸³ Irigoin also takes this phrase to imply the edition of Zenodotus, while he adds that Aristarchus most probably considered Olympian 5 an original ode of Pindar, since he commented on it.⁸⁴ Thus, Irigoin assumes, the poem was recognized as Pindaric, and was included in the Olympian odes before the time of Didymus and presumably by Aristophanes of Byzantium. The view that the phrase implies Zenodotus’ edition is also held by Bowra, who nevertheless postulates that Aristarchus’ comments do not prove that ‘the poem was in the text of Pindar but that it was preserved somewhere in the Alexandrian Library and [was] known to Aristarchus as later to Didymus.’⁸⁵ Ruffa, on the other hand, argues that the phrase τὰ ἐδάϕια refers to the vulgate text Didymus was probably using: the edition of Aristophanes.⁸⁶ Based on the Homeric scholia she claims that the phrase οὐκ ἦν was used for Zenodotus’ eliminated lines of the Homeric text which were, however, still present in the text.⁸⁷ According to Ruffa, the issue raised by ‘inscription a’ in the scholia to Olympian 5 was that of the ode’s authenticity and not that of the physical presence of the ode in the Pindaric corpus: the Aristophanic edition of Pindar (ἐδάϕια) probably included this poem, and noted it as (probably or certainly) spurious.⁸⁸ Ruffa’s suggestion is attractive, but one should note that she bases her understanding of the term ἐδάϕια on sources non-contemporary with the Pindaric scholia.⁸⁹

⁸² Fraser (1972) i.451; Irigoin (1952) 32 3; Bowra (1964) 415 16; Ruffa (2001); Maden (1990) 109 13 presents concisely the views of scholars on the issue of authorship and authenticity of Olympian 5. His discussion and his final comments (p. 113) allow one to assume that he takes Olympian 5 to be a pair with Olympian 4 and thus an original Pindaric ode. ⁸³ Fraser (1972) i.451. ⁸⁴ Irigoin (1952) 32 3. ⁸⁵ Bowra (1964) 415. ⁸⁶ Ruffa (2001) 37 41 for the full discussion. ⁸⁷ Ruffa (2001) 7, where Ruffa cites Montanari (1998a) 7. ⁸⁸ Ruffa (2001) 44. ⁸⁹ Ruffa (2001) 29n. 11 on the use of the word in Galen, pp. 29 30 on Eustathius’ use of the word, and see pp. 37 9 for an outline of the word ἐδάϕιον in the sources Ruffa mentions; Irigoin (1952) 32 takes the term ἐδάϕια to mean ‘fundamental manuscripts’. For a comprehensive summary of the meaning of the word ἐδάϕιον, Fraser (1972) ii.653n. 35.

The Hellenistic Era: Lyric Texts and the Lyric Canon

243

The best place to begin with is perhaps the vulgate text of Pindar, as established by Aristophanes of Byzantium. The present text, arrangement, and classification of the Pindaric poetry, the overall disposition of Pindar’s poetry in seventeen books according to genre and content are thanks to Aristophanes of Byzantium.⁹⁰ Aristophanes’ text was probably the one used for Aristarchus’ commentary, which survived separately and independently from the Pindaric corpus.⁹¹ Presumably, Aristarchus had kept intact not only the text but also the established order of the epinician odes.⁹² It is thus plausible to argue that Olympian 5 was in the Alexandrian Library already by the time of Aristophanes. The existence of Aristarchus’ commentary suggests itself that he found Olympian 5 in Aristophanes’ edition. His interpretations of specific poetic lines of Olympian 5 are mentioned by the Pindaric scholiast, but Aristarchus’ name is not connected with any discussion on the classification of the ode.⁹³ Given the explicit reference to Olympia in the poem (O.5.2), it is difficult to see any other position in the corpus for the ode. It is unlikely, for instance, that it ever stood among the miscellaneous odes at the end of the Nemean group of the epinician odes to be repositioned later (presumably by Didymus) in the Olympian odes. It is therefore likely that the ode stood in the Aristophanic edition and in its present position, though it may have been marked as dubious or spurious. It is more difficult to take the history of this ode back and beyond Aristophanes. The poem might have been in the Library when Callimachus was preparing his Pinakes, or it might have arrived or have been identified as one of the Olympian epinicians at a time between the creation of the editions of Zenodotus and Aristophanes. This, however, tells us nothing about its state or status. If τὰ ἐδάϕια means, as Fraser and Irigoin suggest, the Zenodotean edition of Pindar’s victory odes, the poem was available in the Library from the earliest period, and was either omitted by Zenodotus, or, if we give οὐκ ἦν the value assigned to it by Ruffa, it was included in Zenodotus’ edition, but was marked as dubious or spurious. If the phrase refers to the corpora and/or to texts of Pindar coming into Alexandria upon which the assumed

⁹⁰ Fraser (1972) i.460 points out that Aristophanes’ text of Pindar became the vulgate, ‘even though the work of his successors had left more traces in the Pindaric scholia’. ⁹¹ Irigoin (1952) 51 reports that Aristarchus is cited twenty six times by the scholia. ⁹² Aristophanes of Byzantium was the scholar who arranged the order of Pindar’s victory odes in each book (Dr. i, p. 7.14 15), and also the one who divided the verses of individual poems following the principles of a colometric system, on which Wilamowitz (1907) 138 44; Irigoin (1952) 35 50; Pfeiffer (1968) 183 4; D’Alessio (1997) 51 6. Pöhlmann (1994) 28 comments how the emendation Zenodotus suggested in O.2.7a shows that it was not by his time yet possible to assess the metre of choral lyric. ⁹³ e.g. Σ O.5.1b.22, 20e.17, 27b.22, 29e.19, 54b.18 (Dr. i, p. 139, p. 145, p. 146, p. 147, p. 151 respectively).

244

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

edition of Zenodotus was based, then it may be that Olympian 5 was absent from these Pindaric corpora that reached the Library.⁹⁴ It seems more likely that the scholia would contrast Didymus’ judgement with that of previous scholars—a practice that would have been in line with Didymus’ own practice which was influential in the creation of the scholia—rather than with the unedited texts coming into the Library. It is also worth noting that, unlike the Homeric scholia, nowhere else do the Pindaric scholia acknowledge the pre-Alexandrian sources for the text. Thus, τὰ ἐδάϕια is likely to designate earlier editorial authority. The plural in the Greek suggests that we should perhaps identify τὰ ἐδάϕια collectively with the editions that were available to Didymus directly or indirectly when he was in the process of compiling his commentary; that is we should identify the phrase with the texts of Zenodotus and Aristophanes of Byzantium. It may be, however, that this phrase is not critical for our general understanding of the history of the text, vital as it is at the level of detail. I return to the point made above about the uniqueness of this ode. Nick Lowe aptly described it as the lone ‘cuckoo’ in the Pindaric nest, which must have contained in its seventeen Alexandrian books about 200 poems.⁹⁵ The Alexandrians were confident about the rest of this substantial corpus. Nothing is said in the scholia about dubious content, style, occasion, or chronology. There was evidently something objective and external about this specific poem which placed a question over its authenticity. This is unlikely to have been a problem with the Olympic victor list, since we might have expected this to be the defining feature in the scholion.⁹⁶ The unique doubt about this ode is most easily understood if we assume that it was received or discovered in a way which distinguished it from the rest of the corpus. This suggests that, irrespective of the way we interpret τὰ ἐδάϕια, the poem might have travelled separately from the Pindaric texts which arrived in the Library to be catalogued by Callimachus and to be edited by Zenodotus. If the above inference is correct, then we may have in Olympian 5 an example of a wandering poem. Though arguments from silence are necessarily tentative, the absence of any hint of doubt for other poems in this large corpus suggests an authoritative source for the works, which is consistent with the view that they were plausibly received as one or more collections. This is itself consistent with the state of the text, which, despite its linguistic and metrical complexity, is remarkably well preserved, with few serious textual corruptions, and only superficial Atticization. The work of George Hinge on

⁹⁴ According to Bowra (1964) 415 6, ‘the important fact is that Zenodotus either did not find it [sc. O.5] when he collected and edited the manuscripts of Pindar or, having found it, rejected it as spurious.’ Contra Ruffa (2001) 44, who does not consider the possibility that the ode was not in the arriving Pindaric corpus. ⁹⁵ Lowe (2007b) 176. ⁹⁶ See Moretti (1957) 99, 101.

The Hellenistic Era: Lyric Texts and the Lyric Canon

245

the quotations of Alcman suggests that texts circulating in isolation from the main corpus of an author are especially vulnerable to interference.⁹⁷ Wherever it was kept before reaching Alexandria, the Pindar text was well cared for, which in turn does not suggest a mass of poems arriving individually. In view of the above, when reference is made to texts arriving in the Alexandrian Library it is not possible to always think of complete corpora, complete books, or complete authors. The classification of the work of specific lyric poets suggests nevertheless that what arrived in Alexandria was largely corpora. Through the example of Olympian 5 we can also surmise that at least some poems arrived separated from the rest of the corpus, and were reintegrated into the Alexandrian Library. In that case, some poems could potentially have been travelling individually, while others could have moved about as part of a collection not necessarily of the same author. The scholia to Clouds report that Aristophanes made use in his comedy of the beginning of a poem which Aristophanes of Byzantium allegedly found in fragmentary form in the Library, and which some ascribe to a certain Kydides, others to Lamprocles, and Eratosthenes to Stesichorus. ἢ τηλέπορόν τι βόαμα: καὶ τοῦτο μέλους ἀρχή. Φασὶ δὲ μὴ εὑρίσκεσθαι, ὅτου ποτ’ ἐστίν ἐν γὰρ ἀποσπάσματι ἐν τῇ βιβλιοθήκῃ εὑρεῖν Ἀριστοϕάνη. Or a far reaching cry: and this is the beginning of the poem. They say that they could not find it, whatever it was. Aristophanes discovered it in a fragment in the Library. Σ v Ar. Nu.967a.β

This scholion has implications for the state of some of the texts coming into Alexandria, and also confirms the assumption made above that at least in some (most probably very few) cases texts circulated and arrived separately and independently. Separate diffusion would of course have created problems of authorship and authenticity, which were most likely solved in the Library but might in most cases have left a trace in the scholia of the work in question. Though one may generalize from individual cases, it is not possible to extrapolate a rule for the arrival of Greek literature in the Alexandrian Library. The Pindaric corpus, if the evidence has been read correctly, offers support of the view that a number of poems were preserved and transmitted as a corpus (or corpora) as well as that poems were transmitted having survived and having reached the Library detached from author-based collections. Aggregation and organization was still to be done in the Library,

⁹⁷ Alcman’s text is one of the cases where one observes independent circulation of part of the corpus, which inevitably made the fragments that travelled separate from the corpus more vulnerable to changes; these fragments tend to be less Doric than the text of Alcman. E.g. the word ὠρανίαϕι from PMG 28 is cited ‘normalized’ without the Doric ω but with the Attic ου in A.D. Adv.575, i.165 Schneider Uhlig ἔστι δὲ καὶ παρὰ Ἀλκμᾶνι καὶ κατὰ κλητικῆς τὸ οὐρανία ‘οὐρανίαϕιν’ (‘in Alcman the word heavenly [ourania] is ouraniaphin in the vocative).

246

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

but the limited evidence we possess suggests that the texts reached the Library in most cases as corpora, though with exceptions.

CANONIZ ING L YRIC: THE ‘HELLENISTIC’ LYRIC CANON The above discussion has demonstrated that lyric texts were available in the Library from the period of the first appointed librarian, and scholarly work on these texts began with Zenodotus (c.285–c.270 ).⁹⁸ The work of the Alexandrians on the lyric corpus became more systematic with Aristophanes of Byzantium (204/1–189 or 186 ), as scholarship on the lyric corpus developed into a more concentrated, more text-based, and more detailed work. His scholarly and editorial achievements in lyric poetry concerning not only the editions of the poets but also the establishment of a colometric system for the division of odes were ground-breaking.⁹⁹ When Aristarchus took over (175–45 ), the lyric editions that were prepared by Aristophanes of Byzantium were either improved or supplemented with commentaries. Apparently, Aristarchus followed the path Aristophanes of Byzantium paved; he seems to have worked on the majority of the lyric poets who were edited by Aristophanes.¹⁰⁰ The continuous focus on the same authors reveals the conservative nature of the editorial and interpretative practice of the Hellenistic scholars, who mainly dealt with poets their predecessors had already worked on. But, as it has been shown, their conservatism did not depend solely on the approach and scholarly focus of previous scholars in the Alexandrian Library; they were also influenced by earlier literary criticism and by earlier evaluations of lyric. In the cumulative effect of the reception of texts belonging in the archaic and classical period, the earliest Hellenistic scholars were heavily influenced by previous literature and scholarship.¹⁰¹ One may also argue that the manner in which they used previous literature and also the methodology through which they worked on texts of the archaic and classical era reflect the channel through which that literature had survived. The Alexandrians worked on no texts that were not already thought to be worth to preserve and work on, and the value of a text was largely established by the manner in which these texts and their authors were used by, interpreted, and at times preserved in pre-Hellenistic sources. The approach to melic poetry, lyric texts,

⁹⁸ The dates given in this paragraph are those of each scholar’s librarianship. ⁹⁹ Pfeiffer (1968) 181. ¹⁰⁰ Montana (2015) 142 underlines the importance of the literary texts that Aristophanes of Byzantium edited for Aristarchus’ work. ¹⁰¹ Montana (2015) 94 points out that ‘the attention of the first scholars and their royal patrons focused overwhelmingly on archaic and classical poetry.’

The Hellenistic Era: Lyric Texts and the Lyric Canon

247

and lyric poets remained on the whole conservative. The Hellenistic scholars built their lyric perception, reception, and evaluation on the already established distinction between the sixth- and fifth-century ‘forgotten’ old melos and the popular new song of the late fifth and fourth centuries, as it was launched in comedy and was further developed in Plato and the Peripatos. The conservative nature of the scholarly activity in the Alexandrian Library, as it has been demonstrated, is essential to be taken into account when one attempts to understand the background for the formation and establishment of Hellenistic canons. Franco Montanari, Stephanos Matthaios, and Antonios ?A3B2 tlsb=-.01w?>Rengakos have recently identified the reciprocal relationship between scholarship and canons: ‘the influence is reciprocal because scholarship on the one hand certainly reflects an acquired canon, since it deals with the things that belong to it, while on the other hand scholarship itself contributes to shaping and consolidating the canon, exerting a non secondary influence on the image a culture acquires over time.’¹⁰² Such was the view of the commentator on Dionysius Thrax. As pointed out in the Introduction, the commentator specifies how the Lyric Canon consisted of selected poets whose texts not only reached the Alexandrian Library but also became an object of study by the Alexandrians (πραττόμενοι). This hypothesis would divide the group of the lyric poets into two groups: those for whom the scholars in the Library had produced editions and commentaries, and those who, although their work had survived, did not become an object of scholarly study.¹⁰³ This selection could have been made either on the basis of individual judgements about quality or on the basis of a simple chronological test. In this sense the Canon might have saved the names of the older (classic?) lyric poets, not necessarily of the popular (New?) lyric poets. Silvia Barbantani rightly draws attention to how ‘the editorial activity of Alexandrian scholars had a determining influence on the reception of authors regarded as classics.’¹⁰⁴ Though true, this statement fails to account for the elaborate process whereby the Alexandrian Lyric Canon came into being, and fails to recognize especially the contribution of critics in fifth and fourth century  to the formation of specific canons. The alternative option would be to agree with Wilamowitz and to argue that the Lyric Canon was simply based on the material available in the Library.¹⁰⁵ The absence of Lasus from the Lyric Canon could in fact partly verify the assumption of Wilamowitz. As ¹⁰² Montanari, Matthaios, and Rengakos (2015) xi. ¹⁰³ Cf. Broggiato (2014) 48 who suggests that a selection process was at work: ‘the Alexan drian library, we may infer, must have possessed a treasury of texts which were read, but not commented on.’ ¹⁰⁴ Barbantani (2009) 303. ¹⁰⁵ Wilamowitz (1898) 8 9 and (1900) 63 71; Page (1953) 68 follows Wilamowitz’s view and does not accept that the Alexandrian Canon was a selection; cf. Pfeiffer (1968) 205n. 4 for scholarship against this view and Nagy (1990) 128 9 for a brief criticism.

248

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

we have seen, Lasus was present in the Athenian landscape as a dithyrambic poet who could potentially compete against Simonides, as we read in Wasps (Ar. V.1406–12), who was known to Herodotus as one of the poets at the court of Peisistratus (Hdt. 7.6.3), and whose work the library of the Peripatos apparently had in its possession and presumably offered the material to produce a Περὶ Λάσου (Chamaeleon fr.30 W²). One observes in the way our sources depict Lasus’ persona and in the manner in which they interpret his poems how they oscillated between a sophistic portrayal and his occupation as poet.¹⁰⁶ Despite such a depiction and interpretation and most importantly despite the existence of his text in the Peripatetic library in Athens, the text of Lasus did not reach the Alexandrian Library and did not survive into the Hellenistic era. If we follow Wilamowitz’s logic, the absence of Lasus’ text from the Library in Alexandria might have been the primary reason for his exclusion from the Lyric Canon. Nevertheless, the case of Timotheus encompasses all the above interpretations and refutes in part Wilamowitz’s argument.¹⁰⁷ Timotheus’ work was apparently still famous during the Hellenistic period: Polybius (4.20.8–9) records that his poems were included in the school curriculum in Arcadia in the second century  along with the works of Philoxenus, a period in which, according to both Pausanias (8.50.3) and Plutarch (Philop.11.1), Timotheus’ poems were still being performed. The non-colometric format of the papyrus of his Persae points to the fact that Timotheus was not edited by the Alexandrian scholars, despite the fact that the poem probably reached the Alexandrian Library. Timotheus’ Persae came down to us preserved on a papyrus dated in the latter part of the fourth century  (P.Berol. 9875), at a period that predates the Alexandrian editions on the lyric poets.¹⁰⁸ Still, Timotheus is not included in the Lyric Canon. His exclusion suggests that the canonical list could not have included exclusively poets whose work was preserved in the Library; Timotheus’ text was in all probability in the Library, but it remained unedited. Such an omission allows us to assume that the Alexandrians were selective and chose from the assembled lyric texts the lyric poets they would edit and annotate. James Hordern and Pauline LeVen have emphasized the continuous performative context within which Timotheus and other representatives of the New Music existed in order to explain the reason why the Alexandrians made no editions of Timotheus and of other fourth-century lyric poets. They both ¹⁰⁶ See in more detail Chapter 4 in this book, ‘The Peri Treatises on the Lyric Poets’ and ‘Passing on the Inherited Lyric Agenda’. ¹⁰⁷ Cf. Page (1953) 68 who ignores Timotheus’ Persae that was discovered in 1902 when he writes: ‘I still await anything worthy of the name of evidence that any ancient lyrical poet whose works were in circulation up to the Alexandrian era was omitted by the Alexandrian editors from their collection.’ ¹⁰⁸ For a description of the papyrus, Hordern (2002) 65 74; briefly LeVen (2014) 55 8.

The Hellenistic Era: Lyric Texts and the Lyric Canon

249

propose that Timotheus (and New Music in general) was neither edited nor was he included in the Canon because his works continued to be performed in the Hellenistic period. There was therefore no need to preserve texts that were still in performance. On the contrary, they claim, the canonical lyric poets were the ones who survived ‘primarily, or only, in book form’.¹⁰⁹ Whilst it is accepted as a fact that the Alexandrians became acquainted with the work of the canonical nine through book-rolls and through papyri, such an assumption ignores the plausibility that their poems might still have been re-performed in Alexandria. The very division of the lyric poems in cola is revealing of an attempt to understand and perhaps revive the musical and melodic background that accompanied the first performance of the lyric poems, which might still have been in circulation as song in the Hellenistic period. Timotheus himself after all was already from the fourth century  preserved on a papyrus, and he might also have arrived in the Library as text, despite the continuous (re-)performance of his poetry at the time of the Alexandrians. Plutarch also mentions Onesicritus’ report that Alexander ordered Harpalus to send him papyrus rolls (βίβλοι) of the dithyrambs of Telestes and Philoxenus, a testimony that attests to the simultaneous existence, perhaps also circulation, of fourth-century lyric poems in textual form and as songs in performance (Plu. Alex.8.3 = Onesicritus FGrHist IIB 134 F38). The exclusion of the New Poets and the occasional inclusion of Corinna in the group of nine, as we have seen in the Introduction, imply that the Lyric Canon did not actually include simply and solely those whose text had survived down to the Hellenistic era; it rather included a selection, a closed selection, as a matter of fact, from what was theoretically available. Once formed, the selection remained fixed, as it was established in the Hellenistic era.¹¹⁰ Quintilian refers to the nine lyric poets (Inst. 10.1.61 novem vero Lyricorum), and Horace claims that the only way in which to ensure poetic glory was for his name to be included in that already selected lyric group. Me doctarum hederae praemia frontium dis miscent superis, me gelidum nemus Nympharumque leves cum Satyris choris secernunt populo, si neque tibias Euterpe cohibet nec Polyhymnia Lesboum refugit tendere barbiton. Quod si me lyricis uatibus inseres, sublimi feriam sidera uertice.

¹⁰⁹ Hordern (2002) 74, who seems to be selective in both his arguments and his examples; he implicitly claims that different criteria were in use for the lyric poets and for the Greek tragedians (e.g. Euripides) who were edited but still performed in the Hellenistic period; also LeVen (2014) 57. ¹¹⁰ See Introduction, ‘Canons and Canonization’.

250

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

As for me, wreaths of ivy, reward of learned brows, put me among the gods above. Me the cool forest and the light footed choruses of Nymphs with Satyrs set apart from the crowd, as long as Euterpe does not deny me her reed pipes and Polymnia does not shun from tuning the Lesbian barbitos. But if you will accept me among the lyric poets, I will strike the stars with my towering head. Hor. Carm.I.1.29 36

Quintilian also emphasizes the interest of the Alexandrians in antiquarianism, and points out that Aristophanes of Byzantium and Aristarchus did not include in their ‘informal’ canons post-classical and contemporary authors. Apollonius in ordinem a grammaticis datum non venit, quia Aristarchus atque Aristophanes, poetarum iudices, neminem sui temporis in numerum redegerunt, non tamen contemnendum reddidit opus aequali quadam mediocritate. Apollonius [sc. of Rhodes] is not admitted in the list created by grammarians because Aristarchus and Aristophanes [sc. of Byzantium], the critics of poems, included in their collection no contemporary [sc. author/poet]. Nevertheless, his work is by no means to be condemned, as it is distinguished by the uniform maintenance of the middle style. Quint. Inst.10.1.54¹¹¹

The tendency in Hellenistic scholarship to look backwards, as pointed out by Quintilian, becomes obvious in the fact that the main Hellenistic poets acquired commentaries for the first time by Theon, the last curator of the Library, in the first century . The scientific commentary of Hipparchus of Nicaea on Aratus’ Phaenomena is considered to be the earliest Hellenistic commentary, and its definite edition was produced in the first century .¹¹² The above statements in Horace and Quintilian and the manner in which these lists were perceived by succeeding scholars and authors suggest that the models the Alexandrians had established influenced the reception of Greek literature in subsequent eras. Since the Alexandrians never actively suppressed texts, the notion of absolute authority is a chimera. The poetic canons and lists which had achieved permanence and acceptance by the Alexandrian scholars were in effect a selection of authors who were chosen due to their perceived authority.¹¹³ Both their established authority and selection in the Library secured as a result their survival in the Roman period and Latin literature. ¹¹¹ The text is that of Radermacher (1959), who, however, has [poetarum iudicium] instead of poetarum iudices. ¹¹² On the commentary on Aratus by Hipparchus of Nicaea, see Dickey (2015) 482 with further bibliography. A papyrus dated in the late third century  also attests to exegetical comments on some poems from the third book of Callimachus’ Aetia and on the anonymous elegy On the oyster (P.Louvre inv.7733v = SH 983 4): scholia interlinea in P.Lille 76 (= 60e Harder i/256 SH and 60g.1 15 Harder i/SH 258), scholia interlinea in P.Lille 78a (= 60i Harder I/SH 261), scholia interlinea in P.Lille 79 (= 60g.16 34 Harder i/SH 258), scholia interlinea in P.Lille 82 (= 60d Harder i/SH 255), with commentary in Harder (2012) ii.495 ad loc. ¹¹³ Barbantani (1993) 6; Martindale (1993) 24 observes that ‘canons . . . are sites where hegemony is encoded and reproduced.’

The Hellenistic Era: Lyric Texts and the Lyric Canon

251

Unlike the Lyric Canon, some canons were characterized by fluidity. The clearest example of a fluid canon is that of the Attic orators, whose number changed variably in antiquity. Apparently, the number of the orators selected in each period and in each rhetorical treatise depended upon the oratorical style that was promoted in each treatise and which changed according to the literary trends of each period. Quintilian (Inst.10.1.76), Philostratus (Vit. Soph. 564–5), and Hermogenes (On Ideas 2.11.196–9) follow Plutarch’s selection of orators in the spurious Vitae Decem Oratorum, and claim that the Attic orators were ten, whereas Dionysius of Hallicarnassus narrows the list down to six—Lysias, Isocrates, Lycurgus, Demosthenes, Aeschines, and Hyperides.¹¹⁴ Compared to the canon of the orators, the Lyric Canon appears to have remained unchanged from the Hellenistic period onwards. Such an observation on the set and defined character of the Lyric Canon is in itself strong evidence for the Canon’s predetermined nature; had tradition not established the nine lyric poets as canonical by the Hellenistic era, the selection might have been as fluid as that of the orators. The very presence of the tragic canon in Aristophanes’ Frogs and its unaltered preservation in the tradition since reflects the mirroring character of the Hellenistic canons, and also embodies both the process through which these canons came into being and the dynamics at work. Ian Rutherford underscores the educational function of these canons and points out that the included authors were not those approved of in every respect: ‘it would be a mistake to think that the function of the lists was to provide canonical models; rather they provide examples which the modern student is supposed to engage and strive to emulate, using his judgment . . . to identify which elements are worth imitating and which are not.’¹¹⁵ As it seems, Rutherford follows Hermogenes in his interpretation and distinguishes between ‘the absolute value of an author and his value as a model in rhetorical education.’¹¹⁶ Though some of our best information comes from the rhetorical tradition, it is perhaps reductive to insist solely on rhetoric and indeed on quotation alone. Thus, one should perhaps not distinguish between the canonical status of a selected author and his exemplary use by readers and scholars. It could be that the established selections in what we today call canons were made as a guide for contemporary and future intellectuals concerning the authors they should prioritize, read, and use as models in each poetic genre. Rutherford emphasizes the rhetorical use of texts and consequently the perception of the canon of poetic and prose texts by rhetoricians as early as Quintilian. The nature of the exegesis offered by the surviving scholia, however, which in turn reflects the interests of the Hellenistic ¹¹⁴ On the canon of the Attic orators, Smith (1995), who also reviews scholars’ opinions on the canon’s provenance. ¹¹⁵ Rutherford, I. (1992) 362. ¹¹⁶ Rutherford, I. (1992) 371.

252

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

commentators, with its combination of linguistic exegesis, style, parallels, religious, cultural and political history, and myth suggest a larger role for the texts and a larger role for serious study.¹¹⁷ Some of these may indeed reflect the potential use of texts in schools.¹¹⁸ If this is the case, the level of discussion lends itself more to an educated general readership or perhaps even to poetic or prose imitators as opposed to a basic school or educational model. This would not rule out rhetorical use and employment in education, but it does not suggest an exclusive focus on rhetoric or education.¹¹⁹ One should not exclude the possibility that lyric poetry was part of the curriculum, and that schools might have played a role in choosing the poets that would be included in the Lyric Canon. In such a case, however, one would have to assume that all nine lyric poets were taught in schools, a suggestion that would potentially ignore the selective process in the Alexandrian Library. Thus, although education played a role in the formation of some canons, especially of the oratorical canon, school curriculum was not as binding in the case of the canon of lyric. As the previous analysis has revealed, the attitude of the Hellenistic scholars towards both past and contemporary poetry and literature was fundamentally conservative, and their conservatism was paved by the comic genre, Plato, and the Peripatos. The Alexandrians did not edit or annotate any of the post-fifthcentury lyric poets. Poets of the New Music, whose poetry was parodied and disapproved in comedy, who were criticized and condemned in Plato, whose work was not studied in detail in the Peripatos did not become objects of interest for Alexandrian scholarship. Fourth-century tragedians were also neglected. This, too, betrays the influence of comedy, whose narrative of the decline and fall of the tragic genre established the tragic canon with the three fifth-century masters of tragedy. The activity and scholarly approach of the Alexandrians reveals that in terms of focus they were passive receivers of Greek literature, and that they prioritized only those authors and those works which had been recognized by the Hellenistic era as worthy of attention and scholarly work. This of course generates a striking paradox. The Hellenistic period was itself an era of extensive formal experimentation. The innovative and exploratory perception of the Alexandrians is evident in the very poetics of the literary works the same Hellenistic scholars who worked on the lyric texts composed.¹²⁰ Hellenistic poetry, especially Hellenistic lyric poetry, is ¹¹⁷ Similarly Porro (2009) 189 90. ¹¹⁸ The importance of school curricula in the formation of canons is also emphasized by Nicolai (2014) 37 9, 45; see, though, Morgan, T. (1998) 25 39 for the relatively narrow curriculum in the Hellenistic period. ¹¹⁹ Contra Peradotto (1993) 85, 88 who interprets the formation of literary canons exclusively as a rhetorical practice with an educational purpose. ¹²⁰ Cf. Montana (2015) 69: ‘the alliance between Hellenistic scholarship and poetry can ultim ately be described as a metapoietic or self reflecting procedure that radiated bidirectionally.’

The Hellenistic Era: Lyric Texts and the Lyric Canon

253

ultimately a pool of often misplaced poetic features that subsequently create a modern and innovative facade.¹²¹ The Hellenistic era was also an era of the written word. The New Music relied heavily on performance for its effect, and might consequently have been vulnerable in an era when the text as verbal construct was the main priority. Although Aristotle claims that Licymnius’ dithyrambs would also have appealed to readers (Rh.1413b.12–14) and Harpalus sends to Alexander book-rolls with the dithyrambs of Philoxenus and Timotheus, New Music compositions seem not to have become texts that would have been exclusively enjoyed in reading.¹²² According to Giambattista D’Alessio, we have no certain cases of direct copies on papyri later than the Hellenistic period, and, though the texts of these poets circulated indeed in one way or another, the lack of colometric division in their compositions would not only account for their being overlooked in the Alexandria Library but would also support hypotheses on the poems’ constant re-performance.¹²³ The exclusion of the New Poets, who by the Hellenistic era were theoretically eligible for classic and canonical status on grounds of age, suggests that the scholarly attitude of the Hellenistic scholars, though important, was to a large extent reactive. Their exclusive focus on the compositions of the lyric nine and their neglect of the texts of the New Music reveal that they followed faithfully the agenda that was set by others, ultimately by comedy and Plato. The Alexandrians practically canonized the Lyric Canon, which had already been fixed by the time of the Peripatos and which they ultimately inherited. One may even suggest that the Hellenistic scholars elaborated on the Lyric Canon. Their role in the process of canonization was not to generate the canonical lyric list ex nihilo but rather to establish it as canonical with their scholarly activity. And this they achieved successfully.

¹²¹ See recently the study of Barbantani (2017) on the reception and reworking of a number of lyric genres in Hellenistic poetry. ¹²² On the passage in Aristotle and Licymnius, Porter (2010) 314 5 and LeVen (2014) 163 4. ¹²³ D’Alessio (2017) 233.

7 The Paradox of Bacchylides The process of transmission of Bacchylides’ poetry and the canonization of his name in antiquity remain a paradox. Bacchylides drops off the map after 452 , when we can securely date two of his epinician poems, Odes 6 and 7 for Lachon of Ceos, that are in all probability his latest composed victory odes.¹ As it has become evident from the analysis in the previous chapters, he is the sole lyric poet in the Canon whose name appears in no source other than the Canon itself. This silence is paradoxical, given especially his canonization, the way in which the names of the other lyric poets circulated, and also how their figures were evoked or sketched in various sources. Alcman, Alcaeus, Sappho, Anacreon, Stesichorus, Simonides, Ibycus, and Pindar travel in one way or another in works other than their own; their names and theirs works are evoked in comedy, they are mentioned and cited in Plato, and, with the exception of Ibycus and Alcman, the Peripatetics devote individual peritreatises to them. This recollection may not account on its own for the survival of their work, but it does ultimately suggest that they and their poetry were known enough to be circulated, studied, and canonized. Pindar and Simonides provide good examples for comparison. Based on evidence in comedy and Plato their songs were probably known in Athens and still sung at symposia, perhaps also in other occasions. We possess no substantial evidence to argue for a similar case for Bacchylides, as no songs of Bacchylides, not even his Athenian dithyrambs, left comparable traces in the fifth and fourth centuries.² For this reason Wilamowitz states emphatically that Bacchylides never became classic; we possess no sign that he was honoured as such, he declares, since no

¹ P.Oxy. 2.222, col.ii.18 = FGrHist III 415 records under πβ (= Ol.82/452 ) an Olympic victors’ list that includes the entry λάκων κε̣[ιος παίδ σταδιον, the victory of which was the occasion of Bacchylides’ Odes 5 and 6 for the son of Lachon, as concluded by the two editors Grenfell, B. P. and Hunt, A. S. Two Nemean victories by the same Lachon are also recorded in the victors’ list from Iulis of Ceos, IG XII 5.608.27 8, on the text of which see Schmidt, D. (1999) 70. ² Maehler (2004b) 25; cf. Hadjimichael (2014a) for a detailed analysis of how Aristophanes alludes to Bacchylides and how he reworks his Ode 5 in Birds.

