Aesthetic and Ethical Criticism in Herodas' Mimiamboi

8/13/2019 Aesthetic and Ethical Criticism in Herodas' Mimiamboi

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetic-and-ethical-criticism-in-herodas-mimiamboi 1/95

Aesthetic and Ethical Criticism in Herodas' Mimiamboi

BY

Benjamin M. Slagowski

Submitted to the graduate degree program in Classics and the raduate !acult" o# the$ni%ersit" o# &ansas in partial #ul#illment o# the reuirements #or the degree o# Master

o# Arts.

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Chairperson )amela ordon

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

Emma Scioli

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Michael Shaw

*ate *e#ended+ April ,,- ,/0



All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERSThe quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC.789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346

Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

UMI 1540924

Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.

UMI Number: 1540924



ii

1he 1hesis Committee #or Benjamin M. Slagowski

certi#ies that this is the appro%ed %ersion o# the #ollowing thesis+

Aesthetic and Ethical Criticism in Herodas' Mimiamboi

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Chairperson )amela ordon

*ate appro%ed+ April ,,- ,/0



iii

Abstract

1his paper e2amines Herodas' interest in aesthetic and ethical criticism

throughout his mimiamboi . 1his serious concern with such ele%ated topics is

appropriate- and perhaps e%en e2pected- gi%en Herodas' clear e##ort in the eighth

mimiamb to locate his new genre o# poetr" within the iambic tradition in general- and

the Hipponactean strain o# iambos in particular. Anal"sis o# the #ourth- si2th- se%enth-

and eighth mimes demonstrates a keen awareness o# the poet's cra#t- poetic techniues-

and contemporar" aesthetic %alues. 3hile pla"ing the role o# aesthetic critic- Herodas

promotes an ideal reader o# his poetr"- and instructs this reader in how best to

contemplate his poems. 1he #irst- third- and #i#th mimes all show an interest in

pronouncing statements dealing with ethical beha%ior and ele%ated philosophical

concerns. As an ethical critic- Herodas does not issue clear statements establishing or

promoting proper ethical conduct- but #oregrounds topics o# great general interest to a

wide Hellenistic audience. $ltimatel" it shall become e%ident that Herodas' poetr"

concerns itsel# with the same elite- intellectual issues that pro%ed o# interest to his

contemporaries.



iv

Acknowledgments

4 would like to thank )ro#essor )amela ordon #or the man" hours she has spent

reading dra#ts- pro%iding %aluable #eedback- and o##ering general ad%ice on this project

and others. 1he writing o# this paper has been a #ar more manageable task because o#

her guidance. 4 would also like to thank the other members o# m" thesis committee.

)ro#essor Emma Scioli has o##ered a great deal o# support throughout the entire project-

but 4 am especiall" appreciati%e o# the man" comments she has pro%ided on the topics o#

ekphrasis and dreams. )ro#essor Michael Shaw has o##ered encouragement and man"

constructi%e comments resulting in a much more polished #inal paper. 4 must also o##er

one #inal thank "ou to m" #riends and #amil" members who ha%e a heard a great deal

more about Herodas and his mimes than the" might e%er ha%e e2pected.



v

Table of Contents

4ntroduction.........................................................................................................................../

Chapter /+ Herodas and the 4ambic Connection to Ethical and Aesthetic Criticism .........5/./+ 4ntroduction................................................................................................................5/.,+ 1he Mimes o# Herodas...............................................................................................6

Chapter ,+ Aesthetic Criticism in Herodas' Mimiamboi ....................................................//,./+ Mimiamb Eight.........................................................................................................//,.,+ *ream 4nterpretation ............................................................................................./7,.,./+ Herodas and the Mouseion.................................................................................../6,.0+ 1he )rogrammatic Signi#icance o# Mimiamb Eight...............................................,0,.5+ Herodas as Hipponactean Aesthetic Critic in Mimiamb !our..............................,8,.9+ Contemporar" Criticism and Aesthetic :alues in Mimiamb !our........................,7,.9./+ &"nno and &okkale's 1echnical :ocabular" .......................................................00

,.9.,+ Mimiamb !our's 4nterest in :erisimilitude .......................................................05,.8+ &"nno and &okkale as Anti;Models #or how to <ead Herodas..............................5/,.=+ Aesthetic Criticism in Mimiamb Si2.......................................................................98,.7+ Conclusion...............................................................................................................8

Chapter 0+ Ethical Criticism in Herodas' Mimiamboi .......................................................8,0./+ 1he eneric 4nterest o# Iambos in Ethical Criticism..............................................8,0.,+ Ethical Statements in Herodas................................................................................8=0.,./+ Mimiamb 1hree and )arent;Child <elationships...............................................870.,.,+ Mimiamb !i%e and the Status o# Sla%es...............................................................=,0.,.0+ Mimiamb >ne and !emale !idelit".....................................................................=80.0+ Conclusion................................................................................................................=6

Conclusion...........................................................................................................................7/ 3orks Cited.........................................................................................................................75



1

Introduction

Scholarship on the trio o# de#initi%e Hellenistic authors o# poetr"- Callimachus-

Apollonius o# <hodes- and 1heocritus- ine%itabl" must address the comple2it" o# these

poets- their learnedness- allusi%eness- and sel#;awareness o# their position as poet and

the cra#t the" practice. 1heir st"le de#ines what we modern scholars think o# as

Hellenistic poetr". 4t is with an understanding o# the basic idea o# Hellenistic poetr" and

the poetic %oice o# this era that 4 approached the mimes o# Herodas- a relati%el" obscure

author who probabl" wrote during the rule o# )tolem" 44 )hiladelphus. As 4 proceeded

to read the roughl" 7 lines that ha%e sur%i%ed- se%en mimes almost #ull" preser%ed- an

eighth that is mostl" preser%ed- and %er" small #ragments o# se%eral more mimes- 4 was

struck b" the subtlet" o# his poetr". E%er present in Herodas' short scenes is a tension

that begs to be e2plored. ?ow;class characters using %ulgar language in scenes

reminiscent o# those #amiliar #rom the comic stages o# both reece and <ome were

consistentl" touching on serious topics o# great interest. 3ith m" own interest piued- 4

dipped into the scholarship #ocused on Herodas' mimes that had been penned o%er the

course o# the last centur" #ollowing the disco%er" and publication o# the mimiamboi in

/76/ b" !.. &en"on- the great British paleographer to whom we also owe the #irst

edition o# Aristotle's Athenaion Politeia. 4n sur%e"ing past scholarship 4 was struck b"

the tendenc" to #ocus on indi%idual mimes and uestions o# per#ormance at the e2pense

o# recogni@ing the subtle comple2it" o# the mimes as a whole. 4t is in hopes o# bringing

this comple2it" to the #ore#ront that 4 ha%e written this paper.

1he primar" objecti%e o# this thesis is to demonstrate that Herodas' mimes



2

consistentl" #eature serious commentar" on ele%ated topics that o#ten appear at odds

with his humorous characters and scenes. )er%asi%e throughout the mimes are

statements %oicing ethical and aesthetic criticism. Such statements demonstrate an

interest in the poet's cra#t and reception o# poetr"- and also an awareness o# moral and

philosophical topics o# considerable importance and rele%ance to his audience. 1he

presence o# these ele%ated concerns demands that Herodas be recogni@ed as more than

just a %ulgar- comic wit.

Central to m" argument that Herodas gi%es %oice to ethical and aesthetic

criticism is showing that he locates himsel# within the iambic tradition- and that such

statements are an important part o# the iambic genre as a whole. 4 will begin b" o##ering

a brie# sur%e" o# e%idence showing that iambos is an appropriate genre #or ethical and

aesthetic criticism- and that e2amples o# both t"pes o# criticism can be #ound in iambic

poetr" o# both the Archaic and Hellenistic periods. 3ith the connection between iambic

poetr" and ethicalaesthetic criticism established- 4 will demonstrate that Herodas

#irml" places himsel# in the iambic tradition. As e%idence #or this- 4 will e2amine in #ull

the eighth mimiamb- which 4 will argue is a programmatic piece designed both as a

response to criticism #rom Herodas' peers and as an appeal to the authorit" o# his

literar" predecessors necessar" to legitimi@e his new genre. Ha%ing established Herodas'

connection to iambos and demonstrated the genre's interest in ethical and aesthetic

criticism- 4 will then turn to e2amples o# such #orms o# criticism throughout the mimes.

>ne chapter will be de%oted to aesthetic criticism- #ocusing particularl" on the #ourth

mime. A second chapter will address ethical criticism- e2amples o# which tend to be

more obscured and #leeting when compared to statements o# aesthetic criticism. 1hese



3

two chapters together should #ull" demonstrate Herodas' interest in ele%ated topics.



4

Chapter 1: Herodas and the Iambic Connection to Ethical and Aesthetic Criticism

1.1: Introduction

1he archaic genre o# iambos e2perienced a re%i%al among Hellenistic poets and

authors.1 Apollonius o# <hodes and other ancient scholars wrote works on the histor" o#

the genre as a whole- and collected- edited- and studied the poems o# indi%idual

iambographers- including Archilochus- Hippona2- and Semonides.2 1he meters and

themes o# archaic iambic poetr" were adopted and re;worked b" a %ariet" o# authors-

including Callimachus and Herodas- both o# whom will be discussed more #ull" below.3

># the canonical iambic poets- Hippona2 in particular recei%ed pre#erential treatment in

the Hellenistic age. Both Herodas and Callimachus openl" adopted Hippona2 as their

model- and a third poet- )hoeni2- was clearl" and hea%il" in#luenced b" the works o#

Hippona2. Callimachus and Herodas are especiall" deser%ing o# closer stud"- because

not onl" did the" both write choliambic poetr"- but the" also both claimed to ha%e been

directl" in#luenced b" Hippona2 and st"led themsel%es as his literar" descendants.

1he Hipponactean corpus- consisting o# poems composed in the 8th centur" BCE-

/ Scodel ,/ brie#l" discusses the re%i%al o# iambic poetr" and the general in#luence o# philosoph" onthe genre. She e2amines the sur%i%ing iamboi o# )hoeni2- Callimachus- and Cercidas in particular.

, See <otstein ,/- //,;/5= #or a detailed e2amination o# the reception and stud" o# iambic poetr"#rom the #i#th;centur" and be"ond. 1he grammarian *iomedes authored a stud" o# the iambic genre.

Apollonius o# <hodes produced a work on Archilochus. 1here is a re#erence to an edited edition o#Hippona2 b" Hermippus o# Sm"rna in a ,nd centur" CE source. See also <otstein ,6n/0 #or adiscussion o# the e%idence o# edited editions o# Archilochus- Hippona2- and Semonides produced inthe ,nd or 0rd centuries BCE.

0 E2amples o# Hellenistic iambic poets include ob%ious #igures such as Callimachus and Herodas- butalso more obscure indi%iduals. Cercidas wrote meliambs- a combination o# melic and iambic poetr".)hoeni2 o# Colophon- roughl" contemporar" with Callimachus- adopted Hippona2 as a model #or hisiambic poetr"D see Scodel ,/- ,9,; ,99 #or a brie# discussion o# )hoeni2' poetr". Macho wroteiambics with a moral and philosophical message. See also <otstein ,/- 9/;9= #or %er" brie#discussion o# se%eral other iambic poets.



5

is un#ortunatel" ill preser%ed. Almost all sur%i%ing #ragments are in the choliambic

meter- which would later be adopted b" )hoeni2- Callimachus- and Herodas. !rom the

e2tant #ragments it is e%ident that Hippona2' poems were largel" concerned with con#lict

between the poetic persona and an FGI that o#ten resulted in a scathing- %iciousἐ

attack issued b" the poet.4 Hippona2 o#ten re#ers to himsel# b" name in his poems- and

tends to present himsel# as a %iolent drunkard.5 1he targets o# his in%ecti%e pieces are

%aried- but three names are o# special interest+ Boupalus- Athenis- and Mimnes.

Benjamin Acosta;Hughes has anal"@ed the treatment o# these three characters in

Hippona2- pa"ing particular attention to the #act that all three were artists.6 Clear

in%ecti%e attacks against Boupalus and Mimnes are preser%ed in #ragments- while

Athenis is mentioned onl" once in an unclear conte2t. 4n the case o# Mimnes- Hippona2'

poetic wrath was inspired b" the artist's #ailure to paint a ship properl".7 Athenis and

Boupalus are connected in a stor" that sur%i%es onl" in the testimonia to Hippona2' li#e-

in which it is related that the pair had sculpted a statue o# Hippona2 that o##ended him.8

4n response to the sculpture- he composed such %icious poetic attacks that the sculptors

chose to commit suicide. 3hile Athenis is mentioned onl" once in the e2tant #ragments

*egani !r. =- his #ellow sculptor- Boupalus- appears se%eral times as the subject o#

5 Bowie ,/- ,8 has identi#ied the #ollowing as general #eatures o# iambic poetr"+ Jnarrati%eDspeeches embedded in narrati%eD KLI %ituperation ND sel#;de#ence that naturall" led to criticism o#

othersD just occasionall" re#lection or e2hortation.O ># these #eatures- %ituperation and narrati%e areespeciall" prominent in Hippona2. E2amples o# sel#;de#ense are e%ident in his attacks on Athenis-Boupalus- and Mimnes. <osen /677- 0 identi#ies the Jantagonism between poetO and enem"- whichresults in a psogos- as the main #eature o# iambic poetr".

9 Bowie ,/- /;//.8 Hughes /668.= *egani !r. 06.7 Bowie ,/- 6;// o##ers a brie# account o# the con#lict- as does Hughes /668. <osen /677

identi#ies the se2ual connotation o# Boupalus' name and its importance to how Hippona2 portra"edBoupalus in his poems.



6

in%ecti%e lines.9 Acosta;Hughes has persuasi%el" argued based on e%idence #rom the

testimonia and sur%i%ing #ragments #eaturing in%ecti%e %erses directed against these

artists that Hippona2 Jpresents himsel# as a critic o# aestheticsO and ethical beha%ior.10

As such a critic- Hippona2 will pro%e %er" in#luential on later Hellenistic iambographers.

Hellenistic poets sei@ed on the Hipponactean persona as an authoritati%e %oice

#or ethical and aesthetic criticism. Herodas and Callimachus both st"led themsel%es as

the heirs o# Hippona2.11 3hile there is no declaration o# an e2plicit connection to

Hippona2- the poetr" o# )hoeni2 is also #illed with language and themes clearl"

borrowed #rom the earlier iambographer.12 E2amination o# the choliambic poems o#

Callimachus- )hoeni2- and Herodas re%eals that the iambic genre in general was suited

#or ethical and aesthetic criticism- and that appeals to the language- themes- and poetic

structures #ound in Hippona2 lent authorit" to ethical and aesthetic judgments made b"

Hellenistic poets. !or Herodas- in particular- the authorit" o# a Hipponactean persona

will be critical #or de#ining and de#ending his own poetr"D this will become e%ident in the

ne2t chapter. 4t is important to recogni@e that ele%ated criticism was %er" much a part o#

the iambic genre- and that iambic poems must not be dismissed as simple JlowO pieces

6 See *egani's inde2 #or #ragments where Boupalus appears. According to *egani- he is mentioned /,times. 1his is an impressi%e number when one considers the #ragmentar" nature o# the Hipponacteancorpus and the relati%el" small amount o# poems that ha%e come down to us.

/ Hughes /668- ,//;,/,. Hutchinson /677- 56 claims that Hippona2' poems were not inspired b" an" Jmoral indignation-O but were simpl" intended to entertain. He does- howe%er- note that later poets

writing iamboi did address moral issues. 4 belie%e Hutchinson is essentiall" correct in that the point o#

Hippona2' poem ma" not ha%e been moral or aesthetic criticism. Still- just b" issuing in%ecti%estatements #ocusing on an indi%idual's moral #ailings Hippona2 is embracing one set o# ethical %aluesand rejecting another. A help#ul %iew o# in%ecti%e poetr" is o##ered b" Pappa /666- who notes thatin%ecti%e poetr" is concerned primaril" with Jthe e2clusion o# certain indi%iduals- actions- groups- orualities- and there#ore it seeks to de#ine the communit" to which the speaker belongs.O

// See Callimachus' #irst and thirteenth iambs and Herodas' eighth mime. 4n all three poems clearre#erences are made to Hippona2. 4t can be no small coincidence that all three o# these poems are alsoimportant programmatic pieces in their respecti%e authors' corpora.

/, Scodel ,/- ,9,;,99 brie#l" touches on the e%ocation o# Hippona2 in the sur%i%ing poems o#)hoeni2.



7

aimed at entertaining an audience or denigrating an opponent. A brie# look at two

iambic poems o# Callimachus will ser%e as e%idence #or this claim.

1he in#luence o# Hippona2 on Callimachus has alread" been well studied.13 His

name appears in the #irst o# Callimachus' iamboi, where he rises #rom the $nderworld to

speak to Callimachus' critics. 1he language o# the Callimachean Hippona2 is more

re#ined and less %ulgar than the original. 1he #igure o# Hippona2 himsel# highlights this

change- when he sa"s that he has not come to sing o# his battle with Boupalus QR Nἥ

TGRU VWXU WZU [\]U^Vἴ ὐ ἀ ^ Uὴ X_`[U- lines /;5- but declares that he has

instead come #or a much more striking and important reason+ to end stri#e and en%"

between the scholars he has summoned.14 Callimachus has chosen to #oreground

Hippona2 as a character in his poem to aid in de#ining the poetic program that he will

#ollow in his iambic poems- and to encourage an" potential critics to respond peace#ull"

to his poetr"- perhaps in anticipation o# the negati%e reactions he will later encounter.15

Herodas- too- will #eature Hippona2 in his eighth mime- but unlike Callimachus will do

so in response to criticism rather than in anticipation.

1here is another re#erence to Hippona2 in Callimachus' thirteenth iamb- where

the poetic persona presumabl" Callimachus himsel# twice re#ers to Ephesus- where

Hippona2 li%ed until being e2pelled- according to the Suda- as the homeland o#

choliambic %erses lines /0;/5 and 80;88. Another re#erence to Hippona2 ma" be #ound

/0 See Edmunds ,/D Hughes /668D &erkhecker /666 on 4ambs 4- :- and 444D Hutchinson /677-57##.D Acosta;Hughes ,,- ,/;/0.

/5 &erkhecker /666- 05;09. 1he reason #or Hippona2' coming is #ound in the Diegesis- and is not madee2plicit in the e2tant #ragments. Still- the authoritati%e %oice o# Hippona2 does shine through in thesur%i%ing #ragments. He commands the gathered crowd to be silent R` L[UTFR-ὴ line 0/ and to

write down his speech QV LG[F[ ̂ U U- ὶ ὴ ῥῆ line 0/./9 &erkhecker /666- 57.



8

in line = i# Acosta;Hughes' reading o# ̂ WU[ U is accepted. ῖ 16 1he conte2t o# the

allusions to Hippona2 in this poem is again- as in the #irst iamb- that o# stri#e between

poets- probabl" Callimachus and his critics- whose disagreement had reached the point

o# ph"sical %iolence ] I I QTGVI ̂ [FfWR^Vἀ ὸ ἐ Q^TRU ] - lines 9,;90. !acingἀ ῷ

criticism- Callimachus appeals to Hippona2 as an iambic authorit"- just as Herodas will

later do himsel#. 1he elements o# aesthetic criticism in Hippona2' iamboi make him an

especiall" appropriate model #or Callimachus to use when de#ending his own poetr".

