This chapter assesses the imperial presence of lyric in the form of the textual tradition of the nine canonical poets established by Alexandrian scholars. It reviews the evidence for the circulation of archaic and classical lyric texts among students of literature and readers from the late Hellenistic period onwards. Papyri preserving lyric texts and commentaries, treatises discussing literary and rhetorical education, as well as the diffusion of lyric quotations among Greek prose writers are all surveyed to define the place of lyric poetry in imperial paideia. Compared to mainstream classics, the genre thus emerges as a special, more niche and refined form of reading. The chapter then shows that by the imperial period, the reception of lyric subgenres followed a crystallised system of personas, where each poet activated specific thematic, local, ethical and aesthetic associations. This mental map shaped the reception of lyric poetry by imperial writers who, like Aristides, knew and chose to deploy it.

This final chapter summarises the book’s substantial contribution to our interpretation of Aristides’ works and figure, as well as to our picture of ancient lyric reception and imperial Greek culture more widely. Besides looking backwards, however, this conclusion also adds some reflections on how the approach developed and deployed in this study may be productively applied to other imperial genres and writers, both pagan and Christian, down to Late Antiquity.

The association of individual lyric poets with precise features and values was active beyond textual knowledge of their poems. Accordingly, this chapter contributes to the reconstruction of the imperial afterlife of lyric by shifting the analysis to material evidence, such as portraits of lyric poets, and to cults and legends concerning real or mythical singers which lived on in the Greek collective memory, especially locally. In the Greek East, where the display of local identities was part of the reaction to imperial globalisation, different lyric traditions had the potential to activate links with specific places. Together with ongoing (re-)performances of lyric at symposia, festivals and within the imperial court, these manifestations give us a glimpse into the wider circulation and creative recasting of song traditions and lyric icons, both within and beyond elite circles. More importantly, they all account for the continued cultural and political purchase of song and music under Rome.

This chapter expands on and completes the analysis of Aristides’ political use of lyric. It argues that both Athens and Rome are depicted by the sophist through lyric and song imagery, and that these musical representations allow for a comparison between the two cities and how Aristides conceived of their role as imperial centres. Among other texts, a close reading of the celebration of past and present Athens in Or. 1 and that of imperial Rome in Or. 26 shows that the ways in which the two capitals ‘make music’ foreground some important similarities between their imperial politics. At the same time, Athenian and Roman ‘music’ point to the difference between Greek and Roman political cultures and approaches. Rather than indicating a critical attitude towards the current Empire, however, Aristides’ musical depiction of Athens and Rome is open to ambiguity and enables different co-existing interpretations, adding complexity and depth to our understanding of the political dimension of Aristides’ corpus.

From this chapter, the discussion moves to Aristides’ lyric reception by focusing on his self-fashioning as a superior and divinely inspired speaker. Besides pointing to his knowledge of a super-elite genre, lyric shaped, and was shaped by, Aristides’ self-presentation agenda. Through a close reading of cornerstone texts of Aristidean self-fashioning (e.g. Platonic Orations, To Sarapis, Sacred Tales), this chapter offers the first comprehensive discussion of Pindar as the perfect lyric counterpart to Aristides’ superior persona. It reveals the role of epinician values and Pindaric metapoetics in Aristides’ negotiation of his rivalry with Plato and with poets of hymns, Pindar included. It also shows how discourses of divine inspiration and patronage fed into his self-positioning in relation to imperial power. Far from engaging only with Pindar, however, Aristides’ self-fashioning also built on other, very different lyric models, if only to reject their voices or to turn them on their heads so that they could fit his exceptional self-portrait.

Given its heightened local significance, lyric poetry could feed into Aristides’ orations addressed to individual imperial communities. This chapter focuses on Or. 46, a speech performed at the Isthmian festival in praise of Poseidon and Corinth. Precisely when it comes to celebrating Corinth, Aristides builds on the praise of this city already found in Pindar’s Ol. 13. Although this lyric precedent was locally relevant, however, the imperial city was as removed as possible from that of Ol. 13: as a result of its destruction and re-foundation by Rome, imperial Corinth was far from a traditionally Greek community. Against this political and cultural background, Aristides’ choice of recalling Pindar’s praise appears as a strategy to create a sense of continuity in response to the rupture caused by Rome. For this strategy to work, however, Aristides had to recast Pindar’s praise so that his own celebration could strike a fine balance between the Greek and Roman elements of New Corinth.

What is the rationale for bringing together archaic and classical lyric and imperial Greek literature, in the form of epideictic oratory? This chapter explains how such different genres and media (poetry/prose) were in fact akin as both genres ‘of presence’ centred on performance, embedded in well-defined occasions, and negotiating similar discourses of praise and blame. It then sets out the book’s aims and methodology by contextualising them within the ever-growing scholarship on imperial Greek culture. It clarifies what is meant by ‘lyric’ throughout the analysis, and how this use of the term marks a substantial departure from the few previous studies on imperial lyric reception. A similar departure concerns the approach to quotations, intertextuality and pragmatics of reading, which crucially distances this analysis from scholarship focused on Quellenforschung issues. The chapter ends by introducing Aristides’ distinctive engagement with lyric and its impact on our understanding of his works and figure.

This chapter explores Or. 24, an emergency intervention concerning Rhodes. Internal strife had recently broken out in the community, which could prompt Roman rulers to deprive Rhodes of its status as civitas libera. To facilitate the end of stasis, Aristides mobilises the full spectrum of political lyric: canonical poets are recalled alongside mythical singers, while monodic and choral performances are brought into play to exalt harmonia over stasis. Through this discursive re-enactment of lyric, Aristides transfers to his prose appeal the political effectiveness of lyric poetry and music. This intermedial strategy culminates in the evocation of Alcaeus’ poetry on stasis. Together with stasis-plagued Lesbos, Alcaeus embodies the spectre of civic discord which an orderly Dorian community like Rhodes must reject at all costs. Lyric reception thus brings into focus Aristides’ approach to contemporary politics, especially his awareness of what it meant for a Greek community to live under the scrutiny of Roman rulers.