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon. Theodora A. Hadjimichael, Oxford University Press (2019). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198810865.003.0008

256

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

word of him was transmitted either in the fine arts or in the literature of the earlier Hellenistic era.³ It is a fact that Bacchylides’ survival does not follow the pattern set by the other lyric poets. Despite the existence of his poetry in the ‘poetic geography’ of the Greek world at his lifetime, a geography that also includes Athens, his name appears in no subsequent source other than the Lyric Canon. For this reason, this final chapter will focus on the reception and survival of Bacchylides’ poetry in the Hellenistic era both as an enigma inviting study in its own right and as a useful test of the picture of the survival and transmission of the rest of the lyric poets, as sketched in the previous chapters. His case-study demonstrates the need for individualization, and also reveals the dangers of generalizing when we attempt to reconstruct the reception of an author and his corpus in antiquity. The presence of Bacchylides in the Lyric Canon, the existence of his poetic corpus in the Alexandrian Library, and the silence on his pre-Alexandrian reputation and survival is the terminus a quo for the following investigation. The Hellenistic edition of Bacchylides’ poetry is a fact, and so is his poetic and physical presence in the Greek world. These two facts alone, coupled with the disappearance of his name in the eras before the Hellenistic, create the paradox of his canonization that will be addressed in this chapter. The puzzle of Bacchylides’ survival and establishment as classic on the one hand confirms and on the other questions the canonizing process that has been outlined in the discussion so far.

THE ALEXANDRIAN BACCHYLIDES: S CHOLARSHIP Our knowledge of Bacchylides’ survival into the Hellenistic period is limited to the existence of his Hellenistic edition, to quotations from his work in scholia, and to what we know about his poem Kassandra.⁴ We have no records for an edition of his work by Aristophanes of Byzantium or for the existence of a commentary on his text by Aristarchus. Yet, the Alexandrian edition of his poetry is a reality. As Nick Lowe concludes, Bacchylides is the closest case to a straightforward grouping of epinikia.⁵ The order of his poems within his epinician book shows that criteria different from the ones in the editions of Pindar and Simonides ³ Wilamowitz (1898) 10; cf. Jebb (1905) 73 who emphasizes how ‘it would be very unwar rantable to infer from such silence that his [sc. Bacchylides’] work was then held in slight esteem’. Amm. Marc. RG 25.4.3 states that Julian enjoyed reading Bacchylides with den Boeft et al. (2005) 122 ad loc on the veracity of Ammianus’ statement, and Porphyrio also comments on how one of Bacchylides’ dithyrambs was the model for Horace’s Ode 1.15 (Porphyrio ad Hor. c.115). Both these comments suggest that Bacchylides’ poetry was still present in the Roman culture either as text or as exemplary model. ⁴ Jebb (1905) 73 5 on quotations from Bacchylides in the scholia. ⁵ Lowe (2007b) 170, where see for the arrangement of Bacchylides’ nine books.

The Paradox of Bacchylides

257

were at work,⁶ and the organization of Bacchylides’ victory odes in the London papyrus, such as it is, suggests that this may well have been his total epinician output that survived into the Hellenistic period.⁷ Later sources refer to specific and distinctive books of Bacchylides’ poetry, which was apparently divided into genres, as well as to a commentary on his victory odes by Didymus. • Dithyrambs Σ Pi. P.1.100, Dr. ii, pp.18–19 τῂ ἱστορίᾳ καὶ Βακχυλίδης συμϕωνεῖ ἐν τοῖς διθυράμβοις (‘Bacchylides agrees with this narrative in his dithyrambs’). Serv. ad Verg.Aen.6.21 quidam septem pueros et septem puellas accipi volunt, quod et Plato dicit in Phaedone et Sappho in lyricis et Bacchylides in dithyrambis et Euripides in Hercule, quos liberavit secum Theseus. (‘Some think that seven male youths and seven maidens are meant, as Plato claims in his Phaedo and Sappho in her lyric poems and Bacchylides in his dithyrambs and Euripides in his Heracles, youths whom Theseus liberated along with himself ’). Serv. ad Verg.Aen.11.93 Versis Arcades armis:. . .sicut habuisse Arcades Bacchylides in dithyrambis. (‘The Arcadians inverted with their arms: . . . just as it is said that Bacchylides represented the Arcadians in his dithyrambs’). • Epinikia Stob. Flor.3 caput 10.14, p. 411 W–H iii Βακχυλίδου Ἐπινίκων (‘Of Bacchylides’ Epinikia’). • Paeans Stob. Flor.4 caput 14.3, p. 371 W–H iv Βακχυλίδου Παιάνων (‘Of Bacchylides’ Paeans’). Clem. Al. Strom.5.68.5 Βακχυλίδης ἐν τοῖς Παιᾶσιν (‘Bacchylides in the Paeans’). Zenobius Cent.2.36 Μέμνηται δὲ αὐτῆς Βακχυλίδης ἐν Παιᾶσιν (‘Bacchylides commemorates it in his Paeans’). • Partheneia Plu. [De Mus.]1136f οὐκ ἠγνόει δ’ ὅτι πολλὰ Δώρια Παρθένεια [ἄλλα] Ἀλκμᾶνι καὶ Πινδάρῳ καὶ Σιμωνίδῃ καὶ Βακχυλίδῃ πεποίηται ⁶ Simonides’ epinikia were grouped according to type of contests (Call. Pinakes fr.441 Pf.), on which Obbink (2001b) 75 7; Lowe (2007b) 175, and Pindar’s epinikia according to the Games (Call. Pinakes fr.450 Pf.), on which Lowe (2007b) 172 4 with Diagram I in p. 173, and in more detail Negri (2004) esp.152 74. On the criteria for arranging Bacchylides’ epinikia, Maehler (1982) 36 7; Rutherford, I. (2001b) 158 9 with nn. 5 and 7; Lowe (2007b) 170 1. ⁷ On the London papyrus, Kenyon (1897) xv xxvi.

258

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

(‘He did not ignore that many Dorian Partheneia were composed by Alcman, Pindar, Simonides, and Bacchylides’). • Prosodia Stob. Flor.4 caput 34.24, p. 833; caput 44.16, p. 962; caput 44.46 p.969 W–H v Βακχυλίδου Προσοδίων (‘Of Bacchylides’ Prosodia’). • Hymnoi Σ v Ar. Ach.47(i) τοῦ δὲ Κελεοῦ μέμνηται Βακχυλίδης διὰ τῶν Ὕμνων (‘Bacchylides commemorates Celeus in his Hymns’). Stob. Flor.4 caput 54.1, p. 1113 W–H v Βακχυλίδου Ὕμνων (‘Of Bacchylides’ Hymns’). • Hyporchēmata Stob. Flor.3 caput 11.19, p.432 W–H iii Βακχυλίδου Ὑπορχημάτων (‘Of Bacchylides’ Hyporchēmata’). • Erōtika Ath. 15.667c Βακχυλίδης ἐν Ἐρωτικοῖς (‘Bacchylides in his Erōtika’). • Didymus’ commentary on Bacchylides Ph.Bybl. De diversis verborum significationibus Δίδυμος ἐν ὑπομνήματι Βακχυλίδου τοῦ λυρικοῦ (‘Didymus in his commentary on Bacchylides the lyric poet’). Ammon. Diff. 333 Δίδυμος. . .ἐν ὑπομνήματι Βακχυλίδου ἐπινίκων (‘Didymus. . .in his commentary on Bacchylides’ epinikia’). A commentary presumably on Bacchylides’ Dithyrambs that is preserved on a papyrus of the second century  (P.Oxy. 23.2368) also informs us that Aristarchus disagreed with Callimachus on his categorization of a poem entitled Kassandra. It has been argued by modern scholars that the Kassandra was one of Bacchylides’ poems. ταύτην τ]ὴν ᾠδὴν Ἀρίσταρχ(ός) γε μὲν διθ]υραμβικὴν εἶ ναί ϕησι]ν̣ διὰ τὸ παρειλῆ ϕθαι ἐν α]ὐτῇ τὰ περὶ Κασ σάνδρας,] ἐπιγράϕει δ’αὐτὴν καὶ Κασσ]άνδραν, πλανη θέντα δ’ α]ὐτὴν κατατάξαι ἐν τοῖς π]αιᾶσι Καλλίμαχόν ϕησιν ὡς] οὐ συνέντα ὅτι ].. μα κοινόν ἐ στι τοῦ δι]θυράμβου ὁμοί ως δὲ ὁ Φ]ασηλίτης Διονύσιο(ς).

10

15

20

The Paradox of Bacchylides

259

Aristarchus says that this ode is dithyrambic because the story of Cassandra is included in it, and he entitles it Kassandra. He says that Callimachus classified it among the paeans because he was misled and did not realize that the ] is common also in the dithyramb. Similarly Dionysius of Phaselis. P.Oxy. 23.2368, col.i.9 20⁸

The disagreement between the two Alexandrian scholars becomes illuminating when placed against the background of Bacchylides’ absence from the editorial lists. One could conclude that the Kassandra may well have been classified as a dithyramb and thus included in a collections of dithyrambs or indeed in a collection of paeans, if it was initially categorized as a paean. We should, however, bear in mind that Callimachus never edited any authors, and did not produce any commentaries. His taxonomy in the Pinakes suggests that he attempted to collect, catalogue, and categorize the Greek texts that were available in the Library into several classes grouped by genre.⁹ In regard to Aristarchus, though one cannot be certain, the verbum technicum in the ancient commentary ἐπιγράφει (vv.13) may suggest a first-hand classificatory activity by Aristarchus and not work on a current edition. Such a suggestion would potentially add Bacchylides to Aristarchus’ list of lyric poets for whom he produced either editions or commentaries (i.e. Alcaeus, Alcman, Anacreon, and Pindar). One may also tentatively argue, as Giambattista D’Alessio has, that the standard edition of Bacchylides was the work of Aristarchus and not the work of Aristophanes of Byzantium.¹⁰ D’Alessio’s conclusion would indicate that Bacchylides’ work, which was evidently already in the Library at the time of Callimachus’ Pinakes, remained unedited when Aristophanes of Byzantium prepared the other editions of the lyric poets, a possibility that I find unlikely. It is plausible to argue that the verb ἐπιγράϕει is used in the papyrus commentary not for an edition of Bacchylides’ corpus but for the classification and entitlement of his poems in his already edited corpus: ἐπιγράϕει is coupled with the title Aristarchus assigned to the poem (ἐπιγράϕει δ’αὐτὴν |. . .Κάσσ]ανδραν. . .), while κατατάξαι is the chosen verb for Callimachus’ classificatory activity.¹¹ Beyond questions on the editor of Bacchylides’ work, one can make a number of observations based on the commentary on the Kassandra. The papyrus comment has to do with the issue of arrangement and classification, and although we cannot securely establish whether it refers specifically to Bacchylides’ edition, we can assume that Aristarchus’ observations either ⁸ The text is that of CLGP I.1 Fasc.4,where a supplement for line 18 is not provided. For a more detailed text with a complete apparatus criticus that includes all the editions of the fragment, see Hadjimichael (2014b) 89 92 with nn. 34 43. ⁹ On the scholarly debate with reference to the assumed nature and function of the Pinakes, see Chapter 6 in this book, ‘Working on Lyric Texts in the Library’. ¹⁰ D’Alessio (1997) 54. ¹¹ On a more detailed discussion on the specifics of the hypomnēma, Hadjimichael (2014b).

260

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

reinforced or corrected remarks made by the already existing scholarship on the particular poem or on specific poetic genres, in this case paeans and dithyrambs. Eidography was an issue that concerned the Alexandrian scholars of every period, and comprehensive editions of lyric poets needed an arranging criterion to distinguish between poems of different genres. Predictably, the application of different criteria often created classificatory problems, such as the above on the poem Kassandra.¹² The question therefore is not why but where Aristarchus might have made the aforementioned comment. Lobel points out that ‘his [sc. Aristarchus] criticism might be obiter dictum.’¹³ Thus, the reference to the poem Kassandra need not indicate that the commentator focused predominantly on Bacchylides or that he was commenting on a poem or text of Bacchylides. We can conclude from the Pindaric scholia that Aristarchus dealt also with Pindar’s Paeans. Without excluding the possibility that the comment was indeed made in the course of a commentary on Bacchylides’ Dithyrambs, if eventually the Kassandra was classified as a dithyramb, it could also be possible that the remark about Bacchylides’ Kassandra was made in the course of the commentary on Pindar’s Paeans and in Aristarchus’ attempt to clarify the key features of a paean and its differences from a dithyramb. The loss of the original performance context of melic poetry might have been one of the reasons why the Alexandrian scholars arranged the surviving poems by content or by metre.¹⁴ This could ultimately mean that categorization was often made by comparison and contrast with other genres. Bearing in mind that paeans and dithyrambs were thought of as clear-cut categories by the Alexandrians and also that Bacchylides’ dithyrambs appear to be an exception to the formulaic key features of the dithyrambic category, a comment on a poem at the edge between the two genres would have been appropriate in an attempt to clarify the characteristics of a paean or a dithyramb.¹⁵ The above remarks might be speculative, but this disagreement, as recorded on the ancient hypomnēma, indicates that at least part and conceivably the entire of Bacchylides’ corpus

¹² Barbantani (2009) 299. ¹³ Lobel (1956) 54. ¹⁴ Cf. Barbantani (2009) 299 300. The following references are the most important discussions on the editions of the lyric poets. Anacreon: Gentili (1958) xxvii xxix; Perrotta (2007) 203; Acosta Hughes (2010) 160 3. Sappho: Page (1955) 112 16; Yatromanolakis (1999); Perrotta (2007) 122; Acosta Hughes (2010) 92 104. Alcaeus: Lyne (2005); Perrotta (2007) 172; Acosta Hughes (2010) 134 40. Pindar: Lowe (2007b) 171 6. Simonides: Obbink (2001b) 74 81; Poltera, pp. 11 14; Acosta Hughes (2010) 210 13. Bacchylides: Perrotta (2007) 340; Lowe (2007b) 170 6. ¹⁵ The confusion is evident not only in the treatment of the poem Kassandra in the Alexandrian Library but also in the riddle of the genre of Ode 17 that was classified as a dithyramb, although it includes the paeanic refrain, on which Gerber (1965); Pieper (1972); Merkelbach (1973); Schmidt, D. (1990); Käppel (1992) 156 8, 184 9; Zimmermann (1992) 91 3; Hose (1995); Maehler (1997) 167 8 and (2004a) 172 3; Rutherford, I. (1997) 47 8 and (2001b) 29, 35 6; Pavlou (2012).

The Paradox of Bacchylides

261

was apparently available in the Alexandrian Library by the time of Callimachus in the early third-century . References in post-Hellenistic sources to books containing Bacchylides’ poetry as well as the dispute between Aristarchus and Callimachus on whether the poem Kassandra was a dithyramb or a paean offer enough evidence to reach a number of conclusions. Firstly we can infer that at least part and conceivably the entire of Bacchylides’ corpus was apparently available in the Alexandrian Library by the time of Callimachus’ Pinakes and secondly that editorial work on his text did take place in the Library. Absence of explicit references to scholarship on Bacchylides’ corpus therefore becomes even more paradoxical, given the availability of at least part of Bacchylides’ corpus in the Library from the earliest period. Why then do we not have a Peripatetic treatise by Hermippus of Smyrna, who continued the work of the Peripatos in the Hellenistic era? Some of the treatises that were prepared in the Lyceum suggest that the Peripatetics were highly interested in biographical and anecdotal material which could chiefly be found in poetry that foregrounded the poetic persona, such as the poetry of Alcaeus, Anacreon, and Sappho. Such features are not particularly distinctive in Bacchylides, and one could suppose that the absence of such hints from Bacchylides’ corpus might have been the reason for the lack of a Peripatetic treatise. We do, however, have a Peripatetic treatise on Stesichorus, whose epic and Homeric features have long been recognized.¹⁶ In one of the surviving fragments from the treatise Περὶ Στησιχόρου Chamaeleon refers to how the poems of Homer, Hesiod, Archilochus, and Mimnermus were set to music (fr.28 W² μελῳδηθῆναι), contextualizing, as it seems, the performance of Stesichorus’ poetry within the kitharodic praxis in general. Bacchylides’ poetry could have provided the Alexandrians with such material in order to produce a Περί Βακχυλίδου. His Ode 18, for example, that was in all probability composed for Athenians could have contributed to the Aristotelian biological explanation of tragedy as the genre that originated from the dithyramb after the chorus was coupled in performance with the koryphaios of the dithyrambic chorus and at a later stage with a single actor (Po.1449a9–13). The poem is unique within the extant dithyrambic collection. Its dramatic and dialogic structure associate Ode 18 with tragedy, and is suggestive of a performance either by a chorus divided into two hemichoria or by a koryphaios who would converse with the rest of the chorus.¹⁷ Ode 18 is a single example, but it is nevertheless revealing of the kind of comments the Bacchylidean corpus could arouse. One possible explanation

¹⁶ Russo (1999) elaborates on the ‘Homeric’ nature of Stesichorus; also Finglass (2014) 35 7 on the connection of Stesichorus’ myths with Homer. ¹⁷ Jebb (1905) 233 4 postulates that the ode is an exchange between the koryphaios and Aegeus, whereas Fearn (2007) 307n. 153 finds plausible a performance in which the koryphaios holds the role of Aegeus.

262

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

for the omission of a treatise on Bacchylides even down to the Hellenistic era is that this was a matter of choice, aesthetic or other. Even if this sounds reasonable, it is still difficult to argue with certainty that the Alexandrian scholars chose not to work on Bacchylides when his text was available in the Library. As stressed in the previous chapter, the scholarly activity of the Alexandrians was influenced by the aesthetic evaluation and conservatism of pre-Alexandrian sources, and this makes their attitude towards Bacchylides particularly thought-provoking. Bacchylides cannot be traced in the fourth-century picture; Plato chose neither to mention him nor to cite from his corpus, and we have no evidence for a Peripatetic treatise on him. The Alexandrians, however, did not neglect him. Didymus’ commentary on Bacchylides’ victory odes suggests that his epinician corpus had been edited by the first century . It is most unlikely that the text was edited at the time of Didymus, as the Library was then in a period of decline.¹⁸ Didymus’ work is also generally not original. Although he was often prepared to differ from the interpretation of his exemplary model, as we can conclude from his work on Pindar, in most cases Didymus compiled and reviewed varying opinions of other grammarians.¹⁹ He was nonetheless considered to be a grammarian who belonged in the Aristarchean tradition, and he produced mainly hypomnēmata on already edited works (cf. Suda s.v. Δίδυμος, δ 872 Adler γραμματικὸς Ἀριστάρχειος). This makes it on the whole improbable that he had been the first to have annotated Bacchylides. His commentary, however, confirms the fact that there was indeed a book of Bacchylides’ epinician poems in the Library, which had survived in the early centuries  to be commented upon. Bacchylides’ edition therefore must predate Didymus and probably by a considerable interval. Moreover, Bacchylides’ text was edited according to principles of lyric colometry as that was established by Aristophanes of Byzantium. It is therefore probable that his edition was prepared by Aristophanes of Byzantium himself or by a pupil, even by Aristarchus, as it has already been suggested. The question of who edited the text of Bacchylides goes beyond the matter of colometry, however. It is also a matter of classification and organization. Bacchylides’ work was carefully organized into nine books, arranged in a fashion similar to the books of Pindar, and it was overall a considerable editorial undertaking by a serious editor of texts. Even if we assume that Bacchylides’ corpus was edited by the time of Aristophanes of Byzantium, we still need to face a lacuna in our knowledge, and that would be the period before Aristophanes of Byzantium, thus the period before the creation of Bacchylides’ edition.

¹⁸ Fraser (1972) i.468 9 who discusses in detail the different time periods of the Library. ¹⁹ See Braswell (2013) 106 11 with examples; Montana (2015) 172 refers to Didymus’ ‘zeal in collecting, selecting and compiling of the previous work of Alexandrian philology’.

The Paradox of Bacchylides

263

THE ALEXANDRIAN BACCHYLIDES: KNOWLEDGE AND REPUTATION The first step in our attempt to appreciate the way in which Bacchylides was received in the Hellenistic period and the status his work had enjoyed in the Alexandrian Library is to bear in mind that in their poetic evaluation the Hellenistic scholars depended on pre-Alexandrian sources that reflected on the poetry and personae of the lyric poets. The Alexandrian scholarship shows a paradoxical combination of scholarly energy and critical passivity, and the Alexandrians shaped their attitude towards specific authors and specific genres through pre-Alexandrian and especially Athenian poetic criticism. As we have seen, Bacchylides is included in both the epigrams on the Lyric Canon and also in the lists from the Pindaric scholia that refer to the nine lyric poets of antiquity. His inclusion was probably not accidental but closely linked to the fame he had gained in antiquity, to the status he had acquired by the Hellenistic era, and to the knowledge the Hellenistic scholars had about his poetry and his success. Given the background on the pre-Alexandrian disappearance of Bacchylides’ name mainly from the Athenian landscape, the question of how the Hellenistic scholars became familiar with his name and work bears an even more pressing answer; this silence may ultimately mean that some of our ignorance reflects an accident. We have in fact one piece of evidence that submits how Bacchylides was known in the Hellenistic era and that also demonstrates that he was already established as a well-known poet. Bacchylides’ fame becomes a subject of an epigram which is dedicated to him presumably for his dithyrambic victories in Athens. The epigram is also fictively attributed to him: Κούρα Πάλλαντος πολυώνυμε, πότνια Νίκα, πρόϕρων † Κρανναίων † ἱμερόεντα χορὸν αἰὲν ἐποπτεύοις, πολέας δ’ ἐν ἀθύρμασι Μουσᾶν Κηίῳ ἀμϕιτίθει Βακχυλίδῃ στεϕάνους. 2 Καρθαιῶν Bergk in PLG iii.585: Κρᾱναΐδων Meineke in Delectus: Καρνείων Stadtmüller in AGEP ii.399 3 πολλεάς Pac 4 Κηίῳ Brunck: κηορῳ P, Βακχυλίδῃ P: Βακχυλίδης C Daughter of Pallas, you who are worshipped under many names, sacred Victory, you constantly watch with good will the charming chorus of the Craneans, and you crown with many wreaths at the games of the Muses the Ceian Bacchylides. AP 6.313/‘Bacchylides’ 2 FGE²⁰

²⁰ In the apparatus criticus: P = Codex Anthologiae Palatinae (Palat. 23+Paris. suppl.gr. 384); ac = ante correctionem; C = codicis P libr. i ix corrector.

264

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

According to Denys Page, epigrams in prayer-form have no parallel in Bacchylides’ time or before the Alexandrian period,²¹ and the epigram’s tone further suggests that it was likely a Hellenistic product, thus not a genuine composition by Bacchylides.²² Nevertheless, the epigram, which has been ignored in recent scholarship on epigrammatic compositions on the canonical nine, offers us the opportunity to draw important conclusions for Bacchylides’ survival and for his reception leading up and during the Hellenistic period, as it suggests a continuing interest in Bacchylides.²³ A number of such epigrams recall features of the corpus of the lyric poet they mention in their quatrain, or they employ the imagery and subject of specific poems, and others are composed in their honour. As a rule the focus is not on poetics, but an epigram could recall the cultural memory of each lyric poet, and the epigrammatists generally appear to be more interested in monodic than in choral poets.²⁴ These epigrams reflect the status of the poets, whose image is often portrayed in similar colours from epigram to epigram, and they additionally exemplify the endurance of their fame.²⁵ Pindar, for example, is not remembered as an epinician poet, but is celebrated from the fourth century  to the first century  ‘as a servant of the Muses and recipient of divine prodigies’, and as ‘an ideal citizen, a moral authority’ (e.g. AP 7.35, 16.305);²⁶ Sappho is the poetess-Muse, whose erotic language the epigram might also emulate (e.g. ‘Plato’ 13 FGE, AP 7.407); Anacreon is the inspired reveller and expert in erotic songs and symposia (e.g. AP 7.24–5/ ‘Simonides’ 66–7 FGE, 7.31); Alcman is remembered mostly for his uncertain origin and for his fame in Sparta, or for the poor condition of his tomb (e.g. AP 7.18, 7.19, 7.709); Ibycus and Stesichorus are remembered in epigrams predominantly in connection with their dishonoured death that is contrasted to their poetic grandeur or in connection with their place of burial (e.g. AP 7.75 on Stesichorus’ tomb in Catane, AP 7.745 on Ibycus’ murder by thieves at a deserted place); lastly, Simonides is celebrated as an experienced and successful poet in tribal competitions with male choruses in Athens (e.g. Simonides 27–8 FGE).²⁷

²¹ Page FGE, p. 151. ²² Contra Jebb (1905) 424 and Snell (1961) 119 who suggest that the epigram was composed by Bacchylides. ²³ Barbantani (1993) collects and discusses all the epigrams in honour of the lyric poets, but does not include the above on Bacchylides; also Acosta Hughes and Barbantani (2007). ²⁴ Sappho and Anacreon, for instance, appear in eleven and sixteen epigrams respectively, on which Barbantani (1993) 28 66; Acosta Hughes and Barbantani (2007) 438 45; Acosta Hughes (2010) 82 92. Barbantani (1993) 91 argues that this preference in monodic poetry was mainly due to the easiness with which one could read and perform the poems compared to the compositions of the choral poets. ²⁵ Barbantani (1993) 91; Klooster (2011) 26. ²⁶ Quotations from Acosta Hughes and Barbantani (2007) 435. ²⁷ See in more detail Barbantani (1993).

The Paradox of Bacchylides

265

The specific quatrain on Bacchylides reflects his poetic status, and verifies his numerous participations in dithyrambic competitions. Such kind of commemoration may indicate that antiquity showed more interest in Bacchylides’ dithyrambs than in his victory odes. The epigram may also suggest that Bacchylides’ name was more strongly associated with his Athenian civic commissions and with the dithyrambic genre. Bacchylides composed at least three odes to be performed at Athenian festivals with dithyrambic competitions or with performances of kyklioi khoroi (Odes 15, 18, and 19). The author of the epigram obviously knows enough to connect Bacchylides’ name with (Athenian) choruses and victories, and Meineke’s supplement Κρᾱναΐδων makes perfect sense in a dedicatory epigram, especially if we take into account Bacchylides’ career.²⁸ This focus on both Athens and dithyrambs creates a connection between Athens and Alexandria, which ultimately forms a kind of continuity between Athenian and Alexandrian perceptions of Bacchylides. Although similar epigrams that celebrate the fame of a poet do not necessarily confine us to dithyrambs, such a focus in the particular epigram may suggest that tradition linked Bacchylides’ name predominantly with dithyrambic compositions. The dependence of Hellenistic epigrammatists on already established traditions for the (lyric) poets, on biographical and anecdotal material that they frequently employ in a positive light, on material deriving from a poet’s corpus, or on related criticism is evident in a number of epigrams that either celebrate certain features of the poet in question, or are attributed to lyric poets. For instance, ‘Simonides’ 34 FGE is supposed to have been dedicated by the Deinomedes at Delphi after their victory over the Carthaginians, and is ascribed to Simonides, who had allegedly been at the court of Hieron.²⁹ Φημὶ Γέλων’, Ἱέρωνα, Πολύζηλον, Θρασύβουλον, παῖδας Δεινομένευς, τοὺς τρίποδας θέμεναι, βάρβαρα νικήσαντας ἔθνη, πολλήν δὲ παρασχεῖν σύμμαχον Ἕλλησιν χεῖρ’ ἐς ἐλευθερίην. I say that Gelon, Hieron, Polyzelus, and Thrasybulus, the sons of Deinomenes, dedicated tripods having defeated the barbarian nations, and that they offered to the Greeks support as allies in the fight for freedom.

In this case the epigram attaches itself to the figure of Simonides and the principal reason for doing so is the biographical information we possess on his connection with Hieron. Alexander Sens calls the impulse to assign epigrams to archaic and classical lyric and dramatic poets a process of archaeology.³⁰ ²⁸ Page FGE, p. 151 notes that Κρανναίων is unintelligible and observes that had the epigram been genuine, Κρᾱναΐδων (‘the sons of Kranaos’) would have been the correct supplement. ²⁹ On Simonides’ epigram, see Jebb (1905) 452 7; Page FGE, pp. 247 50; also T55 61 Poltera on Simonides’ connection with Hieron. ³⁰ Sens (2007) 374.

266

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

Epigrams of this type are probably ascribed to lyric poets for various reasons. Such epigrammatic poems are in part a search for authority through poetic antecedents, partly tributes to these authoritative poetic figures, partly exercises in form, in some cases perhaps even witty frauds relating to wellestablished poetic figures. The authoritative generic voices of the lyric poets provided an obvious source of poetic authority for such Hellenistic epigrams. Bacchylides’ generic voice in particular offered a source of authority for the epigram presented here, which confirms in retrospect the recognizability, if not the canonical status, both Bacchylides’ name and his poetry had acquired by the Hellenistic period. The significance of this epigram becomes especially prominent when we take into account the totality of the Hellenistic epigrams that were composed in honour of the lyric poets. Alcaeus is the only canonical lyric poet who is not celebrated in epigrams, in spite of his established classic status by the time of the Alexandrians. To be sure, some epigrams evoke the erotic sympotic setting of Alcaeus’ poems and the stasiotic character of his poetry, but Alcaeus is not named as their model (e.g. AP 6.123, 6.163, 9.322, 9.323).³¹ He is nevertheless often presented as the author of a number of epigrams, some of which even twist the persona that was sketched in his poetry and in his pre-Hellenistic reception (e.g. AP 5.10 where Alcaeus is depicted as hating Eros). Lasus also receives no Hellenistic epigram, in spite of the Peripatetic treatise bearing his name. Lasus’ complete absence from the canonical Hellenistic list of the lyric poets may suggest, as noted above, that his text did not reach the Alexandrian Library to be edited by the Hellenistic scholars. The epigrammatists confirm his absence. With the exception of Timotheus and his epitaph (Anonymous 124 FGE), the New Poets have a fate similar to that of Lasus, though the circumstances are different. Although their poetry did survive into the Hellenistic period, the representatives of the New Music neither obtain an edition nor are they celebrated in epigrams. Benjamin AcostaHughes and Silvia Barbantani point out that most epigrams on the lyric poets were composed between the third century  and the first century , thus at a time when editions of the corpus of the lyric poets started becoming available or circulated widely.³² The coincidence of the availability of lyric editions and of the production of epigrams on the lyric poets strongly suggests the connection between the two. As in the case of biographical and anecdotal stories that are closely linked with the corpus of a poet, the epigrams are anchored as well on the features detected in a number of their poems, and recreate, too, the main features of their poetic personae and figures, as those were developed and established in tradition.

³¹ See Acosta Hughes and Barbantani (2007) 452 7. ³² Acosta Hughes and Barbantani (2007) 431.

The Paradox of Bacchylides

267

Complementary evidence for the survival and knowledge of Bacchylides, his epinicians this time, comes from agonistic epigrams of the third and second century . The inscription for Attalus from Pergamum, presumably the nephew and adopted son of Philetaerus and father of Attalus I of Pergamum plays upon B.5.37–49.³³ The inscription can be plausibly dated 280–72 .³⁴ [Πο]λ̣λὰ μὲν ἐγ Λ[ι]βύης ἦλθ’ ἅρματα, πολλὰ δ’ ἀπ’ Ἄργευς, [πο]λλὰ δὲ π[ι]είρης ἦλθ’ ἀπὸ Θεσσαλίης, [ο]ἷσιν ἐνηριθ̣[μ]εῖτο καὶ Ἀττάλου. ἁθρόα δ’ ὕσπληξ πάντα διὰ στρεπτοῦ τείνατ’ ἔχουσα κάλω [ἥ] μ̣έγ’ ὑ̣παχήσασα θοὰς ἐξήλασε πώλους, αἱ δὲ διὰ σταδίου πυκνὸν ὄρεγμ’ ἔϕερον ἄλλαι ἐπ’ ἄλλα θέουσαι. ὁ δ’ Ἀττάλου ἶσος ἀέλλῃ δίϕρος ἀεὶ προτέραν πο[σ]σὶν̣ ἔϕα̣ιν̣ ̣ε̣ κόνιν. χοἰ μὲν ἔτ’ ἀμπνείοντες ἐδήριον αὐτὰρ ὃ ?τοῖσι[ν]? ἐγράϕεθ’ Ἑλλάνων ταῖς τόκα μυριάσιν. ϕήμα δ’ εἰς Φιλέταιρον ἀοίδιμος ἦλθε καὶ οἴκους Περγάμου, Ἀλείῳ τ[ε]ι̣σαμένα στεϕάνῳ.

4

8

Many chariots came from Libya, many from Argos, many came from prosperous Thesally, Attalus’ chariot was also included among them. All the chariots lined up and the race started by stretching the twisted rope. The fast horses started running by making a loud sound, others stretched out closely around the stadion following them fast. The chariot of Attalus which was running like the wind was constantly drawing up dust with [the horses’] legs. And the others were still trying and labouring. Besides, he is already inscribed [as victorious] among the thousands of Greeks. Having been celebrated with garlands from Aleios the words that would become famous in song have reached Philetaerus and the houses of Pergamum. Ins.Perg.10, Ebert 59/ Moretti 37 ξανθότριχα μὲν Φερένικον Ἀλϕεὸν παρ’ εὐρυδίναν πῶλον ἀελλοδρόμαν εἶδε νικάσαντα χρυσόπαχυς Ἀώς,

40

³³ Ebert, p. 180 notes several parallels/intertexts to lines 7 8 of the inscription: e.g. Hom. Il.10.437; Hes. Sc.345; h.Hom. 4.217; S. OT.467; Pi. P.4.18. He also cites B.5.39, 43f as the passage that is echoed in the specific lines, on which also Fuhrer (1993) 92 3; Barbantani (2012) 44 sees an additional echo of B.2.1 5 in ll.11 12 of the inscription. ³⁴ Hansen (1971) 28 takes Ins.v.Perg. nos. 10 12 as a group (Ins.v.Perg. 12 ends with the phrase Ἐπίγονος ἐποίησεν), and notes that the epigram was the work of Epigonus. Hansen’s view is accepted by both Moretti, p. 94 and Ebert, p. 178. We have good reasons to date the inscription 280 72 , on which Moretti, pp. 94 8 and Ebert, pp. 176 8. On the honorand of the inscription, see Moretti, pp. 96 8; Ebert, p. 176. The script of the inscription belongs to the first half of the third century , and the name Φιλέταιρος (ll.11) restricts our dating within Philetaerus’ dynasty (282 63 ), as concluded in Moretti, p. 97 and Ebert, p. 176. The celebrated Attalus may have won the chariot race at one of the three Olympiads that fell within the kingship of Attalus Philetaerus, i.e. in the years 280, 276, or 272 . The Chremonedian War (266 1 ) might have prevented the Olympic Games of 264  from taking place.