Such a de#ense must naturall" include aesthetic judgments o# his critics' own poetr" or

their aesthetic %alues. 1he peace#ul reception ad%ocated b" Hippona2 in Callimachus'

#irst iamb has not occurred- and so in the thirteenth iamb Callimachus naturall" returns

to the Hipponactean persona to %oice a response to his critics and a de#ense o# his own

works. 1he closing lines o# the thirteenth iamb ha%e a bite that is reminiscent o#

Hippona2' own in%ecti%e and largel" absent #rom Callimachus' other iambic poems. 17

1wo conclusions can be drawn #rom Callimachus' iamboi that will pro%e

important #or anal"sis o# Herodas' mimiamboi . !irst- it is clear #rom allusi%e language

and direct re#erences that Hippona2 was esteemed b" Callimachus as an iambic

authorit" and e2erted considerable in#luence on Callimachus' own iamboi . Second-

re#erences to Hippona2 and his poetr" were considered especiall" appropriate b"

Callimachus in the conte2t o# aesthetic criticism and de#ense o# his own poetr"./7

/8 Hughes /668- ,/0;,/9 argues that ̂ WU[ U should be read instead o# the traditional \WU[GWI. ῖ&erkhecker /666 does not seem to be aware o# this suggested reading. He #ollows )#ei##er's readingo# \WU[GWI.ὁ

/= &erkhecker /666- ,8= writes that beginning at line 80 Jthe #ocus narrows- and it becomes clear thatall the high;minded sermoni@ing has an 4ambic sting in its tail. 1his is- a#ter all- about sel#;de#ence-and it gi%es a certain mischie%ous pleasure to see Callimachus lea%e the moral high ground toestablish his own claims and make his ad%ersar" eat his words.O

/7 Callimachus is- howe%er- care#ul to clari#" that he is not a mere imitator o# Hippona2. 3hile he doesemplo" the Hipponactean persona as an authorit" #or his own programmatic poems interested in



9

Callimachus accepted iambic poetr" in general and the Hipponactean strain in

particular as an appropriate genre #or aesthetic criticism. 1he pre%alence o# this #orm o#

criticism helps ensure that Callimachus' poems are raised #rom the t"pical JlowO subject

matter associated with iambic poetr" to a more ele%ated- philosophical le%el- and

demands that the audience take him and his poetr" more seriousl". 1his contrast

between a JlowO genre and serious contemplation o# art and ethics becomes e%en more

striking in Herodas- whose %ulgar characters and scenes are uite consistent with the

t"pical e2pectations o# iambic poetr" and mime- but are o#ten used to raise uestions o#

contemporar" art criticism and ethical dilemmas that seem out o# place in such a JlowO

genre.

1.2: The imes of Herodas

4t is now time to consider directl" the mimes o# Herodas. 1hroughout the late /6th

and earl" ,th centuries most scholarship presented Herodas' mimes as %ulgar- comic

sketches intended primaril" #or entertainment./6 1his %iew has continued to e2ist due in

no small part to the #ailure to recogni@e that the same concern with aesthetics and ethics

#ound in Callimachus is also present in Herodas. 1his interest should not be surprising i#

one recogni@es that both Herodas and Callimachus adopt Hippona2 as their model. 1he

aesthetics- he also is sure to emphasi@e the uniueness o# his own brand o# iambos. See Acosta;Hughes ,,- 76;6/ #or a succinct summar" o# the %iew o# Callimachus that emerges #rom the #irstand thirteenth iambs. Brie#l"- in Acosta;Hughes' %iew the #irst iamb Jcon#irms Callimachus as aHipponactean %oice-O while the thirteenth iamb is an Ja##irmation o# his di##erent- distanced iambic

%oice.O/6 !or an e2treme e2ample o# this %iew- see *a%enport /67/- i2;2i%- who imagines the mimes being

per#ormed on the street with the help o# props. 4n his %iew- Herodas' mimes Jare not comedies- butcomic moments-O and his characters J#ools.O >n the tone o# the mime- Pairn /65- 2i writes that the" are J%ulgar- sordid- e%en %icious.O



10

perception o# Hippona2 as an aesthetic and ethical critic has alread" been adeuatel"

demonstrated b" Acosta;Hughes- as discussed abo%e. 4# Herodas openl" adopts

Hippona2 as his model- and it will soon become clear that he does- in #act- do so- then

the presence o# aesthetic and ethical criticism in his mimes is not onl" appropriate- but

should perhaps e%en be e2pected.20

Ha%ing considered the literar" tradition #rom which Herodas' mimiamboi

descend- 4 will now look at elements o# aesthetic criticism in his mimes. M" anal"sis will

proceed #rom the assumption that it is accepted that the importance o# aesthetic and

ethical criticism is inherent in the iambic genre- as discussed abo%e. 4n the case o# a

skeptical reader who does not accept this assumption- howe%er- 4 hope to show that

aesthetic criticism #eatures prominentl" in the sur%i%ing mimes o# Herodas- e%en i# one

does not accept that this is an e2pected element o# the iambic genre within which he

works. 4 will #irst begin with anal"sis o# the eighth mimiamb- in which Herodas makes

clear his connection to Hippona2 and consciousl" locates his poetr" in relation to

traditional classi#ication categories. 4 will then mo%e to mimes in which aesthetic

criticism is clearl" present- primaril" mimes #our- si2- and se%en.

, Hughes /668- ,8 clearl" recogni@es that the mimes o# Herodas #it into the Jtradition o# ethical andcritical commentar"-O but chooses to #ocus on the iamboi o# Callimachus. Hughes' identi#ication o#elements o# aesthetic and ethical criticism in iambic poetr" and his o##hand re#erence to Herodasinspired the general direction o# this paper.



11

Chapter 2: Aesthetic Criticism in Herodas! Mimiamboi

2.1: Mimiamb Eight

An" argument #ocusing on elements o# aesthetic criticism in Herodas' mimes

ought to start with the eighth mimiambos. 4t is in this mime that Herodas openl"

declares himsel# a #ollower o# Hippona2 and directl" addresses critics o# his poetr". 1his

mime is- then- the best e%idence we ha%e #or how Herodas %iewed himsel# and the genre

mimiambos he had created. 1he eighth mime is #ragmentar" and the absence o# ke"

passages makes interpretation di##icult and at times contro%ersial. *espite these

shortcomings- the poem is a clear comment issued b" the poet intended to de#end his

mimes #rom critics and de#ine his in#luences. 4n this sense it is a programmatic piece

that inherentl" addresses poetic aesthetics- similar in man" wa"s to the #irst and

thirteenth iambs o# Callimachus discussed abo%e. 1he primar" di##erence between

Callimachus' #irst iamb and the eighth mime o# Herodas is the position o# each poem in

the o%erall corpus o# the author. Callimachus' poem opens his book o# iambs and is an

earl" attempt to de#ine his poetic program in anticipation o# the response with which it

will meet. Herodas' eighth mime- howe%er- appears to be a response to criticism that he

has alread" recei%ed. Herodas will appeal to Hippona2 as an iambic authorit" to de#end

himsel# and his poetr".

1he eighth mimiambos opens with the narrator presumed to be Herodas

himsel# rousing his sleeping sla%es lines /;/5. >ne sla%e in particular- Annas- is

singled out to hear a dream that is related in lines /8;85. 1he dream opens with the

narrator dragging a goat ^GLU- line /8. ?ines ,;06 are badl" damaged- though a #ew



12

obser%ations can be made. 1he narrator appears to ha%e been engaged in a con#lict with

some goatherds V `- line ,. A man appears dressed in a spotted #awnskinἰ

^Q^ῆI U[XGῦ VU]\ - line 0- wearing a cluster o# i%" QG_WXV ... Q\'- line 0,ῳ

and boots QFGU_- line 00. Most modern scholars assume this man to be *ion"sus-

as his st"le o# dress is consistent with depictions and descriptions o# the god in other

sources. ?ines 00;06 are poorl" preser%ed- but there is a clear re#erence to >d"sseus and

Aeolus' gi#t to him o# the bag o# winds _ ] GU- line 0=. 1he speaker thenἰ ῶ

e2plains how he competed in the askoliasmos, and seems to ha%e emerged %ictorious

5;5=. ?ines 57;9= are completel" missing.

3hen the narrati%e resumes at line 97- a new character has appeared+ an old man

threatening to strike the narrator with his sta## ^ XV^ZG\ῇ ῃ QKR- line 8. 1he

narrator addresses the crowd assembled in his dream `VG[U^[I- line 8/D these areὦ

presumabl" the goatherds #rom line , unless a new group o# characters has been

introduced and calls on the "oung man again- presumabl" *ion"sus to witness the old

man's aggression. 1here is a brie# pause in the description o# the dream lines 89;88-

and then the narrator presents his interpretation lines 8=;=6. 1he lines o##ering the

interpretation present some di##iculties- but this passage will ne%ertheless pro%e to be

especiall" important. He predicts that man" among the Muses will pluck his corpus and

labors ^ WT[V ̀ QG^V ̂ I W I WF_I ̂ [ U U fὰ ὶ ὺ ἐ ὺ ῦ ἐ ῃU- lines =,.21

He claims to ha%e won a pri@e ^ [FU- line =0 competing in theὸ ἄ askoliasmos,

although he accomplished it together with the angr" old man Q ^ LTGU^ fU `GZ'ἠ ῷ ἔ

,/ 4 ha%e taken the translation o# corpus #or ^ WT[V #rom anker ,6. 1his best captures the dualὰsense o# the word WT[V as both a ph"sical bod" and the poetic bod" o# work.



13

GUFTU^- line =9. He mentionsὀ QTI line =8- though the conte2t is not entirel" clear.

!inall" he makes the claim that he has learned to sing choliambic poetr" #ollowing

Hippona2 W[^ `ÙVQ^V ̂ U `VV ^ Qf [\][U- lines =7;=6. Here the narrati%eἸ ὸ ὰ ἀ

o# the mime ends and uestions o# interpretation begin.

1he eighth mime has long been %iewed as Herodas' attempt to de#ine the new

genre he has in%ented and de#end his poetr" #rom criticism.22 1here ha%e been no

serious e##orts to debunk this %iew. An" scholarl" disputes in%ol%ing this mime tend to

#ocus on subtle di##erences in interpretation. As 4 am interested primaril" in the

elements o# aesthetic criticism and connections to Hippona2 that are e%ident in this

poem- 4 will largel" sidestep such debate- e2cept where directl" rele%ant to

understanding the aesthetic stance adopted b" Herodas in this mime.

1he narrati%e structure o# the mime an indi%idual recounting a dream in which

he encounters an earlier poet or the Muses was a common literar" topos among

Hellenistic poets.23 An educated audience- whether readers or %iewers- would ha%e

understood the dream setting as an earl" signal that this particular mimambos will in

some wa" e2amine Herodas as a poet and his work. 4t is- there#ore- appropriate to

e2plore the s"mbolic meanings o# the characters- scenes- and objects in the mime. 1he

narrator- in the guise o# a simple rustic character- can be identi#ied with Herodas.24 1he

goatherds who ha%e attacked him he claims to ha%e been beaten+ RWV- line /6ἔ

,, See Cunningham /6=/- /65D <osen /66,D <ist /66=D !ountoulakis ,,D anker ,6- ,,5;,,8 and ,00;,09D Mastromarco /675.

,0 1he most notable Hellenistic e2ample is Callimachus. 1his topos ma" be traced back to Hesiod. Aninteresting <oman parallel is #ound in Ennius- who claims to ha%e been inspired in a dream b"Homer. A dream also appears in 1heocritus- Idyll ,/. Bion's dream !r. /- ow /686 #eaturesinteraction between the persona and Eros. >n this see ut@willer ,=- 68.

,5 1his identi#ication has long been accepted. See Headlam and &no2 /6,,- lii;l%iD Cunningham /6=/-/65D anker ,6- ,,5;,8 and ,00;09.



14

should be identi#ied with the critics o# his poetr". Attempts ha%e been made to connect

the goatherds to speci#ic contemporar" poets- such as Callimachus or 1heocritus- or

their #ollowers- but such postulations are impossible to con#irm. 1he ne2t character to

appear is easil" identi#ied as *ion"sus- or at least a representati%e o# the god- b" the

clothing he is wearing- o# which his st"le o# #ootwear- the QFGUI- will pro%e

particularl" important in making this connection. Herodas and the goatherds then

engage in the askoliasmos- a rite associated with the rural *ion"sia.25

A clear connection to *ion"sus and dramatic per#ormance is e%ident throughout

the dream. 1he goat the narrator is dragging- the appearance o# *ion"sus in general and

the speci#ic re#erence to him wearing the QFGUI- a st"le o# boot representati%e o#

traged"- and the per#ormance o# a *ion"sian ritual- the askoliasmos- all point to a

dramatic conte2t or connection.26 1he re#erences to the goat and the QFGUI o#

*ion"sus are ma"be indicati%e o# a tragic connection speci#icall"- not just a general

dramatic connection.,= Andreas !ountoulakis has proposed that Herodas is tr"ing to

con%ince his audience that the origins o# mime are connected to poetr" sanctioned b"

*ion"sus- and in doing so Jin%est his poetr" with the authorit" and prestigeO granted to

dramatic poetr".28 1his is necessar" because mime was t"picall" considered a low #orm

,9 ones ,5- /5,;/55.,8 !urther e%idence o# a connection to *ion"sus can be #ound in the narrator's interpretation o# the

dream- when he re#ers to goatherds %iolentl" cutting up the goat Q X\ZI ]V^G[ U^- line 86. 4tἐ ἐ ῦ has been proposed that this ma" be a re#erence to the sparagmos associated with *ion"sus- as seen inEuripides' Bacchae. <ist /66=- 09= rejects this interpretation correctl" in m" opinion. 4 do-howe%er- belie%e that the scene still has clear connections to *ion"sus. Herodas considers the cuttingo# the goat a per#ormance o# rites ^ UF[V ̂ [[ U^[I- line =- which is supporti%e o# a ritual conte2t.ὰ ἔ ῦ

,= See &irb" ,5- /=/ #or both a brie# summar" o# popular proposals concerning the linguisticconnections between the words tragos goat and tragoedia traged"- and also other possibilitiese2plaining the origins o# the word tragoedia. See Headlam and &no2 /6,,- on line 00 #or discussiono# the QFGUI and its connection to *ion"sus.

,7 !ountoulakis ,,- 0/.



15

o# entertainment. 1he widespread negati%e %iew o# non;literar" mime ma" also ha%e

been taken o# Herodas' poetr" i# he could not con%ince his audience o# connections to a

more respected genre- such as traged".29 E%en i# !ountoulakis' interpretation is rejected-

it seems clear that Herodas in%okes *ion"sus primaril" to earn credibilit" #or himsel#D

whether this is because mime has *ion"siac origins is not a critical issue. 1hat *ion"sus

sanctions his poetr" is clear both #rom Herodas' re#erring to the goat- which is

understood to be representati%e o# his poetr"-30 as a gi#t #rom *ion"sus ] GU Qῶ ἐ

RUf_- line 87- and the claim that he recei%ed a pri@e [FU- line =0 #or hisἄ

success in the askoliasmos.

3hile the presence o# *ion"sus is intended to grant authorit" to Herodas' poetr"-

the uarrel with the unnamed LTGRU presents a more di##icult challenge. 1he #irst

uestion that must be answered concerns the identit" o# the old man- who #irst appears

and speaks in the e2tant te2t at line 96 and is again mentioned near the end o# the

mime at line =9. *oubtlessl" he would ha%e #irst appeared somewhere in the lines

preceding his speech 57;9=- but these are missing. Scholarl" consensus is hea%il" in

#a%or o# identi#"ing the old man as Hippona2- though Archilochus has also been

proposed as a possibilit".31 1he strongest piece o# e%idence encouraging the

,6 anker ,6- ,09n6 #inds this proposal Jattracti%eO but sa"s that more e%idence is needed to showthat there was a connection between *ion"sus and mime in the 0 rd centur". 3hile 4 belie%e anker iscorrect in holding some reser%ations- !ountoulakis is %er" clear in stating that it was Herodas' goal to

con%ince his audience o# this connection- not that the connection had earlier been made or won widespread appro%al. 1hat the %iew e%entuall" won out is shown b" !ountoulakis ,,- 0//;/0.

0 See <ist /66=- 097D !ountoulakis ,,- 00D <osen /66,- ,8D Cunningham /6=/- /60.0/ See <ist /66= #or the argument in #a%or o# Archilochus. 4 am largel" uncon%inced b" her claims-

which are predicated on the belie# that be#ore writing choliambic poetr" Herodas had written iambicin%ecti%e in the st"le o# Archilochus. 3hile this is certainl" possible- it makes little sense to include are#erence to Archilochus in a piece dedicated to de#ining the poetic programs o# his choliambic mimes.1he list o# scholars who support identi#"ing the old man with Hippona2 is length"- but see &no2/6,9 and anker ,6 #or both an earl" and late %iew o# such an identi#ication. &no2 is largel"responding to Her@og /6,5.



16

identi#ication with Hippona2 is the use o# a phrase at the end o# line 8 ̂ XV^ZG\ῇ ῃ

QKR that parallels a sur%i%ing #ragment o# the iambic poet ^ XVQ^ZG\ QKV-ῇ ῃ

*egani !r. 7- 3est !r. ,.32 1he description o# the old man as angered GUFTU^- lineὀ

=9 lends some additional support to this identi#ication- as Hippona2 was generall"

regarded as a cantankerous- %iolent old man in the Hellenistic age.33

1here is- howe%er- a problem with this identi#ication that was recogni@ed b"

Cunningham.34 3h" does Hippona2 uarrel with Herodas- who %iews himsel# as a

#ollower o# the iambographer 1he answer ma" lie in the dual nature o# the new genre.

Herodas is not writing choliambic poetr" directl" deri%ed or descended #rom Hippona2'

in%ecti%e- but a new #orm o# poetr" that has resulted #rom #using together mimos and

iambos. Hippona2 is e%identl" displeased with the resulting mimiambos- and so

%iolentl" attacks the "ounger Herodas.35 1he narrator addresses the onlookers ὦ

`VG[U^[I- line 8/ and then calls upon the "oung man *ion"sus to witness his

treatment at the hands o# the old man WVG^fGWV ] ^ U U[ZU\ZU- line 80. 1heὲ ὸ

language here is reminiscent o# the ancient custom o# calling on b"standers to obser%e a

crime- so as to secure witnesses #or a trial.36 Such language is appropriate here as the old

man and Herodas are about to be judged b" *ion"sus.37

0, anker ,6- ,0/ e2plains Herodas' e2clusion o# the kappa as a Jlearned rationali@ation o# the shortV in Hippona2' XVQ^ZG\ .O Cunningham /6=/ o##ers a similar e2planation.ῃ

00 *egani /675.

05 Cunningham /6=/- /65.09 !or rele%ant discussion see <osen /66,- ,/,- who makes a similar point. !ountoulakis ,,- 0/

responds to <osen b" arguing that Hippona2 would not be angr" with Herodas #or mi2ing iambicpoetr" with dramatic poetr"- since drama was a well respected genre. 4nstead- Hippona2 is angr"

because Herodas has combined iambic poetr" with mime- which was held in low esteem.08 !ountoulakis ,- ,7.0= >ne pu@@ling aspect that 4 ha%e not seen addressed is the uestion o# wh" Herodas would call on the

goatherds- who ha%e been understood as his ri%als- as potential supporters in the e%ent o# a trial. Arethe goatherds and Herodas reconciled a#ter his success#ul e##orts in the askoliasmos Has hecon%inced them o# his poetic skills



17

!ull understanding o# the judgment o# *ion"sus at line 85 ] [ `[U WR ̂ Uὀ ἶ ἄ ὸ

]GTV ... is just barel" out o# our grasp. 1he end o# the line is missing- as are the details

#rom the ten lines preceding Hippona2' speech 57;9=. 1he ke" to making sense o# the

"oung man's judgment is probabl" a missing %erb that takes ]GTV- which can be

interpreted two wa"s- as its object. 1his noun is either best translated as Jthe skinnerO or

Jthe #la"erO #rom ]G[fI-38 or as a #orm o# ]G- JskinO or Jhide.O39 4 will %er" cautiousl"

argue #or the second option.40 4# this %iew is adopted- the passage would be translated as+

JAnd he said that we both missing verbq the hide.O An in#initi%e o# some sort would

then be e2pected- probabl" suggesting that the hide was to be gi%en to or shared b" both

the narrator and the old man. 4 ha%e adopted this %iew based on the narrator's

interpretation o# the dream in lines 8=;86. He sa"s that he alone o# all those trampling

the wine skin had won the pri@e =;=/- e%en i# he had accomplished it together with the

old man Q ^ LTGU ̂ fU `GZV- line =9. 1his statement suggests that the" had aἠ ῷ ἔ

shared accomplishment. 4# the ]GTV mentioned at line 85 is understood as the skin

gi%en as a pri@e- then the narrator's remark at line =9 is clari#ied.41 1he shared

accomplishment mentioned b" the narrator is a re#erence to their poetic success. Both

07 anker ,6 translates it as #la"er- interpreting it as a nomen agentis. 4t is translated as Jthe o##icerOin the /6,, Headlam and &no2 edition- which is e2plained b" a note ad loc.

