This is a genuinely conceived and well-written book. It is a systematic survey on the historicity of a seminal instance in ancient Greek literary criticism: the emergence of the Lyric Canon of nine. Drawing on the theories of H. Gadamer and R. Jauss, the evolution of the Lyric Canon is understood as a concatenation of osmotic moments during which the act of reception is at one with the historicisation of the exceptional, which the ‘classic’ represents. The germ of the idea is intelligent because it seeks to archaeologise what is normatively taken for granted: a canon.
The first chapter looks into spatiality as a significant factor for the process of canonisation. A lyric poet's growing prestige interconnects to an increasing degree of recognisability required for canonisation, and prestige results from shift in space, be it in local or transregional range. Poets therefore divide into three categories: local, mobile and Panhellenic. Athens is singled out as an important venue for song performance even though it is not the home town of any of the canonical lyric poets.
In the second chapter traces of lyric in Athenian comedy of the fifth and fourth centuries through the techniques of naming, allusion, citation and satire of individual figures mark a turning point in the canonising process. Comedy's command of knowledge concerning material from lyric poetry is a means to the end of recycling this poetry due to comedy's undertow for poetological reflexiveness and its bent towards critical self-positioning in the literary tradition. Literary criticism is amply integrated into dramatic poetry by comedy in the shape of intergeneric reflection in Aristophanes, Eupolis, Epicrates and Antiphanes – here one misses a reference to the influential work of A. Bagordo (Reminiszenzen früher Lyrik bei den attischen Tragikern: Beiträge zur Anspielungstechnik und poetischen Tradition [2003]) on the connections of tragedy with lyric poetry in comparative terms. The extensive use of material linked with the canonical nine suggests that they are crystallised in fifth- and fourth-century Athenian comedy.
The third chapter enquires into the extent to which Plato contributes to the literary appreciation of poets from the Canon. In his works, most notably the Laws and the Republic, Plato treats the lyric poets as cultural heritage of elevated status, which serves the purposes of education on a diachronic basis. In the light of Plato's own statements, the canonical lyric poets whose names are known and referred to, and whose works are likewise known, cited and alluded to, stand out as experts of inspired knowledge and unique bearers of wisdom.
In the fourth chapter the commenting habit of the Peripatetics (Clearchus, Dicaearchus and Aristoxenus) on generic grounds is yet another major step forward in the history of ancient Greek literary criticism in general and in the canonisation of the lyric nine in particular. The Peripatetic school of Aristotle also produced numerous treatises on the canonical lyric poets designed to frame culturally and interpret their poetry. Considering the plenitude of onomastic treatises on lyric poets, the aim of the Peripatetic scholars is to be seen in supplying critical works on a considerable amount of pre-existing literature by combining poetic quotations and biographical interest. The use of texts in these treatises is culturally and anthropologically determined.
The fifth chapter puts textuality into the scale as a decisive factor for classicising the nine lyric poets. Both Plato and the Peripatetics had access to written texts, which they studied. In the passage from orality to literacy in the fifth century emphasis is put on the melic song as written text and material artefact that gives rise to the reperformance of lyric poetry. The iconographical record is supportive of this cultural change, which concerns the confined class of elite intellectuals.
In Chapter 6 there is a shift of focus from Athens to Alexandria, where books on the nine lyric poets are produced and the Lyric Canon takes its ultimate shape. Based on the testimonies of Strabo, John Tzetzes and the Letter of Aristeas, it is plausible to assume that the texts of the lyric poets, which the Alexandrian Library possessed, derived from the Library of the Peripatetic Lycaeum. What is at stake for scholars of the Alexandrian Library such as Zenodotus, Aristophanes of Byzantium and Aristarchus are editions of lyric poets and commentaries on lyric corpora. The Lyric Canon springs as an ideological construct out of the editorial work done on lyric by the Alexandrian scholars.
The final chapter concentrates on the paradox of Bacchylides’ canonisation according to which pre-Alexandrian sources largely remain silent about him and his work. The Hellenistic era is different because of the existence of the commentary of Didymus on Bacchylides’ epinikia, several quotations in the scholia and the notorious debate between Aristarchus and Callimachus over the classification of Bacchylides’ Cassandra. It is argued that Aristarchus, as opposed to Aristophanes of Byzantium, provided the standard edition of Bacchylides.
Despite the frequently tentative nature of the evidence, the conclusions drawn are in favour of the plausible assumptions made with regard to the nine canonical poets. The main argument is that the fifth and fourth centuries are formative for the canonising process; what the Alexandrians understood as Lyric Canon goes back to this period. Comedy, Plato and the Peripatetic school paved the way for the Lyric Canon. The span of the book is impressively wide as regards periods and issues of ancient literary criticism. The material, cautiously gathered in each individual case, amounts to a balanced discussion, which is sensitive to the detail and acknowledges inference. The author is in remarkable command of the material used to the end of framing the discussion, which is always lively and to the point.