268

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon Πυθῶνί τ’ἐν ἀγαθέᾳ γᾷ δ’ ἐπισκήπτων πιϕαύσκω οὔπω νιν ὑπὸ προτέ[ρω]ν ἵππων ἐν ἀγῶνι κατέχρανεν κόνις πρὸς τέλος ὀρνύμενον ῥιπᾷ γὰρ ἴσος βορέα ὃν κυβερνήταν ϕυλάσσων ἵεται νεόκροτον νίκαν Ἱέρωνι ϕιλοξείνῳ τιτύσκων.

45

The golden armed Dawn saw the blond haired Pherenicus, the quick running colt, winning by the wide eddying Alphaeus, and in sacred Pytho, too. I declare as I lay my hand on the ground: never yet has dust that is lifted by horses that run ahead in a contest defiled him as he rushes towards the finishing line. For he runs like the blast of the North Wind guarding his steersman and bringing to hospit able Hieron new applauded victory. B.5.37 49

The entire diction of the inscription, which also celebrates an athletic victory, is undeniably an amalgam from Pindar and Bacchylides. The similarity of the inscription, especially of lines 5–8, to the description of Hieron’s winning race in Bacchylides’ Ode 5 is striking. The chariots that participated in the chariotrace are the main focal point in the inscription, which gradually zooms in on the horse-chariot of Attalus. His horses and chariot are as fast as a storm (ll.5 θοάς πώλους, ll.7–8 ἶσος ἀέλλῃ | δίϕρος), and their speed sends up dust (ll.8 ἀεὶ προτέραν. . .κόνιν), which is inhaled by the horses that follow it (ll.9 χοἰ μὲν ἔτ’ἀμπνείοντες ἐδήριον·). This passage focuses on the exact same details as the Bacchylidean passage: the speed of Pherenicus who runs like the wind (vv.39 πῶλον ἀελλοδρόμαν; vv.46 ῥιπᾷ γὰρ ἴσος βορέα,), and the clouds of dust that Pherenicus never inhaled because he was always at the front line (vv.43–4 ὑπὸ προτέρων ἵππων ἐν ἀγῶνι κατέχρανεν κόνις).³⁵ Visual and vivid descriptions of the moment of the athletic competition and recreations of the athletic achievement are each perfectly in place in inscriptions celebrating an athletic victory. Such kind of ekphrastic emulation is also evident in a number of epinician epigrams, especially Poseidippus’ Hippiká that place emphasis on the primacy of horses, which are described as straining at the crucial moment of competition.³⁶ This specific source of enargeia is a particularly prominent feature in the Bacchylidean epinician, and is largely absent from Pindar, who avoids

³⁵ Contra Maehler (2004b) 27, who states that ‘such textual similarities may. . .not be con clusive proof of familiarity with B.’s ode.’ ³⁶ e.g. Poseidippus’ Hippiká 72 and 76 AB, with Barbantani (2012) 49 55 and further bibliography; cf. CEG 820 and 828, and AP 6.135 which are analysed in Köhnken (2007) 296, 302 3 where the winning horses might be mentioned in the epigram, but the emphasis is still placed on the victorious charioteer. The entire diction also lacks the enargeia through which the victorious moment is recreated in Poseidippus’ epigrams.

The Paradox of Bacchylides

269

descriptions of the actual athletic victory in his epinicians.³⁷ This significant difference points to Bacchylides as source and intertext for passages that visualize the victorious moment at the Games rather than to the Pindaric epinician. The Hellenistic epigram AP 6.313 may sing of Bacchylides’ dithyrambs, but it is his Ode 5 that is reworked in Hellenistic sources. The fact that the inscription in honour of Attalus the son of Philetaerus models itself on Bacchylides’ Ode 5 raises the possibility that the writer at Pergamum knew of the poem, which generates the question of how that might have been possible. This intertextual link invites us to assume firstly that the epinician poem(s) of Bacchylides travelled to Pergamum (presumably as texts), and secondly that probably Ode 5, if not a number of Bacchylides’ poems, circulated widely by the third century . The Library at Pergamum was founded by Eumenes II of Pergamum (197–59 ), thus chronologically much later than the Alexandrian Library.³⁸ Consequently, it is difficult to assume that the text of Bacchylides was kept in the Library of Pergamum, since there was no library to house it at the proposed date of the inscription for Attalus. The extant fragments of the work of Crates of Mallos, the most important scholar who was invited to Pergamum by Eumenes II, are strong enough evidence for the existence of lyric texts at his time in the Library of Pergamum. As far as we can conclude from the extant fragments, Crates seems to have worked on Alcman, Pindar, and Stesichorus (frr.82–4 Broggiato),³⁹ and, according to the Suda (s.v. Κράτης, κ 2342 Adler), he was contemporary of Aristarchus and lived at the time of Ptolemy VI Philometor (reign 180–45 ).⁴⁰ Even if we assume that Crates might have worked on a text of Bacchylides at Pergamum, the presence of this hypothetical text in the Pergamum Library must have post-dated the Alexandrian edition of Bacchylides. It is, however, also plausible to suppose that at least Bacchylides’ epinician poetry became somehow known and thus circulated in that part of the world. One cannot exclude the possibility that the Bacchylidean text passed through Pergamum before reaching Alexandria, but we have no firm base for this assumption. The inscription, ³⁷ On enargeia, Zanker (1987) 171 2 and (2004) 107 with emphasis on its eye witnessing quality; Nünlist (2015) 725; on enargeia in Bacchylides, Kirkwood (1966) 98 101; Fearn (2007) 305 15 on Ode 15; on the description of the victorious athletic event in a victory ode as a distinct Bacchylidean feature, Hadjimichael (2015). ³⁸ Hansen (1971) 270 5; Casson (2002) 49; Montana (2015) 144; see also the ancient testi monies on the Library of Pergamum in Platthy (1968) 159 65, nos. 138 53; Kosmetatou (2003) 164 argues that the Library in Pergamum was probably founded by Attalus I and expanded by Eumenes II; similarly Str. 13.1.53, p. 608C 54, p. 609C Radt, where Strabo positions chronologic ally the setting up of the Attalid Library at Pergamum at the time when Neleus took Theophrastus’ books to Skepsis. ³⁹ Broggiato, pp. xxiv xxv. ⁴⁰ Montana (2015) 148 9 suggests that Crates may have contributed to the setting up of the Attalid Library, which was undergoing a phase of considerable expansion at his time and had also been equipped with Pinakes on the model of the Alexandrian Library (e.g. Ath. 8.336e, D.H. Din.1.2.11 21, 11.18.20 5).

270

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

if the proposed date of 280–72  is correct, is secure evidence that the epinician poems of Bacchylides, or some of them, both circulated and were read in Pergamum in the third century . If Bacchylides’ edition was a product of either Aristophanes of Byzantium or of Aristarchus, then the inscription pre-dates the edited text of Bacchylides. The familiarity of the writer of the inscription with Bacchylides’ Ode 5 and the composition of the inscription at a date earlier than Bacchylides’ Alexandrian edition also allow us to consider the possibility that Bacchylides’ text arrived in Alexandria disaggregated. It could be that part of the corpus, perhaps his epinicians, arrived to the Library late or at least later than some of Bacchylides’ poetry, for which we can almost certainly claim that it was in the Alexandrian Library at Callimachus’ time, namely his dithyrambs if we trust that the Kassandra refers to a poem of Bacchylides. The specific passage from Bacchylides’ Ode 5 is echoed once more in Callimachus’ Victoria Berenices: ἔθρεξαν προ[τέρω]ν̣ οὔτινες ἡνιόχων ἄσθματι χλι[. . . .] . . πιμιδας, ἀλλὰ θε˻ό˼ν̣τ̣˻ων˼ ὡς ἀνέμων ˻οὐδεὶς εἶδεν ἁματροχιάς˼ They ran without warming up with their breath the shoulders of the charioteers who were in front of them, but in fact no one saw their traces as they ran like the wind. Call. fr.54.8 10 Harder i = SH 254 + fr.383 Pf.

Undeniably, the ultimate model for both Bacchylides and Callimachus was the description of the chariot-race at the Funeral Games of Patroclus (Hom. Il.23.287–538; cf. Hom. Il.23.278–81, 379–81 and 448–9). Callimachus, however, commemorates an actual athletic event. The very celebration of Berenices’ victory at the chariot-race recalls itself the Games as the natural environment of an athletic event and also the actual epinician poems that were composed for the celebration of such athletic victories as the more direct model and intertext. Commenting on the fragment Annette Harder calls attention to how it ‘consists of an encomiastic motif, emphasizing the speed and invincibility of Berenice’s horses’.⁴¹ Both these features that become prominent in the above fragment from the Victoria Berenices—the speed and invincibility of the horses—are portrayed in a manner similar to how Pherenicus is depicted as invincible in Ode 5 of Bacchylides (B.5.43–5 cited above).⁴² The fragment creates a sense of closeness; the passage zooms in for a close-up of the participating horses, and also emulates the slow motion with which Pherenicus’ swiftness and unchallenged lead is described in Ode 5. A second fragment of the Victoria Berenices recalls distinctive Bacchylidean features in its narration and description of the athletic victory:

⁴¹ Harder, ii.405.

⁴² On the Bacchylidean connection, Fuhrer (1993) 92 3.

The Paradox of Bacchylides

271

]. [ Ἰναχ[̣ ίδα]ι̣ς̣ κει ̣[ δωδ[ε]κάκις π˻ερὶ δίϕρον ἐπήγαγεν ὄθματα †δίϕρου καὶ τ[.]. Ἀμυμών̣[η κρή[ν]η̣ καλὰ νάουσα κ̣[ δρωμ̣[ῶ]σιν ]. [ to the Argives (he/there) drew the eyes (of the spectators) around (to?) the chariot twelve times and. . .Anymon the beautifully running spring (by/because of ?) the running (horses?) Call. fr 54a.1 6 (novum) Harder i

One important detail brings this fragment closer to Bacchylides and to his athletic descriptions more generally. Callimachus focuses on the spectators and mentions how their eyes follow the chariot (ὄθματα) and how the running horses draw the spectators’ attention. In two of the three cases in which Bacchylides describes the victorious athletic event in his victory odes not only does he include references to the attending public but he also refers to how movements of the victor literary have an impact on the viewers: in B.9.35 the throwing of the discus arouses the audience’s excitement, and in B.10.23 the viewers have their cloaks wet by the oil on the victor’s body.⁴³ In every single case Bacchylides emphasizes how his report recreates the visual image that was experienced by the spectators. Even in the case of Pherenicus’ victory in Ode 5 Bacchylides recreates the image Dawn herself evidently saw (B.5.40 εἶδε νικάσαντα χρυσόπαχυς Ἀώς). The existence of this inscribed audience, who views and experiences the immediate effect of the race, brings both fragments from Victoria Berenice closer to Bacchylides. Callimachus’ Victoria Berenices celebrates the Nemean victory of Queen Berenice II, and was probably composed in the 240s .⁴⁴ Its dating allows us therefore to conclude that not only Bacchylides’ dithyrambs but also his epinician poems were plausibly in the Alexandrian Library by the mid-240s , if not earlier, at the time when Callimachus was in the process of compiling his Pinakes. Obviously, we cannot draw definite conclusions. Assuming, though, that the text of the lyric poets travelled through Athens to reach the Alexandrian Library, absence of the name of Bacchylides from Athens’ extant literary picture as well as lack of information on his Hellenistic edition may suggest

⁴³ B.9.32 5 δίσκον τροχοειδέα ῥίπτων. . .βοὰν ὤτρυνε λαῶν (‘as he threw the wheel shaped discus. . .he prompted the shouts of the people’); B.10.23 4 [δίανε]ν̣ δ’ αὖτε θατήρων ἐλαίῳ | ϕάρε[’ ἐς ἀθρόο]ν ἐμπίτνων ὅμιλον (‘and again when he had wet with his oil the cloaks of the spectators as he tumbled into the packed crowd’). ⁴⁴ On the date of the Victoria Berenices, see Harder, ii.390 with further bibliography.

272

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

that his text (or at least his epinician poems) did not arrive to Alexandria through Athens, that his corpus arrived late or later than the text of other lyric poets, or that it indeed arrived disaggregated. The picture of the movement of Bacchylides’ corpus cannot be securely verified. The presence of Bacchylides in the canon-lists together with the literary and epigraphic evidence for the Hellenistic period, however, suggests that the silence on Bacchylides before the Hellenistic era is accidental. We have some reason to believe that Herodotus and Aristophanes had knowledge of Bacchylides, specifically of his victory odes and in particular of his Odes 3 and 5, both of which were composed in honour of Hieron of Syracuse. I turn to this in the following section.

TRACES OF BACCHYLIDES BEFORE THE H ELLENISTIC ERA It has been extensively analysed in scholarship that the scene of Croesus on the pyre in Herodotus (1.86–7) has close affinities with the story of Croesus in the mythical section of Bacchylides’ Ode 3, whose narrative focuses on Croesus’ attempt to commit suicide by setting himself and his family on fire.⁴⁵ The victory ode was composed to celebrate Hieron’s chariot victory in 468 , and the choice of both the myth and the primary hero Croesus have been connected with Hieron’s wealth and offerings at Delphi that are commemorated in the poem, and also with the fragile state of his health at the time of the ode’s composition and performance.⁴⁶ The poem elaborates on the proper use and demonstration of wealth, and brings to the foreground the problem of blessedness (olbos) that is inherently connected in the ode with piety. Herodotus develops these ideas in detail in Croesus’ meeting with Solon in his book 1, where Solon’s advice to look to the end of one’s life foregrounds mutability as a universal human characteristic and vulnerability as a feature that may particularly characterize the most prosperous (1.29–33).⁴⁷ ⁴⁵ e.g. Jebb (1905) 195 7; Segal (1971), repr. (1998); Bright (1976); Burkert (1985); Flower, H. (1991); Crane (1996); Reichel (2000); Hutchinson (2001) 328 58; Maehler (2004b) 80 2; Cairns (2010) 65 7. ⁴⁶ Hieron died in 467 , the year after the celebration of his chariot victory in 468 , and appears to have been seriously ill since 470 , when Pindar composed his Pythian 1 to celebrate Hieron’s victory at the chariot race (cf. Pi. P.1.46 57). On the connection between Hieron and Croesus both in Bacchylides Ode 3 and in historical reality, see Reichel (2000) 150 1 and 153 4 respectively. ⁴⁷ See Pelling (2006) 141 64 on Croesus’ encounter with Solon and on how it is connected with the pyre scene. Solon’s travel to Asia appears as well on a fragmentary philosophical work plausibly dated in the third of fourth century  (P.Oxy. 4.664.6 10).

The Paradox of Bacchylides

273

Scholars differ in their evaluation (explicit or implicit) of the possible influence of Bacchylides on Herodotus. For instance, according to Walter Burkert, the Herodotean version is the rationalized and more realistic version of the end of Croesus, which takes features from earlier versions of the story— the Babylonian chronicle of Nabonidus, where it is reported that in the year 547  Cyrus killed Croesus, and Bacchylides’ Ode 3—and finally becomes the standard version in tradition;⁴⁸ Gregory Crane suggests that the versions in Herodotus and Bacchylides are distinct and that Herodotus ‘was reacting against a specifically poetic tradition that equated Kroisos with olbos’;⁴⁹ Herwig Maehler points out that the two versions are fundamentally different, which makes it unlikely, according to him, that Bacchylides was Herodotus’ source—Maehler subsequently attempts to trace the origins of the tale in Herodotus back to a lost Lydian tragic trilogy;⁵⁰ John Marincola draws attention to how differently poets and historians approach their material, and concludes that in contrast to Bacchylides Herodotus’ version maintains human probability;⁵¹ Stephanie West concludes that the narrative of Herodotus rationalizes that of Bacchylides, ‘and goes beyond it to account for stories of Croesus’ survival’;⁵² lastly, Douglas Cairns perceives Herodotus’ version of the Croesus on the pyre story as the main alternative to Bacchylides’ version in the Greek tradition, and indicates that ‘it differs from Bacchylides’ chiefly in the status and presentation of Croesus’.⁵³ The two versions have several similarities both in narrative detail and in language. We are chronologically placed after the capture of Sardis by the Persians, which was predicted by a divine omen (1.86.1 κατὰ τὸ χρηστήριόν τε, cf. 1.91. τὴν πεπρωμένην μοῖραν ~ B.3.25–6 τὰν πεπ[ρωμέναν | Ζηνὸς τελέ[σσαντος κρί]σιν); a pyre is mounted for Croesus (1.86.2 ὁ δὲ συννήσας πυρὴν μεγάλην ~ B.3.31–3 πυρὰν δε. . .ναήσ̣ατ’); Croesus calls for Apollo on top of that pyre and questions the gratitude of the gods (1.87.1 ἐπιβώσασθαι τόν Ἀπόλλωνα ἐπικαλεόμενον, εἴ τί οἱ κεχαρισμένον ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἐδωρήθη ~ B.3.36–7 γέ]γωνεν· ‘ὑπέρ[βι]ε δαῖμον, | πο]ῦ θεῶν ἐστιν χάρις;’); the sorrowful narrative

⁴⁸ Burkert (1985). ⁴⁹ Crane (1996), quotation from 61. ⁵⁰ Maehler (1982) 33 and (2004a) 81 2 whose assumption on the existence of a lost Lydian tragic trilogy is based on a fragmentary hydria now in Corinth that Beazley ascribed to the Leningrad painter and dated c.470 50  (ARV² 571.74). The fragments depict a man in oriental costume, presumably sitting on a burning pyre (fragments A and B), and a Greek flute player (Fragment E), along with other figures in oriental costume, and in all probability recall a scene from a tragedy. See Beazley (1955) for a detailed description of the hydria with plate 85. Maehler follows Page (1962) who, in discussing a tragic fragment seemingly from a play on Gyges (P.Oxy. 23.2382), concludes that the fragmentary hydria recalls a scene from a lost Lydian trilogy to which the tragic fragment may also belong, and where the story of Croesus might also have been part of. ⁵¹ Marincola (2006) 22. ⁵² West, S. (2007) 120 with further analysis in pp. 115 22. ⁵³ Cairns (2010) 66; also Segal (1971), repr. (1998) on the stylistic and generic diversity between the two versions and the different backgrounds of the two authors.

274

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

atmosphere is portrayed in the narrative through the shedding of tears (1.87.2 τὸν μὲν δακρύοντα ἐπικαλέεσθαι τὸν θεόν ~ B.3.35, 49–50 θ]υ̣[γ]α̣τράσι δυρομέναις. . .ἔκ̣[λα]γον δὲ | παρθένοι); rain is divinely sent, and as a result puts out the fire that threatens the life of Croesus (1.87.2 ἐξαπίνης νέϕεα καὶ χειμῶνά τε καταρραγῆναι καὶ ὗσαι ὕδατι λαμβροτάτῳ, κατασβεσθῆναί τε τὴν πυρήν ~ B.3.55–6 [μελαγκευ]θὲς νέϕος | σβέννυεν ξανθὰ[ν ϕλόγα); and Croesus is saved because of his piety (1.87.2 ὡς εἴη ὁ Κροῖσος καὶ θεοϕιλὴς καὶ ἀνὴρ ἀγαθός ~ B.3.61 δι’εὐσέβειαν). Both Bacchylides and Herodotus portray Croesus as a tragic hero who has to face the devastating turn of events, but in Bacchylides Croesus remains master of his fate; he chooses to die and to sacrifice his family rather than to live in slavery.⁵⁴ He thus mounts his pyre himself. In Herodotus Croesus is portrayed in different colours; he is prepared to passively succumb to his fate, and his pyre is presented as one of the consequences of the capture of Sardis. Croesus is no longer a king. He has been stripped of power and material goods, and Cyrus forcibly makes him step onto the pyre to be executed as a victim of war (Hdt. 1.86.2). In both Bacchylides and Herodotus Croesus is saved by divine interference: in Bacchylides Zeus sends the rain that puts out the fire in Ode 3 (B.3.55–6), and Croesus is subsequently taken by Apollo to the Hyperboreans, a miracle performed due to his piety (B.3.58–60), whereas in Herodotus Apollo’s rainstorm rescues Croesus after human intervention to extinguish the fire proves unsuccessful (Hdt. 1.87.2). The skies open up in both Ode 3 and Herodotus, but in Herodotus’ narrative only after Croesus calls upon the gods requesting a sign of their gratitude, which implicitly recalls his offerings at Delphi as a symbol of his piety (B.3.15–21). The moment of Croesus’ rescue is presented in Herodotus’ version as the end result in a chain of events that portray Croesus learning from his experience; Cyrus changes his mind, and decides to spare Croesus’ life only after Croesus recalls Solon and his words while sitting on top of the pyre.⁵⁵ The Lydian king is therefore depicted as acquiring the kind of wisdom that is rooted in deep calamity and as learning through his suffering, a mental change that is fundamental for Herodotus’ narrative, where Croesus will be relegated to the role of the adviser to Cyrus.⁵⁶ In discussing ancient literary sources on Sardis John Pedley marks Bacchylides and Herodotus as the sole fifth-century authorities on the story of Croesus on the pyre, and comments that ‘by the first quarter of the fifth century  the

⁵⁴ Levin, D. (1960) considers Croesus the ideal tragic hero; also Stahl (1968) and Snell (1973) on Croesus as a tragic figure in Herodotus. ⁵⁵ Segal (1971) 46, repr. (1998) 288; on learning through suffering, Stahl (1975). ⁵⁶ Lattimore (1939) 24 8 suggests that two types of wise advisers are found in Herodotus the tragic warner and the practical adviser both of which are exhibited in the figure of Croesus, who combines the insights of Solon and the practical knowledge of a leader.

The Paradox of Bacchylides

275

pyre incident was firmly established in the biography of Croesus’.⁵⁷ Pedley’s conclusions are also confirmed by an attic red-figure amphora by the painter Myson. The amphora is dated 500/490  and depicts Croesus in Greek clothes pouring libations on a pyre that is about to be set on fire (Louvre G197; ARV² 238.1).⁵⁸ The Myson amphora is strong enough evidence to suggest that Croesus’ self-immolation on a pyre was well established in tradition already before the Persian Wars. Although one should not ignore the power of oral traditions, and should also not suppress the possibility that multiple versions of the same story might have been in circulation in the Greek world, the rarity of the story in literary sources makes it likely that when Herodotus narrates (and he must be the later of the two) his audience and readership may possibly be reminded of Bacchylides.⁵⁹ With the exception of the account of Croesus on the pyre the entire narrative on the fall of Croesus and the Lydian kingdom is told in Herodotus’ own person and in direct speech.⁶⁰ Only at the point when Cyrus decides to release Croesus and to bring him down from the pyre does Herodotus indicate his source. He reveals that ‘it is said by the Lydians’ that Croesus prayed to Apollo, and was then rescued by a sudden downpour (1.87 Ἐνθαῦτα λέγεται ὑπὸ Λυδῶν). According to John Gould, Herodotus reveals his sources only in those instances when we know independently from other sources that there were conflicting traditions.⁶¹ Herodotus claims to be drawing on Lydian stories or rumours exclusively for the episode of the miraculous rescue of Croesus and of the intervention of the god through the rainstorm. This indication, following Gould’s explanation, might be an oblique nod to the different version of the story that was handed down by Bacchylides. On the other hand, Marincola proposes that by ascribing the account to a Lydian source Herodotus maintains a critical distance from the story he narrates.⁶² In contrast to this explicit statement, Herodotus remains silent as to his sources in his account of the fall of Sardis (Hdt. 5.84–8), which possibly indicates that the fall of the city to Cyrus was well known and widespread.⁶³ The ascription of Croesus’ rescue to a local oral source could therefore function as a manoeuvre through which the story’s evaluation is left open to the audience. It may be that Herodotus cannot vouch for its credibility, but it is

⁵⁷ Pedley (1972) 40 2, quotation from 42; cf. Nicolaus of Damascus (FGrHist IIA 90 F68). ⁵⁸ For a description of the amphora, see Smith (1898) 267 9; Gould, J. (1989) 34 5. ⁵⁹ Flower, H. (1991) suggests that both Bacchylides and Herodotus draw on oral Delphic traditions. ⁶⁰ Gould, J. (1989) 37. ⁶¹ Gould, J. (1989) 37 8. ⁶² Marincola (1997) 121; cf. Fehling (1989) 153 4 who argues that phrases that indicate the source in Herodotus are inserted as a word of caution that Herodotus reports what others say. ⁶³ Herodotus cites a number of sources in his Croesus’ narrative: 1.51 Delphians, 1.70 Lacedaimonians and Samians, 1.75.6 unidentified οἱ δέ, 1.87 Lydians, 1.91 the priestess Pythia to Croesus’ envoys, 1.92 unnamed source at Brauchidae (ὡς ἐγὼ πυνθάνομαι).

276

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

nevertheless accepted as a story that the Lydians still say. Herodotus’ distancing from the pyre-narrative may even implicitly indicate that other earlier sources had delivered a different version of the same story, the most important of which might have been Bacchylides.⁶⁴ Moving to the realm of comedy, it has been hinted at in Chapter 2 that in Aristophanes’ Birds Kinesias uses language that is close to Bacchylides’ Ode 5.16–23.⁶⁵ Κι.

ἀναπέτομαι δὴ πρὸς Ὄλυμπον πτερύγεσσι κούϕαις πέτομαι δ’ ὁδὸν ἄλλοτ’ ἐπ’ἄλλαν μελέων Πε. τουτὶ τὸ πρᾶγμα ϕορτίου δεῖται πτερῶν. Κι. ἀϕόβῳ ϕρενὶ σώματί τε νέαν ἐϕέπων Πε. ἀσπαζόμεσθα ϕιλύρινον Κινησίαν. τί δεῦρο πόδα σὺ κυλλὸν ἀνὰ κύκλον κυκλεῖς; Κι. ὄρνις γενέσθαι βούλομαι λιγύϕθογγος ἀηδών. Πε. παῦσαι μελῳδῶν, ἀλλ’ ὅ τι λέγεις εἰπέ μοι. Κι. ὑπὸ σοῦ πτερωθεὶς βούλομαι μετάρσιος ἀναπτόμενος ἐκ τῶν νεϕελῶν καινὰς λαβεῖν ἀεροδονήτους καὶ νιϕοβόλους ἀναβολάς. . . . . . . Κι. νὴ τὸν Ἡρακλέα σύ γε. ἅπαντα γὰρ δίειμί σοι τὸν ἀέρα. εἴδωλα πετηνῶν αἰθεροδρόμων οἰωνῶν ταναοδείρων Πε. ὢ ὄπ. Κι. ἁλίδρομον ἀλάμενος ἅμ’ ἀνέμων πνοαῖσι βαίην.

1375

1380

1385 1391

1395

1395b ἁλίδρομον Dunbar (1995) Kin. Peis.

Up I fly on light wings towards Olympus, I fly from one path of songs to another This thing here will need a whole load of wings.

⁶⁴ It is also possible to detect a connection between the symposium of Amyntas of Macedon in Herodotus (5.18 22) and Bacchylides’ encomium of Alexander of Amyntas (fr.20B Maehler), on which see Fearn (2007) ch. 1 with a detailed analysis of the poem. The sympotic tale has always been considered fictitious, on which Errington (1981) 140 3 and Badian (1994) 108 9, and could be perceived as the narrative device through which Herodotus touches upon the issue of Macedonia’s Medism with the aim to vindicate Alexander and in order to testify as well in favour of the correctness of Macedonian claims that they had Greek identity (Hdt. 5.1). It is likely that Bacchylides’ encomium had contributed to the shaping of the specifics of the sympotic scene in Herodotus. If the banquet in book 5 was indeed invented by Herodotus, then it is highly probable that Bacchylides’ encomium was either the inspiration or the source. ⁶⁵ Kinesias also alludes to a couplet by Anacreon (PMG 378 ~ Av.1372 4), and one also detects in his performance in Birds Homeric features, on which Dunbar (1995) ad loc.

The Paradox of Bacchylides Kin. Peis. Kin. Peis. Kin.

Kin.

Peis. Kin.

277

With fearless mind and body following the path that is new We welcome lime wooded Kinesias. Why do you make circles here with your club foot? I want to become a bird, a clear voiced nightingale. Stop singing, and just tell me what you mean. After you give me wings, I want to fly up aloft and from the clouds gather new soaring and snow clad anabolai. . . . . . . . Of course you will! For you I will travel through the whole air. Shadows of winged, aether skimming, long necked birds Hey! May I take the road to the sea, while wandering on the breaths of the winds. Ar. Av.1373 96

χρυσάμπυκος Οὐρανίας κλεινὸς θεράπων ἐθέλει γᾶρυν ἐκ στηθέων χέων

15

αἰνεῖν Ἱέρωνα. βαθὺν δ’ αἰθέρα ξουθαῖσι τάμνων ὑψοῦ πτερύγεσσι ταχεί αις αἰετὸς εὐρυάνακτος ἄγγελος Ζηνὸς ἐρισϕαράγου

20

θαρσεῖ κρατερᾷ πίσυνος ἰσχύϊ, πτάσσοντι δ’ ὄρνι χες λιγύϕθογγοι ϕόβῳ οὔ νιν κορυϕαὶ μεγάλας ἴσχουσι γαίας, οὐδ’ ἁλὸς ἀκαμάτας δυσπαίπαλα κύματα νω μᾷ δ’ ἐν ἀτρύτῳ χάει λεπτότριχα σὺν ζεϕύρου πνοι αῖσιν ἔθειραν ἀρί γνωτος μετ’ ἀνθρώποις ἰδεῖν τὼς νῦν καὶ μοὶ μυρία πάντα κέλευθος ὑμετέραν ἀρετὰν ὑμνεῖν, κυανοπλοκάμου θ’ ἕκατι Νίκας χαλκεοστέρνου τ’ Ἄρηος, Δεινομένευς ἀγέρωχοι παῖδες εὖ ἔρδων δὲ μὴ κάμοι θεός.

25

30

35

278

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

A renowned servant of Urania with the golden hairnet; he wishes to pour his voice from his chest to praise Hieron. The eagle, messenger of wide ruling, loud roaring Zeus shows boldness, as he cuts high through the deep sky with his brown swift wings trusting on his mighty strength, and clear voiced birds cower with fear. The peaks of the great earth do not hold him back nor do the rough and steep waves of the untiring sea. He shuttles his fine haired coat in the boundless chaos with the blasts of the West Wind, conspicuous for humans to see. Even so, I, too, have myriad paths in every direction to praise your excellence, by the will of dark haired Victory and bronze chested Ares, high minded sons of Deinomenes, may the god never get tired of treating you well. B.5.16 23

Similarities between the two passages are striking in terms of language and imagery, and are suggestive if not of direct imitation at least of adaptation of distinctive Bacchylidean features in Kinesias’ utterances. By emphasizing their poetic persona both Bacchylides and Kinesias portray their desire to sing and to celebrate a patron. The eagle in Ode 5 functions as an implicit symbol of the poet Bacchylides, and it is used in the poem with the aim to portray explicitly Bacchylides’ self-confidence in his task to praise Hieron.⁶⁶ Kinesias builds on the main ideas employed in Bacchylides, upon which he elaborates further in his performance. In contrast to the indirect portrayal of Bacchylides in the ode as the eagle, the voice and persona of the performing poet is indicated in Aristophanes through the first-person singular that is also coupled with the present tense for the act of flying (vv.1373 ἀναπέτομαι, vv.1384 ἀναπτόμενος). Both these features along with the emphasis on Kinesias’ intense desire to sing (vv.1380, 1382 βούλομαι) collectively paint a picture that is more immediate and vivid than the original. Kinesias wants to become a ‘clear-voiced nightingale’ (vv.1380 λιγύϕθογγος ἀηδών), an image which combines two images that Bacchylides uses of himself: B.10.10 λιγύϕθογγον μέλισσαν (‘clear-voiced bee’) and the Cean nightingale in the sphragis of his Ode 3 καὶ μελιγλώσσου τις ὑμνήσει χάριν | Κηΐας ἀηδόνος (B.3.97–8 ‘and someone will sing as well the grace of the sweet-tongued Cean nightingale’). As Kinesias reworks Bacchylides’ eagle simile in Ode 5, his desire to be turned into a ‘clear-voiced nightingale’ alludes to two more epinician odes of Bacchylides. His persona is therefore mapped on Bacchylidean images, and his stage presence is consequently turned into a performance à la Bacchylides.⁶⁷ In spite the presence of Bacchylides’ poetry in and through Kinesias’ performance in his appearance in Birds Bacchylides remains unnamed in

⁶⁶ On the image of the eagle in Bacchylides, Lefkowitz (1969) 53 7; Pfeijffer (1994) 316 17 argues that the image in Ode 5 is retrospectively applied to the poet. ⁶⁷ See Hadjimichael (2014a) for a detailed discussion on the connection between this passage in Aristophanes’ Birds and Bacchylides’ Ode 5.