06 See Cunningham /6=/- ad loc.5 <osen /66, and )isani /69, both support this reading.5/ >ne other proposal is put #orth in Headlam and &no2 that ma" make some sense- but can- 4 belie%e-

be dismissed. 1he noun ]GTV can be translated as J#la"erO as discussed abo%e- and in this sense ma"

re#er to a whipping. 1he legal nature o# the scene signaled b" `VG[U^[I and WVG^fGWV mightὦencourage such a translation. See Headlam and &no2 /6,,- 065;69 #or discussion o# the legallanguage. 1he major problem with this reading is that the remaining lines o# the poem make nore#erence to the old man and Herodas sharing in an" sort o# a whipping or punishment. 1he onl" actthe" ha%e shared in has a positi%e connotation- and is much more likel" to re#er to their shared successin either the askoliasmos or their sharing o# *ion"sus' appro%al. Since the end o# the poem is #airl"

well preser%ed with onl" a #ew endings to certain lines missing- there is no possible place at the end o#the poem where a punishment scene could ha%e occurred. ># course- the scene need not actuall" takeplace in the dream- as the narrator has woken up- but an allusion to it would be e2pected somewherein the remaining lines o# the mime.



18

were awarded the hide b" *ion"sus- signaling that both ha%e his appro%al. 1he

importance o# securing *ion"sus' appro%al has been discussed abo%e- but to restate it

simpl"- the awarding o# a pri@e b" *ion"sus grants authorit" to Herodas' poetr" and

%alidates the new genre. 1his %alidation is critical to de#ending himsel# #rom his

detractors' attacks.

2.2: "ream Interpretation

!ollowing the judgment o# *ion"sus is the interpretation o# the dream. 1he

narrator recalls again that he had dragged a goat #rom a ra%ine V LV ^ I GVLLI ἶ ῆ

[ QU- line 8=- and calls it a gi#t #rom *ion"sus ] GU Q RUf_. 1he goat- asἐ ῖ ῶ ἐ

mentioned abo%e- has been interpreted as representing Herodas' poetr".42 1his same

goat is %iolentl" cut up Q X\ZI ]V̂ G[ U^- line = and consumed ]V\U_U^- lineἐ ἐ ῦ ἐ

=- b" the goatherds- who are described as per#orming rites ^ UF[V ̂ [[ U^[I- lineὰ ἔ ῦ

=. 1hough not per#ectl" clear due to a missing word in the manuscript- Herodas seems

to compare this beha%ior to how his mimes will be treated. He sa"s that man" among

the Muses will pluck ^[ U U fZU- line =, his works. 1hese lines ha%eῦ ἐ

generall" been interpreted in a negati%e wa"+ critics will Jtear apartO his poetr"- much

like the goatherds %iolentl" took and cut up his goat earlier in the dream. 4 would-

howe%er- like to propose another possible reading.

5, >ne possible metaphor 4 ha%e not seen discussed is the GVL- the ra%ine. 1his is mentioned twice+at line 8=- and earlier at line /8. 1he dragging o# the goat out o# the ra%ine ma" be re#erring to thein%ention o# a new poetic genre. 1he long ra%ine GVLLI N WVQG I- lines /8;/= ma" re#er to theῆlong tradition o# poetr" in general- or perhaps e%en iambs in particular.





20

such a wa".

4 belie%e the man" re#erences to speci#ic poetic genres in the interpretation part

o# the dream also point to a clear connection to the acti%ities o# the Mouseion- whose

members were interested in categori@ing poetr". 1he word WTI line =/ is generall"

used to re#er to l"ric poetr"- a genre distinct #rom epic and traged".47 Herodas also uses

the term `[V line =8- which is most o#ten used o# epic poetr" but here o# his iambicἔ

poems.48 >ne #inds a direct re#erence to iambic poetr" in general at line == WXRU- andἰ

to per#ormance o# choliambic poetr" speci#icall" at line =6- when he mentions singing

sca@ons ^ Qf [\][U.ὰ ἀ 4 belie%e that the hea%" concentration o# these generic terms

in the #inal ten lines o# the poem suggests that Herodas is concerned with how his poetr"

will be classi#ied and recei%ed. Such a concern is natural #or the poet o# a new genre

writing at a time when there was great scholarl" interest in classi#ication o# poetr". He

recogni@es that his poems ma" be or perhaps more likel"- alread" ha%e been met with

skepticism or criticism since the" are so inno%ati%e- and accordingl" stri%es to place

himsel# in an alread" established tradition. 4n the #inal #our lines o# the poem he %er"

care#ull" engages in classi#ication himsel#. He mo%es #rom the broad categor" o# `[V toἔ

the more narrow genre o# iambos. ># course- as he is #ollowing a Hipponactean model-

he then must #urther de#ine his poems as choliambic poetr" Q_.

4 would like to argue that he takes this sel#;classi#ication one step #urther-

assuming one accepts a re#erence in line =6 to Callimachus' thirteenth iamb. Herodas

writes that he will sing his choliambs to the #uture descendants o# the sons o# outhos

5= )lato makes a clear distinction between epic- tragic- and l"ric poetr" in the !epublic. See 0=6a and8=a.

57 See anker ,6 and Cunningham /6=/ on line =8. Both cite a comic #ragment #ound in )age/65/- 0,5. 1he #ragment uses `[V in a broad sense similar to how Herodas uses it.ἔ



21

^ Qf [\][U _F\]ὰ ἀ ῃI [`_- line =6.56 Herodas makes a learned re#erence

here to the 4onians- who were the descendants o# outhos. 1his line ma" be responding

to the #inal lines o# Callimachus' thirteenth iamb+

^ [U FU ^ R _WW[\VI-ὔ Ἔ ἐ ὔ [U- F[U ̀ [G ^ WT^GV WTU^[IἜ ! " ὰ

^ R ^\Q^[U W WVF I UVfU^Vὰ ὰ ὴ ἀ ῶ ἐ)#ei##er !r. ,0- 85;88

Ha%ing come neither to Ephesus nor ha%ing mi2ed with the 4onians-to Ephesus- where those intending to produce choliambic %ersesare learnedl" inspired.

Callimachus mentions Ephesus and the 4onians because o# their close connection to

Hippona2. B" claiming that he ne%er tra%eled to Ephesus he is purpose#ull" distancing

himsel# #rom his literar" predecessor. 4n doing so he emphasi@es that- though inspired

b" the earlier iambographer- he has cra#ted his poetr" in a uniue manner- as an

inno%ator rather than imitator.50 1hus- when Herodas sa"s that he will sing to the

4onians- he is separating himsel# #rom Callimachus and aligning himsel# more closel"

with Hippona2. 1o borrow the biologist's classi#ication scheme- Callimachus and

Herodas are both in the same #amil" `[V- the genusἔ iambos- and the species

choliambos. 1he" then split- with Callimachus' poetr" #alling into one sub;species and

Herodas' into another. Much as Callimachus stri%es to distance himsel# #rom Hippona2-

Herodas distances himsel# #rom Callimachus to a%oid comparisons to a #amous

contemporar" #ellow poet. 1his e2plains the use o# terms marking poetic genres- which

would ha%e been well understood b" his educated audience.

3hile distancing himsel# #rom Callimachus- Herodas aligns himsel# more closel"

56 See Cunningham /6=/ and anker ,6 #or discussion o# the possible corruption o# [`_.9 Hughes /668- ,6.





23

2.#: The $rogrammatic %ignificance of Mimiamb Eight

>ne additional wa" in which Herodas signals his debt to the iambic genre is

e%ident in the %er" structure o# the poem. 1he #irst se%en mimes are largel" dri%en b"

dialogue between two characters.53 4n all but the second mime dialogue between two or

more characters makes up the #ull content o# the mime. 4n #act- the eighth mime is the

onl" sur%i%ing mime in which there is just a single speaking part- since when the "oung

man and the old man speak it is reported b" the narrator.95 1he eighth mime is- then-

one long- mostl" uninterrupted narrati%e. Herodas ma" well ha%e chosen to cra#t his

poetic statement in such a #ashion to re#lect his awareness o# the iambic genre- in which

narrati%e pla"ed a crucial role.55 1his is just one more subtle wa" in which Herodas links

himsel# to the iambic tradition.

1he mime appears to end with a claim that he will win #ame #or his poetr" QTI-

line =8. $n#ortunatel"- the condition o# the pap"rus does not uite allow us to

understand precisel" how he la"s claim to this #uture #ame. Pe%ertheless- this boast#ul

claim contributes to his e##orts to %alidate his poetr" and de#end it #rom criticism. B"

asserting to his audience that he will win #uture #ame he is justi#"ing the creation o# a

new genre.

4# the order o# the mimes preser%ed in the manuscripts corresponds to the

original order in which Herodas composed and circulated the mimes- then it would

90 1he e2ception to this is the second mime- which consists entirel" o# Battaros' speech- uninterruptede2cept b" two lines. 4t ma" be that Herodas wrote more mimes like the second- but the limitede%idence that we ha%e suggests that the majorit" o# his mimes consisted primaril" o# dialogue betweenat least two characters.

95 1his ma" e%en be an e2ample o# Jmeta;mime-O especiall" i# one #a%ors solo recitation as theper#ormance mode o# the mimes.

99 See Bowie ,/.







26

which is also concerned with establishing the model o# an ideal audience #or his poetr".

4mplicit in de#ining an ideal reader or %iewerlistener is an endorsement o# speci#ic

aesthetic %alues. As 4 ha%e alread" argued- concern with aesthetics should be e2pected o#

an author who so clearl" ad%ertises his connections to the iambic tradition.

2.&: Herodas as Hipponactean Aesthetic Critic in Mimiamb 'our

As Herodas' understanding and awareness o# his in#luences and generic topoi

ha%e now been demonstrated- 4 would like to turn to identi#"ing instances in the mimes

where he takes on the Hipponactean role o# aesthetic critic. 4n the remaining pages o#

this chapter it should become uite e%ident that not onl" does Herodas clearl" embrace

the role o# aesthetic critic- but that he is well suited to such a role. 4t is a natural

progression- 4 belie%e- to mo%e #rom the eighth mime to the #ourth. Both demonstrate a

strong interest in aesthetics in contemporar" poetr" and art. !urthermore- both help

guide the audience o# his poetr" in their interpretation o# his poems. 4n respect to this

#unction- both mimes are important programmatic pieces intended to in#luence the

reception o# his mimes. 1he #ourth mime will re%eal a strong knowledge o# Hellenistic

aesthetics in both poetr" and the plastic arts that carries o%er into the si2th and se%enth

mimes. A constant tension between the low;brow nature o# mimos and the ele%ated

statements o# aesthetic criticism borrowed #rom iambos will become e%ident- and will

ser%e to ob#uscate the poet's own %iew.

1he tension between high and low elements is most e%ident in the #ourth mime-

which deals directl" with criticism o# objects o# %isible arts. 1he mime #eatures two



27

women with speaking roles making an o##ering at a temple to Asclepius and %iewing and

critiuing the pieces o# art in and around the temple.8 1he tendenc" in past scholarship

has generall" been to dismiss the women as unsophisticated %iewers who #ail to

appreciate and properl" critiue the pieces o# art.8/ !ollowing such a %iew- Herodas' goal

is to make his audience laugh b" making sport o# uneducated- lower class indi%iduals. 4#

this is true- it is a clear e2ample o# Herodas pla"ing the role o# aesthetic critic. He takes

aim at the aesthetic %alues o# a particular class and holds them up #or mocker". 4mplicit

in this act is a rejection o# the %alues %oiced b" the women and- presumabl"- support #or

another set o# aesthetic %alues that he does not make apparent in the poem.8,

Such a reading o# the #ourth mime is- 4 belie%e- largel" correct- but does not #ull"

appreciate the comple2it" o# this particular mimiamb. 4 will propose that the #ourth

mime be interpreted as a sort o# metaphor #or the wa" in which Herodas' own mimes

were %iewed and an instructi%e piece demonstrating how not to %iew his poetr". ust as

8 1he temple is o#ten identi#ied as the Asclepion on the island o# &os- though the accurac" o# thisassertion is o# no great importance #or this paper. See Sherwin;3hite /6=7- 09;9, #or e%idence thatthe #ourth mime takes place in the Asclepion on &os. Cunningham /6=/ disagrees with thisassociation- belie%ing that none o# the works known to ha%e been in the temple at &os are mentionedin this mime. anker ,6- /5;/7 and /,,;/,6 rejects Cunningham's claim and o##ers support #orSherwin;3hite's %iew. He #ollows Sherwin;3hite in proposing that the #ourth mime ma"- in #act- ha%e

been composed to mark the reno%ations to the temple and increase in cult acti%ities. He sees a parallelto this in 1heocritus Idyll /9- which ma" ha%e been composed #or the Adonia.

8/ oldhill /665- ,,, sees the pronouncements o# the women as J#ar remo%ed #rom the Hellenisticsophos.O He echoes this sentiment in a more recent article ,=- stating that he belie%es the womenare mocked. *uBois ,=- 57 belie%es that the women are painted as Jridiculous and ignorant-O andthat the" primaril" act as a J#oilO #or knowledgeable %iewers. Skinner ,/ o##ers a di##erent %iew o#

the women in the #ourth mime. She sees the women as representati%e o# a uniue #emale %iewing st"lede%eloped in the poems o# Erinna- Possis- and An"te. 1he #ourth mime is an attempt b" Herodas toJdiscreditq the poetic e##ortsO o# these #emale authors p. ,,,.

8, Yacobi ,- =/8 belie%es that when a reader determines that a narrator in this case the two women- &"nno and &okkale is unreliable the" are at the same time deciding that the author disagrees with the narrator and supports an alternati%e %iewpoint. Herodas' e##orts to make the women anobject o# mocker" is %er" similar to what is done b" the speaker in in%ecti%e poems. B" attacking anindi%idual #or their %iews or actions the speaker is rejecting those %alues and promoting their own. SeePappa /666- who is interested in Catullus' in%ecti%e poems- but makes man" good points rele%ant toin%ecti%e poetr" in general.



28

the interpretation o# the dream in the eighth mime is instructi%e- so too is the %iewing

e2perience o# the women in the #ourth mime. Herodas encourages his audience to reject

the women in the #ourth mime as ideal %iewers- and to learn the proper wa" o#

consuming his poetr"- using the two women as an anti;model. 4t will become apparent

b" the end o# this discussion that the #ourth mime demonstrates keen awareness o#

Hellenistic aesthetic %alues that were applicable to both literature and ph"sical pieces o#

art- and that Herodas e2pects his audience to recogni@e these %alues. Herodas

presupposes a parallel between %iewing %isual art and reading or listening to poetr".80

2.(: Contemporar) Criticism and Aesthetic *alues in Mimiamb 'our

raham anker sees the %er" structure o# the #ourth mime as e%idence #or

Herodas' close engagement and #amiliarit" with contemporar" Hellenistic art criticism

and popular aesthetic ualities. 4n his ,5 book #ocused on the act o# %iewing in

Hellenistic poetr" and %isual arts- he discusses the trend in both literature and the

plastic arts o# encouraging readers or %iewers to supplement details #or a gi%en scene.85

1he act o# supplementation draws a reader into the work and encourages deeper

re#lection on the work's meaning. Herodas demands his audience members supplement

%arious details throughout the #ourth mime as the women mo%e throughout the temple

comple2 o##ering brie# commentar" on %arious pieces o# art that capture their attention.

E%idence o# this techniue is seen in the demonstrati%es used b" the women when

80 Modern scholars ha%e noticed this parallel as well. See !owler /676 and anker ,5.85 See anker ,5- =,;/,. He o##ers numerous e2amples o# this trend in both the %isual arts and

literar" works.



29

pointing to di##erent objects.89 1he women do not gi%e #ull descriptions o# the objects

%iewed- but short snippets that reuire the audience to #ill in the gaps using their own

knowledge.88 4n emplo"ing this supplementation techniue Herodas signals his own

#amiliarit" with contemporar" artistic techniues- skill#ull" incorporating a techniue

popular in the %isual arts into his own literar" art.

Be#ore #urther discussion it will be bene#icial to outline brie#l" the JplotO o# the

#ourth mime. As has been stated- mime #our #eatures two women at an Asclepion

making a thank o##ering to Asclepius #or curing a sickness. 1he names o# these two

women are debated- but 4 will settle on &"nno and &okkale.8= 1he mime opens with

&"nno greeting %arious gods associated with Asclepius- apologi@ing #or the meager

o##ering she has brought a rooster- and ordering her #riend &okkale to set down a

%oti%e tablet lines /;,. 1he pair then begins to inspect and comment on %arious pieces

o# art- including a statue #rom the sons o# )ra2iteles lines ,;,8- a girl looking at an

apple lines ,=;,6- a bo" strangling a goose lines 0;05- and #inall" a statue o# a

woman named Battale- with whom the women are #amiliar lines 09;07. 1heir

e2amination o# the art objects is then interrupted b" an e2tended scene o# %erbal sla%e

abuse prompted b" &"nno's #rustration at her sla%e &"dilla's #ailure to obe" her orders

89 anker ,8- 08=.88 anker ,6- /,5 recogni@es that the act o# supplementation would ha%e been #ar easier #or

Herodas' ancient audience than it is #or a modern reader o# his poems. 4# the Asclepion described inthe #ourth mime is- in #act- real- it is uite likel" that at least some o# Herodas' audience had at some

point seen the temple and the actual objects described in the poem- making the act o#supplementation e%en easier. !or those who had not- #amiliarit" with similar temples and pieces o# art

would ha%e enabled them to imagine a le%el o# detail not accessible to a modern audience.8= anker ,6 identi#ies these as the names o# the characters in the mime- #ollowing Headlam and

&no2 /6,,. See anker's note on page /5. Cunningham /6=/ belie%es &okkale to be the name o# asla%e accompan"ing &"nno based on the tone o# the order at lines /6;,. He belie%es that her #riend isnamed )hile- who is not introduced until line ,=. Cunningham's ,5 1eubner te2t #ollows the samepart distribution as his earlier commentar". 3hate%er names one adoptsit is clear #rom the te2t that&"nno has been to the temple pre%iousl" and is #amiliar with the artwork- while &okkale or )hile is

%isiting #or the #irst time.



30

to #etch the temple attendant- and the entrance o# the women into the pronaos lines 06;

98. 1he women resume e2amining the art- with &okkale commenting on %arious #igures

in a painting 98;=/ and &"nno praising the talent o# Apelles lines =,;=7. 1he mime

concludes with the temple attendant entering and the women making their #inal

o##erings to the god lines =6;69.