The Paradox of Bacchylides

279

Aristophanes and in other comic writers. Plato also seems to be following the agenda of Aristophanes and of comedy more generally in most of the cases where he brings in his dialogues the lyric poets and their compositions. He names, alludes to the figures, and employs the poetry of all the canonical lyric poets that Aristophanes makes use of. Even in the case of the New Music, he singles out Kinesias, who is also the only representative of the New Dithyramb being parodied in Aristophanes, and to whom Strattis even devoted a whole comedy (14–22 PCG vii). We can only infer the reasons for Plato condemning Bacchylides’ name and poetry to silence. It could plainly be that he followed the league of comedy and the silence of the comic Aristophanes, an attitude that might have established Bacchylides as less important and less useful a lyric poet. Whatever the reasons, the absence of his name and of any allusion to his poetry in the Platonic dialogues is a fact. This fact is also coupled with the lack of a Περί Βακχυλίδου Peripatetic treatise. Assuming that Bacchylides’ absence is a genuine absence and not simply a lacuna in our limited sources, one may additionally argue that the comic and Platonic background of the Peripatetic approach may be the key to understanding this failing from the Peripatetic project. As emphasized above, the Peripatos was not a centre for literary criticism. The philosophers did not practice literary criticism, which would have offered them the possibility to choose the lyric poets they would have devoted a treatise to or would have work on. They rather attempted to retain, present, and explicate in their treatises everything that encompassed Greek culture. This seeming deficiency could reflect the lack of interest in Bacchylides by Plato and the silence in the comedies of Aristophanes, both of whom initiated literary criticism per se, an assumption that would cohere to the Peripatetic attitude towards the poets of the New Music, as already noted. In addition, it has been suggested in the chapter on the Peripatos that absence of treatises for Bacchylides, Alcman, Ibycus, and Hipponax at the early years of the Lyceum might have been because the Peripatetics did not possess a text of their work, at least at that time. Ibycus is coupled with Bacchylides and never receives a Peripatetic treatise, in spite of the allusions and references to his poetic corpus in earlier times, as analysed in previous chapters in this book. The case of Ibycus suggests that the creation of a Peripatetic treatise on a lyric poet was not connected with or did not depend upon any allusions to his poems or any quotations one might detect in fifthand fourth-century sources. This non-dependence could confirm the assumption that lack of a good text was a defining factor for the creation of a treatise on a certain poet, particularly in view of the Peripatetic monographs that Alcman and Hipponax receive at later periods. However plausible and logical the theory on the lack of a good text may be, principally given Aristotle’s principles for the activities in his Peripatos, lack of a text for some of Bacchylides’ poems strikes as even more paradoxical, especially in view of his presence in the Athenian festival culture with his civic

280

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

commissions. With these facts in mind it becomes obvious that not only Bacchylides’ canonization but also his survival and arrival in the Library become paradoxical, especially if, as proposed, the Alexandrians stood on fifth- and fourth-century Athenian shoulders for their scholarly activity in the Library. Bacchylides’ so-called disappearance after the fifth century  is indeed a statement of fact, and one could claim that it follows a pattern that continues till the Hellenistic era. Ultimately, what was transmitted through the silence in comedy and Plato was to some degree a sense that Bacchylides was not as important an object of study as other poets for reasons that might have been connected with his poetics, his reputation, and his poetic value. We may not have explicit evidence for the circulation of Bacchylides, but the case for the dissemination of his name and poetry is supported by the nature of Hellenistic scholarship that was influenced by and responded to earlier evaluative judgements and lyric criticism. Absence of a name may rather tell us more about our ignorance of the details of transmission. With regards to lyric poetry, the Alexandrians were dealing with something familiar, and Bacchylides was one of the names included in that familiar circle. Our knowledge of his survival and transmission cannot be complete; Bacchylides essentially remains an enigma to testify to the current poor state of our knowledge of the reception and canonization of lyric poetry.

Conclusion The question of the process through which the nine lyric poets were canonized is a complex one to pose and a difficult one to answer. The complexity is caused both by the geographical broadness and the generic diversity of canonized lyric and by the fragmentary state of a number of our extant sources. As the analysis in the course of this book has demonstrated, the selection and inclusion of the nine lyric poets in the Lyric Canon depended on their presence in the consciousness of fifth- and fourth-century Athenian sources, which was then passed on to the Alexandrians. Even so, the creation of the Lyric Canon was a process generated already in the sixth century , and the form in which people experienced the poetry composed by the lyric nine is inevitably an essential part of this process. Accordingly, the fame of the lyric poets is rooted in the circumstances that brought about their compositions and shaped their poetic career, and which is subsequently reflected in their later reception. Reputation is first and foremost attached to the figures of the canonical lyric poets, and derives predominantly both from the poets’ origins and from the geographical range their poetic career covers. The list of nine comprises of local, wandering, and pan-Hellenic poets—lyric poets who compose exclusively in their hometown or in a specific geographical location (Sappho, Alcaeus, Alcman, and Stesichorus); others who wander to compose or who, having established their fame, respond to invitations and travel to their patrons (Anacreon and Ibycus); lastly, those who are hired from patrons in mainland Greece, the Greek islands, Magna Graecia, and Libya to compose poems for special occasions (Simonides, Pindar, and Bacchylides). Poetic patronage generates demand for both poets and poems, and the lyric market creates as well the need for new song-types, which are linked with the new socio-political circumstances in the sixth century . Epinician poetry is the best example not only of a kind of poetry that is brought to life because of the boom of athletic competitions in the major festivals but also of a genre that was used by patrons as vehicle for political propaganda and as instrument for demonstrating cultural identity and prestige. The dynamics of political and cultural demonstration through song are at work particularly in Magna Graecia,

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon. Theodora A. Hadjimichael, Oxford University Press (2019). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198810865.003.0009

282

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

where tyrannical families attempt to emulate Greek culture. That poetic commissioning depends on needs becomes obvious when one also looks at the civic commissions of the three pan-Hellenic poets—Simonides, Pindar, and Bacchylides. While private commissions of epinikia and enkōmia, among other kinds of songs, spread throughout Greece and Magna Graecia, and are composed to honour a single and often powerful individual, civic poems are commissioned primarily by Greek communities. This concentration might be connected with the function of a poetic performance on Delos or at Delphi, where the performing chorus would represent the commissioning community. The increasing importance of Athens in the fifth century  and its growing festival culture equally generate the need for lyric poets, and consequently cause more vigorous poetic mobility. Paradoxically, Athens imports poetic talent for its choral competitions; the lyric poets who are assigned by the Archon to Athenian khorēgoi are non-Athenians, and are chosen exclusively to represent Athenian tribes at the city’s festivals. It becomes obvious therefore that a lyric poet not only had to be known in advance to be suggested as a candidate; he also had to be famous enough to be assigned a tribe. Fragments from the dithyrambs of Pindar, Bacchylides’ extant dithyrambs, and testimonia for Simonides reveal that all three of them participated in dithyrambic competitions in Athens or in performances with kyklioi khoroi. Their very participation is strong evidence in favour of the suggestion that they were already well established as poets of high esteem. This prior knowledge of a poet’s poetic career and in all probability also of his poetic repertoire comes in mark contrast with the city’s habits in monumental memorialization. The lyric poets who were victorious with their composed dithyramb are not commemorated on the khoregic monuments that celebrate the victorious event nor are their names preserved on the official Athenian list of victors at the City Dionysia, the Fasti (IG II² 2318). This tendency comes in mark contrast with the named commemoration of the victorious tragic poets, and as a result marks the lyric poet as an outsider. Still, lyric poets—both their works and figures—remain present in the literary and cultural context of Athens. Comedy is the perfect example of a genre that appropriates previous poetry in its own poetics. It is also the genre that positions itself within a literary continuum with the aim to demonstrate its unique place and its innovative stance in literary history. While pronouncing its own distinctiveness, comedy reflects on the literary and cultural changes in fifth- and late fourth-century Athens. The very generic, literary, and cultural awareness of comedy is of utter importance with regards to the lyric poets, a number of whom are included in several comic scenes both in Aristophanes and in fragmentary comedy. One observes a parodic and playful engagement with a number of characteristics of the lyric poets and of their composed poetry—various song-types and several performative features of their poems are recalled in comic scenes, and biographical and anecdotal representations of their lyric personae are parodied

Conclusion

283

on stage. In most cases the poets who are chosen to be named or to be included in comedy are turned into comic caricatures or are reduced into joke-material: Simonides is the greedy old poet in Wasps, the main competitor of Lasus in Peace, and the poet who along with Pindar is in constant search of a patron in Birds; Alcaeus, Ibycus, and Anacreon are the effeminate exemplary poets for Agathon in Thesmophoriazusae. These lyric figures parade on the comic stage both literally and virtually, and their comic and anecdotal portrayals are based on their corpus and their poetic style, and also on their biography and career. The interpretation in each case is indeed often hinted in the passage itself. Even so, the comic audience is still expected to recognize both the name and the features that are mocked on stage if not the poetic style of lyric and the recalled poem. Comic symposia are in several cases the settings in which lyric poets are incorporated both in fragmentary comedy and in Aristophanes. The symposium is presented in comedy not only as a possible context of survival of melic poetry in Athens but also as the context within which fifth- and fourth-century cultural, social, and aesthetic values are assessed. The canonical lyric poets are in most cases coupled with representatives of the New Music, and the comic characters juxtapose the two groups when they claim that compositions of late fifth- and fourth-century lyric poets replaced those of the nine and other older poets: the modern Euripides is preferred instead of Simonides and Aeschylus in Clouds; Gnesippus is sung in place of Stesichorus, Alcman, and Simonides in Eupolis’ Heilotes; nobody knows or sings Pindar anymore. Each of them is turned into a representative of an era that is no longer favoured in the city and no longer chosen by the public, and comedy’s juxtaposition of the old and the modern marks as well the chronological differentiation between the canonical lyric and the New Music. These internal comic symposia also reveal the generic awareness of the comic genre; the symposium determines the songtypes that are expected to be sung within its context, and would therefore accommodate drinking-songs (skolia) or songs of erotic character. The status and portrayal of the lyric poets changes when they are incorporated in the Platonic dialogues. Plato, who quotes exclusively the canonical lyric poets from lyric poetry, frequently integrates extracts or phrases from their poems in the course of his interlocutors’ arguments, or recalls lyric personae to support certain views that are expressed on various topics. For a number of the lyric poets, their portrayal in both comedy and Plato bears similarities: Sappho and Anacreon are chosen as the exemplar poets of erotic poetry in the Phaedrus, a choice that obviously maps on their poetic corpus, and also points back to their comic depictions—Sappho is the object of desire in lovetriangles in Middle Comedy, her erotic poems were often sung at symposia in Epicrates’ Antilais, and Anacreon is remembered in Thesmophoriazusae for his effeminate personality that is closely linked with the character of his poetic compositions. Plato’s erōs, as unfolded especially in Socrates’ second

284

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

speech, is unquestionably unrelated to the picture that is painted in comedy with regards to the erotic aura of Sappho and Anacreon. Yet, the erotic element that endows their representation reveals the continuity of their portrayal in tradition. On the whole, where they are recalled in the dialogues, the lyric poets are depicted in an authoritative colour, and are often presented as authorities on ethical and philosophical matters. As a result, extracts from their poems are integrated in philosophical arguments as pieces of wisdom, and gnomic utterances from several lyric poems are re-contextualized in the relevant passages. This method attests to their atemporal poetics and to the broad applicability of extracts from their poems that invite decontextualization and reincorporation in other contexts. It further reveals that a number of short passages probably became proverbs by the time of Plato, they circulated independent from their context, and were adjusted and appropriated in several receiving contexts (i.e. Pindar’s nomos-passage in Plato and Herodotus, and the Pindaric ξύνες ὅ τι λέγω in both Plato and the comic Aristophanes). One could say that the philosophical poetics of Pindar and Simonides, which turn poems and poets into examples of ethical wisdom, herald, so to speak, the role of the lyric nine in the dialogues. For Plato the sophoi lyric poets are those who can reach philosophical truth similarly to how Stesichorus the mousikos managed to gain knowledge and was chosen as Socrates’ model for his own Palinode. Overall, the lyric picture that is painted in the Platonic dialogues demonstrates the value of melos both in philosophical arguments and in Plato’s imaginary ideal cities. Hymns and encomia are in any case re-institutionalized as instruments of communality in the Laws in the same way that they are meant to be kept in the Republic’s Callipolis. Both Plato and comedy create a clear chronological distinction between the poetry that was composed by the canonical lyric poets and the New Music—in comedy it is expressed in the specifics of its sympotic scenes, and Plato reflects on it in the Laws through the Athenian’s elaborate description of an era before the years of fourth-century theatrokratia. This very chronological boundary, on which both Plato and Aristophanes elaborate in moral and aesthetics terms, is further mirrored in Aristotle’s Peripatos. Probably the most important institution before the Alexandrian Library, the Peripatos demonstrates a comprehensive curiosity that is anchored on antiquarianism and on the doxographical and empirical principles established by Aristotle. The aim of the Peripatetics was to register, memorialize, and study the Greek culture by accumulating written records and by creating learned treatises. The Peripatetic lyric agenda in particular is both a backward-looking and a classicizing agenda. The fourth century becomes the chronological and evaluative boundary for the Peripatetics, and as a consequence the representatives of the New Music are not studied extensively in the Peripatos. Poems of the lyric poets become sources of cultural and anthropological information in their treatises, and are often used as pieces of evidence for the explanations of various customs that are identified in the Peripatetic works. The Peripatetics show

Conclusion

285

an interest in generic and social contexts of performance, and a number of their fragments, coupled with passages from Aristotle’s Politics, reveal the continuation of melic performances in the fourth century as well as the continuous role of the symposium. The peri-treatises on the lyric poets produced by Chamaeleon and Dicaearchus exhibit their varied character; they combine interests in genre, poetic content, language and style, lexicographical issues, and biographical details. By the time of the Peripatos we have entered an era of literary study, where the text becomes the focus of discussion, and fragments from various Peripatetic treatises suggest that the philosophers possessed and worked with texts, including texts of lyric. Of the nine lyric poets Bacchylides and Ibycus never receive a Peripatetic treatise even down to the Hellenistic era, and this lacuna might suggest that the Peripatetic library did not have in its possession a good enough text of these poets to use as basis for discussion. Furthermore, extant fragments from the Peripatetic treatises reveal that the philosophers also dealt with problems of authorship and authenticity, and were concerned with the identification of poems. Although they did not interfere drastically with the text, these two activities associate the Peripatetics closely with the Alexandrians and with their scholarly work in the Library. The presence of lyric texts in the Peripatetic library foregrounds questions related to the existence, preservation, possession, and circulation of poetic texts in fifth- and fourth-century Athens and more specifically of texts of lyric. The phenomenon of canon formation is inescapably intertwined with the question of poetic survival. Thus, the move from song to the material written text, and the availability and diffusion of physical texts of lyric is of utter importance. By the end of the fifth century a modest book trade was established, and a habit of reading was slowly growing in Athens. Comic passages depict the ideological ambivalence of the book in Athenian society and the slow but growing acceptance of books as part of everyday life. Based on the small amount of evidence on the circulation of books in Athens one could argue that lyric texts were not readily available to the public, a suggestion that might exclusively have to do with Athenian literary interests. No reference is ever made to book-rolls with lyric poetry in the market: Plato refers exclusively to books of oratory or of philosophy, and in Frogs Dionysus is depicted reading a tragedy. Papyrus rolls on fifth-century vases reveal the social contexts of reading—school and oikos—and the combination of scroll and lyre in a number of them is strong enough evidence to suggest that poems might have been preserved in writing but might still have been performed to the lyre. Texts of lyric might have been kept in local archives at the place of performance or at a poet’s hometown, in sanctuaries or tyrannical courts where the poem was performed, even in public archives if the poem was commissioned by a certain community. It is also possible that they were part of (Athenian) private collections, but it is difficult to suggest that they circulated broadly

286

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

in Athens in the fifth century. No inscriptions on the scrolls on the vases from that period, for instance, comes from a lyric poet, which might suggest that the Athenian vase-painters were in no position to access texts of lyric to copy from. The possibility of the existence of private collections with texts of lyric and the absence of such texts from the Athenian book market call attention to the social stratification of lyric reception and transmission. According to our late fifth- and early fourth-century sources the public was in no position to appreciate the canonical lyric, which they consequently dismissed, and preferred to sing songs of the late classical New Music. The New in lyric becomes therefore part of the popular and mass culture, whereas the canonical is presented as a feature of an era exclusively rooted in the past. The changing taste in Athens in the late fifth and early fourth centuries can be associated as well with the question of the availability of texts of lyric. The compositions of the classical and canonical lyric poets might no longer have been a favourite of the masses, but they were still alluded to in comedy, quoted and recalled in Plato. The presence of the canonical melos in the Athenian literary background at the time is strong enough evidence to suggest that old lyric remained a favourite of the Athenian ‘elite’ and intellectuals, who might still have had songs of the nine lyric poets performed and might also have had the texts of lyric on their bookshelves. Accordingly, the transmission of the poems of the nine lyric poets and lyric canonization become additionally processes that both matter for and are controlled by the same group of ‘elite’ and intellectuals who would have preserved these poems in both writing and in performance. Lyric texts eventually reached the Alexandrian Library, and questions that have to do with the form in which they travelled, the locations where they travelled from, and the sequence and timing of their arrival in the Library are important to pose at this stage. Anecdotal accounts of how the Ptolemies acquired books reveal both the importance of this project for the Ptolemaic kingdom and the emblematic status of the Library. It becomes obvious that the aim of the Ptolemies was to create the ultimate collection of written knowledge, to preserve worldwide cultural memory in a controlled environment, and to establish a unique monument of Greek culture in Egypt. The presence of Demetrius of Phalerum in Alexandria and the eagerness of the Ptolemies to connect their court with Athenian intellectual life and more specifically with the Peripatos create continuities between the Alexandrian and the Peripatetic libraries. These are also revealed in the activities of the Hellenistic scholars, who attempt either to fill in scholarly gaps in the Peripatetic project or to study in depth subjects and genres that were solely touched upon in the Peripatetic Lyceum. Lyric texts, which in all probability arrived to the Library largely as corpora, were seemingly a priority for the Alexandrians. Scholarly work on the text of lyric begins with Zenodotus, the first director in the Library, continues

Conclusion

287

with Aristophanes of Byzantium, who creates corrected editions for the majority of the lyric poets, and is intensified with Aristarchus, who either produces commentaries on the authors who were already edited by Aristophanes or prepares new and improved editions that replace those in existence. Callimachus as well has lyric texts in his disposal when he prepares his Pinakes, which makes it possible for him to include a class of lyric in his catalogue. That the scholars were aware of the scholarly work of their predecessors, which they would often address in their own work or build upon, is obvious from cases where the scholia or ancient commentaries record scholarly disagreements, or where they register the background of a certain editorial decision (e.g. Olympian 5, Pythian 2, and the Kassandra). In their prioritization of texts for editing the Alexandrians were influenced by previous literary evaluations that as a consequence predetermined the value of the text. With regards to lyric poetry in particular the scholars were evidently influenced from the conservative agendas of authors and philosophical schools that exercised literary criticism—namely the Peripatos, Plato, and comedy. Thus, they do not edit the texts of the New Music, some of which might already have been in the Library (i.e. Timotheus). The commentator on Dionysius of Thrax reveals that the Alexandrians chose what authors to edit (πραττόμενοι) and whom to leave unedited, which demonstrates in retrospect that authors were chosen due to their perceived authority and value. Scholarship and canonization are in mutual association, and the Lyric Canon also depicts its predetermined nature; it embodies the conservatism of our sources and their evaluation of lyric poetry beginning already from the fifth century. The Alexandrians did not establish anyone as classic on their own initiative, and they did not work on texts which were not already thought to be of value. They rather inherited an already set agenda which determined the authors who were worthy of scholarly attention and subsequently worthy to be canonized. The editorial choices of the Alexandrians and the selection of the poets to be included in the Lyric Canon are justified, so to speak, by the lyric evaluation and criticism in Old Comedy, by the presence of these poets on the comic stage and in Plato’s dialogues, and by the fact that they are individually studied in the Peripatos. The sole exception in this linear and continuous process of reception and transmission is Bacchylides. Bacchylides is not named in any of our fifth- and fourth-century sources, and is never studied by the Peripatetics. He is nonetheless included in the Lyric Canon, his text is edited according to principles of colometry, his poems are classified and organized in books in Alexandria, and his poem Kassandra becomes an object of dispute between Callimachus and Aristarchus. As it seems, his corpus or at least part of it is in the Alexandrian Library by the time of Callimachus. In addition, we possess two Hellenistic sources that testify of Bacchylides’ established reputation: AP 6.313/‘Bacchylides’ 2 FGE celebrates his career as a poet who participated in dithyrambic competitions in Athens, and an agonistic inscription in honour of

288

The Emergence of the Lyric Canon

Attalus from Pergamum maps itself on his Ode 5. The epigram is strong enough evidence to support the view that Bacchylides was famous for his dithyrambic compositions in Athens and that his fame persisted down to the Hellenistic era. The games with Ode 5 in the honorific inscription for Attalus testify in favour of the knowledge, if not of the circulation, of his Ode 5 in Pergamum at a time that pre-dates Bacchylides’ Hellenistic edition. Pergamum becomes an important piece of the puzzle; the engagement of the inscription with Ode 5 proposes that Bacchylides’ epinician corpus or exclusively his fifth epinikion might have arrived in Alexandria through Pergamum. The silence that is transmitted through our fifth- and fourth-century sources is that Bacchylides might not have been important enough to be alluded to or to be studied. Nevertheless, Herodotus draws on his Ode 3 in his story on Croesus on the pyre, and Aristophanes engages with his Ode 5 in Birds, both of which indicate that his poetry was known and presumably also circulated widely in the fifth and fourth centuries . With regards to his canonization and in view of the conclusions drawn on the Alexandrian attitude towards lyric, it is justifiable to argue that Bacchylides was included in the Lyric Canon not merely because his text was available in the Library but also because the Hellenistic scholars were somehow aware of his poetry. The aim of this book was to explore the process through which the Lyric Canon was formed in antiquity and to bring to the surface larger cultural issues in connection with the survival and transmission of the work of the canonical lyric poets and with the establishment of their reputation. The conducted research covered a wide chronological and literary spectrum, and took into account all the available evidence with the aim to give due attention to the complexities of the process of the canonization of the lyric poets. The picture presented offers us the opportunity not only to explore complex cultural phenomena and a neglected author but also to open up for analysis the orthodox view that sees the Hellenistic era as the era of canons. The two canonical epigrams that transmit the Lyric Canon are undoubtedly products of the Hellenistic era, and their chronology would in addition justify the characterization of the Lyric Canon as Hellenistic. The overall analysis in this book, however, demonstrates that the lyric selection they pass on was not Hellenistic; both these epigrams and the other testimonia on the Lyric Canon rather reflect a selection that was accepted as canonical or better a selection that was attained as set and non-negotiable much before the Hellenistic era. As well as offering insights into the reception of the canonical lyric poets, the approach taken in this study has the added value of being applicable to other authors and genres in different eras. There is still much to be done both in the field of lyric poetry and in other well-researched Greek genres and authors—tragedy and the three tragedians, comedy and the poets of Old Comedy, the orators, historiographers, and philosophers. Our view of classical

Conclusion

289

Greek literature is often narrow, as it is either synchronic or Hellenistic; we tend to perceive authors and genres either at the time of their peak in the relevant era in antiquity or as perceived and preserved in the Alexandrian Library. Consequently, we tend to ignore the process through which that antique perception was formed. For Hellenists, the view is even narrower; our sight subconsciously filters out the Latin sources that draw on perceptions established in the Hellenistic era. Although this project stopped at the Alexandrian Library mainly due to its aim, more can be done with reference to the ‘presence’ of the lyric poets in Hellenistic poetry, as well as in their survival in Roman culture, poetry, philosophy, and scholarship. More can also be done with regards to the reception and ‘presence’ of the lyric poets in pre-Hellenistic authors, such as Herodotus and Thucydides, the orators, or the association of lyric poetry with philosophical schools, for example the Presocratics. It is hoped that this research will set the foundation in terms of scope and methodology for future projects on the reception, survival, and transmission of Greek literature in its ancient contexts, an area still undeveloped in current scholarship.

Bibliography Editions used other than those cited by author’s name or abbreviated Burnet, I. (1901), Platonis Opera. Tomus II: Tetralogias III VI continens. Oxford Classical Texts. Oxford. Burnet, I. (1902), Platonis Opera. Tomus IV: Tetralogias VIII continens. Oxford Classical Texts. Oxford. Burnet, I. (1903), Platonis Opera. Tomus III: Tetralogias V VII continens. Oxford Classical Texts. Oxford. Burnet, I. (1907), Platonis Opera. Tomus V: Tetralogiam IX. Oxford Classical Texts. Oxford. Chantry, M. (1994), Scholia in Aristophanem. Pars III Scholia in Thesmophoriazusas, Ranas, Ecclesiazusas et Plutum. Fasc. IVa Scholia vetera in Aristophanis Plutum. Groningen. Chantry, M. (1996), Scholia in Aristophanem. Pars III Scholia in Thesmophoriazusas, Ranas, Ecclesiazusas et Plutum. Fasc. IVb Scholia recentiora in Aristophanes Plutum. Groningen. Chantry, M. (1999), Scholia in Aristophanem. Pars III Scholia in Thesmophoriazusas, Ranas, Ecclesiazusas et Plutum. Fasc. Ia Scholia vetera in Aristophanis Ranas. Groningen. Chantry, M. (2001), Scholia in Aristophanem. Pars III Scholia in Thesmophoriazusas, Ranas, Ecclesiazusas et Plutum. Fasc. Ib Scholia recentiora in Aristophanis Ranas. Groningen. Duke, E. A., Hicker, W. F., Nicoll, W. S. M., Robinson, D. B. and Strachan, J. C. G. (eds) (1995), Platonis Opera. Tomus I: Tetralogias I II continens. Oxford Classical Texts. Oxford. Hangard, J. (1996), Scholia in Aristophanem. Pars II Scholia in Vespas, Pacem, Aves et Lysistratam. Fasc. IV Scholia in Aristophanis Lysistratam. Groningen. Holwerda, D. (1960), Scholia in Aristophanem. Pars IV Jo. Tzetzae Commentarii in Aristophanem. Fasc. II Commentarium in Nubes. Groningen. Holwerda, D. (1977), Scholia in Aristophanem. Pars I Prolegomena de Comoedia, Scholia in Acharnenses. Equites, Nubes. Fasc. III1 Scholia vetera in Nubes. Groningen. Holwerda, D. (1982), Scholia in Aristophanem. Pars II Scholia in Vespas, Pacem, Aves et Lysistratam. Fasc. II Scholia vetera et recentiora in Aristophanis Pacem. Groningen. Holwerda, D. (1991), Scholia in Aristophanem. Pars II Scholia in Vespas, Pacem, Aves et Lysistratam. Fasc. III Scholia vetera et recentiora in Aristophanis Aves. Groningen. Hude, C. (1927), Herodoti Historiae, 3rd edn, 2 vols. Oxford Classical Texts. Oxford. Jones, D. M. and Wilson, N. G. (1969), Scholia in Aristophanem. Pars I Prolegomena De Comoedia, Scholia in Acharnenses, Equites, Nubes. Fasc. II Scholia vetera in Aristophanis Equites et scholia Tricliniana in Aristophanis Equites. Groningen. Koster, W. J. W. (1962), Scholia in Aristophanem. Pars IV Jo. Tzetzae Commentarii in Aristophanem. Fasc. III Commentarium in Ranas et in Aves; Argumentum Equitum. Groningen.

292

Bibliography

Koster, W. J. W. (1974), Scholia in Aristophanem. Pars I Prolegomena de Comoedia, Scholia in Acharnenses, Equites, Nubes. Fasc. III2 Scholia recentiora in Nubes. Groningen. Olson, S. D. (2007 12), Athenaeus. The Learned Banqueters. Vols 1 8. Loeb Classical Library 204, 208, 224, 235, 274, 327, 245, 519. Cambridge MA. Positano, L. M. (1960), Scholia in Aristophanem. Pars IV Jo. Tzetzae Commentarii in Aristophanem. Fasc. I Commentarium Plutum. Groningen. Reqtuit, R. F. (2007), Scholia in Aristophanem. Pars III Scholia in Thesmophoriazusas, Ranas, Ecclesiazusas et Plutum. Fasc. 2/3 Scholia in Aristophanis Thesmophoriazusas et Ecclesiazusas. Groningen. Slings, S. R. (2003), Platonis Rempublicam. Oxford Classical Texts. Oxford. Wilson, N. G. (1975), Scholia in Aristophanem. Pars I Prolegomena de Comoedia, Scholia in Acharnenses, Equites, Nubes. Fasc IB Scholia in Aristophanis Acharnenses. Groningen. Wilson, N. G. (2007), Aristophanis Fabulae, 2 vols. Oxford Classical Texts. Oxford. References Acosta Hughes, B. (2002), Polyeideia: The Iambi of Callimachus and the Archaic Iambic Tradition. Berkeley CA. Acosta Hughes, B. (2010), Arion’s Lyre: Archaic Lyric into Hellenistic Poetry. Princeton NJ. Acosta Hughes, B. and Barbantani, S. (2007), ‘Inscribing Lyric’, in Bing, P. and Bruss, J. S. (eds), Brill’s Companion to Hellenistic Epigram. Leiden, 429 58. Adam, J. (1902), The Republic of Plato. Oxford. Agócs, P. (2012), ‘Performances and Genre: Reading Pindar’s κῶμοι’, in Agócs, P., Carey, C. and Rawles, R. (eds), Reading the Victory Ode. Cambridge, 191 223. Allan, W. (2000), The Andromache and Euripidean Tragedy. Oxford. Allen, A. and Frel, J. (1972), ‘A Date for Corinna’, CJ 68.1: 26 30. Aloni, A. (2001), ‘The Proem of Simonides’ Plataea Elegy and the Circumstances of its Performance,’ in Boedeker, D. and Sider, D. (eds), The New Simonides: Contexts of Praise and Desire. Oxford, 86 105. Anagnostopoulos, G. (2009), ‘Aristotle’s Life’, in Anagnostopoulos, G. (ed.), A Com panion to Aristotle. Chichester, 3 13. Anderson, C. A. and Dix, K. T. (2014), ‘Λάβε τὸ βυβλίον: Orality and Literacy in Aristophanes’, in Scodel, R. (ed.), Between Orality and Literacy: Communication and Adaptation in Antiquity. Leiden, 77 86. Annas, J. (1981), ‘Book 10. Poetry, The Ending of the Republic’, in Annas, J. (ed.), An Introduction to Plato’s Republic. Oxford, 335 54. Annas, J. (1982), ‘Plato on the Triviality of Literature’, in Moravcsik, J. M. E. and Temko, P. (eds), Plato on Beauty, Wisdom, and the Arts. Totowa NJ, 1 28. Antonaccio, C. M. (2007), ‘Elite Mobility in the West’, in Hornblower, S. and Morgan, C. (eds), Pindar’s Poetry, Patrons, and Festivals: From Archaic Greece to the Roman Empire. Oxford, 265 85. Arnott, W. G. (1996), Alexis: The Fragments: A Commentary. Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 31, Cambridge.

Bibliography

293

Arnson Svarlien, D. (1991), Hieron and the Poets, PhD Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin. Arrighetti, G. (1987), Poeti, eruditi e biografi: Momenti della riflessione dei Greci sulla letteratura. Pisa. Asheri, D. (2007), ‘Book III’, in Asheri, D., Loyd, A., and Corcella, A., A Commentary on Herodotus Books I IV edited by Murray, O. and Moreno, A. with a contribution by M. Brosius, trans. B. Graziosi, M. Rossetti, C. Dus, and V. Cazzato. Oxford, 379 527. Asper, M. (1998), ‘Kanon’, in Ueding, G. (ed.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik. Darmstadt, 869 82. Assmann, A. and Assmann, J. (1987), ‘Kanon und Zensur als kultursoziologische Kategorien’, in Assmann, A. and Assmann, J. (eds), Kanon und Zensur: Beiträge zur Archaeologie der literarischen Kommunikation II. Munich, 7 27. Athanassaki, L. (2009), Ἀείδετο πὰν τέμενος: Οι χορικές παραστάσεις και το κοινό τους στην αρχαϊκή και πρώιμη κλασική εποχή. Heraklion. Athanassaki, L. (2012), ‘Performance and Re performance: The Siphnian Treasury evoked (Pindar’s Pythian 6, Olympian 2, and Isthmian 2)’, in Agócs, P., Carey, C. and Rawles, R. (eds), Reading the Victory Ode. Cambridge, 134 57. Athanassaki, L. (2016), ‘The Symposion as Theme and Performance Context in Pindar’s Epinicians’, in Cazzato, V., Obbink, D. and Prodi, E. E. (eds), The Cup of Song: Studies on Poetry and the Symposion. Cambridge, 85 112. Atkins, J. W. H. (1934), Literary Criticism in Antiquity. A Sketch of its Development. Vol. 1: Greek. Cambridge. Austin, C. and Olson, D. (eds) (2004), Aristophanes: Thesmophoriazusae. Oxford. Badian, E. (1994) ‘Herodotus on Alexander I of Macedon: A Study in some Subtle Silences’, in Horblower, S. (ed.), Greek Historiography. Oxford, 107 30. Bagnall, R. S. (2002), ‘Alexandria: Library of Dreams’, PAPhS 146.4: 348 62. Baker, G. W. (1904), ‘De Comicis Graecis Litterarum Iudicibus’, HSPh 15: 121 240. Bakola, E. (2008), ‘The Drunk, the Reformer and the Teacher: Agonistic Poetics and the Construction of Persona in the Comic Poets of the Fifth Century’, CCJ 54: 1 29. Bakola, E. (2010), Cratinus and the Art of Comedy. Oxford. Bakola, E., Prauscello, L. and Telò, M. (2013a), ‘Introduction: Greek Comedy as a Fabric of Generic Discourse’, in Bakola, E., Prauscello, L., and Telò, M. (eds), Greek Comedy and the Discourse of Genres. Cambridge, 1 12. Bakola, E., Prauscello, L. and Telò, M. (eds) (2013b), Greek Comedy and the Discourse of Genres. Cambridge. Barbantani, S. (1993), ‘I poeti lirici del canone alessandrino nell’ epigrammatistica’, Aevum(ant.) 6: 5 97. Barbantani, S. (2009), ‘Lyric in the Hellenistic Poetry and Beyond’, in Budelmann, F. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Lyric. Cambridge, 297 318. Barbantani, S. (2012), ‘Hellenistic Epinician’, in Agócs, P., Carey, C. and Rawles, R. (eds), Receiving the Komos: Ancient and Modern Perceptions of the Victory Ode. BICS Supplement 112. London, 37 56. Barbantani, S. (2017), ‘Lyric for the Rulers, Lyric for the People: The Transformation of Some Lyric Subgenres in Hellenistic Poetry’, Trends in Classics 9.2: 339 99. Barker, A. (1984), Greek Musical Writings I: The Musician and his Art. Cambridge.

294

Bibliography

Barnes, R. (2000), ‘Cloistered Bookworms in the Chicken Coop of the Muses. The Ancient Library of Alexandria’, in MacLeod, R. (ed.), The Library of Alexandria: Centre of Learning in the Ancient World. London, 61 77. Barrett, W. S. (1954), ‘Bacchylides, Asine and Apollo Pythaieus’, Hermes 82.4: 421 44. Barron, J. P. (1969), ‘Ibycus and Polycrates’, BICS 16: 119 49. Barron, J. P. (1980), ‘Bakchylides, Theseus, and a Wooly Cloak’, BICS 27: 1 8. Barron, J. P. (1984), ‘Ibycus: Gorgias and Other Poems’, BICS 31: 13 24. Bastianini, G., and Gallazzi, C. (eds) (2001), Posidippo di Pella: Epigrammi (P. Mil. Vogl. VIII 309). With the collaboration of C. Austin. Milan. Beazley, J. D. (1948), ‘Hymn to Hermes’, AJA 52.3: 336 40. Beazley, I. D. (1955), ‘Hydria Fragments in Corinth’, Hesperia 24.4: 305 19, Plates 85 8. Bell, J. M. (1978), ‘Κίμβιξ καὶ σοφός: Simonides in the Anecdotal Tradition’, QUCC 28: 29 86. Benardete, S. (1963), ‘Some Misquotations of Homer in Plato’, Phronesis 8.2: 173 8. Beresford, A. (2008), ‘Nobody’s Perfect: A New Text and Interpretation of Simonides PMG 542’, CPh 103.3: 237 56. Bierl, A. (2011), ‘Alcman at the End of Aristophanes’ Lysistrata: Ritual Interchorality’, in Athanassaki, L. and Bowie, E. (eds), Archaic and Classical Choral Song: Perform ance, Politics and Dissemination. Trends in Classics Suppl. Vol. 10. Berlin, 401 22. Biles, Z. P. (2006 7), ‘Aeschylus’ Afterlife Reperformance by Decree in 5th C. Athens?’, ICS 31/32: 206 42. Biles, Z. P. (2011a), Aristophanes and the Poetics of Competition. Cambridge. Biles, Z. P. (2011b), ‘Pride and Paradox in IG I3 833bis’, Mnemosyne   64.2: 183 205. Biles, Z. P. and Olson, D. (eds) (2015), Aristophanes: Wasps. Oxford. Bing, P. (1993), ‘The Bios Tradition and Poets’ Lives in Hellenistic Poetry’, in Rosen, R. and Farrell, J. (eds), Nomodeiktes: Greek Studies in Honor of Martin Ostwald. Ann Arbor MI, 619 31. Bing, P. (2005), ‘The Politics and Poetics of Geography in the Milan Posidippus, Section One: On Stones (AB 1 20)’, in Gutzwiller, K. (ed.), The New Posidippus: A Hellenistic Poetry Book. Oxford, 119 40. Bing, P. (2009), The Scroll and the Marble: Studies in Reading and Reception in Hellenistic Poetry. Ann Arbor MI. Bingen, J. (1988), ‘The Library of Alexandria: Past and Future’, Diogenes 141: 38 55. Birt, T. (1907), Die Buchrolle in der Kunst: Archäologich antiquarische Untersuchungen zum antiken Buchwesen. Leipzig. Bluck, R. S. (1958), ‘Plato, Pindar, and Metempsychosis’, AJPh 79.4: 405 14. Bluck, R. S. (1961), Plato’s Meno. Cambridge. Blum, R. (1977), Kallimachos und die Literaturverzeichnung bei den Griechen: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Biobibliographie. Frankfurt am Main. Boardman, J. and Kurtz, D. C. (1986), ‘Booners’, in Frel, J. and True, M. (eds), Greek Vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum. Malibu CA, iii, 35 70. den Boeft, J., Drijvers, J.W., den Hengst, D., and Teitler, H. (2005), Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus XXV. Leiden. den Boeft, J., Drijvers, J.W., den Hengst, D. and Teitler, H.C. (2011), Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus XXVIII. Leiden.

Bibliography

295

Bollansée, J. (1999a), Hermippos of Smyrna and his Biographical Writings: A Reappraisal. Leuven. Bollansée, J. (1999b), ‘IV A: Biography. Fascicle 3. Hermippos of Smyrna’, in Schepens, G. (ed.), Jacoby, F. Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker Continued. Part Four: Biography and Antiquarian Literature. Leiden. Bosher, K. (2012), ‘Hieron’s Aeschylus’, in Bosher, K. (ed.), Theater outside Athens: Drama in Greek Sicily and South Italy. Cambridge, 97 111. Bowie, A. M. (1997), ‘Thinking with Drinking. Wine and the Symposium in Aris tophanes’, JHS 117: 1 21. Bowie, E. L. (2007), ‘Early Expatriates: Displacement and Exile in Archaic Poetry’, in Gaertner, J. F. (ed.), Writing Exile: The Discourse of Displacement in Greco Roman Antiquity and Beyond. Leiden, 21 49. Bowie, E. L. (2009), ‘Wandering Poets, Archaic Style’, in Hunter, R. and Rutherford, I. (eds), Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture: Travel, Locality and Pan Hellenism. Cambridge, 242 305. Bowie, E. L. (2012), ‘Pindar and his Patrons’, in Agócs, P., Carey, C. and Rawles, R. (eds), Reading the Victory Ode. Cambridge, 83 92. Bowie, E. L. (2015), ‘Stesichorus at Athens’, in Finglass, P. J. and Kelly, A. (eds), Stesichorus in Context. Cambridge, 111 24. Bowie, E. L. (2016), ‘How Did Sappho’s Songs get into the Male Sympotic Repertoire?’, in Bierl, A. and Lardinois, A. (eds), The Newest Sappho. P.Sapph. Obbink and P.GC. inv.105, frs.1 4. Leiden, 148 64. Bowra, C. M. (1961), Greek Lyric Poetry: From Alcman to Simonides. Oxford. Bowra, C. M. (1964), Pindar. Oxford. Brandwood, L. (1976), A Word Index to Plato. Leeds. Brannan, P. T. (1972), ‘Hieron and Bacchylides. An analysis of Bacchylides’ fifth ode’, Classical Folia 26: 185 278. Braswell, B. K. (2013), Didymos of Alexandria: Commentary on Pindar. Basel. Bright, D. F. (1976), ‘The myths of Bacchylides’ III’, Classical Folia 30: 174 90. Brink, K. O. (1940), ‘Peripatos, Suppl. VII col.899 949’, in Kroll, W. and Mittelhaus, K. (eds), Paulys Real Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Neue Bear beitung begonnen von Georg Wissowa unter Mitwirkung zahlreicher Fachgenossen. Stuttgart. Broggiato, M. (2014), ‘Beyond the Canon: Hellenistic Scholars and their Texts’, in Colesanti, G. and Giordano, M. (eds), Submerged Literature in Ancient Greek Culture: An Introduction. Berlin, 46 60. Brosius, M. (2003), ‘Ancient Archives and Concepts of Record Keeping: An Introduc tion’, in Brosius, M. (ed.), Ancient Archives and Archival Traditions: Concepts of Record Keeping in the Ancient World. Oxford, 1 16. Brown, C. G. (1991), ‘The Prayers of the Corinthian Women (Simonides, Ep. 14 Page, FGE)’, GRBS 32.1: 5 14. Brugnoli, G. (1995), ‘Nascita e sviluppo della biografia romana: aspetti e problemi’, in Gallo, I. and Nicastri, I. (eds), Biografia e autobiografia degli antichi e dei moderni. Naples, 79 108. Budelmann, F. (2009), ‘Introducing Greek Lyric’, in Budelmann, F. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Lyric. Cambridge, 1 18.

296

Bibliography

Budelmann, F. (2012), ‘Epinician and the Symposion: A Comparison with the Enkomia’, in Agócs, P., Carey, C. and Rawles, R. (eds), Reading the Victory Ode. Cambridge, 173 90. Budelmann, F. (2017), ‘Performance, Reperformance, Preperformance: The Paradox of Repeating the Unique in Pindaric Epinician and Beyond’, in Hunter, R. and Uhlig, A. (eds), Imagining Reperformance in Ancient Culture: Studies in the Tradi tions of Drama and Lyric. Cambridge, 42 62. Budelmann, F. and Haubold, J. (2008), ‘Reception and Tradition’, in Hardwick, L. and Stray C. (eds), A Companion to Classical Receptions. Oxford, 13 25. Budelmann, F. and Power, T. (2015), ‘Another Look at Female Choruses in Classical Athens’, ClAnt 34.2: 252 95. Budin, S. L. (2008a), The Myth of Sacred Prostitution in Antiquity. Cambridge. Budin, S. L. (2008b), ‘Simonides’ Corinthian Epigram’, CPh 103.4: 335 53. Bundy, E. L. (1962), Studia Pindarica (Digital Version 2006). UC Berkeley: Department of Classics UCB, https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2g79p68q, accessed 22 June 2018. Burkert, W. (1985), ‘Das Ende des Kroisos: Vorstufen einer herodoteischen Geschicht serzählung’, in Schäublin, C. (ed.), Catalepton: Festschrift für Bernhard Wyss zum 80. Geburtstag. Basel, 4 15. Burnett, A. P. (2005), Pindar’s Songs for Young Athletes of Aigina. Oxford. Busine, A. (2002), Les sept sages de la Grèce antique. Transmission et utilisation d’un patrimoine légendaire d’Hérodote à Plutarque. Paris. Caciagli, S. (2011), Poeti e societa: comunicazione poetica e formazioni sociali nella Lesbo del VII/VI secolo a.C. Amsterdam. Cairns, D. L. (2010), Bacchylides: Five Epinician Odes (3, 5, 9, 11, 13): Text, Introductory Essays, and Interpretative Commentary, translations D. L. Cairns and J. G. Howie. Cambridge. Cairns, D. L. (2013), ‘The Imagery of Erōs in Plato’s Phaedrus’, in Sanders, E., Thumiger, C., Carey, C. and Lowe, N. (eds), Erōs in Ancient Greece. Oxford, 233 50. Calame, C. (1989), ‘Entre rapports de parenté et relations civiques: Aphrodite l’Hétaïre au banquet politique des hetaîroi’, in Thélamon, F. (ed.), Aux sources de la Puis sance: Sociabilité et parenté. Rouen, 101 11. Calame, C. (1997), Choruses of Young Women in Ancient Greece: Their Morphology, Religious Role, and Social Function, trans. D. Collins and J. Orion. Lanham MD. Calame, C. (2013), ‘Choral Practices in Plato’s Laws: Itineraries of Initiation?’, in Peponi, A. E. (ed.), Performance and Culture in Plato’s Laws. Cambridge, 87 108. Cameron, A. (1995), Callimachus and his Critics. Princeton NJ. Canevaro, M. (2017), ‘The Popular Culture of the Athenian Institutions: “Authorized” Popular Culture and “Unauthorized” Elite Culture in Classical Athens’, in Grig, L. (ed.), Popular Culture in the Ancient World. Cambridge, 39 65. Canfora, L. (1989), The Vanished Library: A Wonder of the Ancient World, trans. M. Ryle. Berkeley CA. Capra, A. (2014), Plato’s Four Muses: The Phaedrus and the Poetics of Philosophy. Hellenic Studies 67. Cambridge MA. Carey, C. (1995), ‘Pindar and the Victory Ode’, in Ayres, L. (ed.), The Passionate Intellect: Essays on the Transformation of Classical Traditions. New Brunswick, 85 103.

Bibliography

297

Carey, C. (2007a), ‘Epic, Diffusion and Identity’, in Eliot, S., Nash, A. and Willison, I. (eds), Literary Cultures and the Material Book. London, 133 45. Carey, C. (2007b), ‘Pindar, Place, and Performance’, in Hornblower, S. and Morgan, C. (eds), Pindar’s Poetry, Patrons, and Festivals: From Archaic Greece to the Roman Empire. Oxford, 199 210. Carey, C. (2011), ‘Alcman: From Laconia to Alexandria’, in Athanassaki, L. and Bowie, E. (eds), Archaic and Classical Choral Song: Performance, Politics and Dissemination. Trends in Classics Suppl. Vol. 10. Berlin, 423 46. Cassio, A. C. (ed.) (1977), Aristofane Banchettanti: I Frammenti. Pisa. Cassio, A. C. (2005), ‘I dialetti eolici e la lingua della lirica corale’, in Bertolini, F. and Gasti, F. (eds), Dialetti e lingue letterarie nella Grecia arcaica: atti della IV giornata ghisleriana di filologia classica (Pavia, 1 2 aprile 2004). Pavia, 13 44. Casson, L. (2002), Libraries in the Ancient World, Yale Nota Bene edn. New Haven CT. Ceccarelli, P. (2013), ‘Circular Choruses and the Dithyramb in the Classical and Hellenistic Period: A Problem of Definition’, in Kowalzig, B. and Wilson, P. (eds), Dithyramb in Context. Oxford, 153 70. Ceccarelli, P. and Milanezi, S. (2007), ‘Dithyramb, Tragedy and Cyrene’, in Wilson, P. (ed.), The Greek Theatre and Festivals. Oxford, 185 214. Chaniotis, A. (2011), ‘Greek Festivals and Contests: Definition and General Charac teristics’, in Balty, J. C. (ed.), Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum. VII Festivals and Contests. Los Angeles CA, 4 43. Citroni, M. (2006), ‘The Concept of the Classical and the Canons of Model Authors in Roman Literature’, in Porter, J. I. (ed.), Classical Pasts: The Classical Traditions of Greece and Rome. Princeton NJ, 204 34. Clay, D. (2004), Archilochos Heros: The Cult of Poets in the Greek Polis. Hellenic Studies 6. Washington DC. Clayman, D. (2009), ‘The New Sappho in a Hellenistic Poetry Book’, in Greene, E. and Skinner, M. B. (eds), The New Sappho on Old Age: Textual and Philosophical Issues. Hellenic Studies 38. Cambridge MA, 131 46. Collins, N. L. (2000), The Library in Alexandria and the Bible in Greek. Leiden. Collobert, C. (2011), ‘Poetry as Flawed Reproduction: Possession and Mimesis’, in Destrée, P. and Herrmann, F. G. (eds), Plato and the Poets. Leiden, 41 61. Compton Engel, G. (2015), Costume in the Comedies of Aristophanes. Cambridge. Cooper, C. (2002), ‘Aristoxenos, Περί Βίων and Peripatetic Biography’, Mouseion S.3, 2.3: 307 39. Crane, G. (1996), ‘The Prosperity of Tyrants’, Arethusa 29.1: 57 85. Cross, R. C. and Woozley, A. D. (1986), ‘Art’, in Cross, R. C. and Woozley, A. D. (eds), Plato’s Republic: A Philosophical Commentary. London, 270 88. Crowther, C. (2007), ‘The Dionysia at Iasos: Its Artists, Patrons and Audience’, in Wilson, P. (ed.), The Greek Theatre and Festivals: Documentary Studies. Oxford, 294 334. Csapo, E. (2004), ‘The Politics of the New Music’, in Murray, P. and Wilson, P. (eds), Music and the Muses: The Culture of ‘Mousikē’ in the Classical Athenian City. Oxford, 207 48. Csapo, E. (2011), ‘The Economics, Poetics, Politics, Metaphysics and Ethics of the “New Music” ’, in Yatromanolakis, D. (ed.), Music and Cultural Politics in Greek and Chinese Societies. Vol I: Greek Antiquity. Cambridge MA, 65 131.

298

Bibliography

Csapo, E. and Slater, W. J. (1994), The Context of Ancient Drama. Ann Arbor MI. Currie, B. (2004), ‘Reperformance Scenarios for Pindar’s Odes’, in Mackie, J. (ed.), Oral Performance and its Context. Leiden, 49 69. Currie, B. (2011), ‘Epinician Choregia: Funding a Pindaric Chorus’, in Athanassaki, L. and Bowie, E. (eds.), Archaic and Classical Choral Song: Performance, Politics and Dissemination. Trends in Classics Suppl. Vol. 10. Berlin, 269 310. Currie, B. (2017), ‘Festival, Symposium, and Epinician (Re)performance: The Case of Nemean 4 and Others’, in Hunter, R. and Uhlig, A. (eds), Imagining Reperformance in Ancient Culture: Studies in the Traditions of Drama and Lyric. Cambridge, 187 208. D’ Alessio, G. B. (1997), ‘Pindar’s Prosodia and the Classification of Pindaric Papyrus Fragments’, ZPE 118: 23 60. D’ Alessio, G. B. (2009), ‘Defining Local Identities in Greek Lyric Poetry’, in Hunter, R. and Rutherford, I. (eds), Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture: Travel, Locality, and Panhellenism. Cambridge, 137 67. D’ Alessio, G. B. (2017), ‘Performance, Transmission, and the Loss of Hellenistic Poetry’, in Hunter, R. and Uhlig, A. (eds), Imagining Reperformance in Ancient Culture: Studies in the Traditions of Drama and Lyric. Cambridge, 232 61. D’Angour, A. (1997), ‘How the Dithyramb Got its Shape’, CQ  47.2: 331 51. Davies, J. K. (2003), ‘Greek Archives: From Record to Monument’, in Brosius, M. (ed.), Ancient Archives and Archival Traditions: Concepts of Record Keeping in the Ancient World. Oxford, 323 43. Davies, M. and Finglass, P. J. (eds) (2014), Stesichorus: The Poems. Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 54. Cambridge. Davison, J. A. (1962), ‘Literature and Literacy in Ancient Greece: II. Caging the Muses’, Phoenix 16.4: 219 33. De Simone, M. (2014), ‘Aristophanes’ Phrynichos and the Orientalizing Musical Pattern’, in Westenholz, J. G., Maurey, Y. and Seroussi, E. (eds), Music in Antiquity: The Near East and the Mediterranean. Berlin, 248 72. Dearden, C. (1999), ‘Plays for Export’, Phoenix 53.3/4: 222 48. Dearden, C. (2012), ‘Whose Line is it anyway? West Greek Comedy in its Context’, in Bosher, K. (ed.), Theater outside Athens: Drama in Greek Sicily and South Italy. Cambridge, 272 88. Deas, H. Th. (1931), ‘Scholia Vetera to Pindar’, HSPh 42: 1 78. Degani, E. (1984), Studi su Ipponatte. Bari. Demos, M. (1999), Lyric Quotation in Plato. Lanham MD. Di Benedetto, V. (2005), ‘La Nuova Saffo e Dintorni’, ZPE 153: 7 20. Dickey, E. (2015), ‘The Sources of our Knowledge of Ancient Scholarship’, in Mon tanari, S., Matthaios, S. and Rengakos, A. (eds), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship. Vol. 1: History; Disciplinary Profiles. Leiden, 459 514. Dihle, A. (1956), Studien zur griechischen Biographie. Göttingen. Dihle, A. (1998), ‘Zur antiken Biographie’, in Maul, S. M. et al. (eds), La Biographie Antique: Huit Exposιs Suivis de Discussions. Entretiens sur l’Antiquité classique 44. Geneva, 119 40. Dillon, M. (2017), Omens and Oracles: Divination in Ancient Greece. London. Dobrov, G. W. (2001), Figures at Play: Greek Drama and Metafictional Poetics. Oxford.

Bibliography

299

Dobrov, G. W. (2010), ‘Comedy and her Critics’, in Dobrov, G. W. (ed.), Brill’s Companion to the Study of Greek Comedy. Leiden, 3 33. Dodds, E. R. (1959), Plato: Gorgias. Oxford. Dover, K. J. (1950), ‘The Chronology of Antiphon’s Speeches’, CQ 44: 44 60 [repr. in Dover, K. J. (1988), The Greeks and Their Legacy: Collected Papers II. Oxford, 13 35]. Dover, K. J. (1968), Lysias and the Corpus Lysiacum. Berkeley CA. Dover, K. J. (1993), Aristophanes: Frogs. Oxford. Dover, K. J., Arnott, W. G., Lowe, N. J., and Harvey, D. (2000), ‘Biographical Appendix’, in Harvey, D. and Wilkins, J. (eds), The Rivals of Aristophanes. Studies in Aristophanes Old Comedy. London, 507 25. Dubielzig, U. (2005), ‘Kanon’, in Schmitt, H. H. and Vogt, E. (eds), Lexikon des Hellenismus. Wiesbaden, 513 19. Dunbar, N. (1995), Aristophanes: Birds. Oxford. Duncan, A. (2006), Performance and Identity in the Classical World. Cambridge. Düring, I. (1957), Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition. Göteborg. Easterling, P. (2012), ‘Canon’, in Hornblower, S., Spawforth, A. and Eidinow, E. (eds), Oxford Classical Dictionary. Oxford, 275 6. Edmonds, J. L. (1922), ‘Sappho’s Books as Depicted on an Attic Vase’, CQ 16.1: 1 14. El Abbadi, M. (1992), Life and Fate of the Ancient Library of Alexandria, 2nd edn. Paris. El Abbadi, M. (2004), ‘The Alexandrian Library in History’, in Hirst, A. and Silk, M. (eds), Alexandria, Real and Imagined. Aldershot, 167 83. El Abbadi, M. and Fathallah, O. M. (eds) (2008), What happened to the Ancient Library of Alexandria?, with a Preface by I. Serageldi. Leiden. Eliot, T. S. (1944), What is a Classic? London. Errington, R. M. (1981), ‘Alexander the Philhellene and Persia’, in Dell, H. (ed.), Ancient Macedonian Studies in Honor of Charles F. Edson. Thessaloniki, 139 43. Erskine, A. (1995), ‘Culture and Power in Ptolemaic Egypt: The Museum and Library at Alexandria’, G&R  , 42.1: 38 48. Fairweather, J. (1974), ‘Fiction in the Biographies of Ancient Writers’, AncSoc 5: 231 75. Fantuzzi, M. and Hunter, R. (eds) (2004), Tradition and Innovation in Hellenistic Poetry. Cambridge. Färber, H. (1936), Die Lyrik in der Kunsttheorie der Antike. Munich. Fearn, D. (2007), Bacchylides: Politics, Performance, Poetic Tradition. Oxford. Fearn, D. (ed.) (2011), Aegina: Contexts for Choral Lyric Poetry: Myth, History, and Identity in the Fifth Century . Oxford. Fehling, D. (1989), Herodotus and his ‘Sources’: Citation, Invention and Narrative Art, trans. J. G. Howie. Liverpool. Ferrari, F. (1992), ‘Dileggio e rispetto dei νόμιμα nel fr.215 M. di Pindaro’, Atti della Accademia Peloritana dei Pericolanti 67: 71 82. Ferrari, F. (2010), Sappho’s Gift: The Poet and her Community, trans. A. H. Benjamin and L. Prauscello. Ann Arbor MI. Ferrari, F. (2012), ‘Representations of Cult in Epinician Poetry’, in Agócs, P., Carey, C. and Rawles, R. (eds), Reading the Victory Ode. Cambridge, 158 72.

300

Bibliography

Ferrari, G. R. F. (1987), Listening to the Cicadas: A Study of Plato’s Phaedrus. Cambridge. Ferrari, G. R. F. (1989), ‘Plato and Poetry’, in Kennedy, G. A. (ed.), The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism. Vol. 1: Classical Criticism. Cambridge, 92 158. Finglass, P. (2014), ‘Introduction’, in Davies, M. and Finglass, P. (eds), Stesichorus: The Poems. Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 54. Cambridge, 1 91. Flory, S. (1980), ‘Who Read Herodotus’ Histories?’, AJPh 101.1: 12 28. Flower, H. I. (1991), ‘Herodotus and Delphic Traditions about Croesus’, in Flower, M. A. and Toher, M. (eds), Georgica. BICS Supplement 58. London, 57 77. Flower, M. A. (2008), The Seer in Ancient Greece. Berkeley CA. Folch, M. (2013), ‘Unideal Genres and the Ideal City: Comedy, Threnody, and the Making of Citizens in Plato’s Laws’, in Peponi, A. E. (ed.), Performance and Culture in Plato’s Laws. Cambridge, 339 67. Folch, M. (2015), The City and the Stage: Performance, Genre, and Gender in Plato’s Laws. Oxford. Fontenrose, J. E. (1978), The Delphic Oracle, its Responses and Operations, with a Catalogue of Responses. Berkeley CA. Ford, A. (2002), The Origins of Criticism: Literary Culture and Poetic Theory in Classical Greece. Princeton NJ. Ford, A. (2003), ‘From Letters to Literature. Reading the Song Culture of Classical Greece’, in Yunis, H. (ed.), Written Texts and the Rise of Literate Culture in Ancient Greece. Cambridge, 15 37. Ford, A. (2011a), Aristotle as Poet: The Song for Hermias and its Contexts. Oxford. Ford, A. (2011b), The Function of Criticism ca.432 : Texts and Interpretations in Plato’s Protagoras. Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics. Ford, A. (2013), ‘The Poetics of Dithyramb’, in Kowalzig, B. and Wilson, P. (eds), Dithyramb in Context. Oxford, 313 31. Fortenbaugh, W. W. (1966), ‘Plato Phaedrus 235c3’, CPh 61: 108 9. Fowler, D. (1997), ‘On the Shoulders of Giants: Intertextuality and Classical Studies’, MD 39: 13 34. Foxhall, L. and Luraghi (2010), ‘Introduction’, in Foxhall, L., Gehrke, H. I., and Luraghi, N. (eds), Intentional History: Spinning Past in Ancient Greece. Stuttgart, 9 13. Franklin, J. (2012), ‘The Lesbian Singers: Towards a Reconstruction of Hellanicus’ Karneian Victors’, in Castaldo, D., Giannachi, F. and Manieri, A. (eds), Poetry, Music, and Contests in Ancient Greece, 2 vols. Rudiae. Ricerche sul mondo classico 22 3, 2010 11, Galatina, ii 721 63. Fraser, P. M. (1972), Ptolemaic Alexandria, 3 vols. Oxford. von Fritz, K. (1957), ‘ Ἐστρὶς ἑκατέρωθι in Pindar’s Second Olympian and Pythagoras’ Theory of Metempsychosis’, Phronesis 2.2: 85 9. Fuhrer, T. (1993), ‘Callimachus’ Epinician Poems’, in Harder, M. A., Regtuit, R. F. and Wakker, G. C. (eds), Callimachus. Hellenistica Groningana 1. Groningen, 79 97. Furley, W. D. and Bremer, J. M. (2001), Greek Hymns: Selected Cult Songs from the Archaic to the Hellenistic Period, 2 vols. Tübingen. Gadamer, H. G. (1979), Truth and Method, trans. W. Glen Doepel (edited by J. Cumming and G. Barden). London.

Bibliography

301

Gallo, I. (1974), ‘L’ epigramma biografico sui nove lirici Greci e il “canone” alessandino’, QUCC 17: 91 112. Gallo, I. (1995), ‘Nascita e sviluppo della biografia greca: aspetti e problemi’, in Gallo, I. and Nicastri, I. (eds), Biografia e autobiografia degli antichi e dei moderni. Naples, 7 22. Gallo, I. (2005), La biografia greca: Profilo storico e breve anthologia di testi. Soveria Manelli. Gehrke, H. J. (2001), ‘Myth, History, and Collective Identity: Uses of the Past in Ancient Greece and Beyond’, in Luraghi, N. (ed.), The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus. Oxford, 286 313. Gehrke, H. J. (2010), ‘Greek Representations of the Past’, in Foxhall, L., Gehrke, H. I., and Luraghi, N. (eds), Intentional History: Spinning Past in Ancient Greece. Stutt gart, 14 33. Gentili, B. (1958), Anacreon. Rome. Gentili, B. (1988), Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece: From Homer to the Fifth Century, trans. A. T. Cole. Baltimore MD. Gentili, B., Bernardini, P. A., Cingano, E., and Giannini, P. (eds) (1995), Pindaro: Le Pitiche. Milan. Gerber, D. E. (1965), ‘The Gifts of Aphrodite (Bacchylides 17.10)’, Phoenix 19: 212 13. Gerhard, E. (1848 50), Trinkschalen und Gefässe des Königlichen Museums zu Berlin und anderer Sammlungen. Berlin. Gibson, S. (2005), Aristoxenus of Tarentum and the Birth of Musicology. New York. Gödde, S. (2011), Euphēmia: Die gute Rede in Kult und Literatur der griechischen Antike. Heidelberg. Goette, H. R. (2007), ‘ “Choregic” or Victory Monuments of the Tribal Panathenaic Contests’, in Palagia, O. and Choremi Spetsieri, A. (eds), The Panathenaic Games: Proceedings of an International Conference held at the University of Athens, May 11 12, 2004. Oxford, 117 26. Goldhill, S. (1991), The Poet’s Voice: Essays on Poetics and Greek Literature. Cambridge. Gorak, J. (1997), ‘Canons and Canon Formation’, in Nisbet, H. B. and Rawson, C. (eds), The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism. Vol. 4: The Eighteenth Century. Cambridge, 560 84. Gottschalk, H. B. (1987), ‘Aristotelian Philosophy in the Roman World from the Time of Cicero to the End of the Second Century ’, ANRW Teil II, 36.2: 1083 8. Gould, J. (1989), Herodotus. London. Gould, T. (1972), ‘Plato’s Hostility to Art’, in Rudd, N. (ed.), Essays in Classical Literature Selected from Arion with an Introduction by Niall Rudd. Cambridge, 79 101. Grayeff, F. (1974), Aristotle and His School: An Inquiry into the History of the Peripatos with a Commentary on Metaphysics Z, H, L and Θ. London. Graziosi, B. (2001), ‘Competition in Wisdom’, in Budelmann, F. and Michelakis, P. (eds), Homer, Tragedy and Beyond: Essays in Honour of P. E. Easterling. London, 57 74. Graziosi, B. (2002), Inventing Homer: The Early Reception of Epic. Cambridge. Graziosi, G. (2009), ‘Horace, Suetonius and the Lives of the Greek Poets’, in Houghton, L. B. T. and Wyke, M. (eds), Perceptions of Horace: A Roman Poet and his Readers. Cambridge, 140 60.

302

Bibliography

Greco, A. (1994), ‘Plato on Imitative Poetry in the Republic’, JNStud 3.1: 141 61. Griffith, M. (2001), ‘ “Public” and “Private” in Early Greek Institutions of Educations’, in Too, Y. L. (ed.), Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity. Leiden, 23 84. Grig, L. (2017), ‘Introduction: Approaching Popular Culture in the Ancient World’, in Grig, L. (ed.), Popular Culture in the Ancient World. Cambridge, 1 36. Gronewald, M. and Daniel, R. W. (2004a), ‘Ein Neuer Sappho Papyrus’, ZPE 147: 1 8. Gronewald, M. and Daniel, R. W. (2004b), ‘Nachtrag zum neuen Sappho Papyrus’, ZPE 149.1: 4. Gronewald, M. and Daniel, R. W. (2007a), ‘429. Sappho (Inv. 21351+21376r)’, Papyr ologica Coloniensia VII/11: 1 11. Gronewald, M. and Daniel, R. W. (2007b), ‘430. Lyrischer Text (Sappho Papyrus)’, Papyrologica Coloniensia VII/11: 12 19. van Groningen, B. A. (1956), ‘Théopompe ou Chamaléon? À propos de Simonide 137 B, 104 D’, Mnemosyne  4, 9.1: 11 22. Grote, D. (1994), ‘Callicles’ Use of Pindar’s ΝΟΜΟΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ: Gorgias 484b’, CJ 90.1: 21 31. Guillory, J. (1993), Cultural Capital: The Problem of Literary Canon Formation. Chicago IL. Gutzwiller, K. (2004), ‘A New Hellenistic Poetry Book: P.Mil. Vogl. VIII 309’, in Acosta Hughes, B., Kosmetatou, E. and Baumbach, M. (eds), Labored in Papyrus Leaves: Perspectives on an Epigram Collection Attributed to Posidippus (P.Mil. Vogl. VIII 309). Cambridge MA, 84 93. Habib, M. A. R. (2005), ‘Reader Response and Reception Theory’, in Habib, M. A. R. (ed.), A History of Literary Criticism from Plato to the Present. Oxford, 708 36. Hadjimichael, Th. A. (2014a), ‘Aristophanes’ Bacchylides: Reading Birds 1373 1409’, GRMS 2: 184 210. Hadjimichael, Th. A. (2014b), ‘Fr. 60 M. of Bacchylides and the Kassandra’, BASP 51: 77 100. Hadjimichael, Th. A. (2015), ‘Sports writing: Bacchylides’ Athletic Descriptions’, Mnemosyne  , 68.3: 363 92. Hägg, T. (2012), The Art of Biography in Antiquity. Cambridge. Hahn, A. (1987), ‘Kanonisierungsstile’, in Assmann, A. and Assmann, J. (eds), Kanon und Zensur: Beiträge zur Archaeologie der literarischen Kommunikation II. Munich, 28 46. Hahn, A. (1998), ‘Einführung’, in von Heudebrand, R. (ed.), Kanon Macht Kultur: Theoretische, historische und soziale Aspekte aesthetischer Kanonbildungen. Stuttgart, 459 66. Hall, E. (2010), ‘Tragic Theatre: Demetrios’ Rolls and Dionysos’ Other Woman’, in Taplin, O. and Wyles, R. (eds), The Pronomos Vase and its Context. Oxford, 159 79. Hall, J. M. (2012), ‘Early Greek Settlement in the West: The Limits of Colonialism’, in Bosher, K. (ed.), Theater outside Athens: Drama in Greek Sicily and South Italy. Cambridge, 19 34. Halliwell, S. (2000), ‘The Subjection of Muthos to Logos: Plato’s Citations of the Poets’, CQ  50.1: 94 112. Halliwell, S. (2002), The Aesthetics of Mimesis: Ancient Texts and Modern Problems. Princeton NJ.