3hile 4 wish to pa" the most attention to the language o# the assessments o##ered

b" the women o# %arious pieces o# art- it is use#ul to consider brie#l" the atmosphere

created b" the passages o# the poem that surround lines /;, and =6;69 and interrupt

lines 06;98 their contemplation o# the artwork. 4t is in these parts o# the poem that

Herodas helps guide the wa" in which his audience will %iew the two women and

emphasi@es their low;class status.87 1he o##ering o# a rooster TQ^GIἀ - line /,- the

meagerness o# which is emphasi@ed b" re#erring to it as merel" a second course

^ `\]G`Vἀ - line /0- is the #irst hint o# their status.86 &"nno's ele%ated language at this

part o# the poem is comicall" epic. 4n her e"es- this is no ordinar" rooster that she will

o##er to the god- but the herald o# the walls o# her home UÛ Q\ZI ^\RU QvG_QV# ἰ

FfR- lines //;/,.= 4# Herodas intends this line to produce laughter- as 4 belie%e is the

case- it ma" be indicati%e o# the general attitude he e2pects his audience to adopt

towards &"nno and &okkale. ?ines ,/;07 #eature the women %iewing pieces o# art- but is

87 Yacobi ,- =/,##. argues that Junreliabilit"O is not a character trait o# a narrator the role o#

which &"nno and &okkale pla" in the #ourth mime- but that it is a Jh"pothesis that readers make.O1his h"pothesis is #le2ible and can be re#ormed at %arious points in the te2ts. Herodas' e##orts toemphasi@e the low;class status o# the women is intended to in#luence his elite audience to in#er thatthe women's statements lack reliabilit".

86 See anker ,6- Cunningham /6=/ and Headlam and &no2 /6,, on lines /, and /0. All pointout the connotation o# `\]G`V and comment on the humble nature o# this o##ering. anker notesἐthat a rooster was the onl" o##ering that could be a##orded b" the lower classes.

= &"nno has alread" earlier used the nouns ̂ [ I and Q\V at line = in a distinctl" epic conte2t when ῖ ἰmaking re#erence to )odaleirios and Machaon- two warriors who #ought at 1ro". 1he contrast betweenthese two passages is humorous. See Headlam and &no2 /6,,- ad. loc.





32

o# Hellenistic societ" would assess pieces o# art. 3ithout this knowledge- attempts to

demonstrate that Herodas intends the women in mime #our to be e2amples o# bad

%iewers using onl" their spoken lines rel" on the risk" assumption that we meaning

present da" scholars #ull" understand Hellenistic aesthetics and the proper wa" o#

%iewing art. 4#- howe%erit can be demonstrated that Herodas casts the women as

ignorant and unsophisticated outside o# the conte2t o# critiuing artwork- it is more

reasonable to e2pect that the" will show themsel%es to be euall" ignorant and

unsophisticated when it comes to %iewing and appreciating artwork. 4 ha%e #ollowed this

approach in hopes o# demonstrating that the audience is e2pected to %iew &"nno and

&okkale as lower class- uneducated women whose statements and actions would be

more at home on the comic stage than among a gathering o# educated critics. 1he

mi2ing o# characters o# low social status with as will soon be shown technical

terminolog" and appreciation o# contemporar" aesthetics creates ironic tension. 1hus it

is best to approach the comments the" make regarding the pieces o# art with a health"

air o# skepticism- and to assess care#ull" their pronouncements.

As the mime progresses- it becomes increasingl" clear that &"nno and &okkale

#ocus on aesthetic ualities o# the art objects that are known to ha%e been widel" %alued

in contemporar" Hellenistic reek societ". 1he" also emplo" a technical %ocabular" that

demonstrates knowledge o# art criticism- despite the #act that Herodas has characteri@ed

them as uneducated in other parts o# his poem. )lacing technical- seemingl" educated

statements in the mouths o# common- uneducated characters creates the tension that

has been discussed abo%e. !urthermore- it complicates how the audience is to interpret

the remarks. Be#ore del%ing #urther into this issue 4 would like #irst to e2amine se%eral



33

statements made b" the women to illustrate their use o# technical %ocabular" and to

elucidate which particular ualities the" #ind appealing in the works o# art.

2.(.1: +)nno and +okkale!s Technical *ocabular)

1he use o# technical %ocabular" is eas" to document. A#ter setting down the %oti%e

tablet- &okkale turns her attention to the statues o# the %arious gods that &"nno has just

pointed out. She re#ers to them speci#icall" as LVWV line ,/-ἄ a term reser%ed #or

statues o# di%ine #igures.=,

1he speci#icit" o# the term used #or the statues o# the gods is

emphasi@ed se%eral lines later- when &okkale turns to another statue o# a woman named

Batale- with whom she is e%identl" #amiliar. Here she uses the term U]GI line 08-ἀ

which is reser%ed #or human subjects.=0 A#ter their %iewing o# the objects is interrupted

b" the sla%e abuse scene- the" turn again to %iewing some sculptures and remark that

Athena hersel# seems to ha%e chiseled them ^V ^ G[ I FZUV\ZU LfKV ^ QVῦ ἐ ῖ % ὰ -

lines 9=;97. 1he %erb emplo"ed here- LfR- is another technical term used o#

sculptors.=5 More technical terms are used in their discussion o# the painting o# Apelles.

&"nno sa"s that his lines are true ZFUV\- \Z- L G V [\_ [ G[I I ̀ U ̂ἀ ὰ ἰ & ῖ ἐ

`[TR LGWWV^% - lines =,;=0. Both the adjecti%e ZFUI and the noun LGWWV ha%eἀ

speci#ic- technical meanings applicable to art.=9 4 will discuss ZFUI #urther below.ἀ 4t

=, See anker ,6- ad. loc and anker ,5- /5/;/50. Both Headlam and &no2 /6,, and

Cunningham /6=/- ad. loc. comment on the accusati%e #orm o# \FI that appears with the #emininearticle in the same line as the #orm o# LVWVἄ line ,/. 1his #orm ma" be o# some importance. 4n Atticreek the #eminine #orm o# \FI re#ers to worked or precious stones. Herodas o#ten slips Attic #ormsand constructions into his mimes- as might ha%e happened hereD see anker ,6- =;// andCunningham /6=/- ,//;/= #or help on Herodas' dialect. Headlam and &no2 /6,,- 22i2 write thatJthe cast and construction o# his sentences is #or the most part #luent Attic.O

=0 anker ,6- ad. loc.=5 anker ,6- ad. loc. Headlam and &no2 /6,, note that the term is limited to relie# sculpture-

whereas the %erb `R is used o# sculpture in the round. =9 !or discussion o# the adjecti%e ZFUI see el@er /679-ἀ and anker ,6- ad. loc. See )ollitt



34

is #airl" ob%ious #rom these e2amples that &"nno and &okkale possess and emplo" a

technical %ocabular" in their critiues o# the %arious pieces o# art. 3hether the audience

is to be induced to agree with their assessments b" the authoritati%e weight o# the

technical %ocabular" remains to be seen.

2.(.2: Mimiamb 'our!s Interest in *erisimilitude

># more interest than the use o# technical terms are the aesthetic ualities on

which the two women #ocus their attention. As will become clear in the %arious e2amples

#rom the te2t that 4 will soon discuss- &"nno and &okkale #ocus especiall" on the realistic

ualities o# the %arious pieces at which the" are looking. 1he" are drawn to pieces that

Jha%e the look o# li#e and da".O=8 An interest in and appreciation o# common subjects is

apparent in not onl" the literature o# Herodas' contemporaries- but also the plastic

arts.== :iewers had a particular interest in li#elike art. 4n literar" descriptions o# art

ekphraseis agalmaton readers and listeners had a great appreciation #or accounts that

were #illed with J%isual %i%idness-O #or which the" used the term enargeia UGL[V.ἐ =7

?iterar" accounts that possessed this ualit" o# %i%idness seemed almost to come ali%e to

/6=5 on technical usage o# LGWWV.=8 anker ,6 translates line 87 U XT`_ Q WTGZU Ù^[Iὐ ὶ ὴ ἠ in this wa". So- too- do

Cunningham /6=/ and Headlam and &no2 /6,, interpret it- and take Iliad /7.8/ as its source.== 1heocritus' Idylls are an e2cellent e2ample. 1he" #eature #or the most part lowl" herdsman in scenes

set outside the cit". Some- such as Idyll /9- are set in the cit" and #eature scenes o# e%er"da" li#e and

common characters. See Burton /669 #or a treatment o# these so;called urban mimes. Sculptors-painters- and other artists who worked in ph"sical mediums mo%ed #rom the ideali@ed subject mattero# Classical reek art to more mundane scenes #eaturing a %ariet" o# e%er"da" subjects- such as#isherman- old women- and animals. See !owler /676 #or an e2cellent introductor" summar" o# thethemes popular in art both literar" and ph"sical in the Hellenistic period. anker ,5 o##ers asimilar stud"- though he is mostl" interested in how art was %iewed. >nians /6=6 also pro%ides ause#ul stud" in artistic pre#erences o# the Hellenistic audience.

=7 See anker ,5- 6. He #ollows an earlier stud" b" ra# /669- who in turn cites *io Chr"sostom/,.99;70. 3ebb /666 also notes the importance o# enargeia in ekphrasis. 3ebb ,6- 7=;/8has an entire chapter dedicated to the use o# enargeia in ancient ekphrases.



35

the %iewer- and were mirrored b" realist depictions o# scenes and characters in the

plastic arts. Se%eral e2amples o# this appreciation #or li#elike ualities in art are e%ident

in the #ourth mime.

Be#ore looking at speci#ic e2amples o# how the women describe the works o# art in

the temple- 4 would like to discuss the speci#ic ekphrastic tradition on which Herodas

seems to be drawing. Man" o# the most popular ekphraseis #rom antiuit" are #ound in

epic poems- with Homer's ekphrasis o# the shield o# Achilles being one o# the best known

e2amples. 1he ekphraseis in Herodas- howe%er- seem to owe a debt to another popular

tradition- that o# ekphrastic epigram. Hellenistic ekphrastic epigram was an e2tremel"

popular genre- o# which thousands o# lines b" man" poets still sur%i%e.=6 >ne popular

theme o# Hellenistic epigram is to ri## on dedicator" epigrams #rom the Classical and

pre;Classical periods that were inscribed on objects dedicated in temples. 4n Hellenistic

epigrams- howe%er- the object to which the epigram re#ers need not be realD the poem

can e2ist merel" as a literar" te2t- without detracting #rom a reader's abilit" to

understand the content o# the epigram.7 Man" o# the ekphrastic passages in Herodas'

#ourth mime e2hibit this same ualit" the women re#er to objects in a temple with

which Herodas' audience ma" or ma" not ha%e been #amiliar. Another ke" di##erence

between Hellenistic epigram and its earlier #orebears is the #ocus on the lower classes

and mundane scenes o# li#e.7/ A #eature o# such epigrams is humor and in%ecti%e- which

=6 Bruss ,/- //7 estimates 5-= lines b" 8 or more poets #rom the %arland o# Meleager alone.)hilip o# 1hessalonica's %arland adds thousands o# additional lines #rom poets working in the period

between Meleager and )hilip's own time.7 Bruss ,/- /,/.7/ Bruss ,/- /0, remarks that earlier epigram #ocused on the li%es o# the elite classes and Jre#lectedq

the interests and ideolog" o# a part o# the population wealth" enough to commission poems and themonuments to inscribe them on.O An"te's collection o# epigrams to pets is an e2ample o# the moremundane subject matters o# interest to the Hellenistic audience.



36

suggests a debt to the genres o# comed" and iambos.7, Herodas himsel# owes a debt to

these %er" same genres- and #eatures scenes depicting lower class characters and their

concerns. <ecogni@ing the parallels in the ekphrastic passages in the #ourth mime and

Hellenistic epigram allows us to draw on a %ast corpus that helps to understand how

Herodas intended his audience to react to &"nno and &okkale- and how a sophisticated

%iewer would respond to %isual objects o# art.

4 would like to look at just one particular e2ample #rom Herodas where a debt to

Hellenistic ekphrastic epigram is e%ident- although most o# the ekphrastic passages in

the #ourth mime e2hibit similar ualities. !ollowing their praise #or the statue b"

)ra2iteles' sons discussed abo%e- &"nno directs &okkale's attention to another piece o#

art- presumabl" a statue+70

GZ- \Z- ̂ U ̀ V ]V ̂ U UR Q[\UZU# ὴ ῖ ὴ ἄXT`_VU I ̂ W Ux Q G[ I V ^vUἐ ὸ ῆ ὐ ἐ ῖ ὐ U W X ^ W U Q ^V Kf[UD' ὴ ῃ ὸ ῆ ἐ

?ook- #riend- at the girl- that one looking upat the apple. 3ould "ou not sa" that she will soon #aint i# she does not grab the apple

?ines ,=;,6

Se%eral things are noteworth". !irst is the use o# a %erb o# speech G[ I #ollowed b" aἐ ῖ

statement that re#lects on the li#elike ualit" o# the piece o# art. 1his #ormula will be

repeated elsewhere in the #ourth mime. 1he use o# a second person %erb- particularl" an

imperati%e GZ-# here directed at &okkale- is paralleled in man" Hellenistic epigrams-

7, Bruss ,/- /,6 and /05 notes this debt.70 4t is possible that this was a #amiliar scene in ancient art. Headlam and &no2 /6,, ad. loc. cite two

%ases one b" Assteas and another b" Sotades that contain an image o# a girl in the arden o# theHesperides. Cunningham /6=/- ad. loc. belie%es Jthere is no reason to suppose a close connection

between these other imagesq and what is here described.O anker ,6- cites a %ariet" o# scholars in#a%or o# pushing such a connection- including ?ehman /659- 50;0 and 3ebster /685- /97;6 and50,.



37

in which the %iewer- or perhaps more aptl"- the reader- is addressed b" the imagined

object. ># course- in literar" Hellenistic epigram ri##ing on dedicator" epigram the

narrati%e %oice is the object itsel#- while in the #ourth mime it is a character who e2ists

within the poem. Another similarit" to Hellenistic epigram is the interest in what might

happen were the inanimate object actuall" ali%e. 1he women in mime #our do this when

the" in%ent a narrati%e outside o# the scene depicted b" the statue- imagining the girl

#ainting. 1his is t"pical o# a Hellenistic %iewer- who was interested in ps"chological

portraiture- according to raham anker.75 Man" e2amples o# this are e%ident in the

thirt";si2 poems #rom the Antholog" #ocusing on M"ron's Hei#ers- which will be

discussed in more detail below.

1he women then mo%e #rom the girl looking at the apple to a bo" strangling a

goose ^ U ZUV`[QV I ̂ `V]\U ̀ U\L[ὴ ( ὸ - line 0/.79 &"nno's comments on this

statue are reminiscent o# her earlier statement regarding the girl and the apple. >nce

again she comments on how the statue is almost ali%e- remarking that one might be led

to belie%e it would speak were it not a stone `G ^ U `] U L U [ ^ W \FI-ὸ ῶ ῶ ῦ ἴ ὴ

^ GLU- G[ I- Vv[- lines 0,;00.ὔ ἐ ῖ ust as she imagines an e2tended narrati%e

#ainting #or the girl looking at the apple- so does she imagine that the statue o# the bo"

is on the cusp o# speaking. 1hough both are clearl" car%ed out o# inanimate material-

the" ha%e been worked in a realistic st"le such that the women can easil" imagine them

75 anker ,5- 88;=/. )ollitt /678- 96##. traces the de%elopment in the #ield o# portraiture o# theinterest in showing a subject's personalit" and ps"chological state.

79 1his particular piece has been associated with the :atican's JBo" with an Eg"ptian oose.O See anker,6 ad. loc. and p. /,8. Headlam and &no2 /6,, belie%e that this is the piece mentioned in )lin" &' 05.75 #rom the sculptor Boethus. Cunningham /6=/- ad. loc. rejects this %iew- citing the worko# Her@og- who #ound that Boethus' piece should be dated to the ,nd centur" BCE. See also <idgwa",8 #or anal"sis o# this statue- including brie# discussion o# the re#erence to the statue in Herodas'#ourth mime.



38

coming to li#e. 1his is stated almost e2plicitl" in &"nno's ne2t line- when she states that

soon humans will put li#e into stones W - GU Q^ UFGR` Q I ̂ I \F_I _) ῳ * ἠ ὺ +

^ U U F[ UV-ὴ ὴ ῖ lines 00;05.

&okkale then shi#ts the con%ersation to the li#elike ualities o# another statue-

that o# Batale- daughter o# M"ttes. !rom these names it has been deduced that she was a

hetaira.78 )articular attention is drawn to how she is standing Q G I- y_UU - QRIὐ ὀ ῇ ῖ #

XTXZQ[U- lines 09;08. 4t is possible that she is in a pose consistent with a woman o# her

pro#ession.7= 3hate%er Batale's pro#ession and position- &okkale's #inal comments on

this statue are o# great interest. She emphasi@es the realistic depiction o# Batale b"

claiming that an"one who has seen this statue has no need o# seeing the real Batale

XTKVI I ̂ ^ ̂ [ QUWV W ^fWZI ][\FR. lines 0=;07. 1he statue is so li#elikeἐ ῦ ὸ ἰ ὴ ἐ

that it can stand as a replacement #or the real woman- e%en i# someone has not seen her

[ Wv ̂ I _^ἰ ἀ ὴ U [ ][ zV^ZU- line 0=. ἶ 1he adjecti%e ^ἔ _WI line 07 highlights the

Hellenistic appreciation o# realistic depictions o# indi%iduals and JthingsO in general. 4

will discuss this adjecti%e in more detail #urther below- but #or now it is enough to note

simpl" that the Hellenstic %iewer %alued art that was true to li#e- and it is on this trait

that &"nno and &okkale sei@e.

1he objects on which the women ha%e commented at this point in the mime are

onl" loosel" connected to the religious conte2t o# the Asclepion and the reasons #or the

78 Cunningham /6=/ ad. loc. sa"s o# the #ull name that it one Jno respectable woman would bear.OBatale is related to the %erb XV^^VG\R to stammer. , anker ,6 ad. loc. help#ull" adds thatstammering was considered e##eminate. >n the name JM"ttesO he notes that it is connected to thenoun WfÎ- which Jdenoted a man with an unbridled se2ual appetite.O

7= Headlam and &no2 /6,, belie%e her pose to be re#lecti%e o# her character. >ne sees here an e2ampleo# the Hellenistic audience and artist's interest in capturing the personalit" o# a subject. See noteabo%e.



39

women's own %isit b" the #act that the" are in the sanctuar". Besides the LWV^Vἀ

treated in the #irst ,8 lines- the ne2t three pieces the girl looking at the apple- the bo"

strangling the goose- and the %oti%e statue o# Batale are JsecularO objects as much as

this term can be applied to an" object in a temple. 4 will return to this point later- but

#or now it is enough to note that the women do not o##er an" commentar" on the

possible religious conte2t o# these pieces. Such commentar" is particularl" conspicuous

in their discussion o# the statue o# Batale. 1his statue was surel" dedicated as a thank

o##ering to Asclepius- presumabl" #or curing her o# some unspeci#ied illness.77 1he girl

looking at the apple ma" also ha%e had a religious connection to the temple that the

women #ail to notice. 4t is has been proposed that the statue o# the Jirl under the Apple

1reeO in Pew York $ni%ersit"'s 4nstitute o# !ine Arts is a cop" o# the statue mentioned in

Herodas. 4n this cop" there is a snake wrapped around a tree. 1he snake is the s"mbol o#

the doctor's guild- which was closel" connected to Asclepius.76 1he religious conte2t o#

the ne2t piece is likewise ignored.

Another e2ample o# the women #ocusing on li#elike ualities and ignoring

possible religious conte2ts #or the artwork is seen a#ter their %iewing is interrupted b"

the abuse o# the sla%e &"dilla. &okkale is trans#i2ed b" a painting o# a naked bo"

participating in a sacri#icial procession. She imagines the wound he would ha%e i# she

were to scratch him ^ U `V ]V ] ^ U L_WU U U QU\R ^ Û Q QI [- lines 96;ὸ ῖ ὴ ὸ ὸ ' ῦ ὐ ἔ ἔ

8. Again- she is #ascinated b" imagining the subject o# the painting e2isting outside o#

the static scene in which he is depicted. 1he li#elike ualit" o# his #lushed skin V GQ[Iἰ

77 See anker ,6- ad. loc.76 Cunningham /6=/- ad. loc. sternl" warns that this interpretation ought not be attempted. anker

,6- ad. loc. o##ers a brie# but con%incing case #or wh" such an interpretation is possible- drawingon the research o# Massa )ositano /6=0 and *i regorio /66=.





41

her ^R ` - y_UU\- ̂ ^TG QfG - line =/.ὔ ἐ ῖ ῇ ἐ ῃ ῃ >ne ma" here imagine the Mona

?isa or an" similar painting- whose e"es notoriousl" seem to #ollow the %iewer.

&okkale notices and reacts to this phenomenon.6, 4t is %er" di##icult to read these lines

without thinking o# the series o# epigrams taking M"ron's Hei#er as their subject. 1his

connection again suggests that Herodas' ekphrastic passages are best interpreted in a

manner similar to Hellenistic epigrams posing as inscriptions. !ollowing line =/- &"nno

speaks brie#l" on the prowess o# Apelles. 1he temple attendant will then enter and the

women will o##er no #urther comments on the artwork in the temple.

2.,: +)nno and +okkale as Anti-odels for how to ead Herodas

!rom the e2amples cited abo%e it should be clear that the two %iewers #eatured in

the #ourth mime are drawn to pieces o# art done in a realistic st"le that depict subjects in

such a wa" that suggests to the %iewer that the piece is on the brink o# coming to li#e or

that encourages the %iewer to imagine the subject reacting to a touch or some other

outside stimulus. 4t should be no surprise that the women are drawn to such pieces.

Scholars working on Hellenistic art and aesthetics ha%e noticed this interest in li#elike

depictions in the companion #ields o# poetr" and ph"sical art.60 Mundane subject

matters and scenes become increasingl" popular in the Hellenistic period and there is a

decrease in the ideali@ed images o# the Classical period.65 1hus- Herodas' #ourth mime

6, See &oenderink- et. al. ,5 #or a scienti#ic stud" o# this phenomenon. anker ,6- ad. loc. belie%es that this e##ect- commonplace toda"- ma" ha%e been a no%elt" #or Herodas' audience.

60 !owler /676- 5 notes that common subjects in Hellenistic art and poetr" included %arious memberso# the lower classes and scenes o# e%er"da" li#e. <unning parallel to this interest in new subjects wasJan increasing realismO made possible b" ad%ancement in techniues and technical abilities.

65 )ollitt /678- /5 remarks that realism JsupersedesO the idealistic depictions o# the pre%ious age.4nwood and erson /66=- 2% see a similar shi#t in philosoph". )latonic idealism gi%es wa" toJempiricism- materialism- and naturalism.O



42

#eatures %iewers e2amining pieces o# art that were e%identl" in st"le at the time o#

composition. 4t will be important to keep in mind as we consider how Herodas intended

his audience to %iew &"nno and &okkale that the" both appreciate aesthetic ualities

that were %alued b" contemporar" Hellenistic societ". *espite this- 4 will argue that

Herodas does not cast the two women as respectable critics worth" o# emulation- but

that he instead holds them up as models #or how not to %iew art in general and his own

poetr" in particular.

Be#ore del%ing into this claim- 4 would like to look at other e2amples #rom

Hellenistic poetr" in which emphasis is placed on the %erisimilar ualities o# art objects.

4 would like to start #irst with part o# an epigram b" Possis+

^ U ̀ \UVQV VUF I yV ]WU [ I G]\^VIὸ ) - ἰ % [ QUV LGVKVWTUV Ù^ UTFZQ[U VU.ἰ ἀ ἴ

&allo dedicated this %oti%e tablet in the temple o# blond Aphrodite- painted with an image wholl" alike the real &allo hersel#.

)alat. Ant. 6.89

1he image on the `\UV is recogni@ed b" the narrati%e %oice o# the %iewer as a stand;in

#or the real &allo hersel#. &okkale e2presses a similar sentiment when %iewing the statue

o# Batale in Herodas' #ourth mime lines 0=;07D see page 07 abo%e. 1he importance o# a

truth#ul or realistic representation is e%ident in another o# Possis' epigrams- in which

the %iewer is looking at the portrait o# a child and is struck b" how closel" the child

resembles her mother I ^fWRI F_L^ZG ̂ WV^TG ̀ U^V ̀ ^ Q[D )alat. Ant. 8. 090-. ἐ / 0

line 0. 1he ad%erb #ormed #rom ^_WIἔ should remind us o# line 07 in Herodas- and

perhaps also o# U^RI in line 89- which is used b" Herodas to essentiall" mean the same#

thing as ^_WIἔ . Emphasis is placed on the importance o# truth to an original in art



43

objects in other epigrams o# Possis as well.69

1he series o# thirt";si2 epigrams in the reek Antholog" that take M"ron's Hei#er

as their subject are likewise interested in the cra#tsman's skill in creating a statue that

appears ali%e to the %iewer- and o##er perhaps the closest parallel to the ekphrastic

passages in Herodas' #ourth mime. 4n almost all o# these epigrams some witt" comment

is made that pla"s with the idea that the %iewer is looking not at a statue- but a real cow.

)oem 6.=/5 )alat. Ant. is representati%e o# the collection+

z\]U [ W fGRUI- ` ^vZI ] UQ[WV.ἰ ἐ ὶ ἀ X_Q[- Q[U^vVI [ I LTZU W `VL[.ἰ ἀ ἄ

4 am M"ron's hei#er- and 4 am set up atop a base. > cowherd- ha%ing goaded me- lead me to the herd.

Here- o# course- the piece is acknowledged to be a statue- "et the JpunchlineO o# the

epigram is that this statue is so li#elike that the %iewer ought to treat it as a real cow.

1his same #eature is #ound in 6.=/5- in which the %iewer is asked i# heshe wishes to lead

the cow home Q FT[I [ VLTW[U WTLVGU-ὐ ἐ ἰ line ,. ?ikewise- another epigram states

that the cow is so realistic that it is #air to sa" that M"ron did not mold the sculpture

with his hands- but that he ga%e birth to it fGRUI [ G `[U- ^[Q[U- ὶ ὐ ἀ ἔ

6.=,8- line ,. 4n another a bull is tricked into pursuing the cow- beguiled b" M"ron's

decepti%e cra#t V G[- W^ZU ` WU `[\L[Vx ^ L G Ù_Ix ῦ ἐ ὶ ἐ ἔ ὰ ἄ ἀ ὁ

X_`^VI V`^Z[ fGRU- 6.=05.ἐ >ne could cite numerous other e2amples where

attention is called to the li#elike ualit" o# the statue in the #orm o# a statement

imagining the cow is real. So- too- do the women in Herodas' #ourth mime #ind

themsel%es capti%ated b" the girl who seems about to #aint- the statue o# Batale that

69 See )alat. Ant. 8.095 and 6.85 #or e2amples.



44

could be a replacement #or the real woman- the bo" whose #lushed skin would bleed

should he be scratched- the sil%er #ire;tongs that would e2cite an" thie# who happened to

set e"es on them- or the sacri#icial o2 whose #rightening glare stirs up terror in &okkale's

heart. 1he women in the #ourth mime are clearl" interested in the same #eatures that

e2cited other Hellenistic %iewers.

And "et- 4 belie%e that Herodas does not want his audience to accept &"nno and

&okkale as authoritati%e #igures #or how to %iew art. 1o support this claim- it is

necessar" to consider what makes a good %iewer- and #or this it will be use#ul to consider

ekphrasis as a poetic de%ice and its role in ancient poetr". 1he basic de#inition o# an

ekphrasis can be disputed- with some scholars arguing #or an e2pansi%e de#inition while

others pre#er a more limited application o# the term. !or the purposes o# this paper 4 will

work with a somewhat more narrow de#inition+ Jthe representation in words o# a %isual

representation.O68 1his de#inition is closer to the speci#ic sub;categor" o# ekphrasis

called ekphrasis agalmaton- which is the description o# works o# art b" a literar" %iewer.

4t is this #orm o# ekphrasis that we see in the #ourth mime. Central to ancient ekphrasis

is enargeia, or %isual %i%idness- which has been discussed abo%e.6= 1he goal o# enargeia

in orator"- according to ancient authorities such as {uintilian and ?onginus- is to

stimulate an emotional reaction #rom the audience- such that the" are persuaded b" the

orator.67 1he descriptions o# scenes- characters- and objects must be brought to li#e b"

68 Bartsch and Elsner ,=- i. *u Bois ,=- 59 notes that this is a Jreducti%e de#inition-O but adoptsit hersel#. anker ,5- = gi%es as a de#inition+ the Jocular presentation in literature o# an"phenomenon in nature and culture.O 3ebb ,6- in her introduction pp. /;//- gi%es a goodo%er%iew o# the broad de#inition o# ekphrasis that was used in the ancient world.

6= See oldhill ,=- 0;=D *uBois ,=- 59D anker ,5- ,9.67 oldhill ,=- 0;7 discusses %arious Jrhetorical handbooks-O including those o# {uintilian and

?onginus.





46

but statements that are re#lecti%e o# the %iews o# an elite- intellectual class./5 1his is

taken #or granted when dealing with ekphraseis in epigrams or other genres- such as

histor" or rhetoric- where the description o# an object and commentar" on it are issued

#rom an authoritati%e #igure- such as the narrati%e %oice in an epigram or historical

report. 1his authoritati%e %oice behind an ekphrasis is usuall" a member o# the elite

class whose opinions can generall" be interpreted as re#lecti%e o# the widespread %iews

o# a sophisticated upper class./9 Ha%ing pre%iousl" stated that an ekphrasis is

instructi%e- it can now be added that the" speci#icall" instruct the audience member in

elite- intellectual belie#s and %alues.

>ne #inal point on what constitutes a good or bad %iewer will pro%e particularl"

illuminating in the discussion concerning how Herodas characteri@es his women and

how he wants his audience to react to their responses to the art in the temple. ?onginus-

in his rhetorical work |[G K_I ὶ 1 $n the Sublime- discusses the power#ul e##ect

enargeia can ha%e on an audience. He writes that an orator is not onl" able to persuade

an audience member- but can ensla%e him `[\F[ ̂ U QGV^ U WUU- QVὐ ὸ ἀ ὴ ἀ ὰ ὶ

]_ ^V- /9.6.ῦ oldhill sei@es on the importance o# this passage- and argues that Ja

good listener knows to resist- to be critical.O/8 4# a similar line o# reasoning can be

He argues that the production o# commentar" happens in the epigrams related to M"ron's Hei#er- belie%ing that the epigrams do not respond to the sculptor's work- but to the Jtropes o# %erisimilitudeO

/=. 1he epigrams do not merel" note the li#elike nature o# the statue- but engage in an intellectualdiscussion that has its basis in an awareness o# art criticism and the widel" held aesthetic %alue o# arealist portra"al o# nature. 4t this engagement with an intellectual tradition that is missing in theremarks o# the women in Herodas' #ourth mime.

/5*uBois ,=- 58./9Although it ma" be ob%ious- 4 am re#erring here to ancient ekphraseis. E%en in the ancient world there

ma" be e2ceptions to this general statement. 1he ekphrastic epigrams o# Possis and Erinna come tomind. 4t is possible- though- that these still represent the elite- male;dominated %iewpoint.

/8oldhill ,=- 5. 3ebb ,6- /0/;/88 e2plores how enargeia was used in rhetoric as a persuasi%etool.



47

applied to the e##ect o# enargeia in art and ekphrastic descriptions it ma" help to

understand the reactions o# the women in mime #our./= 1he" are mo%ed b" the %i%idness

o# the artwork in the temple to emotional responses- much like the orator can stimulate

the emotions o# an audience. 1his emotional response pre%ents critical detachment and

anal"sis. A sophisticated %iewer is able to resist the allure o# enargeia and remain at a

distance- which allows proper re#lection.

4t will be instructi%e to return again to the epigrams dealing with M"ron's Hei#er.

4 ha%e pre%iousl" stated that both the narrati%e %oices o# these epigrams and the women

in the #ourth mime #ocus on the li#elike ualit" o# the art objects that the" take as their

subjects. 1his is true- but the responses to the realistic ualities are uite di##erent.

Herodas' women point out the %erisimilar nature o# the art objects and imagine the

responses or actions o# the pieces o# art were the" trul" ali%e the girl would #aint- the

bo" would bleed- and so #orth. Most o# the authors o# the thirt";si2 epigrams- howe%er-

react in a di##erent wa". Simon oldhill has brie#l" e2amined these epigrams in the

conte2t o# a longer article on the purpose o# ekphrasis- and argued that the epigrams are

not primaril" concerned with description o# the statue- but a response to the Jtropes o#

%erisimilitude.O/7 1he poets e2hibit an intellectual interest in the duplicit" o# the

statue./6 1he onl" response o##ered b" the women in Herodas- howe%er- is ama@ement.

1o show the great di##erence between the responses o# the poets o# the epigrams

and the women in the #ourth mime- let us again consider again one o# the ekphrastic

epigrams mentioned abo%e+

/= 4 belie%e that this reasoning can be applied to ekphrastic passages. See oldhill ,=- 8 #or supporto# this %iew.

/7oldhill ,=- /=. See pp. /9;/6 #or his anal"sis o# these epigrams./6Suire ,/- 96, makes this same point.



48

V G[- W^ZU ` WU `[\L[Vx ̂ L G Ù_Ixῦ ἐ ὶ ἐ ἔ ὰ ἄ

X_`^VI V`^Z[ fGRU.ἀ ὁ ἐBull- in %ain do "ou long #or the hei#er- #or it is li#eless. But M"ron the cow;sculptor has decei%ed "ou.

)alat. Ant. 6.=05

1his poem is certainl" dependent on the premise that the statue is li#elike- but the

narrator does not stop a#ter noting the realistic nature o# the statue- but instead

proceeds to a more sophisticated response. oldhill identi#ies this as a #eature common

to all the poems in this collection.// 1he sophistication o# this epigram is elouentl"

stated b" Suire- who identi#ies the Janus;#aced concern with not onl" the promise o#

the sculpture to come to li#e but also its #ailure to do soO as the Jmost strikingO #eature o#

this series o# epigrams./// 4n the %er" #irst line the narrator pla"s with the idea o# the

realistic nature o# the statue the lust" bull is decei%ed- but uickl" undercuts this b"

emphasi@ing that it is- a#ter all- just a statue it is breathless or li#eless Ù_Iἄ . 1he

second line pla"s emphasi@es the skill o# the cra#tsman- M"ron- and implicitl" the

decepti%e nature o# art.

1he sophistication o# this short poem is more ob%ious when considering

&okkale's response to the o2 in the painting. She imagines the o2 as i# it were ali%e- just

like the pre%iousl" discussed epigram- but #ails to undermine this b" noting that the

image is- in #act- li#eless. E%en more important- howe%er- is her #ailure to o##er an"

commentar" on the duplicitous nature o# the piece or the role o# the artist. 1he #ollowing

lines spoken b" &"nno emphasi@e this. She #ocuses on the truth o# Apelles' depiction

// oldhill ,=- /= notes that #ollowing some indication o# the li#elike ualit" comes Ja more pointed-cle%erer retort.O

/// Suire ,/- 8/.



49

ZFUV\-ἀ line =,- which should be contrasted directl" with the decepti%e nature o#

M"ron X_`^VI V`^Z[ fGRUὁ ἐ noted in the abo%e poem. 1he

sophisticated response o# the authors o# the epigrams pla" with the tropes o#

%erisimilitude-//, while Herodas' women merel" notice the %erisimilar ualities o# the art

objects. 1his contrast helps to make clear the #ailure o# the women to be mo%ed to

intellectual commentar" and contemplation- both o# which are the marks o# a good

%iewer.

4t is necessar" to recogni@e that interpreti%e di##iculties are introduced when

ekphrastic descriptions and related commentar" are issued #rom a source other than the

narrati%e %oice- as happens in mime #our. 1he art objects are not described #rom the

poet's point o# %iew- but #rom that o# two characters within the poem. Statements issued

#rom an authoritati%e third;person narrator are generall" more objecti%e and

authoritati%e. At the %er" least- a third;person narrati%e %oice clearl" marks that the

e%aluati%e statements issued b" a character within the poem re#lect onl" the opinion o#

that character. 4n Book / o# the Aeneid - #or e2ample- it is per#ectl" clear that the

interpretation o##ered o# the images in Hera's temple in Carthage belongs to Aeneas

himsel#D it is ob%ious that he is a %iewer and his reactions are the result o# his emotional

e2periences. 4n the #ourth mime- howe%er- the subjecti%it" o# the %iewers &"nno and

&okkale is not signaled b" a distant narrati%e %oice. 1he audience o# the poem must

recogni@e the #allibilit" o# the two women through whose ga@e the images are #iltered.

>nce this #act is recogni@ed- Herodas' audience must care#ull" consider the source o# an"

//, See again oldhill ,=- /8. He notes that the authors o# the epigrams Jall respond to the tropes o# %erisimilitude.O



50

e%aluati%e or critical statements and use their knowledge o# the source to judge these

statements.

4n the case o# &"nno and &okkale- the audience must bear in mind that the

women are not representati%e o# the intellectual elite- but the %er" opposite. As

discussed pre%iousl"- both women appear to occup" ranks within the lower- uneducated

parts o# societ". Both women show #amiliarit" with Hellenistic aesthetics and technical

terminolog" that at #irst glance suggests the" are part o# the same intellectual discourse

in which the narrati%e %oices o# %arious epigrams participate. Yet- their statements are

undercut b" two things. !irst- the" are %er" clearl" not part o# the intellectual elite-

which immediatel" casts suspicion on their aesthetic pronouncements. Second- and

more importantl"- despite an understanding o# the proper words- the women #ail to go

be"ond the phase o# %iewing and emotional reaction to the interpretati%e phase that

includes commentar" and deeper re#lection. 1his is best e2empli#ied b" two #ailures o#

the women to respond in a sophisticated manner. !irst- the women #ail to o##er an"

commentar" on the religious conte2t o# the objects %iewedD this #ailure is emphasi@ed b"

the appearance o# the temple attendant directl" #ollowing their discussion o# Apelles'

sacri#ice scene and &"nno's spirited de#ense o# the painter. 4t seems appropriate that

objects in a temple should produce some commentar" related to the conte2t o# the

artwork- but &"nno and &okkale do not appear to make the ob%ious connection between

the dedication o# art objects in a temple and the religious signi#icance o# such an act. 1he

second #ailure is their general inabilit" to o##er an" commentar" be"ond that centered on

the li#elike ualities o# the %arious art objects the" %iew. 1he" are ensla%ed b" the

%i%idness- the enargeia- to such a degree that the" cannot o##er detached commentar" or





52

&okkale and &"nno then come to represent recei%ers o# his poetr" who #ail to reach the

contemplati%e stage o# %iewing or in this case- reading or listening e2pected o# an

artist's audience that results in commentar".