Bibliography

303

Halliwell, S. (2011a), ‘Antidotes and Incantations: Is there a Cure for Poetry in Plato’s Republic?,’ in Destrée, P. and Herrmann, F. G. (eds), Plato and the Poets. Leiden, 241 66. Halliwell, S. (2011b), ‘To Banish or Not to Banish? Plato’s Unanswered Question about Poetry’, in Between Ecstasy and Truth: Interpretations of Greek Poetics from Homer to Longinus. Oxford, 155 207. Halliwell, S. (2015), Aristophanes: Clouds, Women at Thesmophoria, Frogs: A Verse Translation with Introduction and Notes. Oxford. Hammerstaedt, J. (2009), ‘The Cologne Sappho. Its Discovery and Textual Constitu tion’, in Greene, E. and Skinner, M. B. (eds), The New Sappho on Old Age: Textual and Philosophical Issues. Hellenic Studies 38. Cambridge MA, 17 40. Hanink, J. (2010), ‘The Classical Tragedians: From Athenian Idols to Wandering Poets’, in Gildenhard, I. and Revermann. M. (eds), Beyond the Fifth Century: Interactions with Greek Tragedy from the Fourth Century  to the Middle Ages. Berlin, 35 64. Hanink, J. (2014), Lycurgan Athens and the Making of Classical Tragedy. Cambridge. Hansen, E. V. (1971), The Attalids of Pergamon, 2nd edn rev. and expanded. Ithaca NY. Harrell, S. E. (2002), ‘King or Private Citizen: Fifth Century Sicilian Tyrants at Olympia and Delphi’, Mnemosyne  , 55.4: 439 64. Harrell, S. E. (2006), ‘Synchronicity: The Local and the Panhellenic within Sicilian Tyranny’, in Lewis, S. (ed.), Ancient Tyranny. Edinburgh, 119 34. Harris, W. V. (1989), Ancient Literacy. Cambridge MA. Harth, D. (2008), ‘The Invention of Cultural Memory’, in Erll, A. and Nünning, A. (eds), Cultural Memory Studies: An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook. Berlin, 85 96. Harvey, A. E. (1955), ‘The Classification of Greek Lyric Poetry’, CQ  5.3/4: 157 75. Harvey, F. D. (1966), ‘Literacy in the Athenian Democracy’, Revue des Études Grecques 79.376/8: 585 635. Haslam, M. (1997), ‘Homeric Papyri and Transmission of the Text’, in Morris, I. and Powell, B. (eds), A New Companion to Homer. Leiden, 55 100. Hatzimichali, M. (2013), ‘Encyclopaedism in the Alexandrian Library’, in König, J. and Woolf, G. (eds), Encyclopaedias and Encyclopaedism from Antiquity to the Renais sance. Cambridge, 64 83. Hatzistavrou, A. (2011), ‘ “Correctness” and Poetic Knowledge: Choric Poetry in the Laws’, in Destrée, P. and Herrmann, F. G. (eds), Plato and the Poets. Leiden, 361 85. Havelock, E. A. (1971), Prologue to Greek Literacy. Cincinnati OH. Havelock, E. A. (1982), The Literate Revolution in Greece and its Cultural Conse quences. Princeton NJ. Havelock, E. A. (1986), The Muse Learns to Write: Reflections on Orality and Literacy from Antiquity to the Present. New Haven CT. Hedrick, C. W. (1994), ‘Writing, Reading, and Democracy’, in Osborne, R. and Hornblower, S. (eds), Ritual, Finance, Politics: Athenian Democratic Accounts Presented to David Lewis. Oxford, 157 74. Heinimann, F. (1945), Nomos und Physis: Herkunft und Bedeutung einer Antithese im griechischen Denken des 5. Jahrhunderts. Basel.

304

Bibliography

Hendrickson, T. (2016), ‘The Serapeum: Dreams of the Daughter Library’, CPh 111.4: 453 64. Herington, C. J. (1967), ‘Aeschylus in Sicily’, JHS 87: 74 85. Herington, C. J. (1985), Poetry into Drama: Early Tragedy and the Greek Poetic Tradition. Berkeley CA. Herrmann, F. G. (2011), ‘Poetry in Plato’s Gorgias’, in Destrée, P. and Herrmann, F. G. (eds), Plato and the Poets. Leiden, 21 40. Hinge, G. (2006), Die Sprache Alkmans: Textgeschichte und Sprachgeschichte. Wiesbaden. Hobden, F. (2013), The Symposion in Ancient Greek Society and Thought. Cambridge. Holub, R. C. (1984), Reception Theory: A Critical Introduction. London. Hordern, J. H. (2002), The Fragments of Timotheus of Miletus. Oxford. Hordern, J. H. (2003), ‘Gnesippus and the Rivals of Aristophanes’, CQ  53.2: 608 13. Hornblower, S. (2007), ‘ “Dolphins in the Sea” (Isthmian 9.7): Pindar and the Aigine tans’, in Hornblower, S. and Morgan, C. (eds), Pindar’s Poetry, Patrons, and Festivals: From Archaic Greece to the Roman Empire. Oxford, 287 308. Hornblower, S. (2012), ‘What Happened Later to the Families of Pindaric Patrons and to Epinician Poetry?’, in Agócs, P., Carey, C. and Rawles, R. (eds), Reading the Victory Ode. Cambridge, 93 107. Hornblower, S. and Morgan, C. (2007), ‘Introduction’, in Hornblower, S. and Morgan, C. (eds), Pindar’s Poetry, Patrons, and Festivals: From Archaic Greece to the Roman Empire. Oxford, 1 43. Horrocks, G. (2010), Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers, 2nd edn. Chichester. Hose, M. (1995), ‘Bakchylides, Carmen 17: Dithyrambos oder Paian?’, RhM 138.3/4: 299 314. Howes, G. E. (1895), ‘Homeric Quotations in Plato and Aristotle’, HSPh 6: 153 237. Hubbard, T. K. (1991), The Mask of Comedy: Aristophanes and the Intertextual Parabasis. Ithaca NY. Hubbard, T. K. (2004), ‘The Dissemination of Epinician Lyric: Pan Hellenism, Re performance, Written Texts’, in Mackie, J. (ed.), Oral Performance and its Context. Leiden, 71 93. Hubbard, T. K. (2011), ‘The Dissemination of Pindar’s Non Epinician Choral Lyric’, in Athanassaki, L. and Bowie, E. (eds), Archaic and Classical Choral Song: Performance, Politics and Dissemination. Trends in Classics Suppl. Vol. 10. Berlin, 347 63. Huber Rebenisch, G. (2013), ‘Kanongeschichten’, in Rippl, G. and Winko, S. (eds), Hanbuch Kanon und Wertung: Theorien, Instanzen, Geschichte. Stuttgart, 264 71. Humphreys, S. (1987), ‘Law, Custom, and Culture in Herodotus’, Arethusa 20.1/2: 211 20. Hunter, R. (2009), Critical Moments in Classical Literature: Studies in the Ancient View of Literature and its Uses. Cambridge. Hunter, R. (2011), ‘The Letter of Aristeas’, in Erskine, A. and Lloyd, L. J. (eds), Creating a Hellenistic World. Swansea, 47 60. Hunter, R. and Rutherford, I. (2009), ‘Introduction’, in Hunter, R. and Rutherford, I. (eds), Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture: Travel, Locality, and Panhellenism. Cambridge, 1 22.

Bibliography

305

Hutchinson, G. O. (2001), Greek Lyric Poetry. Oxford. Huxley, G. (1974)‚ ‘Aristotle’s Interest in Biography’, GRBS 15.2: 203 13. Ieranò, G. (2013), ‘ “One who is Fought over by all the Tribes”: The Dithyrambic Poet and the City of Athens’, in Kowalzig, B. and Wilson, P. (eds), Dithyramb in Context. Oxford, 368 86. Immerwahr, H. R. (1964), ‘Book Rolls on Attic Vases’, in Henderson, C. (ed.), Classical, Medieval and Renaissance Studies in Honor of Berthold Louis Ullman. Vol. 1: Rome, 17 48. Immerwahr, H. R. (1973), ‘More Book Rolls on Attic Vases’, AK 16.2: 143 7. Irigoin, J. (1952), Histoire du texte du Pindare. Paris. Irwin, T. H. (1992), ‘Plato: The Intellectual Background’, in Kraut, R. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Plato. Cambridge, 51 89. Jacob, C. (2013), ‘Fragments of a History of Ancient Libraries’, in König, J. and Woolf, G. (eds), Encyclopaedias and Encyclopaedism from Antiquity to the Renaissance. Cambridge, 57 81. Janaway, C. (1995), Images of Excellence: Plato’s Critique of the Arts. Oxford. Jauss, H. R. (1982), Toward an Aesthetic of Reception. Minneapolis MN. Jebb, R. C. S. (ed.) (1905), Bacchylides: The Poems and Fragments. Cambridge. Jeffery, L. H. and Cartledge, P. (1982), ‘Sparta and Samos: A Special Relationship?’, CQ  32.2: 243 65. Jochum, U. (1999), ‘The Alexandrian Library and Its Aftermath’, Library History 15: 5 12. Johnstone, S. (2014), ‘A New History of Libraries and Books in the Hellenistic Period’, CPh 33.2: 347 93. Joyal, M. A. (1990a), ‘Anacreon Fr.449 (P.M.G.)’, Hermes 118.1: 122 4. Joyal, M. A. (1990b), ‘P.Oxy.3722: Two Observations on the Anacreon Commentary’, ZPE 81: 103 4. Joyal, M. A. (2000), The Platonic Theages: An Introduction, Commentary and Critical Edition. Stuttgart. Kammer, S. (2000), ‘Interferenzen und Korrektive. Die Problematik des Kanons in textkritischer und kulturwissenschaftlischer Prespektive’, in Nutt Kofoth, R., Plachta, B., van Vliet, H. T. M. and Zwerschina, H. (eds), Text und Edition: Positionen und Perspektiven, Berlin, 303 21. Käppel, L. (1992), Paian: Studien zur Geschichte einer Gattung. Berlin. Keith Dix, T. (2004), ‘Aristotle’s “Peripatetic” Library’, in Raven, J. (ed.), Lost Libraries: The Destruction of Great Book Collections since Antiquity. Basingstoke, 58 74. Kennedy, D. F. (1997), ‘Modern Receptions and their Interpretative Implications’, in Martindale, C. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Virgil. Cambridge, 38 55. Kenyon, F. G. (ed.) (1897), The Poems of Bacchylides: From a Papyrus in the British Museum. London. Kenyon, F. G. (1951), Books and Readers in Ancient Greece and Rome. Oxford. Kerkhecker, A. (1999), Callimachus’ Book of Iambi. Oxford. Kiehl, E. J. (1852), ‘Aeschyli Vita’, Mnemosyne 1: 361 74. Kirkwood, G. M. (1966), ‘The Narrative Art of Bacchylides’, in Wallach, L. (ed.), The Classical Tradition: Literary and Historical Studies in Honor of H.Caplan. Ithaca NY, 98 114.

306

Bibliography

Kivilo, M. (2010), Early Greek Poets’ Lives: The Shaping of the Tradition. Leiden. Klooster, J. (2011), Poetry as Window and Mirror: Positioning the Poet in Hellenistic Poetry. Leiden. Koch, D., Männlein Robert, I., and Weidtmann, N. (eds) (2012), Platon und die Mousiké. Tübingen. Köhnken, A. (2007), ‘Epinician Epigram’, in Bing, P. and Bruss. J. S. (eds), Brill’s Companion to Hellenistic Epigram. Leiden, 295 312. Koning, H. (2010), ‘Plato’s Hesiod: Not Plato’s Alone’, in Boys Stones, G. R. and Haubold, J. H. (eds), Plato and Hesiod. Oxford, 89 110. Konstan, D. (2005), ‘The Pleasures of the Ancient Texts or The Pleasure of Poetry from Plato to Plutarch’, Papers of The Langford Latin Seminar 12: 1 17. Konstantakos, I. M. (2000), A Commentary on the Fragments of Eight Plays of Anti phanes, PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge. Konstantakos, I. M. (2003 4), ‘This Craft of Comic Verse: Greek Comic Poets on Comedy’, Archaiognosia 12: 11 54. Kosmetatou, E. (2003), ‘The Attalids of Pergamon’, in Erskine A. (ed.), A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford, 159 74. Kovacs, D. (2005), ‘Text and Transmission’, in Gregory, J. (ed.), A Companion to Greek Tragedy. Oxford, 379 93. Kowalzig, B. (2007), Singing for the Gods: Performances of Myth and Ritual in Archaic and Classical Greece. Oxford. Kowalzig, B. and Wilson, P. (2013), ‘Introduction: The World of the Dithyramb’, in Kowalzig, B. and Wilson, P. (eds), Dithyramb in Context. Oxford, 1 27. Krevans, N. (2011), ‘Callimachus’ Philology’, in Acosta Hughes, B., Lehnus, L. and Stephens, S. (eds), Brill’s Companion to Callimachus. Leiden, 118 33. Krummen, E. (1990), Pyrsos Hymnon: Festliche Gegenwart und mythisch rituelle Tradition als Voraussetzung einer Pindarinterpretation (Isthmie 5, Pythie 5, Olympie 1 und 3). Berlin. Kugelmeier, C. (1996), Reflexe früher und zeitgenössischer Lyrik in der alten attischen Komödie. Stuttgart. Kurke, L. (1996), ‘Pindar and the Prostitutes, or Reading Ancient “Pornography” ’, Arion 4.2: 49 75. Kyriakidi, N. (2007), Aristophanes und Eupolis: Zur Geschichte einer dichterischen Rivalität. Berlin. Labarbe, J. (1968), ‘Une Épigramme sur les neuf Lyriques Grecs’, L’Antiquite Classique 37.2: 449 66. Laird, A. (2006), ‘The Value of Ancient Literary Criticism’, in Laird, A. (ed.), Oxford Readings in Classical Studies: Ancient Literary Criticism. Oxford, 1 36. Lamari, A. (2015), ‘Aeschylus and the Beginning of Tragic Reperformances’, Trends in Classics 7.2: 189 206. Lardinois, A. (1996), ‘Who Sang Sappho’s Songs?’, in Greene, E. (ed.), Reading Sappho: Contemporary Approaches. Berkeley CA, 150 72. Lattimore, R. (1939), ‘The Wise Adviser in Herodotus’, CPh 34.1: 24 35. Lauter, P. (2005), ‘Canon Theory and Emergent Practice,’ Canons and Contents (1991), in Morrissey, L. (ed.), Debating the Canon: A Reader from Addison to Nafisi. Basingstoke, 177 85.

Bibliography

307

Ledbetter, G. M. (2003), Poetics before Plato: Interpretation and Authority in Early Greek Theories of Poetry. Princeton NJ. Lefkowitz, M. R. (1969), ‘Bacchylides’ Ode 5: Imitation and Originality’, HSPh 73: 45 96. Lefkowitz, M. R. (2012), The Lives of the Greek Poets, 2nd edn. London. Leo, F. (1901), Die griechisch römische Biographie nach ihrer litterarischen Form. Leipzig. Leo, F. (1960), ‘Satyros Βίος Εὐριπίδου’, in Fränkel, E. (ed.), Ausgewählte kleine Schriften Vol. 2: Zur römischen Literatur der Kaiserzeit. Zur griechischen Literatur. Rede zur Säcularfeier Karl Lachmanns. Rome, 365 83. Lerner, J. D. (2003), ‘The Ai Khanoum Philosophical Papyrus’, ZPE 142: 45 51. Leszl, W. G. (2004), ‘Plato’s Attitude to Poetry and the Fine Arts, and the Origins of Criticism. Part I’, EPlaton 1: 113 97. Leszl, W. G. (2006), ‘Plato’s Attitude to Poetry and the Fine Arts, and the Origins of Aesthetics. Part III’, EPlaton 3: 245 336. LeVen, P. A. (2013), ‘Aristotle’s Hymn to Virtue and Funerary Inscriptions’, in Liddel, P. and Low, P. (eds), Inscriptions and their Uses in Greek and Latin Literature. Oxford, 271 87. LeVen, P. (2014), The Many Headed Muse: Tradition and Innovation in Late Classical Greek Lyric Poetry. Cambridge. Levin, D. N. (1960), ‘Croesus as an Ideal Tragic Hero’, CB 36.3: 33 4. Levin, S. B. (2001), The Ancient Quarrel between Poetry and Philosophy Revisited: Plato and the Greek Literary Tradition. Oxford. Lewis, S. (1996), News and Society in the Greek Polis. London. Liberman, G. (2016), ‘Some Thoughts on the Symposiastic Catena, Aisakos, and Skolia’, in Cazzato, V., Obbink, D. and Prodi, E. E. (eds), The Cup of Song: Studies on Poetry and the Symposion. Oxford, 42 62. Lindsay, H. (1997), ‘Strabo on Apellicon’s Library’, RhM 140.3/4: 290 8. Lloyd Jones, H. (1984), ‘Pindar and the After Life’, in Gerber, D. and Hurst, A. (eds), Pindare: Huit exposés suivis de discussions. Entretiens sur l’Antiquité classique 31. Geneva, 245 83. Lobel, E. (1956), ‘2368. Commentary on Bacchylides?, Dithyrambs or Paeans’, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 23: 51 4. Lobel, E. (1961), ‘2438. Life of Pindar’, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 26: 1 7. Loscalzo, D. (2003), La parola inestinguibile: studi sull’epinicio pindarico. Rome. Lowe, N. J. (1993), ‘Aristophanes’ Books’, Annals of Scholarship 10.1: 63 93. Lowe, N. J. (2007a), Comedy. Cambridge. Lowe, N. J. (2007b), ‘Epinikian Eidography’, in Hornblower, S. and Morgan, K. (eds), Pindar’s Poetry, Patrons, and Festivals: From Archaic Greece to the Roman Empire. Oxford, 167 76. Lowe, N. J. (2013), ‘Comedy and the Pleiad: Alexandrian Tragedians and the Birth of Comic Scholarship’, in Bakola, E., Prauscello, L. and Telò, M. (eds), Greek Comedy and the Discourse of Genres. Cambridge, 343 56. Lynch, J. P. (1972), Aristotle’s School: A Study of a Greek Educational Institution. Berkeley CA. Lyne, R. O. A. M. (2005), ‘Horace Book 1 and the Alexandrian Edition of Alcaeus’, CQ  55.2: 542 58.

308

Bibliography

MacDowell, D. M. (1978), The Law in Classical Athens. Ithaca NY. MacDowell, D. M. (1993), ‘Foreign Birth and Athenian Citizenship in Aristophanes’, in Sommerstein, A., Halliwell, S., Henderson, J. and Zimmermann, B. (eds), in Tragedy, Comedy and the Polis: Papers from the Greek Drama Conference, Notting ham, 18 20 July 1990. Bari, 359 71. Mackie, J. (ed.) (2004), Oral Performance and its Context. Leiden. MacLeod, R. (2000), The Library of Alexandria: Centre of Learning in the Ancient World. London. Maden, W. (1990), Die Psaumis Oden Pindars (O.4 und O.5): Ein Kommentar. Innsbruck. Maehler, H. (1982), Die Lieder des Bakchylides: Teil 1, Die Siegeslieder: 1, Editions des Textes mit Einleitung und Übersetzung; 2, Kommentar. Leiden. Maehler, H. (1997), Die Lieder des Bakchylides: Teil 2, Die Dithyramben und Frag mente. Leiden. Maehler, H. (2004a), ‘Alexandria, the Mouseion, and Cultural Identity’, in Hirst, A. and Silk, M. (eds), Alexandria, Real and Imagined. Aldershot, 1 14. Maehler, H. (2004b), Bacchylides: A Selection. Cambridge. Marincola, J. (1997), Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography. Cambridge. Marincola, J. (2006), ‘Herodotus and the Poetry of the Past’, in Dewald, C. and Marincola, J. (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus. Cambridge, 13 28. Marshall, C. W. (2004), ‘Alcestis and the Ancient Rehearsal Process (P.Oxy.4546)’, Arion 11.3: 27 45. Martano, A. (2012), ‘Chamaeleon of Heraclea: The Sources, Text, and Translation’, in Martano, A., Matelli, E. and Mirhady, D. (eds), Praxiphanes of Mytilene and Chamaeleon of Heraclea: Text, Translation, and Discussion. RUSCH IX. New Bruns wick NJ, 157 228. Martin, R. P. (2009), ‘Read on Arrival’, in Hunter, R. and Rutherford, I. (eds), Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture: Travel, Locality, and Panhellenism. Cambridge, 80 104. Martindale, C. (1993), Redeeming the Text: Latin Poetry and the Hermeneutics of Reception. Cambridge. Martindale, C. (2006), ‘Introduction. Thinking through Reception’, in Martindale, C. and Thomas, R. F. (eds), Classics and the Uses of Reception. Oxford, 1 13. Marušič, J. (2011), ‘Poets and Mimesis in the Republic’, in Destrée, P. and Herrmann, F. G. (ed.), Plato and the Poets. Leiden, 217 40. Mathiesen, Th. J. (1999) Apollo’s Lyre: Greek Music and Music Theory in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Lincoln NE. Matthews, G. (1997), ‘Aristophanes’ “High” Lyrics Reconsidered’, Maia 49: 1 42. McCoy, M. B. (1999), ‘Socrates on Simonides: The Use of Poetry in Socratic and Platonic Rhetoric’, Philosophy and Rhetoric 31: 349 67. McGibbon, D. (1964), ‘Metempsychosis in Pindar’, Phronesis 9.1: 5 11. Medda, E., Mirto, M. S., and Pattoni, M. P. (eds) (2006), ΚΟΜΩΙΔΟΤΡΑΓΩΔΙΑ: intersezioni del tragico e del comico nel teatro del V secolo a.C. Pisa. Meiggs, R. (1972), The Athenian Empire. Oxford. Merkelbach, R. (1973), ‘Der Theseus des Bakchylides (Gedicht für ein attisches Ephebenfest)’, ZPE 12: 52 62.

Bibliography

309

Miles, S. N. (2009), Strattis, Comedy, and Tragedy, PhD thesis, University of Nottingham. Mills, S. (1997), Theseus, Tragedy and the Athenian Empire. Oxford. Missiou, A. (2011), Literacy and Democracy in Fifth century Athens. Cambridge. Mitscherling, J. (2005), ‘Plato’s Misquotations of the Poets’, CQ  55.1: 295 8. Moes, M. (1996), ‘Mimetic Irony and Plato’s Defence of Poetry in the Republic’, JNStud 5.1: 43 74. Molyneux, J. H. (1992), Simonides: A Historical Study. Wanconda IL. Momigliano, A. (1993), The Development of Greek Biography. Cambridge MA. Montana, F. (2015), ‘Hellenistic Scholarship’, in Montanari, F., Matthaios, F. S. and Rengakos, A. (eds), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship. Vol. 1: History; Disciplinary Profiles. Leiden, 60 183. Montanari, F. S. (1998a), Omero: Gli Aedi, i Poemi, gli Interpreti. Scandisci. Montanari, F. S. (1998b), ‘Zenodotus, Aristarchus and the Ekdosis of Homer’, in Most, G. W. (ed.), Editing Texts/Texte edieren. Göttingen, 1 21. Montanari, F. S. (2000), ‘Demetrius of Phalerum on Literature’, in Fortenbaugh, W. W. and Schütrumpf, E. (eds), Demetrius of Phalerum: Text, Translation, and Discussion. RUSCH IX. New Brunswick NJ, 391 411. Montanari, F. S. (2012), ‘The Peripatos on Literature. Interpretation, Use and Abuse’, in Martano, A., Matelli. E. and Mirhady, D. (eds), Praxiphanes of Mytilene and Chamaeleon of Heraclea. RUSCH XVII. New Brunswick NJ, 339 58. Montanari, F. S., Matthaios, F. S., and Rengakos, A. (2015), ‘Preface’, in Montanari, F., Matthaios, F. S. and Rengakos, A. (eds), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship. Vol. 1: History; Disciplinary Profiles. Leiden, ix xv. Moore, C. (2014), ‘Pindar’s Charioteer in Plato’s Phaedrus (227b9 10)’, CQ  64.2: 525 32. Moretti, L. (1957), Olympionikai, i vincitori negli antichi agoni olimpici. Rome. Morgan, C. (2007), ‘Debating Patronage: The case of Argos and Corinth’, in Horn blower, S. and Morgan, C. (eds), Pindar’s Patrons, Poetry, and Festivals: From Archaic Greece to the Roman Empire. Oxford, 212 63. Morgan, K. A. (1993), ‘Pindar the Professional and the Rhetoric of the ΚΩΜΟΣ’, CPh 88.1: 1 15. Morgan, K. A. (2012), ‘A Prolegomenon to Performance in the West’, in Bosher, K. (ed.), Theater outside Athens: Drama in Greek Sicily and South Italy. Cambridge, 35 55. Morgan, K. A. (2015), Pindar and the Construction of Syracusan Monarchy in the Fifth Century .. Oxford. Morgan, T. (1998), Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman World. Cambridge. Morrison, A. D. (2007), Performances and Audiences in Pindar’s Sicilian Victory Odes. BICS Supplement 95. London. Morrison, A. D. (2011), ‘Pindar and the Aeginetan Patrai: Pindar’s Intersecting Audiences’, in Athanassaki, L. and Bowie, E. (eds), Archaic and Classical Choral Song: Performance, Politics and Dissemination. Trends in Classics Suppl. Vol. 10. Berlin, 311 35. Morrison, A. D. (2012), ‘Performance, Re performance, and Pindar’s Audiences’, in Agócs, P., Carey, C. and Rawles R. (eds), Reading the Victory Ode. Cambridge, 111 33. Morrissey, L. (ed.) (2005), Debating the Canon: A Reader from Addison to Nafisi. Basingstoke.

310

Bibliography

Moss, J. (1992), ‘What is Imitative Poetry and why is it bad?’, in Kraut, R. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Plato. Cambridge, 415 44. Most, G. W. (1994), ‘Simonides’ Ode to Scopas in Contexts’, in de Jong, I. F. and Sullivan, J. P. (eds), Modern Critical Theory and Classical Literature. Leiden, 127 52. Most, G. W. (2000), ‘Generating Genres: The Idea of the Tragic’, in Depew, M. and Obbink, D. (eds), Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society. Cambridge, 15 35. Muecke, F. (1982), ‘A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Woman’, CQ  32.1: 41 55. Müller, D. (1974), ‘Die Verspottung der metaphorischen Ausdrucksweise durch Aris tophanes’, in Reinhardt, U. and Sallmann, K. (eds), Musa Iocosa: Arbeiten über Humor und Witz, Komik und Komödie der Antike: Andreas Thierfelder zum sieb zigsten Geburtstag am 15. Juni 1973. Hildesheim, 29 41. Murphy, J. J. (1965), Quintilian: On the Early Education of the Citizen Orator. New York. Murray, P. (1992), ‘Inspiration and Mimesis in Plato’, in Barker, A. and Warner, M. (eds), The Language of the Cave. Edmonton AB, 27 46. Murray, P. (1996), Plato on Poetry: Ion; Republic 376e 398b9; Republic 595 608b10. Cambridge. Murray, P. (2002), ‘Plato’s Muses: The Goddesses that Endure’, in Spentzou, F. and Fowler, D. (eds), Cultivating the Muse: Struggles for Power and Inspiration in Classical Literature. Oxford, 29 46. Naddaff, R. A. (2002), Exiling the Poets: The Production of Censorship in Plato’s Republic. Chicago. Nagy, G. (1990), Pindar’s Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past. Baltimore MD. Negri, M. (2004), Pindaro ad Alessandria: Le edizioni e gli editori. Brescia. Neri, C. (2004), La Lirica Greca: Temi e Testi. Rome. Nervegna, S. (2007), ‘Staging Scenes or Plays? Theatrical Revivals of “Old” Greek Drama in Antiquity’, ZPE 162: 14 42. Nervegna, S. (2013), Menander in Antiquity: The Contexts of Reception. Cambridge. Nicolai, R. (1992), La storiografia nell’educazione antica. Pisa. Nicolai, R. (2014), ‘The Canon and its Boundaries’, in Colesanti, G. and Giordano, M. (eds), Submerged Literature in Ancient Greek Culture: An Introduction. Berlin, 33 45. Nightingale, A. W. (1995), Genres in Dialogue: Plato and the Construct of Philosophy. Cambridge. Nobili, C. (2014), ‘Performances of Girls at the Spartan Festival of the Hyakintia’, in Moraw, S. and Keiburg, A. (eds), Mädchen im Altertum/Girls in Antiquity. Münster, 135 48. Noussia Fantuzzi, M. (2010), Solon the Athenian: The Poetic Fragments. Leiden. Nünlist, R. (2015), ‘Poetics and Literary Criticism in the Framework of Ancient Greek Scholarship’, in Montanari, F., Matthaios, F. S. and Rengakos, A. (eds), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship. Vol. 2: Between Theory and Practice. Leiden, 706 55. O’Higgins, L. (2003), Women and Humor in Classical Greece. Cambridge. Obbink, D. (2001a), ‘4546. Euripides, Alcestis 344 82 with Omissions’, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 67: 19 22.

Bibliography

311

Obbink, D. (2001b), ‘The Genre of Plataea: Generic Unity in the New Simonides’, in Boedeker, D. and Sider, D. (eds), The New Simonides: Contexts of Praise and Desire. Oxford, 65 85. Olson, S. D. (2007), Broken Laughter: Select Fragments of Greek Comedy. Oxford. Olson, S. D. (2014), Eupolis frr.326 497: Translation and Commentary. Fragmenta Comica 8.3. Heidelberg. Olson, S. D. (2016), Eupolis Heilotes Chrysoun Genos ( frr.147 325). Fragmenta Comica 8.2. Heidelberg. Ostwald, M. (1965), ‘Pindar, Nomos, and Heracles: (Pindar, frg. 169 [Snell²]+POxy. No. 2450, frg. 1)’, HSPh 69: 109 38. Page, D. L. (1934), Actors’ Interpolations in Greek Tragedy: Studied with Special Reference to Euripides’ Iphigeneia in Aulis. Oxford. Page, D. L. (1951), ‘Simonidea’, JHS 71: 133 47. Page, D. L. (1953), Corinna. London. Page, D. L. (1955), Sappho and Alcaeus. Oxford. Page, D. L. (1962), ‘An early tragedy on the fall of Croesus’, PCPS 188: 47 9. Page, D. L. (1963), ‘2506. Comment on Lyric Poems’, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 29: 1 48. Palladini, L. P. (2013), Aeschylus at Gela: An Integrated Approach. Alessandria. Palumbo Stracca, B. M. (1993), ‘Corinna e il suo pubblico’, Pretagostini, R. (ed.), Tradizione e innovazione nella cultura greca da Omero all’ età ellenistica: Scritti in onoredi Bruno Gentili, 3 vols. Rome, ii 403 12. Parker, L. P. E. (1997), The Songs of Aristophanes. Oxford. Pavlou, M. (2012), ‘Bacchylides 17: Singing and Usurping the Paean’, GRBS 52.4: 510 39. Pavlou, M. (2015), ‘Aegina, Epinician Poetry, and the Poetics of Conflict’, Phoenix 69.1/2: 1 23. Payne, M. (2006), ‘On Being Vatic: Pindar, Pragmatism, and Historicism’, AJPh 127.2: 159 84. Pébarthe, C. (2000), ‘Fiscalité, empire athénien et écriture: Retour sur les causes de la guerre du Péloponnèse’, ZPE 129: 47 76. Pedley, J. G. (1972), Ancient Literary Sources on Sardis. Cambridge MA. Pellicia, H. (2003), ‘Two Points about Rhapsodes’, in Finkelberg, M. and Stroumsa, G. G. (eds), Homer, the Bible, and Beyond: Literary and Religious Canons in the Ancient World. Leiden, 97 116. Pelliccia, H. (2009), ‘Simonides, Pindar and Bacchylides’, in Budelmann, F. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Lyric. Cambridge, 240 62. Pelling, C. (2006), ‘Educating Croesus: Talking and Learning in Herodotus’ Lydian Logos’, CA 25.1: 141 77. Pelosi, F. (2010), Plato on Music, Soul and Body. Cambridge. Pender, E. E. (2007a), ‘Poetic Allusion in Plato’s Timaeus and Phaedrus’, GFA 10: 51 87. Pender, E. E. (2007b), ‘Sappho and Anacreon in Plato’s Phaedrus’, LICS 6.4: 1 57. Peponi, A. E. (2012), Frontiers of Pleasure: Models of Aesthetic Response in Archaic and Classical Greek Thought. Oxford. Peponi, A. E. (2013a), ‘Introduction’, in Peponi, A. E. (ed.), Performance and Culture in the Laws. Cambridge, 1 12.