4# this is accepted it becomes e%ident that Herodas intends his audience to

anal"@e his mimes and not merel" note the sur#ace ualities o# realism that are at #irst

e%ident. At se%eral places in the te2t Herodas seems to warn %iewers o# committing such

a mistake. 1hese warnings are placed in the mouths o# the two women- who comicall"

#ail to reali@e that the" are doing e2actl" what the" warn others against doing. !or

e2ample- when discussing the reaction o# the potential thie%es to the sil%er #ire;tongs

#irst mentioned at line 8,- &okkale mockingl" imagines their e"es popping out in

e2citement QXV[ ̂ I QfGVI- line 85ἐ ῦ ὰ as the" are decei%ed b" the painting. 1his is

almost e2actl" what &okkale does se%eral lines later- when she remarks that she is

almost mo%ed to screaming UZV- line =ἀ b" the li#elike appearance o# the bull

glaring at her. ?ikewise- &"nno berates her sla%e &"dilla #or standing awestruck in the

temple- gaping around ^ ][ῇ 2 ][2 VQ[fῃ- line 5,. &"dilla's ga@e is compared to

that o# a crab G[ V QVGQ\U_ WTU- line 55. 1his scene isὀ ῦ especiall" comic- because

&"nno #inds #ault with &okkale #or staring in awe at the %arious objects o# art that &"nno

and &okkale themsel%es ha%e both just #ocused on in an e2cited manner. 4t is also

another instructi%e e2ample o# an improper act o# %iewing. ust as the two women mock

those who the" imagine to ha%e been decei%ed b" the %erisimilitude o# the art- so does

Herodas ridicule the audience members o# his poems- represented b" the characters in

his #ourth mime- who #ocus onl" on the realistic ualities o# his own poetr".

Another e2ample o# Herodas guiding his audience appears in &"nno's lines



53

#ollowing &okkale's reaction to the bull. <esponding to her #riend's appreciation o# the

painting's li#elike %i%idness- she praises its painter- Apelles. Herodas' decision to include

the name o# this #amous painter is no small coincidence- whate%er his association with

the Asclepion at &os.//= Besides the #ineness o# his lines to which &"nno clearl" alludes-

Apelles was also known #or paintings so decepti%el" true to li#e that one could predict

through ph"siognom" when the subject o# his portraits would die. //7 Apelles should be

%iewed as a parallel to Herodas himsel#. Both are skilled in li#elike depictions- and both

decei%e their audience. Apelles does so through the illusion that his paintings are ali%e.

Herodas does so through the realistic ualities o# the characters and mundane settings

o# his mimes that lull his audience into the belie# that the mimes onl" operate on an

ob%ious le%el and nothing o# importance is hidden beneath the sur#ace. 1he" #ail to

probe deeper and notice the less ob%ious elements o# his poetr"- such as aesthetic

statements.//6 &"nno then prescribes a punishment #or those #ound guilt" o# not %iewing

properl" the works o# Apelles. She declares that whoe%er has %iewed Apelles works

without gi%ing them just consideration W `VWVvVI Q ]\QZI- line == ought to beὴ ἐ

hung up in a #uller's shop `] I QGTWV^ Q[ UI U LUVTRI Q -ὸ ἐ ῖ ἐ ἴ ῳ line =7./, 1his

statement is both comical and serious. 4t is sure to pro%oke laughter #rom an educated

audience that recogni@es the #ailure o# &"nno and &okkale to %iew properl" the artwork

in the temple. At the same time- it is also a warning #or those who #ail to gi%e Herodas'

//= See #ootnote 8.//7 )lin" &atural 'istory 09.08+ Imagines adeo similitudinis indiscretae pin(it, ut ) incredibile dictu )

Apio grammaticus scriptum reli*uerit, *uendam e( +acie hominum divinantem, *uos metoposcoposvocant, e( iis di(isse aut +uturae mortis annos aut praeteritae vitae.

//6 1his certainl" has been the case in much o# the earl" scholarship on Herodas a#ter the originalpublication o# the pap"rus- and persists in some scholarship o# the current period.

/,1his ma" be an echo o# Hippona2. See *egani !r. /=5.



54

poetr" #air consideration and recogni@e that beneath the thick la"ers o# paint depicting

mundane scenes and li#elike characters e2ists serious commentar" on Hellenistic

aesthetics and ethics.

Maril"n Skinner has taken another %iew o# the #ourth mime. <ather than %iewing

it as a programmatic paradigm #or how Herodas wants his own poetr" to be %iewed- she

belie%es that Herodas composed the #ourth mime primaril" as a reaction against the

in#luence o# %arious #emale poets Erinna- Possis- and An"te- #or e2ample on his

#ellow male Hellenistic poets. 4n Skinner's %iew- %arious aspects o# the #ourth mime-

such the setting in an Asclepion- an e2perienced JguideO leading a Jprot}g}e-O and

language reminiscent o# dedicator" epigrams- all encourage the audience to recogni@e a

connection to the uniue #emale %iewing perspecti%e de%eloped primaril" in ekphrastic

epigrams./,/ 1his J#emini@ed perspecti%eO was- in Skinner's %iew- gaining acceptance

among male poets. She identi#ies 1heocritus' #i#teenth Idyll - which #eatures two women

at the Adonia- as #riendl" to this #emale perspecti%e. 4n her %iew- 1heocritus Ja##irms the

#eminine ekphrastic tradition.O/,, 1hough it is impossible to establish whether Herodas'

or 1heocritus' poem came #irst- it is the general trend embodied b" 1heocritus' poem

that Skinner #inds important. She belie%es that Herodas' mime satiri@es the #emale

perspecti%e embraced b" 1heocritus in a misog"nist attempt to pre%ent the spread o#

#emale poets' in#luence that had begun with Erinna.

Simon oldhill responds to Skinner's claim and rejects the e2istence o# a uniue

J#emale %iewing subject.O/,0 oldhill's primar" criticism is that the ekphrastic epigrams

/,/ Skinner ,/- ,,/./,, Skinner ,/- ,/8. Burton /669- /=;/7 also sees 1heocritus as #riendl" to #emale %iewpoint./,0 oldhill ,=- /.



55

cited b" Skinner e2hibit no ob%ious signs o# a uniuel" #eminine %oice. 4n his %iew- the

uniue #emale elements identi#ied b" Skinner can also be #ound in ekphrastic epigrams

produced b" males./,5 He proceeds to dismiss %arious e2amples put #orth b" Skinner on

the same grounds- that the e2amples o# a uniue J#emale aestheticO gi%en b" Skinner are

in #act #ound in e2amples o# ekphrasis that can be traced as #ar back as Homer./,9

oldhill argues that the #emale writers o# ekphrastic epigram ha%e been primaril"

in#luenced b" epitaphs written b" men- and that these are the e2amples the" imitate./,8

His #inal comment on the matter is that the women o# both Herodas' #ourth mime and

1heocritus' #i#teenth Idyll are ironicall" mocked- and as a result a Jsociall" normati%e

e##ectO is #elt./,= 4 am persuaded b" oldhill's rebuttal o# Skinner's argument regarding

the #ourth mime- but do still #ind %alue in Skinner's argument. E%en i# the #ourth mime

is not necessaril" responding to a uniue #emale %iewing perspecti%e- the comple2it" o#

the #ourth mime clearl" demands greater attention than it has recei%ed in the past. 4 will

shortl" come to a discussion o# the possible in#luence that 4 belie%e Posiss and Erinna

did ha%e on Herodas' work- which- while not related to the J#emale %iewing subject-O

does indicate that Herodas was aware o# #emale poets and that their inno%ations in

another poetic genre had a pro#ound e##ect on his mimes.

4n summar"- 4 belie%e the primar" goal o# the #ourth mime is to de#ine an ideal

%iewer not just o# %isual art- but also o# Herodas' poetr". 4# m" reading is adopted the

#ourth mime should stand as another e2ample o# Herodas pla"ing the role o# aesthetic

/,5oldhill ,=- // argues that Je%er" aspect o# this poem's )alat. Anth. 8.09,D an ekphrastic epigramo# Erinna cited b" Skinnerq language- structure- and argument is easil" paralleled in ekphrastic writingproduced b" men.O

/,9 oldhill ,=- /,./,8oldhill ,=- /5./,= oldhill ,=- /9.



56

critic- which is e2pected o# him as a literar" descendant o# Hippona2. 1he #ourth mime is

a programmatic piece- much like the eighth mime- in which Herodas guides the

reception o# his poetr". He does so b" pro%iding an e2ample o# ignorant %iewers

commenting on pieces o# art that #eature ualities parallel to those #ound in his own

mimes- namel" li#elike scenes and characters. He signals to the astute audience member

that his poems demand deep contemplation and should lead to intellectual commentar"-

just as would be e2pected #rom a sophisticated %iewer o# art. 1he #ourth mime is an

e2cellent e2ample o# Herodas' strong connection to the genre o# iambos- o# which

aesthetic criticism was a prominent #eature. 4n his %eiled attempt to guide his %iewers to

reject the statements o# &"nno and &okkale- Herodas adopts the %oice o# the aesthetic

critic borrowed #rom his literar" ancestor- Hippona2.

2./: Aesthetic Criticism in Mimiamb %i0

3hile the #ourth and eighth mimes are the most ob%ious e2amples o# Herodas

commenting on the workings o# his poetr" and pla"ing the role o# aesthetic critic- other

e2amples can be cited where he makes clear allusions to the poet's cra#t. 1he si2th

mime- in particular- demonstrates awareness o# the genre within which he works and

pro%ides an e2cellent illustration o# the need #or the deeper reading and contemplation

suggested b" the #ourth mime. 1he mime #eatures two women- &oritto and Metro-

discussing a dildo that &oritto has acuired #rom a certain &erdon- who runs a secret

business out o# his home. &oritto has loaned the dildo to her #riend Euboule- who in

turned loaned it to Possis. 4t is #rom Possis that Metro #irst learned o# the dildo's



57

e2istence and became interested in acuiring one #or hersel#- prompting her %isit to

&oritto. >n the sur#ace- then- the mime is simpl" about two women chatting about the

best place to bu" dildos. A deeper meaning- howe%er- emerges when looking more

closel" at the language emplo"ed b" Herodas and recogni@ing his tendenc" to comment

seriousl" on his own poetr".

)erhaps the most clear signal that Herodas will use the dildo as a metaphor #or

his own poetr" is the repetition o# the %erb `^R Jto stitchOῥ used in re#erence to its

construction./,7 1his %erb appears at lines /7- 50- 5=- 57- and 9/. acob Stern has

con%incingl" argued that the baubon o# interest in the si2th mime is an e2cellent parallel

#or Herodas' own poetr"+ ugl" on the sur#ace- but with Jhidden la"ers o# meaning.O/,6 4t

is a particularl" apt metaphor #or Herodas' new genre mimiambos- which- as discussed

pre%iousl" in relation to the eighth mime- combines the low;brow- %ulgar subject matter

o# mime with the biting aesthetic and ethical criticism #ound in Hipponactean iamboi .

&erdon's dildos are much the same./0 >n the sur#ace the" are an object #ew respectable

reek women would pro#ess to ownD/0/ e%en Herodas' women are concerned with the

harm that ma" be done to their reputations b" public knowledge o# their possession o#

such an object- as seen when Metro asks &oritto i# she will slander her i# she re%eals the

name o# the dildo's maker ]VXV[ I U [ `R ῖ 3 ἴ - lines ,,;,0. Yet beneath an Jugl"O

e2terior is a great deal o# cra#tsmanship- such that &oritto compares &erdon's skill to

/,7!ord /677 discusses the connection o# the %erb to terms such as a VK ]I and VK ]\V- as well asῥ ῳ ῥ ῳthe metaphorical use re#erring to the composition o# poetr". See also Stern /6=6- ,90##.

/,6Stern /6=6- ,9,./01he %er" topic o# dildos links Herodas to the most #amous author o# mimes- his predecessor Sophron.

4t is uite possible that Sophron's mimes #eatured women %iewing dildos- perhaps in a setting morelike that seen in Herodas' se%enth mime. See Hordern ,5 on #ragments ,0 and ,9.

/0/ 1he e2ception- perhaps- might be on the comic stage- where one would almost be shocked to learn o# a woman who did not possess a dildo



58

that o# Athena ^ I FZUV\ZI V ^ I G U ̂ I [ GVI- yTG]RUI- ][I- lines 89;ῆ % ὐ ῆ ὀ ῆ ὰ 4 ῖ ὐ ὶ

8=. 1his is reminiscent o# the #ourth mime when &okkale is struck b" a relie# car%ing

^V ^ G[ I FZUV\ZU LfKV ̂ QV- lines 9=;97.ῦ ἐ ῖ % ὰ So- too- does the description o#

&erdon's cra#tsmanship ^ I [ GVI-ὰ ῖ line 88 echo &"nno's praise o# Apelles'

cra#tsmanship in the #ourth mime ZFUV\ Nἀ [ G[I- ῖ line =,.

&oritto continues to sing &erdon's praises in the #ollowing lines. 1he baubon is

wonder#ull" straight GF- line =.ὀ 1he straps are made o# a so#t wool- not leather ἰ

] WVU^\Q G- Q WU^[I-ἰ ἔ ὐ ἰ lines =/;=,. 3hen describing the smoothness or

so#tness o# the dildo &oritto uses a highl" literar" phrase- comparing it to sleep ἀ ἠ

WVVQ^ZI ÙI- line =/.ὔ /0, 1he e##ect o# the women's commentar" is to draw attention

to the dildo as a work o# art- not merel" a se2 to". <eaders or perhaps %iewers who do

not probe past the sur#ace o# the mime would doubtlessl" ha%e been entertained b" the

comic themes-/00 while those who look #or a deeper meaning are rewarded b" another

glimpse o# Herodas' keen sel#;awareness and concern with presenting his poetr" in a

sophisticated light.

Another element o# aesthetic criticism in the si2th mime deser%ing o# attention is

the re#erence to two well known #emale poets- Possis and Erinna. 3hen &oritto asks

Metro where she'd seen the dildo- Metro tells her that Possis- the daughter o# Erinna-

had it ~ I [ [U G\UUZI- line ,. ὶ ἶ ἠ 1he use o# these names can be no small

coincidence. Both were rough contemporaries o# Herodas- and well known poets at

/0, 1he most ob%ious comparison noted b" man" commentators is to Iliad /.,+ WVVQ ][]WZW Uῷ 5Ù .1 ῳ 1heocritus also pro%ides se%eral parallels- such as at Idyll 9.9/+ ÙR WVVQ^[GV- or /9./,9+1

WVVQ^[G ÙR.1 See also Stern /6=6- ,90./00 See !innegan /66,- ,6;05 #or one such e2ample o# a reading where emphasis is gi%en to the ob%ious

Jcomic depra%it"O o# the women.



59

that./05 4t would appear that Herodas makes another allusion to the same women in the

se%enth mime. &erdon- the shoemaker- o##ers a long list o# the %arious shoe st"les he has

a%ailable- among which are JPossisesO ~\][I- line 9= and JBaukisesO zV_Q\][I-

line 97. Baukis is- o# course- the companion o# Erinna- to whom the Dista++ is directed.

1he bawd" nature o# the si2th and se%enth mimes at #irst encourages the %iew that

Herodas intends to insult these #emale poets. Headlam and &no2 remarks that Jthe

choice o# two such names proceeds clearl" #rom malicious c"nicism.O/09 i%en the

prominence o# aesthetic criticism in iambic poetr"- this %iew is certainl" de#ensible.

1here is another possible %iew- howe%er- that 4 #ind more compelling.

ackie Murra" has suggested that Herodas' re#erences are not intended as insults-

but rather that the si2th and se%enth mimes together suggest Jimitation and pla"#ul

appreciationO o# poetic contributions made b" Erinna and Possis./08 1he ke"- according

to Murra"- is recogni@ing that mimes si2 and se%en #orm a dip"tch./0= Murra" suggests

that si2 and se%en together metaphoricall" allude to Herodas himsel# consciousl"

writing a dip"tchD the sewing o# the dildos in the si2th mime and shoe;making in the

se%enth are both metaphors #or writing poetr". 4 ha%e alread" noted that the re#erences

to Possis and Erinna are ob%ious. Scholars generall" accept that mimes si2 and se%en

ought to be read together- and the assertion that the" #orm a dip"tch seems #air. 3hat

connection- then- is there between Herodas' re#erence to Possis and Erinna- and the

/05 anker ,6- ad. loc. dates Erinna to the #irst hal# o# the third centur" and Possis to the #irst twent" "ears o# the third centur". Some debate e2ists concerning Erinna's +loruit - but this is generall"accepted.

/09 Headlam and &no2 /6,,- ad. loc. Cunningham /6=/- ad. loc. e2presses the same %iew- and alsoadds that this Jis one o# the %er" #ew occasions when Herodasq is not totall" impersonal.O

/08 Murra" ,7./0= See <ist /660 and &ut@ko ,8.



60

dipt"ch as a poetic techniue Murra"'s response depends on earlier scholarship

showing that Erinna's epigrams dealing with Baukis ow;)age / and , are an e2ample

o# a dip"tch. ?eaping o## #rom here- Murra" suggests that Herodas is signaling a poetic

debt to his poetic predecessor's techniue.

3hether or not one accepts Murra"'s %iew is not essential to the point 4 would

like to make regarding the signi#icance o# Herodas' decision to include a re#erence to

these two #amous poets. 1he %er" #act that he does make a re#erence to Possis and

Erinna at all is just as important as wh" he does so. 3hate%er one belie%es Herodas'

moti%ations #or including the re#erence is- either as a respect#ul nod to a #ellow poet or

as an in%ecti%e barb- the same thing can be said+ it is another e2ample o# Herodas

adopting an aesthetic position and pla"ing the role o# aesthetic critic. $nderstood in a

positi%e light the re#erence embraces and praises Erinna's use o# the dip"tch structure in

her poems. ?ikewise- i# interpreted as an in%ecti%e barb the re#erence attempts to

e2clude Erinna and Possis #rom the poetic communit". 1his is consistent with the

persona o# the iambographer and the aims o# in%ecti%e poetr"- which ine%itabl"

pri%ileges one group while e2cluding another./07 Both interpretations support the

primar" argument made in this chapter that Herodas' mimes are concerned with

aesthetic criticism- particularl" in relation to poetics.

2.: Conclusion

1he aim o# this chapter has been to identi#" #irst Herodas' connection to an

/07See Pappa /666- ,88 on this point. He is concerned with Catullus- but the general points made in hisarticle regarding iambic poetr"- speci#icall" o# the in%ecti%e %ariet"- are pertinent to this discussion.



61

established tradition o# aesthetic and ethical criticism present in iambic poetr"-

speci#icall" in the poetr" o# Hippona2 and authors who adopt a Hipponactean persona.

1his is e%ident primaril" in the eighth mime- in which Herodas openl" identi#ies himsel#

as a literar" descendant o# Hippona2 and demonstrates both a keen awareness o# his

place in the poetic tradition and a desire to de#ine the manner in which his poetr" is

recei%ed. Attention was then paid to points in the mimes where Herodas comments on

contemporar" Hellenistic aesthetic ualities o# art and his own poetr". 4 e2amined the

#ourth mime in detail and proposed that in it Herodas pro%ides an Janti;modelO #or his

audience. He rejects the indi%idual who #ocuses onl" on the realistic ualities o# his

mime without being mo%ed to deeper contemplation and commentar". 1he si2th mime

pro%ides a use#ul model #or this with %arious la"ers o# interpretation. >n the sur#ace the

mime is little more than a comic- perhaps misog"nist- sketch o# two women discussing

dildos. ?ook closer- howe%er- and the dildo becomes a remarkabl" #it metaphor #or

Herodas' own art- demonstrating again a strong awareness o# the generic pressures o#

mimos and iambos e%er present in his poetr". Such e2amples re%eal- in m" opinion- that

while Herodas' mimes are meant to be entertaining and comical- the" are also keenl"

interested in serious topics. 4 will continue e2ploring this in the coming chapter #ocusing

on ethical criticism in his mimes.



62

Chapter #: Ethical Criticism in Herodas! Mimiamboi

#.1: The eneric Interest of Iambos in Ethical Criticism

1his chapter will #ocus on what 4 ha%e elsewhere called ethical criticism. 4 would

like to begin b" de#ining what 4 mean b" this term- to a%oid con#usion with the phrase o#

the same name coined b" Porthrop !r"e in his /69= work Anatomy o+ riticism. 4 use

ethical criticism in this paper to re#er to the ethical or moral judgment o# the beha%ior o#

an indi%idual or group. 4n some cases these judgmental statements are clearl"

concerned with promoting one set o# %alues o%er another. More o#ten- howe%er-

statements in Herodas and his iambic predecessors pronouncing ethical judgments are

inherent in a %erbal assault on another character #or a percei%ed #law or moral #ailure.

1his is a ke" element o# iambic poetr"- as 4 ha%e alread" discussed pre%iousl" and will

demonstrate in more detail below. 1he %er" act o# insulting an indi%idual's conduct

rein#orces and promotes the %alue s"stem #a%ored b" the in%ecti%e %oice./06

>ne de#ining #eature o# iambic poetr" is a statement o# blame or censure- a

psogos./5 1hese statements are o#ten couched in hostile terms as personal attacks on

the character or beha%ior o# the addressed indi%idual. Ethical judgments o# the attacked

indi%idual's conduct are o#ten inherent in such attacks. 3hile in%ecti%e assaults ma" be

humorous or entertaining- the" are also o# a serious nature- as the" can be used to

establish the Jboundaries o# ethical conduct.O/5/ 4t is possible to trace this tradition o#

/06 Pappa /666- ,88./5Hughes ,,- ,9 and ,/7D <osen /677D <otstein ,/- 78;6=D Bowie ,/- /;=. 4t is o# course

important to note- as man" o# these scholars do- that psogos is not a #eature o# all iambic poems. 4nother words- a poem can be classi#ied as iambos e%en i# it lacks a direct %erbal attack.

/5/ Acosta;Hughes ,,- ,,.



63

ethical criticism in iambic poetr" #rom Archilochus and Hippona2 down to Hellenistic

writers o# iambs- such as Callimachus- and e%en #urther to ?atin iambic poetr"- which is

best e2empli#ied b" man" o# the in%ecti%e poems o# Catullus./5, A close reading o#

Herodas' mimes re%eals that he shares the same interest in ethical criticism as his #ellow

iambographers. 1his should come as no real surprise gi%en his clear e##ort to locate

himsel# and his poems in the iambic tradition.

*espite the common presence o# ethical critical statements in the mimes and

other more traditional e2amples o# iambic- it should be ob%ious that there is a major

di##erence between Herodas and authors such as Archilochus and Hippona2. Statements

o# an ethical nature in the other iambographers are issued #rom the mouth o# a poetic

persona in the #irst person and o#ten directed against an e2ternal ri%al who is easil"

imagined b" the audience as a real indi%idual./50 1his is not the case in Herodas- where

the statements are ine%itabl" placed in the mouths o# characters within the mimes- and

generall" made in response to another character's actions- though not necessaril"

phrased as an insult. 4n Herodas- an additional la"er is created between the poet and his

poem b" the #act that ethical statements are issued b" characters- not the poetic persona.

1his makes it necessar" #or the audience to consider care#ull" the source o# an"

statement when e%aluating its intended message- much like Herodas demanded o# his

audience in the #ourth mime. As discussed abo%e in the section on aesthetic criticism-

this creates di##iculties in interpreting such statements and the author's own %iew. 1his

di##icult" will become more clear when looking at speci#ic e2amples in the mimes. !irst-

/5, See Pappa /666 on Catullus' in%ecti%e poems./50 <osen /677 e2amines archaic iambographers' interest in using humorous names #or the characters

in their poems. Some characters ma" be representati%e o# real li#e indi%iduals- while others are simpl"#ictional.



64

howe%erit will be help#ul to look brie#l" at e2amples o# ethical criticism in other

iambographers- both to show that ethical criticism is a common #eature o# iambic poetr"

and to pro%ide e2amples o# the t"pes o# ethical statements common in the iambic poets.

Archilochus is a good starting point #or e2amples o# ethical criticism in earl"

iambic poetr". 4 would like to start #irst with #ragment /,5b 3est- which is clearl"

concerned with ethical beha%ior. 1he te2t is as #ollows+

` U ] `\URU QV V\QGZÛ WTF_-ὸ ὲ ὶ ^[ ̂ WU [ [U[\QVI ..............ὔ ῖ ἰ ] W U QZF[ I ....... F[I V ] \I-ὐ ὲ ὲ ὶ 6 7 ὴ •[€ LV^ G UU ^[ QV GTUVI `VGvLVL[Uἀ ὴ ὶ

[ I UV][\ZU.ἰ ἀ

*rinking much and unmi2ed wine-neither ha%ing chipped in #or the cost NNnor ha%ing been in%ited NN "ou showed up as i# "ou were a #riend- but "our bell" led both "our mind and wits astra" to shamelessness.

1his poem is directed at a certain )ericles- who was e%identl" in the habit o# crashing

dinner parties./55 3hile lacking the %iolent- abusi%e language #ound in man" o#

Hippona2' poems and #or which Archilochus- too- was known-/59 the ethical statement

is clear. 1he use o# the term UV\][Vἀ signals that Archilochus is targeting the ethical

shortcomings o# his enem". 4nherent in Archilochus' poem is a condemnation o#

/55Athenaeus /./5 &aibel./59 Archilochus' malice is most o#ten directed at ?"cambes. Ancient testimonia preser%e the popular stor"

that Archilochus grew angr" with ?"cambes a#ter he reneged on an agreement to allow the poet tomarr" his daughter- Peoboule. Archilochus responded b" writing abusi%e poems directed at ?"cambes

and his daughter- which led to them committing suicide. 1he %eracit" o# this account is surel" suspect-and is better understood as e%idence #or the ancient %iew o# the e2pected persona o# an iambographerrather than as reliable biograph". So- too- should the stor" o# Hippona2 and the sculptors- Boupalusand Athenis- which is clearl" in#luenced b" the pseudo;biographical Archilochean tradition- betreated. See Care" /678. Hawkins ,7 has recentl" looked at the relationship between

Archilochus and ?"cambes- and proposed that ?"cambes pla"ed the role o# a poetic ri%al- whocritiued iambos as a genre and also ga%e %oice to ethical and aesthetic concerns. Archilochus' poemsrespond to this criticism. 1he poet responding to criticism and justi#"ing his st"le and the genre within

which he or she is working reminds me o# Herodas' eighth mime and his attempts to de#end himsel#against his critics- while also demonstrating that his new genre is legitimate.



65

glutton". Pumerous other e2amples could be cited #rom Archilochus' corpus- but #or this

paper it is enough to show that ethical judgment o# beha%ior is a general #eature o#

Archilochus' poetr".

Hippona2 #ollowed Archilochus' e2ample and cra#ted poems that #eatured biting

in%ecti%e loaded with ethical criticism. A common target o# his is Boupalus- who has

been discussed brie#l" abo%e. )h"sical threats against Boupalus are commonD in %arious

#ragments the poetic %oice threatens to hit him in the #ace QKR z_`_ ^ Uὸ

FVWUὀ - *egani !r. /,/ and in another makes a re#erence to causing him to cr"

QV\[U Q[[fRU zf`VU- *egani !r. 78- line /7. $n#ortunatel" in neither o# these

#ragments do we see an e2ample o# ethical censure. Still- ethical terms are applied to

Boupalus in other #ragments- suggesting that when Hippona2 targets him it is o#ten to

point out a moral #ailure. 1he adjecti%e ^VI is applied to him in #ragment /7-

doubtlessl" in its pejorati%e sense. 4n #ragment , we see a better e2ample o# ethical

criticism- when Hippona2 re#ers to Boupalus as a WZ^GQ\^ZI- an incestuous indi%idual.

1hough such se2ual insults are commonplace- the" still depend on ethical norms to ha%e

an" e##ectD in this case the attack is predicated on the ethical standard o# an indi%idual

re#raining #rom incestuous relations./58 3hile the #ragmentar" nature o# the

Hipponactean corpus makes e2tensi%e anal"sis di##icult- it is ne%ertheless clear #rom

these #ragments that his poems #eatured an interest in ethical standards.

>ne #inal e2ample #rom Hippona2' corpus ma" ser%e as additional e%idence that

he engaged in criticism o# indi%iduals #or #ailing to meet ethical standards./5= 1he

/58Catullus o##ers an interesting later parallel. His poems aimed at ellius 77;6/- #or instance all attackellius #or incestuous beha%ior.

/5= See Acosta;Hughes ,,- 0,##. on criticism in Hippona2. Also o# interest is <osen /677- whoanal"@es Hippona2' relationship with Boupalus and the con%entional #orm o# iambic blame poetr".



66

Strasbourg epode- edited #irst in /766 b" <eit@enstein- is the best e%idence #or this./57 4n

this poem the iambic persona e2presses the desire that he see his enem" su##er a terrible

#ate as a shipwrecked sla%e in 1hrace *egani !r. /65- lines 5;/5. ># greater interest is

the reasons that the narrator gi%es #or this wish. He states that his enem" has wronged

him W ]\QZ[ἠ 3 line /9 and trampled on an oath q ] ` GQ\I XZ- line /9.ἐ ὁ ἔ 1he

se%erit" o# such transgressions is highlighted b" the #inal preser%ed line- in which it is

re%ealed that the betra"er was a close #riend o# the iambic persona ^ `G U ^V GIὸ ὶ 8 ῖ

ἐqU- line /8. 1he implications o# justice and moralit" suggested b" Hippona2' use o#

weight" words such as ]\QZ[ἠ and GQ\Iὁ indicates the poem's concern with ethical

criticism. 1he punishment suggested in the opening lines o# the poem is the recompense

demanded b" the poet #or the #ailure to adhere to ethical standards.

1he iambic poems o# Callimachus show clear traces o# Hipponactean in#luence./56

Statements %oicing ethical concerns can be #ound in %arious poems. 4 will look onl"

brie#l" at one o# these- the #i#th iamb )#ei##er !r. /69./9 4t is e%ident at se%eral places in

the poem that the poetic %oice considers himsel# a moral guide #or the subject o# the

poem- a certain schoolmaster named Apollonius- according to the diegesis. He classi#ies

his words as _WX_v line /- meaning counsel or ad%ice. 4n addition- he calls himsel#

a Bakis- S"bil- laurel- and an oak tree L zQI ^ QV \X_V QV ]UZἐ - ὶ ὶ QV ZLI ὶ -

/57See &irkwood /68/ #or discussion o# the authorship o# this piece and the histor" o# scholarship prior

to the publication o# his article. >n the basis o# Jst"le and spiritO &irkwood argues that this pieceactuall" belongs to Archilochus. 4n the #i#t" inter%ening "ears since the publication o# &irkwood'sarticle- howe%er- scholars ha%e mo%ed awa" #rom this %iew in #a%or o# identi#"ing Hippona2 as theauthor this #ragment. See Acosta;Hughes ,,- ,,o- and *egani /670- /87##.

/56See Acosta;Hughes ,,- ,/;/5 #or an e2cellent in;depth discussion o# the in#luence Hippona2 hadon Callimachus' poems. &erkhecker /666 touches on Callimachus' debt to Hippona2 in %ariousplacesD see pp. ,7;0 on the #irst iamb and pp. /50;/58 on the #i#th iamb. Cameron /669- 0=,;0=0discusses how Callimachus a%oided #ollowing Hipponactean con%entions. Hippona2' in#luence onCallimachus is thus betra"ed b" the latter poet's e##orts to distinguish himsel# #rom his predecessor.

/9Another e2ample is the third iamb. Acosta;Hughes ,, deals e2tensi%el" with this poem.



67

lines 0/;0,- all o# which are associated with prophec" and di%inel" inspired ad%ice.

1hus- the speaker's ad%ice is gi%en additional #orce. $n#ortunatel"- the preser%ed

#ragments do not contain a direct re#erence to ethical #ailings o# Apollonius. 1he

diegesis- howe%er- re%eals that Apollonius was engaging in inappropriate se2ual

acti%ities with his studentsD this is hinted at in the preser%ed lines b" re#erences to a

burning #lame line ,5 and horses lines ,8;,6- both o# which are common metaphors

#or erotic lo%e. Callimachus has here clearl" targeted the se2ual misconduct o# an

indi%idual and warned him to re#orm his beha%ior. Po psogos is e%ident in the

remaining #ragments- but the basic iambic interest in censuring unethical beha%ior is

present.

As Callimachus' #i#th iamb demonstrates- iambic poems need not alwa"s contain

a psogos and censured indi%idual. 1his will be seen in Herodas' mimes as well- and ma"

also be obser%ed in other iambic poems. 1he Hellenistic poet Cercidas is an illuminating

e2ample. He- like Herodas- #used together two pre%iousl" distinct genres melic poetr"

and iambic poetr" to #orm a new one- meliambos./9/ Man" o# Cercidas' poems e2plore

general philosophical and ethical issues without attacking the conduct o# a particular

indi%idual. 1his same tendenc" is e%ident in some poems o# Archilochus- too- in which

he deals with general philosophical topics without attacking an indi%idual.

#.2: Ethical %tatements in Herodas

Ha%ing looked at e2amples o# ethical criticism in other iambic authors 4 would

now like to turn to Herodas. 4t becomes apparent a#ter looking at e2amples #rom

/9/ See Cruces and *aroca /665 #or discussion o# the uniue meter o# Cercidas' poems.



68

Herodas' mime that his ethical statements are not alwa"s #ramed as a direct attack on

another indi%idual. 1he e2amples discussed below do all #eature con#rontation o# two

indi%iduals- which is reminiscent o# the con#lict between poetic %oice and enem" in the

traditional iambic in%ecti%e poems- but do not necessaril" contain a psogos in the

traditional iambic sense o# the term. )resent in the mimes that 4 will discuss is an

interest in ele%ated philosophical and moral issues. 1he lack o# an authoritati%e poetic

%oice in the mimes necessitates placement o# these ethical critical statements in the

mouths o# Herodas' characters- who in most cases- 4 belie%e- are not e%en aware o# the

serious nature o# the ethical issues inherent in their own statements. 1he #act that such

ele%ated concerns are present in scenes #eaturing low class characters who o#ten e2hibit

traits o# stock comic characters is consistent with the ironic tension in Herodas' scenes

#eaturing aesthetic criticism- and was probabl" intended #or humorous purposes. Still-

the ethical issues presented in the mimes are o# great importance- and so while Herodas'

own %iews ma" be impossible to discern- it is at least worth noticing that he is concerned

with serious uestions that were likel" o# interest to an elite audience. 1he #act that the

poems are concerned with topics o# general interest to Herodas' audience is more

important than uestions regarding Herodas' own %iews- as it is uite possible that the

%iews e2pressed within his poem do not re#lect the his own personal %iews.

#.2.1: Mimiamb Three and $arent-Child elationships

1he third mime #eatures a mother Metrotime complaining about her son

&ottalos to his school master ?ampriskos. 1he #irst 9= lines o# the mime are de%oted



69

to Metrotime's monologue- in which the beha%ior o# her son is related to the

schoolteacher. &ottalos is a poor student who would rather spend his da"s gambling

than stud"ing. He neglects his lessons lines 7;/7 and is uick to run awa" #rom home

should his parents scold him 08;5/. His antics ha%e not onl" caused Metrotime mental

an2iet"- but ha%e also brought #inancial troubles upon her home Q W[_ ̂ VV\UZI ^ Uἔ ὴ

^TLZU `[`GFZQ[U- line 9D see also lines 55;56. ?ampriskos responds to Metrotime's

complaints b" promising to punish her son lines 97;=. &ottalos is hoisted up on the

shoulders o# some o# the other students and whipped lines =/;6, !inall"- he is let go-

and the mime ends with Metrotime resol%ing to put chains on his #eet to ensure he

comes to school in the #uture lines 65;6=.

>bscured b" Metrotime's %icious language and cruel desire to see her son

whipped she urges ?ampriskos not to stop thrashing him ][ Q V-ὐ ῖ ἐ ῆ

‚VW`G\Q[x ][ GU GI I ]f ῖ ἄ 3 ῃ- lines 7=;77 is a hint o# the reciprocal- nurturing

relationship that e2isted between parent and child in the ancient reek world./9, A

parent would take care o# a de#enseless child with the e2pectation that the same child

would care #or the elderl" parent when he or she could no longer do so. 1his e2pectation

meant that parents were e2pected to in%est in their child's education and upbringing

with the understanding that the" themsel%es would someda" reap the rewards o# their

earl" e##orts. E%idence o# this institution is #ound as earl" as Hesiod in his description o#

the conditions that will e2ist among mortals o# the iron age just be#ore eus destro"s

them in the -orks and Days. 4n addition to general stri#e between kinsmen- Hesiod

/9, 1he Athenian tragedians were especiall" interested in this relationship. See Mc*ermott /6763 7/;60#or a discussion o# the importance o# this institution in Athenian societ" and the implications o#

%iolating its tenets- speci#icall" in re#erence to Euripides' Medea.



70

remarks speci#icall" on the #ailure o# children to nurture their elderl" parents ]Tὐ Wὲ U

L[ LZGU^[ ̂ Q[ U ` FG[`^vGV ] [U 9 ῦ ἀ ὸ ῖ - lines /7=;/77.

1he implications that &ottalos' beha%ior ha%e #or Metrotime's own #uture is

suggesti%e o# an interest in the reciprocal nurturing relationship that e2ists between

them. Metrotime emphasi@es the lack o# resources a%ailable to her and her husband-

which in turn highlights the importance o# &ottalos' education #or their #uture well;

being. Metrotime is willing to make sacri#ices in the present- perhaps recogni@ing it as

an in%estment in her #uture. She calls attention to the di##iculties o# pa"ing the

schoolmaster QV ^GZQ I `QGv ̂ U WF U V ^[ Q U ̂ ~VUUQ_ QVfR ὶ ὰ ἠ ὸ ὸ ἰ ῖ ' ὰ - lines 6;

/- and again to the price o# the roo# tiles ^G\ WVFV QV\_V Q^_ ^3 ἐ ῦ

`V^fWVÎ ^\UR- lines 59;58 broken b" &ottalos climbing about on the roo#. Her

characteri@ation o# her husband as an old man who has problems with his ears and e"es

LTGRU U G \U ̂ [ Q WWVU QWURUἀ ὴ ( * - line 0, is- perhaps- a glimpse o# her own

#uture- when she hersel# will be dependent on another #or sur%i%al. So- too- is the e##ect

when she mentions the limited means o# &ottalos' grandmother- whose generosit" is

taken ad%antage o# b" her son ^ U WWWZU- LGZ U L_UV QV Q GVU U X\_-ἀ ὰ ὴ : ῖ ( ὴ

Q[\G[- lines 07;06. All the passages cited abo%e either emphasi@e the present po%ert" o#

the #amil"- caused at least in part b" Metrotime's decision to send her son to school- or

look ahead to the #uture- when Metrotime in her old age will rel" on her son.

3hile the pre%ious e2amples hint at an interest in the reciprocal- nurturing

relationship between parent and child- an e%en more ob%ious re#erence can be #ound.

3hile lamenting &ottalos' inabilit" to spell- Metrotime remarks that it was #oolish #or

her to ha%e sent him to school instead o# to the #ields ^ LRL [ `V U_U WV_^vU-* ἔ ἶ ἄ ἐ



71

Î Q U_I XQ[U V ^ U ]]QR- LGVWW^RU ] `V][\ZU-3 ὐ # ὐ ὸ ὲ lines ,8;,7. She

#ollows up this remark with an e2planation o# the reason that she wanted him to ha%e an

education+ to pro%ide support #or her in her old age ]Q[ GRL U ^ I RG\ZI [Uῦ ἀ ὸ ῆ ἀ ἔ -

line ,6. 1his clear statement o# her reasons #or sending &ottalos to school help #rame

her entire monologue- and is suggesti%e o# a philosophical concern be"ond what might

be e2pected #rom an otherwise comical scene./90 4mplicit in the scene is the #ear o#

parents that e##orts to educate their children in hopes o# securing a better #uture #or

themsel%es will #ail- and that their children will #ail to hold up their end o# the mutuall"

bene#icial relationship that e2ists between parent and child. 1his would amount to a

major ethical #ailure on &ottalos' part.