312

Bibliography

Peponi, An. E. (2013b), ‘Theorizing the Chorus in Greece’, in Billings, J., Budelmann, F. and Macintosh, F. (eds), Choruses, Ancient and Modern. Oxford, 15 34. Peppas Delmousou, D. (1971), ‘Das Akropolis Epigramm IG I² 673’, MDAI(A) 86: 55 66. Peradotto, J. (1993), ‘Interrogating the Canon, Deposing the Tyrannus’, Annals of Scholarship 10.1: 85 109. Perrotta, G. (2007), Polinnia: Poesia Greca Arcaica, 3rd edn edited by B. Gentili and C. Catenacci. Messina. Petraki, Z. (2011), The Poetics of Philosophical Language: Plato, Poets and Presocratics in the Republic. Berlin. Petrovic, A. (2007), Kommentar zu den simonideischen Versinschriften. Leiden. Petrovic, A. (2009), ‘Epigrammatic Contests, Poeti Vaganti and Local History’, in Hunter, R. and Rutherford, I. (eds), Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture. Cambridge, 195 216. Pettersson, M. (1992), Cults of Apollo at Sparta: The Hyakinthia, the Gymnopaidia and the Karneia. Stockholm. Pfeiffer, R. (1968), History of Classical Scholarship: From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age. Oxford. Pfeijffer, I. L. (1994), ‘The Image of the Eagle in Pindar and Bacchylides’, CPh 89: 305 17. Phillips, T. (2016), Pindar’s Library: Performance Poetry and Material Texts. Oxford. Pickard Cambridge, A. (1962), Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy. 2nd edn, rev. T.B. L. Webster. Oxford. Pickard Cambridge, A. (1968), The Dramatic Festivals of Athens, 2nd edn, rev. J. Gould and D.M. Lewis. Oxford. Pieper, G. W. (1972), ‘Conflict of Character in Bacchylides’ Ode 17’, TAPhA 103: 395 404. Pinto, P. M. (2013), ‘Men and Books in Fourth Century  Athens’, in König, J., Oikonomopoulou, K. and Woolf, G. (eds), Ancient Libraries. Cambridge, 85 95. Pirrotta, S. (2009), Plato comicus: Die fragmentarischen Komödien: Ein Kommentar. Studia Comica 1. Berlin. Platter, C. (2007), Aristophanes and the Carnival of Genres. Baltimore MD. Platthy, J. (1968), Sources on the Earliest Greek Libraries with the Testimonia. Amsterdam. Podlecki, A. J. (1969), ‘The Peripatetics as Literary Critics’, Phoenix 23.1: 114 37. Pöhlmann, E. (1994), Einführung in die Überlieferungsgeschichte und in die Textkritik der antiken Literatur. Darmstadt. Pölmann, E. (2011), ‘Aristophanes and the “New Music” ’, in Yatromanolakis, D. (ed.), Music and Cultural Politics in Greek and Chinese Societies. Vol. 1: Antiquity. Cambridge MA, 29 64. Porro, A. (2009), ‘Forms and Genres of Alexandrian Exegesis on Lyric Poets’, in Montanari, F. and Perrone, S. (eds), Fragments of the Past: Ancient Scholarship and Greek Papyri. Berlin, 183 202. Porter, J. I. (2006), ‘Feeling Classical: Classicism and Ancient Literary Criticism’, in Porter, J. I. (ed.), Classical Pasts: The Classical Traditions of Greece and Rome. Princeton, 301 52.

Bibliography

313

Porter, J. I. (2007), ‘Lasus of Hermione, Pindar and the Riddle of S’, CQ  57.1: 1 21. Porter, J. I. (2010), The Origins of Aesthetic Thought in Ancient Greece: Matter, Sensation, and Experience. Cambridge. Potts, D. T. (2000), ‘Before Alexandria: Libraries in the Ancient Near East’, in MacLeod, R. (ed.), The Library of Alexandria: Centre of Learning in the Ancient World. London, 19 33. Power, T. (2012), ‘Aristoxenus and the “Neoclassicists” ’, in Huffman, C. A. (ed.), Aristoxenus of Tarentum: Discussion. RUSCH XVII. New Brunswick NJ, 129 54. Prauscello, L. (2006), ‘Looking For the “Other” Gnesippus: Some Notes on Eupolis Fragment 148 K A’, CPh 101.1: 52 66. Prauscello, L. (2011), ‘Patterns of Chorality in Plato’s Laws’ in Yatromanolakis, D. (ed.), Music and Cultural Politics in Greek and Chinese Societies. Vol. 1: Antiquity. Cambridge MA, 133 58. Prauscello, L. (2013a), ‘Choral Persuasions in Plato’s Laws’, in Gagné, R. and Govers Hopman, M. (eds), Choral Mediations in Greek Tragedy. Cambridge, 257 77. Prauscello, L. (2013b), ‘Comedy and Comic Discourse in Plato’s Laws’, in Bakola, E., Prauscello, L. and Telò, M. (eds), Greek Comedy and the Discourse of Genres. Cambridge, 317 42 Prauscello, L. (2013c), ‘Demeter and Dionysos in the Sixth Century Argolid: Lasos of Hermione, the Cult of Demeter Chthonia, and the Origins of Dithyramb’, in Kowalzig, B. and Wilson, P. (eds), Dithyramb in Context. Cambridge, 76 92. Prauscello, L. (2014), Performing Citizenship in Plato’s Laws. Cambridge. Price, S. D. (1990), ‘Anacreontic Vases Reconsidered’, GRBS 31.2: 133 75. Pritchard, D. (2004), ‘Kleisthenes, Participation, and the Dithyrambic Contests of Late Archaic and Classical Athens’, Phoenix 58.3/4: 208 28. Privitera, G. A. (1965), Laso di Ermione nella cultura ateniese e nella tradizione storiografica. Rome. Pütz, B. (2007), The Symposium and Komos in Aristophanes. Oxford. Radermacher, L. (ed.) (1959), Quintilianus Institutionis Oratoriae Libri XII, Parte I II, editio stereotypa correctior, addenda et corrigenda collegit et adiecit V. Buchheit. Leipzig. Rau, P. (1967), Paratragodia: Untersuchung einer komischen Form des Aristophanes. Munich. Rawles, R. J. (2013), ‘Aristophanes’ Simonides: Lyric Models for Praise’, in Bakola, E., Prauscello, L. and Telò, M. (eds), Greek Comedy and the Discourse of Genres. Cambridge, 175 201. Redfield, J. (1990), ‘Drama and Community: Aristophanes and Some of his Rivals’, in Winkler, J. J. and Zeitlin, F. I. (eds), Nothing to do with Dionysos? Athenian Drama in its Social Context. Princeton NJ, 314 35. Reichel, M. (2000), ‘Zum literarischen und historischen Hintergrund von Bakchylides 3’, in Bagordo, A. and Zimmermann, B. (eds), Bakchylides: 100 Jahre nach seiner Wiederentdeckung. Munich, 147 59. Reitzenstein, R. (1893), Epigramm und Skolion: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der alex andrinischen Dichtung. Giessen. Revermann, M. (2006a), Comic Business: Theatricality, Dramatic Technique and Performance Contexts of Aristophanic Comedy. Oxford.

314

Bibliography

Revermann, M. (2006b), ‘The Competence of Theatre Audiences in Fifth and Fourth Century Athens’, JHS 126: 99 124. Reynolds, L. D. and Wilson, N. G. (2013), Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Trasmission of Greek and Latin Literature. Oxford. Richardson Lear, G. (2011), ‘Mimesis and Psychological Change in Republic III’, in Destrée, P. and Herrmann, F. G. (eds.), Plato and the Poets. Leiden, 195 216. Robb, K. (1994), Literacy and Paideia in Ancient Greece. New York. Robson, E. (2013), ‘Reading the Libraries of Assyria and Babylonia’, in König, J., Oikonomopoulou, K. and Woolf, G. (eds), Ancient Libraries. Cambridge, 38 56. Robson, J. (2017) ‘Humouring the Masses: The Theatre Audience and Highs and Lows of Aristophanic Comedy’, in Grig, L. (ed.), Popular Culture in the Ancient World. Cambridge, 66 87. Rodriguez Noriega Guillen, L. (2012), ‘On Epicharmus’ Literary and Philosophical Background’, in Bosher, K. (ed.), Theater outside Athens: Drama in Greek Sicily and South Italy. Cambridge, 76 96. Rose, H. J. (1932), ‘Stesichoros and the Rhadine Fragment’, CQ 26.2: 88 92. Rose, M. A. (1993), Parody: Ancient, Modern and Post Modern. Cambridge. Roselli, D. K. (2011), Theater of the People: Spectators and Society in Ancient Athens. Austin. Roselli, D. K. (2014), ‘Social Class’, in Revermann, M. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Comedy. Cambridge, 241 59. Rosen, R. (1988), Old Comedy and the Iambographic Tradition. Atlanta GA. Rosen, R. (1997), ‘Performance and Textuality in Aristophanes’ Clouds’, YJC 10.2: 397 421. Rosen, R. (2005), ‘Aristophanes, Old Comedy, and Greek Tragedy’, in Bushnell, R. (ed.), A Companion to Tragedy. Oxford, 251 68. Rosen, R. (2007), Making Mockery: The Poetics of Ancient Satire. Oxford. Rosen, R. (2010), ‘Aristophanes’, in Dobrov, G. W. (ed.), Brill’s Companion to the Study of Greek Comedy. Leiden, 227 78. Rösler, W. (1980), Dichter und Gruppe: Eine Untersuchung zu den Bedingungen und zur historischen Funktion früher griechischer Lyrik am Beispiel Alkaios. Munich. Ruffa, M. (2001), ‘La questione dell’ autenticità dell’ Olympica 5 di Pindaro’, in Cannatà Fera, M. and D’ Alessio, G. B. (eds), I lirici greci: forme della comunicazione e storia del testo. Messina, 27 35. Ruffell, I. (2002), ‘A Total Write off. Aristophanes, Cratinus, and the Rhetoric of Comic Competition’, CQ  52.1: 138 63. Russell, D. A. (1964), ‘Longinus’ On the Sublime. Oxford. Russo, J. (1999), ‘Stesichorus, Homer, and the Forms of Early Greek Epic’, in Kazazis, J. N. and Rengakos, A. (eds), Euphrosyne: Studies in Ancient Epic and its Legacy in Honor of Dimitris N. Maronitis. Stuttgart, 339 48. Rutherford, I. (1992), ‘Inventing the Canon: Hermogenes of Literature’, HSPh 94: 355 78. Rutherford, I. (1997), ‘Odes and Ends: Closure in Greek Lyric Poetry’, in Roberts, D., Dunn, F. and Fowler, D. (eds), Classical Closure: Reading the End in Greek and Latin Literature. Princeton NJ, 43 61.

Bibliography

315

Rutherford, I. (2001a), ‘The New Simonides: Towards a Commentary’, in Boedeker, D. and Sider, D. (eds), The New Simonides: Contexts of Praise and Desire. Oxford, 33 54. Rutherford, I. (2001b), Pindar’s Paeans: A Reading of the Fragments with a Survey of the Genre. Oxford. Rutherford, I. (2004), ‘Χορὸς εἷς ἐκ τῆσδε τῆς πόλεως: State Pilgrimage and Song Dance in Athens’, in Murray, P. and Wilson, P. (eds), Music and the Muses: The Culture of ‘Mousikē’ in the Classical Athenian City. Oxford, 67 90. Rutherford, I. (2013), State Pilgrims and Sacred Observers in Ancient Greece. A Study of Theōriā and Theōroi. Cambridge. Rutherford, R. B. (2012), Greek Tragic Style: Form, Language and Interpretation. Cambridge. Schlesier, R. (2013), ‘Symposion, Kult und frühgriechische Dichtung: Sappho im Kontext’, in Dally, O., Hölscher, T., Muth, S. and Schneider, R. M. (eds), Medien der Geschichte: Antikes Griechenland und Rome. Berlin, 75 107. Schmeling, G. (2011), A Commentary on the Satyrica of Petronius. With the collabor ation of A. Setaioli. Oxford. Schmid, W. (1959), ‘Die klassische Periode der griechischen Literatur. Die griechische Literatur vor der attischen Hegemonie’, in Schmid W. and Stehlin, O. (eds), Geschichte der griechischen Literatur. Band 1; Teil 1. Munich. Schmidt, D. A. (1987), ‘The Performance of Bacchylides Ode 5’, CQ  37.1: 20 3. Schmidt, D. A. (1990), ‘Bacchylides 17: Paean or Dithyramb?’, Hermes 118.1: 18 31. Schmidt, D. A. (1999), ‘An Unusual List from Keos: IG XII, 5, 603 and the Dating of Bakchylides’, JHS 119: 67 85. Schmidt, E. A. (1987), ‘Historische Typologie der Orientierungsfunktionen von Kanon in der griechischen und römischen Literatur’, in Assmann, A. and Assmann, J. (eds), Kanon und Zensur: Beiträge zur Archäologie der literarischen Kommunikation II. Munich, 246 58. Schorn, S. (2012a), ‘Aristoxenus’ Biographical Method’, in Huffman, C. A. (ed.), Aristoxenus of Tarentum: Discussion. RUSCH XVII. New Brunswick NJ, 177 221. Schorn, S. (2012b), ‘Chamaeleon: Biography and Literature Peri tou deina’, in Martano. A., Matelli, E. and Mirhady, D. (eds), Praxiphanes of Mytilene and Chamaeleon of Heraclea: Text, Translation, and Discussion. RUSCH XVIII. New Brunswick NJ, 411 44. Scodel, R. (2007), ‘Lycurgus and the Tragic Canon’, in Cooper, C. (eds), The Politics of Orality. Leiden, 129 54. Scott, D. (2006), Plato’s Meno. Cambridge. Scott, M. (2010), Delphi and Olympia: The Spatial Politics of Panhellenism in the Archaic and Classical Periods. Cambridge. Segal, C. (1971), ‘Croesus on the Pyre: Herodotus and Bacchylides’, Wiener Studien 84 N.F.5, 39 51 [repr. in Segal, C. (1988), Aglaia: The Poetry of Alcman, Sappho, Pindar, Bacchylides, and Corinna, Lanhman MD, 281 393]. Segal, C. (1998), ‘Pebbles in Golden Urns: The Date and Style of Corinna’, in Segal, C. (ed.), Aglaia: The Poetry of Alcman, Sappho, Pindar, Bacchylides, and Corinna. Lanham MD, 315 26.

316

Bibliography

Sens, A. (2007), ‘One Thing Leads (Back) to Another: Allusion and the Invention of Tradition in Hellenistic Epigrams’, in Bing, P. and Bruss, J. S. (eds), Brill’s Compan ion to Hellenistic Epigram. Leiden, 373 90. Shapiro, H. A. (1993), ‘Hipparchos and the Rhapsodes’, in Dougherty, C. and Kurke, L. (eds), Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece: Cult, Performance, Politics. Oxford, 92 107. Shapiro, H. A. (2012), Re fashioning Anakreon in Classical Athens. Munich. Sharples, R. W. (1985), Plato: Meno. Warminster. Sharples, R. W. (1999), ‘The Peripatetic School’, in Furley, D. (ed.), Routledge History of Philosophy. Vol. 2: From Aristotle to Augustine. London, 147 87. Sickinger, J. P. (1999), Public Records and Archives in Classical Athens. Chapel Hill NC. Sider, D. (2010), ‘Greek Verse on a Vase by Douris’, Hesperia 79.4: 541 54. Sidwell, K. (1995), ‘Poetic Rivalry and the Caricature of Comic Poets: Cratinus’ Pytine and Aristophanes’ Wasps’, in Griffith, A. (ed.), Stage Directions: Essays in Ancient Drama in Honour of E. W. Handley. BICS Supplement 66. London, 56 80. Silk, M. (1980), ‘Aristophanes as a Lyric Poet’, YCIS 26: 99 151. Silk, M. (1993), ‘Aristophanic Paratragedy’, in Sommerstein, A., Halliwell, S., Hender son, J. and Zimmermann, B. (eds), in Tragedy, Comedy and the Polis: Papers from the Greek Drama Conference, Nottingham, 18 20 July 1990. Bari, 477 504. Silk, M. (2000), Aristophanes and the Definition of Comedy. Oxford. Silk, M. (2013), ‘The Greek Dramatic Genres: Theoretical Perspectives’, in Bakola, E., Prauscello, L. and Telò, M. (eds), Greek Comedy and the Discourse of Genres. Cambridge, 15 39. Simm, H. J. (1988a), ‘Einleitung. Literarischer Kanon und literarische Klassik’, in Simm, H. J. (ed.), Literarische Klassik. Frankfurt am Main, 7 41. Simm, H. J. (ed.) (1988b), Literarische Klassik. Frankfurt am Main. Slater, N. W. (1996), ‘Literacy and Old Comedy’, in Worthington, I. (ed.) Voice into Text: Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece. Leiden, 99 112. Slater, W. J. (1976), ‘Aristophanes of Byzantium on the Pinakes of Callimachus’, Phoenix 30.3: 234 41. Slings, S. R. (2000), ‘Literature in Athens, 566 520 ’, in Sascici Weerdenburg, H. (ed.), Peisistratos and the Tyranny: A Reappraisal of the Evidence. Amsterdam, 57 77. Smith, R. M. (1995), ‘A New Look at the Canon of the Ten Attic Orators’, Mnemosyne  , 48.1: 66 79. Smith, S. (1898), ‘Illustrations to Bacchylides’, JHS 18: 267 9. Snell, B. (ed.) (1961), Bacchylidis Carmina cum Fragmentis, Leipzig. Snell, B. (1973), ‘Gyges und Kroisos als Tragödien Figuren’, ZPE 12: 197 205. Snyder, J. M. (1974), ‘Aristophanes’ Agathon as Anacreon’, Hermes 102.2: 244 6. Snyder, J. M. (1989), The Woman and the Lyre: Women Writers in Classical Greece and Rome. Bristol. Sollenberger, M. G. (1992), ‘The Lives of the Peripatetics: An Analysis of the Contents and Structure of Diogenes Laertius’ “Vitae Philosophorum” Book 5’, ANRW Teil II, 36.6: 3793 879. Sommerstein, A. (2014), ‘The Politics of Greek Comedy’, in Revermann, M. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Comedy. Cambridge, 291 305.

Bibliography

317

Sonnabend, H. (2002), Geschichte der antiken Biographie: Von Isokrates bis zur Historia Augusta. Darmstadt. Stahl, H. P. (1968), ‘Learning through Suffering? Croesus’ Conversations in the History of Herodotus’, YCIS 24: 1 36. Stahl, H. P. (1975), ‘Herodots Gyges Tragoedie’, Hermes 96.3: 385 400. Staikos, K. Sp. (2004), The History of the Library in Western Civilization. Vol. 1: From Minos to Cleopatra, trans. T. Cullen. Athens. Stamatopoulou, Z. (2014), ‘Inscribing Performances in Pindar’s Olympian 6’, TAPhA 144.1: 1 17. Stanford, W. B. (ed.) (1963), Aristophanes: The Frogs, 2nd edn. London. Steffen, W. (1961), ‘Bacchylides’ Fifth Ode’, Eos 51: 11 20. Stehle, E. (1997), Performance and Gender in Ancient Greece: Nondramatic Poetry in its Setting. Princeton NJ. Steiner, D. (1994), The Tyrant’s Writ: Myths and Images of Writing in Ancient Greece. Princeton NJ. Stohn, G. (1993), ‘Zur Agathonszene in den “Thesmophoriazusen” des Aristophanes’, Hermes 121.2: 196 205. Swift, L. (2010), The Hidden Chorus: Echoes of Genre in Tragic Lyric. Oxford. Tanner, R. G. (2000), ‘Aristotle’s Works: The Possible Origins of the Alexandrian Collection’, in MacLeod, R. (ed.), The Library of Alexandria: Centre of Learning in the Ancient World. London, 79 91. Taplin, O. (1999), ‘Spreading the Word through Performance’, in Goldhill, S. and Osborne, R. (eds), Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy. Cambridge, 33 57. Taplin, O. (2012), ‘How was Athenian Tragedy Played in the Greek World?’, in Bosher, K. (ed.), Theater outside Athens: Drama in Greek Sicily and South Italy. Cambridge, 226 50. Tarrant, T. (1951), ‘Plato’s Use of Quotations and Other Illustrative Material’, CQ  1.1/2: 59 67. Taylor, A. E. (1929), Plato: The Man and his Work. London. Telò, M. (2010), ‘Embodying the Tragic Father(s): Autobiography and Intertextuality in Aristophanes’, ClAnt 29.2: 278 326. Thomas, R. (1989), Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens. Cambridge. Thomas, R. (1992), Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece. Cambridge. Thomas, R. (2000), Herodotus in Context: Ethnography, Science and the Art of Per suasion. Cambridge. Thomas, R. (2003), ‘Prose Performance Texts: Epideixis and Written Publication in the Late Fifth and Early Fourth Centuries’, in Yunis, H. (ed.), Written Texts and the Rise of Literate Culture in Ancient Greece. Cambridge, 162 88. Thomas, R. (2009), ‘Writing, Reading, Public and Private “Literacies”: Functional Literacy and Democratic Literacy in Greece’, in Johnsons, W. A. and Parker, H. N. (eds), Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome. Oxford, 13 45. Thomas, R. (2011), ‘ “And you, the Demos, Made an Uproar”: Performance, Mass Audiences and Text in the Athenian Democracy’, in Lardinois, A. P. M. H. and Blok, J. (eds), Sacred Words: Orality, Literacy and Religion. Leiden, 161 87. Todd, S. (1990), ‘The Use and Abuse of the Attic Orators’, G&R  , 37.2: 159 78. Todd, S. (1993), The Shape of Athenian Law. Oxford.

318

Bibliography

Too, Y. L. (2010), The Idea of the Library in the Ancient World. Oxford. Tribulato, O. (2010), ‘Literary Dialects’, in Bakker, E. J. (ed.), A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language. Chichester, 388 400. Tsitsiridis, S. (2010), ‘On Aristophanic Parody: The Parodic Techniques’, in Tsitsiridis, S. (ed.), Parachoregema: Studies on Ancient Theatre in Honour of Professor Gregory M. Sifakis. Heraklion, 359 82. Turner, E. G. (1952), Athenian Books in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries . London. Ucciardello, G. (2005), ‘Sulla tradizione del testo di Ibico’, in Grandolini, S. (ed.), Lirica e teatro in Grecia: Il testo e la sua ricezione. Perugia, 21 88. Uhlig, A. (2011), Script and Song in Pindar and Aeschylus, PhD Dissertation, Princeton University. Vetta, M. (1983), Poesia e Simposio nella Grecia Antica: Guida storica e critica. Rome. Webster, T. B. L. (1970), The Greek Chorus. London. Weçowski, M. (2014), The Rise of the Greek Aristocratic Banquet. Oxford. Werner, S. (2009), ‘Literacy Studies in Classics: The Last Twenty Years’, in Johnson, W. A. and Parker, H. N. (eds), Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome. Oxford, 333 62. West, M. L. (1970), ‘Corinna’, CQ  20.2: 277 87. West, M. L. (1990), ‘Dating Corinna’, CQ  40.2: 553 7. West, M. L. (1992), Ancient Greek Music. Oxford. West, M. L. (2001), Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad. Munich. West, M. L. (2005), ‘The New Sappho’, ZPE 151: 1 9. West, S. (1974), ‘Satyrus: Peripatetic or Alexandrian?’, GRBS 15.3: 279 87. West, S. (2007), ‘Herodotus Lyricorum Studiosus’, Palamedes 2: 109 30. Wilamowitz Moellendorff, U. von (1898), Bakchylides. Berlin. Wilamowitz Moellendorff, U. von (1900), Textgeschichte der griechischen Lyriker. Berlin. Wilamowitz Moellendorff, U. von (1907), Einleitung in der griechische Tragödie. Berlin. Wilamowitz Moellendorf, U. von (1919) Platon, 2 vols. I. Leben und Werke; II. Beilagen und Textkritik. Berlin. Wilkinson, C. L. (2013), The Lyric of Ibycus: Introduction, Text and Commentary. Berlin. Willi, A. (2012), ‘Challenging Authority: Epicharmus between Epic and Rhetoric’, in Bosher, K. (ed.), Theater outside Athens: Drama in Greek Sicily and South Italy. Cambridge, 56 75. Wilson, P. (2000a), The Athenian Institution of the Khoregia: The Chorus, the City and the Stage. Cambridge. Wilson, P. (2000b), ‘Powers of Horror and Laughter: The Great Age of Drama’, in Taplin, O. (ed.), Literature in the Greek and Roman Worlds. Oxford, 88 132. Wilson, P. (2003a), ‘The Politics of Dance: Dithyrambic Contests and Social Order in Ancient Greece’, in Phillip, D. and Pritchard, D. (eds), Sport and Festival in the Ancient Greek World. Swansea, 163 96. Wilson, P. (2003b), ‘The Sound of Cultural Conflict: Kritias and the Culture of Mousikē in Athens’, in Dougherty, C. and Kurke. L. (eds), The Cultures within Ancient Greek Culture: Contact, Conflict, Collaboration. Cambridge, 181 206.

Bibliography

319

Wilson, P. (2007), ‘Sicilian Choruses’, in Wilson, P. (ed.), The Greek Theatre and Festivals: Documentary Studies. Oxford, 351 77. Woodbury, L. (1976), ‘Aristophanes’ Frogs and Athenian Literacy: Ran. 52 53, 1114’, TAPhA 106: 349 57. Woolf, G. (2013), ‘Introduction: Approaching the Ancient Library’, in König, J., Oikonomopoulou, K. and Woolf, G. (eds), Ancient Libraries. Cambridge, 1 20. Wright, B. G. (2015), The Letter of Aristeas: ‘Aristeas to Philocrates’ or ‘On the Translation of the Law of the Jews’. Berlin. Wright, M. (2012), The Comedian as Critic: Greek Old Comedy and Poetics. London. Wright, M. (2013), ‘Comedy versus Tragedy in Wasps’, in Bakola, E., Prauscello, L. and Telò, M. (eds), Greek Comedy and the Discourse of Genres. Cambridge, 205 25. Yamagata, N. (2012), ‘Use of Homeric References in Plato and Xenophon’, CQ  62.1: 130 44. Yatromanolakis, D. (1999), ‘Alexandrian Sappho Revisited’, HSPh 99: 179 95. Yatromanolakis, D. (2007), Sappho in the Making: The Early Reception. Hellenic Studies 28. Washington DC. Yatromanolakis, D. (2009), ‘Alcaeus and Sappho’, in Budelmann, F. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Lyric. Cambridge, 204 26. Yunis, H. (2003a), ‘Introduction: Why Written Texts?’, in Yunis, H. (ed.), Written Texts and the Rise of Literate Culture in Ancient Greece. Cambridge, 1 14. Yunis, H. (ed.) (2003b), Written Texts and the Rise of Literate Culture in Ancient Greece. Cambridge. Yunis, H. (2011), Plato: Phaedrus. Cambridge. Zanker, G. (1987), Realism in Alexandrian Poetry: A Literature and its Audience. London. Zanker, G. (2004), Modes of Viewing in Hellenistic Poetry and Art. Madison WI. Zhmud, L. (2013), ‘Die Doxographische Tradition’, in Flashar, H., Bremer, D. and Rechenär, G. (eds), Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie: Die Philosophie der Antike. Bd. 1 Frühgriechische Philosophie. Basel, 150 74. Zimmermann, B. (1992), Dithyrambos: Geschichte einer Gattung. Göttingen. Zimmermann, B. (1993), ‘Das Lied der Polis: Zur Geschichte des Dithyrambos’, Sommerstein, A., Halliwell, S., Henderson, J. and Zimmermann, B. (eds), in Tragedy, Comedy and the Polis: Papers from the Greek Drama Conference, Nottingham, 18 20 July 1990. Bari, 39 54. Zogg, F. (2017), ‘Aristophanes‘ Komödien als Lesetexte’, Philologus 161.1: 1 18.

Index Locorum Aelian (ed. Dilts) Varia Historia (VH) 9.4.1 3: 34 Alcaeus fr.401B.a (ed. Voigt) 198 9 248 (PLF): 198 9 Alcman (PMG) fr.10(a).30 4: 29 fr.13: 29 Alexis (PCG ii) fr.140.1 8 (Linus): 181 2 Anacreon (PMG) fr.358: 155 6 fr.372: 156 7 fr.491: 34 Anthologia Palatina (AP) 6.313: 263 6 9.184: 1 4 9.571: 3 4 13.28: 54 5 Antiphanes (PCG ii) fr.85.2 5 (Diplasioi): 74 5 fr.189.1 5, 17 21 (Poiesis): 60 Antigenes (FGE) 1: 54 5 Antiphon 6.11: 49 51 Apollonius Marvelous Stories 40: 151 2 Aristeas (ed. Wendland) Ad Philocratem Epistula 9: 217 Aristomenes (PCG ii) fr. 9: 181 Aristophanes Birds (Av.) 915 48: 77 84 980 2: 177 9 1037: 182 1037 9: 177 8 1373 97: 276 7 1402 7: 49 50 Clouds (Nu.) 1353 73: 65 8 1355 6: 74, 91

Daitaleis (PCG iii.2) fr.232: 71 fr.233: 184 fr.234: 184 fr.235: 68 9 fr.255: 71 Frogs (Ra.) 52 3: 179 80 1114: 179 80 Peace (Pax) 697 9: 82 3 Pelargoi (PCG iii.2) fr.444: 74 5 Thesmophoriazusae (Th.) 159 67: 87 90 Wasps (V.) 1406 12: 84 6, 150 1 Aristotle Politics 1339a11 26: 141 1339b10 42: 141 1340a14 23: 141 1340b38f: 141 1341b10 18: 209 Aristoxenus (ed. Werhli²) fr.89: 142 3 fr.117: 151 2 fr.129: 143 Athenaeus (ed. Olson) Deipnosophistae 1.2c10 3a2: 70 1 1.3a3 b4: 220 1.21e4 f3: 147 8 3.85e10 f8: 168 9 4.164b4 c6: 181 2 8.338b: 149 51 9.375d10 f1: 157 11.503d: 74 5 12.533e8 534b: 156 8 12.553e 554b: 137 8 13.573c 574b: 158 61 13.599c4 d: 154 6 13.600f: 162 3 14.619d5 e5: 142 3 14.628d e: 165 14.639a: 136 14.656c9 e2: 148 9 15.678b c: 30 15.696a e9: 141

322

Index Locorum

Aulus Gellius Noctae Atticae 19.8.15: 19 Bacchylides (ed. Maehler) Epinicians B.3.25 6: 273 B.3.31 3: 273 B.3.35: 274 B.3.36 7: 273 B.3.49 50: 274 B.3.55 6: 274 B.3.61: 274 B 3.97 8: 196 B.5.10 12: 196 B.5.16 23: 277 8 B.5.37 49: 267 70 ‘Bacchylides’ (FGE) 2: 263 6 Callimachus (ed. Harder) Victoria Berenices fr.54.8 10: 270 fr. 54a.1 6 (novum): 271 Chamaeleon (ed. Werli²) fr.25: 162 fr.26 (Peri Sapphous): 154 6, 167 8 fr.30 (Peri Lasou): 149 51, 166 fr.31 (Peri Pindarou): 158 61 fr.33 (Peri Simonidou): 148 9 fr.36 (Peri Anakreontos): 156 7 fr.39 (Peri Aeschylou): 157 fr.41 (Peri Aeschylou): 147 8 fr.42: 165 (ed. Martano) fr.32: 168 Clearchus of Soli (ed. Werhli²) fr.25 (Erōtika): 137 8 fr.33 (Erōtika): 136 frr.86 8: 167 Clement of Alexandria Stromata 1.16.79: 184 3.14 17: 184 Crates of Mallos (ed. Broggiato) frr.82 4: 269 Demetrius of Phalerum (ed. Werhli²) fr.66: 217 Dicaearchus (ed. Werhli²) fr.88 (Peri Mousikōn Agōnōn): 138 9 fr.89 (Peri Mousikēs/ Peri Mousikōn Agōnōn): 139 40 fr.99: 168 9

Diodorus Sicilus 9.7.8 10: 8 11.48 9: 36 Diogenes Laertius Vitae Philosophorum 5.52.10 53.1: 217 19 5.62.7 11: 217 18 Dionysius Halicarnasseus De Imitatione 31.2.5 8: 9 10 De Lysia 2: 7 De Isocrate 18.2: 184 Dionysius Thrax Ars Grammatica §1 Περὶ Γραμματικῆς: 8 Epicrates (PCG v) fr.4 (Antilais): 72 3 Eupolis (PCG v) fr.148 (Heilotes): 70 2 fr.398: 70 1, 209 Galen (ed. Kühn) Commentaria II In Hippocratis Epidemiarum Γ XVII.i, p. 606: 225 6 XVII.i, p. 607: 226 8 Hephaestion (ed. Consbruch) De Signis 74.15 22: 234 n.61 74.11 14: 235 n.62 Heracleides Ponticus (ed. Werhli²) fr.6: 202 fr.60: 167 Hermippus of Smyrna fr.93 (ed. Werhli²): 145 IVA 1026 F55 (FGrHist): 145 Hermogenes On Ideas 2.11.196 9: 251 Herodotus 1.29 33: 272 3 1.86.1: 273 1.86.2: 273 4 1.87: 275 6 1.87.1: 273 1.87.2: 274 1.91: 273 2.135.6: 198 9 3.38: 123 4 3.121: 33 4 5.84 8: 275 6

Index Locorum 5.95: 198 9 7.6.3 4: 179

323

484b1 c3: 120 1 488b2 6: 122

Himerius (ed. Colonna) Orationes 29.26 8, p. 132: 34

Hipparchus [sp.] 228b4 c7: 47 8 228b c: 119

Horace Carmina I.1.29 36: 249 50 IV.2.1: 10 Isocrates 15.166: 51 [Longinus] De Sublimitate 33.5: 10 melica adespota (PMG) adesp. 953: 155 6, 167 Nicophon (PCG vii) 10.4: 181 Onesicritus (FGrHist) IIB 134 F38: 249 Pausanias 8.50.3: 147, 248

Ion 533a 534e: 127

Petronius Satyricon 2: 10 2.4: 12 with n.24 Philostratus Vitae Sophistarum 564 5: 251 Photius (ed. Henry) Bibliotheca cod.61, p. 20b25 7: 8 cod.71, p. 35b32 3: 7 Pindar (ed. Maehler) frr.105a b: 79 80 fr.105a.1: 79 80, 124 5 fr.122: 158 60 fr.133: 106 8, 128 fr.169a: 120 4, 128 Plato Apology (Ap.) 22b8 c6: 127 26d6 e5: 183 Charmides (Chrm.) 157e4 158a2: 119 20 Critias (Criti.) 113a b: 202 Euthydemus (Euth.) 304b3 4: 116 Gorgias (Grg.) 483e3: 122

Laws (Lg.) 659c9 660a: 96 664b3 c2: 96 682a3 5: 127 690b8: 116 690c1: 126 700a 701a3: 145, 208 9 715a1 2: 122 Meno (Men.) 76d3: 125 81a10 81d5: 106 8 86b: 108 99c3 d5: 127 Phaedo (Phd.) 97b c: 183 98b4 6: 183 Phaedrus (Phdr.) 227b9 10: 125 227c5 8: 183 228a6 b5: 183 235b6 c4: 108 9 235c4 d1: 111 236d2: 125 236d4 5: 126 237a7 b1: 114 243a2 b7: 109 11, 115 243a5 c4: 126 245a1 9: 112 13 248c8 e3: 113 14 259c6 d7: 114 15 Protagoras (Prt.) 316d2 8: 104 325d7 326a4: 184 338e6 348a: 115 17, 129 339a6 7: 116 339b4 6: 120 1 339b9 10: 116 343b5 343c5: 105 347c e: 115 Republic (R.) 329d8 331b7: 331a1 9: 129 331a2 3: 116 331d1 336a8: 331d3 336a8: 331e1 2: 117

128 9 17 116 7 129

324 Plato (cont.) 377d2 6: 184 394b10 c3: 100 1 586c4 5: 116 606e1 607a2: 99 607a2 8: 98 101 607d4 e2: 97 8 Symposium (Smp.) 177b4 7: 183 205c6: 114 Theages (Thg.) [sp.] 125d10 e3: 118 9 Plato Comicus (PCG vii) fr.138: 165 Plutarch Alcibiades 7.1 3/194d12 e3: 192 Alexander 8.3: 249 De Audiendo 46b2 6: 195 De garrulitate 504c5: 184 Pericles 27.3.4: 167 Philopoemen 11.1: 147, 248 Sulla 26.1 4: 219 Vitae Decem Oratorum 841f: 201 841f.15 16: 204 Polybius 4.20.8 9: 147, 248 Praxiphanes of Mytilene (ed. Wehrli²) fr.22b: 153 4 Proclus (ed. Diehl) Commentaria in Pl. Timaeus 21c21 4: 202 Quintilian Institutio Oratoria 10.1.54: 250 10.61: 10 10.1.61 4: 9 10 10.1.76: 251 Sappho (ed. Voigt) fr.122: 137 8 fr.250: 155 6, 167 Scholia to Aristophanes ΣTz Nu.518: 68

Index Locorum Σv Nu.529a b: 68 Σv Nu.1364c: 139 40 Scholia to Dionysius Trax Commentaria in D.T. Ars Grammatica (ed. Hilgard) p. 21.17 19: 10 Σ Londinense in Dionysum Thracem (ed. Hilgard) p. 448: 154 with n.58 p. 164: 154 with n.58 Scholia on Homer’s Iliad (ed. Erbse) 1.423 4: 228 with n.38 Scholia to Pindar (ed. Drachmann) De IX Lyricis: 4 5, 11 12, 25 6 Capitula f: 5 6 Olympians 2.29c.10: 36 2.29d.18 20: 36 inscr. a O. 5: 241 4 Pythians inscr. P. 2: 232 3 Simonides (FGE) 14: 158 61 ‘Simonides’ (FGE) 34: 265 6 Statius Silvae 5.3.153: 30 Stesichorus (PMG) 277: 142 (ed. Finglass) 326: 142 Strabo (ed. Radt) 13.1.38, p. 600C: 198 9 13.1.54, p. 608C: 216 13.1.54, p. 608 609C: 219 20 13.1.54, p. 609C: 219 with n.15 Suda (ed. Adler) α 1289 (s.v. Ἄλκμαν): 29 δ 333 (s.v. Δείναρχος): 8 ι 80 (s.v. Ἴβυκος): 236 7 κ 227 (s.v. Καλλίμαχος): 231 2 κ 2342 (s.v. Κράτης): 269 π 3125 (s.v. Πυθέας): 8 σ 643 (s.v. σκολιόν): 138 9 Theopompus (FGrHist) IIIB 115 F285: 158 61 Theopompus Comicus (PCG vii) fr.79: 177

Index Locorum Timaeus (FGrHist) IIIB 566 F10: 158 61 Tzetzes Prolegomena de Comoedia, Prooemium (ed. Koster) I 1 5: 224 n.34 I 7 12: 237 8 I 149 50: 237 8 II 1 4: 224 5, 233 II 4 8: 217 II 8 14: 230 1 II 31 3: 237 8 II 36 7: 238 Prolegomena ad Lycophron (ed. Scheer) p. 1, 23 4: 7 n.14 p. 2, 1 13: 7 n.14 p. 2, 11 14: 12 13 Vitruvius De architectura 7 praef. 4 7: 224 Xenophon Anabasis 7.5.12 14: 182 3 Memorabilia 1.6.14: 183 4.2.1: 183

PAPYRI

P.Köln. inv.21351+21376r: 240 1 P.Louvre E 3320.32: 234 n.61 E 3320.37: 235 n.62 E 3320.95: 234 n.61 P.Oxy. 13.1611, fr.6. col.i: 167 8 23.2368: 234 23.2368, col. i.9 20: 258 61 24.2389, fr.9 col.i: 29 29.2506: 235 6, 236 n.65 29.2506, fr.1(c) col.ii.1 20: 30 29.2506, fr.26 col.i.2 26: 168 31.2536: 238 n.69 54.3722: 236 n.65 67.4546: 194 INSCRIPTIONS

IG I³ 833 bis: 55 II² 2318 (Fasti): 55 6 Inscriptiones Pergamum 10: 267 9

325

General Index Alcaeus 14, 23, 25, 31, 44, 64 5, 73, 163, 201, 210, 255, 259, 261, 281 allusions in Aristophanes’ comedies 92 with n.93 allusions in Plato 125 with n.84 in Aristophanes’ Daitaleis 68 70 in Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae 87 91, 283 and comic symposia 68 70, 75 6 and connection with Sappho 27, 156 as effeminate and pederastic poet 89, 91 Hellenistic edition of 234 6, 260 n.14 and Hellenistic epigrams 266 in Herodotus 198 9 and the Lyric Canon 1 5, 9 10, 12 and the Peripatos 144 5, 168 9 poetic corpus of 27 8 quotations in Aristotle 169 n.86 and the symposium 27, 72, 76 Alcman 14, 23, 25, 44, 64, 73, 194, 205, 244 5, 255, 258 9, 269, 280 1 allusions in Aristophanes’ comedies 92 with n.94 allusions in Plato 125 with n.84 and comic symposia 70 2, 76 in Eupolis’ Heilotes 70 2, 283 and female choruses 29 30 Hellenistic edition and commentary 234 6, 234 n.61, 235 n.62 and Hellenistic epigrams 264 and the Lyric Canon 1 5, 9 10, 12 origin of 29, 163 and the Peripatos 162 4 poetic corpus of 29 30 Alexander of Amyntas 32, 38 40, 276 n.64 allusion, lyric 60, 63 4, 81, 84, 92 3, 92 with nn.92 4, 102 3, 117, 124 6, 125 with nn.84 6, 128, 130, 175, 198 200, 208, 210, 279 80 Anacreon 14, 23, 25, 32, 44 5, 57, 64 5, 73, 83, 100, 163 4, 208, 210, 255, 259, 261, 281, 284 allusions in Aristophanes’ comedies 92 allusions in Plato 125 in Aristophanes’ Daitaleis 68 70, 210 in Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae 87 90, 283 as court poet 34 5

and Clearchus’ Erōtika 136 as erotic, effeminate, and pederastic poet 88 90, 109, 136 7 Hellenistic edition and commentary 233 with n.58, 234 6, 236 n.65 and Hellenistic epigrams 264 and Hipparchus 35, 47 9 and the Lyric Canon 1 5, 9 10, 12 named in Plato 103 with n.33 Peri Anakreontos 144, 156 7 in the Peripatos 154 7, 167 in Plato’s Charmides 119 20 in Plato’s Phaedrus 108 9, 111 12, 126 7, 283 4 in Plato’s Theages [sp.] 118 19 poetic corpus of 48 9 and Polycrates of Samos 33 5 and the symposium 35, 72, 76 anecdote 33 4, 82, 130, 148 50, 164 7, 192, 195, 197, 224, 228 9 antiquarianism 133, 136, 250, 284 apophthegm 79 80, 124 archive: and collections of oracles 179 as repository of poetic texts and documents 56, 202 4, 211, 239, 285 archive, state: Metrōon 178 and texts of the tragedians 201, 204, 240 Aristarchus 232, 237, 256, 262, 269 70, 287 and canons 250 commentary on Archilochus 221 2, 238 commentary on Aristophanes’ comedies 223 disagreement with Callimachus on the Kassandra 234, 258 61 and Olympian 5 242 3 and Praxiphanes of Mytilene 153 4, 169 scholarly work on the lyric poets 234 6, 235 n.62, 236 n.65, 246 and Zenodotus of Ephesus 237 8 Aristophanes of Byzantium 224, 232 3, 237 8, 242, 245 6, 259, 262, 270 and canons 250 and the Pindaric corpus 243 4 scholarly work on comedy 222 3 scholarly work on iambus 222 scholarly work on the lyric poets 234 with n.61, 236 n.65, 286 7

General Index Aristoxenus 72, 135, 140 1, 144, 158, 166 7 and biographies 151 2 Bios Telestou 151 2 and musical aetion 142 3 and New Music 146 7 Peri Mousikēs 142 3 Symmikta Sympotika 136 Aristotle 144, 147, 154 with n.58, 164, 166, 171, 182 3, 205 6, 209 10, 215 16, 219, 235 6, 253, 280, 284 5 and anecdotes on Simonides 149 books of 219 20 influence on the Peripatetic project 145 Peripatetic methodology 152 3, 169 70 Politics and mousikē 141, 196 and quotations of lyric poets 169 with n.86 Attalus I of Pergamum 267 9, 288 audience, comic 69, 86, 93 and poetic knowledge 60 2 and recognition of lyric name/poet/poem 63 4, 73 5, 79 80, 82 4, 88 94, 283 social stratification of 75, 207 10 see also parody Bacchylides 14, 17, 23, 25, 32, 40, 42 3, 45, 50, 79, 83, 92, 100, 194, 196 7, 223, 235, 239 in the Alexandrian Library 234, 259, 261 allusion in Plato 125 and Athens 46, 52 3, 56 7, 282 disappearance in fifth and fourth century sources 255 6, 262, 279 80 and dithyrambic competitions 265, 282 echoes in Aristophanes’ Birds 276 9 Hellenistic edition of epinician corpus 256 7, 262 3 Hellenistic epigram in honour of 263 6 and the Kassandra 258 61 lack of Peripatetic treatise 162 4, 205, 261 2, 285 and the Lyric Canon 1 5, 9 10, 12 Ode 3 and Herodotus 272 6 Ode 5 and Callimachus’ Victoria Berenices 270 1 Ode 5 and the inscription in honour of Attalus from Pergamum 267 70 and Pergamum 17, 269 70 poetic commissions of 37 8, 40, 43 4, 282 and poetic pan Hellenism 36 7, 40, 43 testimonia on the arrangement of his corpus 257 8 biography 25, 84, 86, 104, 134 with n.9, 144 nn.29 30, 145 n.35, 151, 164, 201, 231, 275 book 192 in comedy 177 82, 192

327

private collection of 171, 180, 182 4, 192, 197, 199 200, 204 7, 210 11, 285 of prose 183 4 references in Plato 183 book market 16, 171, 173, 192, 197, 200, 205, 239, 286 book roll 174, 176, 178, 200, 223, 225 6, 230, 232, 240, 249, 253, 285 on vases 185 91 book trade 93, 176, 181 2, 204, 285 Callimachus 243 4, 261, 270, 287 disagreement with Aristarchus on the Kassandra 234, 258 9, 261 and the Pinakes 231 4, 243, 261 and Pythian 2 232 3 Victoria Berenices 270 1 canon: in antiquity 7 8 and care for the text 10 11 concept of 6 9, 11 and David Ruhnken 6 7 and education 251 2 modern literary canon 20 1 of orators 146, 251 as process of selection and exclusion 8 of tragedians 251 see also ‘the classic’ and ‘the classical’ and modern literary canons; Lyric Canon Canon, Lyric, see Lyric Canon canonization, lyric: and Athens’ elite intellectuals 210 11 and comedy 14 15, 146 complexity of 43 4 as form of reception 17 18 and genre 18 19 in the Hellenistic era 246 51, 253 and importance of Athens 23, 59 62 views of modern scholars on 247 8 see also canon and care for the text; Lyric Canon evidence in comedy caricature, comic 80 4, 89 91, 104, 208, 210, 282 3 Chamaeleon 235 6, 261 on Alcman 162 3 and authorship and authenticity of poems 167 9 and biographical anecdotes 147 51, 166 criticism of the changing character of mousikē 165 on Lasus and Simonides 167 Peripatetic treatises of 144 6, 152, 285 and poetic quotations in his treatises 154 61 treatise on comedy 222 3

328

General Index

chorus 28, 30, 46 8, 52, 54 5, 57, 77 8, 80, 86 7, 93, 96, 135 n.11, 148, 195 6, 261, 282 circulation 14 16, 192 3, 200 1, 204 5, 240, 285 of Bacchylides’ poems 280, 288 of books 176, 182 6 of epinician song 175 of laws and oracles 177 9 of lyric passages as proverbs 80, 125 6, 284 of material lyric texts 199, 206, 208 of melic songs in performance 191, 193 4, 196 7, 249 oral 175 of the story of Croesus on the pyre 275 6 of texts of tragedy 180 ‘the classic’ and ‘the classical’: concept of 19 20 and modern literary canons 20 as understood in the book 20 Clearchus of Soli 236 n.65 Erōtika 136 8, 161 and Lasus’ asigmatic hymn 166 7 and the New Music 165 6 commission, civic: and geographical distribution 40 1 and performances on Delos and Delphi 42 see also competition, dithyrambic commission, private: and geographical distribution of patrons 37 8 importance of 39 40 and wandering poets 33 5 competition, dithyrambic 40, 45, 51, 85 6 and Athenian identity 45 6 see also Bacchylides and dithyrambic competitions; Simonides and dithyrambic competitions conservatism 147, 246, 252, 262, 287; see also scholars, Alexandrian and influence by earlier lyric reception Corinna 11 13, 249 corpus 40, 56, 62, 82, 84, 96, 106, 109, 133 5, 164, 200, 224, 256, 264, 283 in the Alexandrian Library 234 9 of Bacchylides 40, 256, 259, 261 3, 269 72 and biographical interpretation 84, 91, 104 5, 265 6 and Hellenistic scholarship 231, 234 9, 246, 266 of the lyric poets 2, 8 11, 27, 32, 34, 38, 43, 161, 204, 246 of the Peripatos 133 4, 146 Pindaric 233, 238, 241 5 of the three tragedians 180, 226 8 see also book market; book roll; circulation; papyrus roll

Crates of Mallos 269 Crown Games: and need for victory odes 44 5 political meaning of 39 as statement of Greekness 39 40 culture, popular, see New Music and the masses Demetrius of Phalerum 145 6, 286 and Alexandrian Library 216 17, 223 5 Dicaearchus 135, 144 5, 235 6, 285 and evidence of the continuity of sympotic performances 139 40, 143 on the skolion 138 40 on textual matters 168 9 dithyramb 32, 40, 46 7, 51 3, 56, 73, 77, 101, 150, 249, 253, 257, 271, 279, 282, 288 and Lasus 85 6 see also Bacchylides and dithyrambic competitions; competition, dithyrambic; the Kassandra; Simonides and dithyrambic competitions doxography, see Peripatos and doxography Douris cup 185, 187 education 84, 192 and comic criticism 67 8, 70 and poetry 84, 88, 93, 95 6, 99, 101, 118, 141, 184 5 and school scenes on vases 185 7 see also canon and education Eliot, T. S. 19 enkōmion (encomium) 33, 40 n.43, 41, 160 1 in Plato’s Republic and Laws 98 101 eulogy 99 101; see also enkōmion (encomium) festival 28, 30 1, 39 40, 42, 48, 71, 135, 163 Dionysia 47, 49, 55 Hyakinthia 30 Panathenaea 47 Thargelia 49 festival culture, Athenian 14, 25, 40, 45 7 the Fasti 55 6 and earliest khoregic inscriptions for dithyrambic victories 53 5 selection of non Athenian lyric poets 51 3 tribal poetic competitions in 47 see also competition, dithyrambic; poet, dithyrambic Gadamer, Hans Georg 17, 19 20 genre, lyric 25, 76, 78, 81, 91, 101, 234 epinikion 35 n.33, 100, 242, 256 7, 257 n.6, 258, 282, 288 generic awareness in comedy and the Peripatos 76 7, 91, 135, 283

General Index hyporchēma 37, 40 nn.43 4, 77, 80, 165, 208, 258 paean 30, 40 with n.44 and n.46, 46, 141 2, 233 n.58, 234, 235 n.62, 257 61 partheneion 2, 29 30, 40 with n.44, 48, 78, 257 prosodion 40 with n.44, 92 n.95, 258 see also dithyramb; enkōmion (encomium); hymnos (hymn); skolion geography 23, 25, 30 1, 36 7, 43 and commissions of lyric poets 37 41 and elegiac poem in the Pindaric scholia 25 6 as factor affecting the circulation of poetic texts 171, 173 4, 206 7 Heracleides Ponticus 135, 144, 166 7, 202 Hermippus of Smyrna 146, 221, 224, 261 Peri Hipponaktos 145 Herodotus 248, 272, 284 Anacreon and Polycrates of Samos in 33 6 audience of 199, 275 collections of oracles in 178 9 Pindar’s nomos passage in 124 5, 199 poems of Sappho and Alcaeus in 198 9 see also Bacchylides Ode 3 and Herodotus harmony, musical (harmonia) 5, 98, 136, 140 1, 195 Hieron of Syracuse 35 6, 38 9, 42, 77, 80, 83, 148 9, 196, 208, 265, 268, 272, 278 Hipparchus 33, 35, 44 5, 47 9, 83, 85, 119 Hipponax 80 1, 83 4, 93, 164, 222 3, 238, 280 see also Hermippus of Smyrna Peri Hipponaktos Homer: in education 68, 184, 192 and inscriptions on vases 187 90 and texts from the cities 200 1, 228 n.38 and transmission of text 195 6 Horace and Lyric Canon 10, 249 50 hymnos (hymn) 40 with n.44, 48, 87, 90 1, 141 2, 150, 167, 196, 203, 258, 284 and Plato’s Republic and Laws 98 101 Ibycus 14, 23, 25, 35, 44, 64 5, 83, 223, 239, 255, 280, 281 allusions in Aristophanes’ comedies 92 in Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae 87 90, 283 and books of poetry 236 7 as effeminate and pederastic poet 89 and Hellenistic epigrams 264 lack of Peripatetic treatise 162 4, 205, 285

329

and the Lyric Canon 1 5, 9 10, 12 in Plato 103 4, 104 n.34, 108, 118 n.67, 125 n.86 poetic corpus of 32 3 Jauss, Hans Robert 17 18 the Kassandra 234, 256, 258 61, 270, 287 khorēgos 49 50, 52 6 khoreia 54, 96 Kinesias 73, 93 in Birds 49 50, 77, 276 9 kykliodidaskalos 55 6; see also poet, dithyrambic kyklios khoros 45 7, 85 6, 265, 282 Lasus 144, 179, 223, 239, 247 8, 266, 283 in Aristophanes’ Wasps 85 6 Peri Lasou 149 51, 166 reception in the Peripatos 166 7 Library, Alexandrian: arrival of book rolls in 241 3, 245 6 and book acquisition 223 8 as cultural and political project 215 17, 223 4, 228 9, 286 establishment and setting up of 214 17 see also Callimachus and the Pinakes; Demetrius of Phalerum; library, Peripatetic fate of library, Peripatetic 200 fate of 217 20 texts in 162 4, 197, 205 6, 211 literacy 171 2, 185, 207 Lyceum, see Peripatos lyre: as musical accompaniment to songs 27, 59, 66 9, 90 playing in the educational curriculum 88 on vases 185 7, 191, 285 see also ‘lyric’ concept of ‘lyric’: concept of 2 3, 6, 18 19 Lyric Canon and Corinna 11 13 criticism of 9 10 evidence in comedy 70 72, 90 4, 146 and the Hellenistic scholars 247 8, 252 3 and nostalgia 13 and scholarly work 10 11, 247 as selection 247 8 stability of 13, 251 testimonia for 4 6 the two epigrams on 1 4 values and creation of 12 13, 21, 209, 248 50 see also canon concept of; ‘lyric’ concept of

330

General Index

melopoios 63, 73, 88 melos 59, 87, 103, 199, 205, 209, 211, 247, 284, 286 in Plato’s Republic 97 9, 127 see also New Music; song, melic memory, cultural 6, 211, 224, 264, 286 mimesis: Agathon and theory of 87 9 see also Plato and mimesis mousikē: in Aristotle’s Politics 141 and music in the Peripatos 136, 140 1, 152 old and new/past and present 13, 20, 145, 165, 209 in the Platonic dialogues 113 15 musical instruments: aulos 71, 166, 189 change of musical taste and 70 2 iambykē 70 2 kithara 67, 71 trigōnos 70 2 see also lyre New Music 15, 90, 165, 248, 252 3, 266, 279 in comic symposia 283 and criticism in Plato 145 and Hellenistic editions 248, 252 3 and the masses 209 10 and the Peripatos 146 7, 151 2, 165 6 and popular reception 147, 248 see also Plato and theatrokratia; scholars, Alexandrian and influence by earlier lyric reception Olympian 5: ta edaphia 241 5 as wandering poem 241, 244 5 Onesimos cup 185, 188 papyrus roll 16, 197, 230, 239 40, 249; see also book roll paraphrase 64, 103, 104 n.33, 106, 116 18, 121 2, 124 6, 130, 142, 169, 175 n.13 parody 63 with n.16, 65, 83, 91 2, 92 n.95 pastiche, comic 81, 91 2 patron 14, 23, 26, 32 40, 43, 44 7, 50, 80, 82 4, 149, 202, 208, 232, 241, 278, 281, 283 patronage, poetic 281 of Hipparchus 47 9, 85 ideological and political importance of 38 9 parodied in comedy 80 1, 83 4, 91 and the Ptolemies 224 performance: at Athenian festivals 45 8, 51 2, 85 6, 265

context of 25, 27 8, 32 3, 59, 70, 72, 135, 138, 141, 285 location of 26, 28, 30, 42, 49, 282 of lyric song 5 6, 13, 15, 28, 38 9, 41, 44 5, 118, 120, 140, 143, 165, 172, 174, 209 10, 213, 261 as means of circulation 191, 193 4, 196 7, 199, 206 7, 211 occasion of 25, 28, 32, 41, 45, 64 5, 72, 82, 118, 120, 135, 141 2, 163, 174, 255 of poems by the New Poets 248 9, 253 see also re performance performance culture 57, 208, 213 Pergamum 17, 219, 269 70, 288 Peripatos: and antiquarianism 133, 136 and cultural history 135 6 and doxography 152 with n.52, 168 influence by Plato and comedy 145 6 methodology of 133 4, 152, 284 Peripatetic treatises 133 5 research interests and subjects of study 135, 144 and texts of lyric 162 4, 197, 206, 211 and textual matters 154, 167 70 see also library, Peripatetic; New Music and the Peripatos; peri treatises on melic poetry peri treatises on melic poetry 136 and generic categorization 161 peri tou deina on lyric poets 144 5, 162 4 Peri Alkaiou (On Alcaeus) 144 Peri Alkmanos (On Alcman) 162 4 Peri Anakreontos (On Anacreon) 156 7, 162 3 Peri Lasou (On Lasus) 149 51, 166 7 Peri Pindarou (On Pindar) 158 63, 169 Peri Sapphous (On Sappho) 154 7, 162 3, 167 8 Peri Simonidou (On Simonides) 148 9, 162 3, 167 Peri Stesichorou (On Stesichorus) 168 9, 261 see also New Music and the Peripatos persona, poetic 27, 43, 81, 106, 125, 261, 266, 278 Philoxenus 73, 147, 165, 248 9, 253 Pindar 14, 23, 25, 32 3, 36, 42 3, 46, 50, 64 5, 73, 89, 100 1, 126 8, 135, 164, 167, 193 4, 203 4, 238, 255, 258, 262, 268 9, 281, 283 4 allusions in Aristophanes’ comedies 92 with n.95 in Aristophanes’ Birds 77 81, 83 4 and Athens 46, 51 3, 56 7, 282 classification of Pythian 2 232 3, 241 in Eupolis 70 1, 209

General Index Hellenistic edition of epinician corpus 243, 256 7 with n.6 Hellenistic editions and commentaries 233 6, 233 n.58, 234 n.61, 235 n.62, 260 and Hellenistic epigrams 264 and the Lyric Canon 1 5, 9 10, 12 nomos passage 118, 120 4, 128, 199 Peri Pindarou 144, 158 61, 169 in Plato 103 with n.33, 105 6, 116, 119, 124 6, 125 n.86, 128 31, 175, 208 in Plato’s Gorgias 120 3 in Plato’s Meno 106 8 poetic commissions of 37 8, 40, 43 4, 282 and poetic pan Hellenism 36 7, 40, 43 quotations in Aristotle 169 n.86 and reception of his poetic persona 80, 83, 106, 128, 130 1, 208, 264 and re performance of epinikia 174 6 see also Olympian 5 Plato: as book collector 197 8 contextualization of lyric quotations and sayings in 116 17, 128 31 and the educational role of poetry 95 6, 99 100, 131 and forms of engagement with the lyric poets 103 4, 117 19 gnomic lyric passages in 104 5, 124 5, 127 8, 175, 284 lyric allusions in 125 with nn.84 6 lyric figures in 208 and mimesis 95 6 Pindar’s nomos passage in 118, 120 3 poetic inspiration and knowledge in 95 6, 111 15, 126 7 and references to books 183 4 and theatrokratia 208 9, 284 see also mousikē in the Platonic dialogues; New Music and criticism in Plato; Peripatos influence by Plato and comedy poet, dithyrambic 46 and the Fasti 55 6 and the khorēgos 49 52, 56 poet, epinician 35, 38, 105, 264 commissioning process of 38 9 Polycrates of Samos 32 6, 44, 83, 89 Praxiphanes 144, 153 4, 169, 202 Ptolemy I Soter 225 foundation of Alexandrian Library 230 interest in Peripatetic education 215 Ptolemy II Philadelphus 215 16 acquisition of books 220, 223 4 and editorial activity in the Library 224 5, 227 Ptolemy III Euergetes 226 7, 230

331

Quintilian: and the canon of the orators 251 and the concept of the canon 229 30, 250 evidence of re performance in 203 and the Lyric Canon 9 10, 250 1 quotation, lyric 64, 79, 83, 102 3, 103 n.33, 107, 115 18, 120 6, 128 30, 160, 164 5, 169, 171, 175, 197 9, 208, 210, 214, 244 5, 279 readers: of Plato 109 10, 118, 120, 124 6, 131, 197 8 on vases 185 7 reception, lyric and the elite and intellectuals 209 11 and importance of Athens 59 60 stability in 145 7, 164 6, 208, 246 7, 252 3 see also New Music reception, of lyric poets: in fifth and fourth century sources 130 1, 136 7, 208, 279 in Hellenistic epigrams 263 6 in the two canonical epigrams 1 4 see also Alcaeus; Alcman; Anacreon; Bacchylides; Ibycus; Pindar; Sappho; Simonides; Stesichorus Reception Theory 17 18 and ‘horizon of expectations’ 17 19 re performance 30, 59, 64 5, 73, 75, 79 80, 82, 91, 143, 163, 172, 174 6, 194 5, 198, 207, 210 11, 253 (re )performance 93, 197, 210 11 of tragedies 202 3 see also performance sanctuary: poetic performances at 40, 42, 46, 285 as repository of texts 203, 210 11 Sappho 14, 25, 31, 44, 57, 64, 89, 193, 201, 210, 240 1, 255, 257, 261, 281 allusions in Aristophanes’ comedies 92 with nn.92 3 and Aristarchus 235 6 and Clearchus’ Erōtika 136 8 in Epicrates’ Antilais 72 3, 140 1 the erotic poetess 109, 136 and Hellenistic epigrams 264 in Herodotus 198 9 knowledge in fifth century Athens 191 in middle comedy 93, 283 Peri Sapphous 144, 154 7, 167 8 in Plato’s Phaedrus 104, 108 9, 111 12, 119, 125, 283 4 poetic corpus of 27 8 quotations in Aristotle 169 n.86 and the symposium 76

332

General Index

Sappho hydria 188 91, 200 scholars, Alexandrian/Hellenistic 6, 201, 214, 230, 241 2, 246 8, 260 and canons 250 1 and influence by earlier lyric reception 247 8, 252 3, 262 3, 280, 287 scholarly activity of 161, 223 5, 233 9, 246 7, 286 7 see also Aristarchus; Aristophanes of Byzantium, Callimachus; Zenodotus scholarship, Hellenistic 169, 247, 250, 252, 259 61, 263, 280, 287 commentary (hypomnēma) 164, 221, 233 n.58, 234 6, 235 n.62, 236 n.65, 237 n.68, 238 n.69, 239, 243, 250, 258, 260 2 correction 228 n.38, 233 n.58, 238 edition (ekdosis) 222, 228 n.38, 233 with n.58, 234, 235 n.62, 236 9, 242 4, 246 8, 250, 256, 259 60, 262, 266, 269 70, 271, 287 8 and Peripatetic methodology 169, 222 3, 285 scroll 224, 240 1, 285 6; see also book roll; papyrus roll Simonides 14, 23, 25, 31, 35, 42 3, 45, 50, 52, 64, 69, 93, 120, 158, 160 1, 164, 196 7, 208, 255, 258, 281, 283, 284 allusions in Aristophanes’ comedies 92 with n.95 and anecdotes 82 4, 130 1 in Aristophanes’ Birds 77 81, 83 4 in Aristophanes’ Clouds 65 8, 70, 74, 91, 210 in Aristophanes’ Peace 82 3, 91 in Aristophanes’ Wasps 84 7, 248 and Athens 40 1, 46, 48, 57, 282 and dithyrambic competitions 40 1, 48 in Eupolis’ Heilotes 70 2 as figure of wisdom 104 5, 127 8 Hellenistic edition of epinician corpus 256 7 with n.6 and Hellenistic epigrams 264 6 and the Lyric Canon 1 5, 9 10, 12 Peri Simonidou 144, 148 9, 167 in Plato 105, 127 8, 130 1 in Plato’s Hipparchus [sp.] 47 9 in Plato’s Protagoras 105 6, 115 17, 120, 121, 169 in Plato’s Republic 116 7 poetic commissions of 37 8, 40 1, 43 4, 282 and poetic pan Hellenism 36 7, 40, 43 poetics of 129, 131 quotations in Aristotle 169 n.86 in tyrannical courts 35 6 and the symposium 76

skolion 141, 160 1, 210 in comic scenes 68 9, 74 6 interpretation in the Peripatos 138 41 as sympotic repertoire 74, 76, 283 song culture 3, 59, 61, 63, 78, 101, 141, 187, 191, 193, 196 song, lyric 6, 15 16, 25 6, 32, 45 6, 59, 80, 91, 171, 205, 211; see also melos; song, melic song, melic 60, 76 7, 81, 93, 118, 141, 173, 176, 196 7, 209, see also melos; song, lyric song type 13, 69, 73, 76 7, 81, 91, 98 101, 145, 161, 163, 281 2 drinking song 68 9, 75, 141 erotic song (erōtikon) 35, 74, 76, 100, 136, 141, 258, 264 praise song 32 3, 39, 100 religious song 100, 145 see also genre, lyric; skolion Stesichorus 14, 23, 25, 29, 44, 64, 116, 158, 245, 255, 269, 281 allusions in Aristophanes’ comedies 92 with n.92 and Aristarchus 235 6 in Eupolis 69 72, 283 and Hellenistic epigrams 264 and the Lyric Canon 1 5, 9 10, 12 in Plato’s Phaedrus 104, 109 12, 114 15, 126 7, 284 and the Peripatos 142 3, 167 9 Peri Stesichorou 144, 261 poetic corpus of 30 1 and the symposium 69 70, 72, 76 symposium: as context of lyric reception and survival 75 6, 283 as context of performance of lyric song 27, 32 3 as context of re performance 64 5, 76, 91, 174 5 fourth century continuity of 141, 196 and evolution of mousikē 65 72 and Peripatetic treatises 136, 138 41 song types in comic 73 4 textualization 163, 173, 195 Theophrastus 166, 178, 215 books of 218 20 and the Peripatos 144, 222 tradition 101 2, 130, 140, 209, 224, 251 and portrayals of lyric poets 80, 82, 84 6, 89, 93, 104 5, 109, 126, 148 51, 163, 166 7, 265 6, 284 and reception, see Reception Theory transmission 11, 15 18, 21, 23, 134, 171 3, 176, 195 6, 202, 207, 211, 213 14, 220, 255 6, 280, 286 9

General Index treatise, Peripatetic, see Peripatos Peripatetic treatises Timotheus 248 9, 253, 266, 287 values, aesthetic/cultural 12 13, 20, 67 8, 75, 283 victory, athletic 39, 42, 268 9, 270 victory ode 105, 203, 233 4, 255, 257, 262, 265, 271 2 commissions of 38 as propaganda 39

re performance of 65, 174 5 sending of 196 7 and writing 175 6 see also genre, lyric epinikion Zenodotus 229, 246, 286 and Aristarchus 237 8 and ta edaphia 242 4 editions of lyric poets 233 with n.58 scholarly work of 224 5

333