4t is impossible to assert with an" certaint" Herodas' reasons #or including this

element o# ethical criticism in his mimes besides the ob%ious point mentioned

pre%iousl"- that ethical criticism is a #eature o# iambic authors- which Herodas considers

himsel# to be. 4t cannot be shown that the statement is indicati%e o# Herodas' own %iews-

since his %iewpoint has been thoroughl" obscured b" the additional la"er o# separation

that results #rom the ethical pronouncement being issued b" a character o# the mime

instead o# b" the narrati%e %oice o# the poetic person common in the e2amples #rom

iambic poetr" discussed abo%e. 4 think it likel" in this mime and the other e2amples to

be discussed shortl" that Herodas' aim in including elements o# ethical criticism in his

mimes is to #orce his audience to consider- #or at least a brie# moment- deeper

philosophical issues. 3hile Metrotime might come across as a humorousl" o%erbearing

/90 anker ,6- =6 sees parallels in Pew Comed" and )lautine comed" in ?ampriskos and Metrotime.See also pp. 69;6= #or anal"sis o# the humor in this particular mime.



72

mother #or much o# the mime- at the core o# her complaints whether she is aware o# it

or not is an important issue likel" rele%ant to the majorit" o# Herodas' audience. 4# the"

are the t"pe o# audience member that is mo%ed to contemplation b" art- that is- i# the"

are unlike the women in the #ourth mime- then the" will laugh- but while laughing the"

will also think. 1his is an appropriate response to Herodas' poetr"- which mi2es low

humor with ele%ated concerns- producing a constant tension that demands to be

e2plored.

#.2.2: Mimiamb 'i4e and the %tatus of %la4es

1he #i#th mime pro%ides "et another instance in which serious philosophical

concerns lurk beneath the sur#ace o# what is- otherwise- a scene reminiscent o# the comic

stage. 4n this case it is Bitinna- a woman o# unclear social and marital status- who

Herodas humorousl" emplo"s as an unconscious %oice #or such concerns./95 1he

uestion at hand in the #i#th mime is that o# the indistinct status o# a sla%e as a

possessable object and human. Herodas creates considerable tension b" using one o# the

most Jt"rannicalO and cruel characters in his entire corpus to lend a %oice to such an

ele%ated philosophical and moral issue. 1he basic premise o# the mime is simple.

Bitinna is angr" with her sla%e astron- with whom she has had a se2ual relationship-

#or taking up with another woman. 4n a rage she decides to punish himD most o# the

mime consists o# Bitinna speaking with astron- tr"ing to ascertain his guilt and decide

/95 See anker ,6- /90;99 #or discussion o# Bitinna's status. Po decisi%e statement can be made onthe matterD Bitinna ma" be married- widowed- or independent. !ountoulakis ,= has proposedthat she ma" be a hetaira or a woman o# similar social standing. Arnott /6=/ argues that she ismarried and not a hetaira. Cunningham /6=/ does not comment on her status- e2cept to sa" that sheis a J#ree woman.O See also &onstan /676.



73

on a suitable punishment. E%er present in the dialogue is the contrast between ] Iῦ

and UFGRÌ-ἄ both categories to which astron belongs. 4n the background is the

uestion o# how to reconcile belonging to both.

!ollowing Bitinna's opening lines in which she accuses astron o# sleeping with

another woman lines /;0 is astron's assertion that he is- in #act- a sla%e and that she

ma" treat him as she desires ] I [ Wx G ^ Xf W- line 8. Yet his status isῦ ἰ ῶ # ῃ

e%identl" not so clear as it #irst appears. Bitinna remarks that she was responsible #or

raising him up to a rank among humans L W- ƒ^GRU- [ F[ V U UFGÌ-ἐ ; 3 ῖ ἐ ἀ

line /9./99 Appropriate #or such an ele%ated discussion is Bitinna's use o# the ethical %erb

WVGÛR line /8 to describe her #ailure in judgment when she raised him up to a le%el<

o# societ" usuall" inaccessible to sla%es. Bitinna then shi#ts- telling astron he needs to

learn that he is a sla%e and her propert" ][ ^[fU[Q [ I ] I QV ^G[ I `TG [_ ῖ ὀ ἰ ῦ ὶ ῖ ὐ

WU I FZQV LUQ[U- lines ,;,/.) ἔ 4n just , lines astron has identi#ied himsel# as a

] I- while Bitinna has stated that she ga%e him a place amongῦ UFGR`- be#ore=

again reminding him that he is- in #act- a sla%e. 1he alternating use o# the opposed terms

should draw an attenti%e and re#lecti%e audience member's attention to astron's odd

status.

!ollowing Bitinna's order gi%en to another sla%e to bind astron comes a new

protest #rom astron. He asks Bitinna to #orgi%e his mistake [I W ̂ U WVG^\ZUἄ ὴ <

^Vf^ZU- line ,8. He continues to protest- claiming that he is onl" human a#ter all- and

that he simpl" made a mistake UFGRÌ [ W- WVGÛ-ἄ ἰ ἥ line ,=. astron's use o#

/99 4 am reminded here o# the cena in )etronius' Satyricon- in which the #reedman 1rimalchio- angered with his wi#e !ortunata- reminds her that he is largel" responsible #or her current #ree status+ demachina illam sustuli, hominem inter homines +eci =5.



74

WVGÛR and the related WVG^\V< < echo Bitinna's earlier language in line /8. Bitinna-

howe%er- rejects his claim b" ordering him o## to the v^G[U line 0,- a place where

sla%es were punished and a word #amiliar to the comic stage./98 astron's #inal words are

spoken at line 06D he will remain present Jon stage-O so to speak- but silent. astron's

status as a sla%e initiall" appears to be certain a#ter this pointD he is re#erred to as a

#ellow sla%e fU]_U- line 98- b" &"dilla- who will be discussed below- and as a

se%en#old;sla%e 8`^]_U- line =9 b" Bitinna./9= 1rue to Bitinna's inabilit" to make

up her mind earlier in the mime- howe%er- she re%erts again to calling him an UFGRÌἄ

line =7. 1his is the #inal term she applies to him.

Beginning at line 06 with astron's last spoken line a new sla%e comes to the

#ore#ront- one who also occupies a con#used position in Bitinna's household. 1his sla%e-

named &"dilla she is #irst mentioned at line 6D this same name is gi%en to another sla%e

in the #ourth mime- is twice identi#ied as a ]fZ lines 55 and 95 b" Bitinna. &"dilla is

sent b" Bitinna to bring back astron a#ter she has sent him awa" to the v^G[U to be

whipped- as she has changed her mind and now wishes him to be tattooed instead./97

&"dilla intercedes on astron's behal#- calling upon Bitinna b" the endearing term ^V^\

line 86 and pra"ing that her daughter- Bat"llis- #inds a good husband and gi%es her

grandchildren lines 86;=/. She asks Bitinna to #orgi%e [I- line =, astron'sἄ

mistake ̂ U W\VU ^Vf^ZU WVG^\ZU- lines =,;=0- echoing the %er" same language usedὴ <

b" both characters earlier in the mime. Bitinna is at #irst unwilling to relent- but she

/98 See Headlam and &no2 /6,, and anker ,6- ad. loc. #or comic parallels. anker also mentionsthe tendenc" in <oman comed" o# sending a sla%e to the carni+e( as a ?atin eui%alent.

/9= Cunningham /6=/- ad. loc. sa"s that `^]_U is Jcomic e2aggeration.Oἐ 1he phrase also appears inHippona2 *egani !r. /6- line ,. See also anker ,6- ad. loc.

/97 See ones /67= on tattooing in antiuit". See pp. /5=;57 speci#icall" #or tattooing as a punishment#or sla%es.



75

#inall" does so- citing her lo%e #or &"dilla as the reason. She sa"s that she lo%es &"dilla

no less than her own daughter U ] U U zV^_\]V ^TGLR- line 7, and' ὐ ὲ 6 '

mentions that she raised &"dilla with her own hands U ^ἐ ῇ [G ^ ὶ ῇI Wἐ ῇ FGTKVV-

line 70. Bitinna's use o# the %erb ^TGLR to lo%e is important- as this is the %erb used

o# the lo%e between parent and child./96 Also important is the %erb ^GTR- which is used

to describe the nurturing and rearing o# a child. &"dilla's status is- like astron's-

con#used. She is %er" clearl" re#erred to as a ]fZ- "et Bitinna's language is also

re#lecti%e o# a mother;daughter relationship. 1he status o# both characters is

intentionall" le#t ambiguous.

As in the third mime- no clear ethical message emerges #rom the #i#th mime and

no de#initi%e boundaries #or ethical conduct are established. 1here is perhaps a general

interest in the status o# sla%es and what it means to be an UFGRÌ present in the #i#thἄ

mime- but it would be a gross o%erstatement and misreading o# the te2t to draw an"

de#inite conclusion as to what Herodas' own %iews were. All that can be said is there is

an interest in an ethical subject- but an" indication o# the poet's own %iew is obscured b"

the remo%al o# the poetic %oice #rom the poems. Causing e%en more di##icult" is the #act

that within the #i#th mime the characters #ail to make an" decisi%e statements regarding

the status o# sla%es- or e%en appear to recogni@e that the" are addressing such a weight"

philosophical issue. At least in the mimes dealing with aesthetic criticism Herodas'

characters had %er" pronounced %iews that could be critiued. 1he absence o# well

de#ined ethical %iews makes it di##icult to do an"thing more than simpl" point out the

/96 See ?S /./. Aristotle's ud. th. =./,5/b uses the %erb TR to describe the lo%e between parent andchild. 1here are- o# course- man" e2ceptions to this.



76

presence o# ethical topics in the mimes- and note that the characters Herodas emplo"s to

gi%e %oice to ethical statements lack authorit" and appear themsel%es to be unaware that

the" are addressing important issues o# great rele%ance to much o# Hellenistic societ".

#.2.#: Mimiamb 5ne and 'emale 'idelit)

>ne mime in which a clear ethical statement is issued b" a character still #ails to

pro%ide an" hint o# Herodas' own %iews- but is an earl" signal that the mimes will

include ethical judgments. 1he #irst mime #eatures two primar" characters- "llis- an old

procuress- and Metriche- a "ounger woman whose partner has been awa" in Eg"pt #or

ten months. "llis has come to con%ince Metriche that her partner- Mandris- has le#t her

and will not be returning #rom Eg"pt. But no matter- #or "llis has #ound a suitable

companion in lo%e with Metriche and read" to replace Mandris- a "oung- wealth"-

success#ul athlete named r"llos. 1he #irst 88 lines o# the mime are spent on

introductions- #riendl" banter between the two women- and "llis singing the praises o#

r"llos to con%ince Metriche to accept him as a lo%er. 4 will not e2amine these lines in

detail- interesting though the" are- but would instead like to look at Metriche's warning

to "llis immediatel" a#ter the elderl" procuress has urged the "ounger woman to stop

waiting #or her partner and listen to "llis' plea to gi%e her a##ections to the athlete

r"llos `[\FZ^\ W[_- line 88.

Metriche begins her response b" simultaneousl" insulting "llis #or her age and

wits ƒ_\- ^ [_Q ^ U ^G U `VWXfU[ ^ U U U- lines 8=;87.ὰ ὰ ῶ ῶ ἀ ὸ ῦ 1hat this is

intended as a rebuke is clear when Metriche's earlier attitude is taken into account.



77

Earl" in the poem she responded to "llis' gloom" comments on old age with what

appears to ha%e been a joke W ^ GU_ QV^VK[f][x NNqὴ ῦ L G- ƒ_\- Q ^TG_Iὰ ἠ

L[U-ἄ lines /=;/7./8 1here is no such pla"#ul attitude later in the poem. Metriche tells

"llis she would not ha%e kindl" endured such words #rom an" other woman ^V ^ Lῦ ἐ -

ZI L_UVQ I Q U ]TRIἐ ἄ ὸ ὐ > ἠ `vQ_Vἐ 4 - lines 86;=. She then issues a

h"pothetical ph"sical threat similar to those seen in Herodas' iambic predecessors-

claiming that she would ha%e taught such a woman to sing a lame song while limping

R U ] [\][U U [`V\][_V- line =/ὴ ἀ > ἐ and to consider her door hate#ul ^ Uὸ

] U FG U L[ FV- line =,.ὐ ὸ ἐ ὸ ἠ ῖ /8/ 1he phrase [\][U R is surel" a re#erence toἀ

Herodas' own choliambic meter- also known as limping iambs- and an earl" signal that

Herodas' poems will be st"led on Hippona2' iamboi . 1his pla"#ul re#erence to the

choliambic meter is especiall" appropriate #or a passage that %er" closel" resembles a

t"pical iambic psogos reminiscent o# Hippona2.

!ollowing her threat- Metriche e2plains more #ull" the reasons #or her anger- and

in doing so indirectl" critici@es the conduct o# others and draws up the Jethical

boundariesO identi#ied b" Acosta;Hughes. She warns "llis ne%er to come back bringing

such a stor" ] V Î I W[ WZ] UV-ὺ $ ἔ ὲ + \Z- ^ U TG_V G[ W FU- lines =0;=5. ῖ ῦ

She is re#erring here- o# course- to the "oung r"llos' passion #or her and "llis' ad%ice

that she should gi%e up on her current relationship. She then de#ines the proper course

o# action #or a woman whose partner is awa". She tells "llis that she will continue

/81he te2tual corruption here makes it di##icult to understand precisel" what Metriche is sa"ing- but L[U seems to ha%e a se2ual connotation. Cunningham /6=/- ad. loc. citesἄ Anacreont . 9=.,/;, as a

parallel./8/ 1he choice o# the adjecti%e FGIἐ to describe Metriche's home ma" be a re#erence to the tendenc" o#

iambographers to cast the object o# their wrath as an enem". She is #raming her relationship with"llis in traditional iambic terms.



78

waiting- and warns "llis against mocking Mandris ^ U |_FTR ] Z^G\ZU Vὴ ὲ ἔ

F`[U ̂ U ]\GUx L G UL[ ̂ I [ I U]GU- lines =8;==.ὸ ὐ ὰ ἐ ) ἰ /8, Here we see a clear

ethical stance taken b" Metriche regarding her #idelit" towards her partner- %oiced in the

traditional #ormat o# an iambic in%ecti%e poem. 4mplicit in Metriche's attack on "llis is

a rejection o# the procuress' own ethical belie#s- which would encourage Metriche to

abandon her partner and trans#er her a##ections elsewhere.

3hile Metriche's statement is clear- it is still impossible to argue #or an" e%idence

o# Herodas' own opinion being suggested b" her words. 1he #irst mime ma"- howe%er-

gi%e some indication to the t"pes o# topics o# interest to Herodas. ?ines ,8;09 #eature a

sort o# encomium o# the attractions o# )tolemaic Eg"pt. 1hough humorousl" placed in

the mouth o# the "llis- it seems likel" that this sort o# comic praise was welcomed b"

the )tolemies./80 1he encomium is worth" o# closer e2amination. "llis praises a great

%ariet" o# institutions and bene#its #or an indi%idual #ound in )tolemaic Eg"pt- notabl"+

power- personal reputation- wealth- se2ual pleasures- the Mouseion- the temple o#

)tolem" 44 )hiladelphus 44 and Arsinoe 44- and the good king again- re#erring to

)hiladelphus. anker- in his discussion o# this passage- notes that "llis' list is arranged

in a Jcomic disorder-O with serious institutions- such as the Mouseion line 0/-

ju2taposed with more #ri%olous pursuits and pleasures such as wine UI- line 0/ and ἶ

/8, 1he %erb L[R reminds me o# the Homeric hero's concern with being laughed at b" his or herenemies. Euripides' Medea pro%ides the clearest e2ample. She e2presses the pain o# hearing herenemies laughing at her se%eral times- such as at =6= when addressing the chorus+ L G L[ FVὐ ὰ )^Z^ U FG U- \V.ὸ ἐ ἐ ῶ *illon /66/- 059 calls tragic laughter Jmale%olent in the e2treme.OMetriche's strong reaction and use o# heroic language is perhaps undercut b" her reconciliation with"llis. !or discussion o# laughter in Homer see ?e%ine /67,- who on p. 6= obser%es that Jlaughtergenerall" implies a real or imagined ph"sical or moral superiorit" o%er another person.O Such laughteris deser%ing o# punishmentD the suitors will ha%e one last laugh at 1elemachus ] GV ̀ U [̂I `" ? ἄ ἐ ?V ^ ] LTVVU WUZ^ G[I-ὐ ῷ @ ὺ ῆ ,/.0=8;== be#ore >d"sseus cuts them down.

/80 See anker ,6 ad. loc. and pp. 0=;07.



79

women L_UV Q[I- line 0,. ῖ 1he comic ju2taposition o# the serious and tri%ial in these

lines is consistent with the poetic techniue Herodas emplo"s elsewhere in his poems.

4n the #ourth mime we saw lower class- uneducated women describe works o# art using

the language o# intellectual discourse. ?ikewise- in the %arious mimes discussed abo%e

we ha%e seen %ulgar characters raise uestions and concerns o# serious ethical and

moral importance. 1he tension created b" "llis' deli%erance o# the encomium and the

order o# the attractions is the same tension e%ident throughout the rest o# Herodas'

mimes.

#.#: Conclusion

Besides aiding in creating humor and the ironic tension pre%alent in Herodas'

poetr"- the presence o# the encomium in the #irst poem also signals his connection to

and interest in )tolemaic Eg"ptian culture. 4 would like to de%elop this point b"

suggesting that the ethical issues on which Herodas #ocuses were topics o# great interest

in )tolemaic societ" o# Herodas' da". !eaturing prominentl" in the three mimes

discussed abo%e are primaril" issues dealing with the household and #amil"+ parent;

child relationships are the #ocus o# the third mime- while #idelit" in male;#emale

partnerships is at the #ore#ront o# the #irst mime./85 1he #amil" unit saw changes in the

Hellenistic era in which Herodas wrote and li%ed- so it is uite possible that these mimes

are a reaction to such changes./89 1he #i#th mime #ocuses on the di##icult distinction

/851he third mime also deals with education- another hot topic in )tolemaic Eg"pt. )tolem" 44)hiladelphus passed measures promoting education- while other elites o# the Hellenistic era had ahand in establishing new schools. See Morgan ,/- 9/=.

/89 4t is in )tolemaic Eg"pt that the earliest marriage contracts are #ound. Such contracts deal with a %ariet" o# topics- including dowr"- death- and di%orce. See Yi#tach;!iranko ,0.



80

between human and sla%e- and ma" be a reaction to the introduction o# chattel sla%er" to

Eg"pt b" the reeks- which was pre%iousl" uncommon in Eg"pt./88 4 will state one last

time- as 4 ha%e alread" done pre%iousl"- that there is no need to search #or Herodas' own

%iews in his decision to include rele%ant contemporar" issues in his mimes.

4n addition to an" other possible reasons #or including ethical statements- it is

important to keep in mind what ma" well be Herodas' primar" moti%ation+ humor.

3hile 4 ha%e endea%ored to show that the mimes do contain serious moments and ideas-

in the end the" are certainl" meant to be entertaining. )lacing ele%ated statements o# an

ethical nature in the mouths o# characters who occup" the lower ranks o# societ" and

whose morals are- in man" cases- suspect is comical. ># course- just because the

characters are o#ten objects o# ridicule need not mean that their statements are o# less

%alue or that the mimes as a whole are unable to touch on important topics. reek >ld

Comed" was particularl" success#ul in combining %ulgar characters and intellectual

themes- #eaturing characters who crack risue se2ual jokes while probing the

institutions at the core o# Athenian public li#e. 3hile Herodas' poems do not address the

same weight" topics- it ought to be recogni@ed nonetheless that serious ethical concerns

are gi%en pla" in his sketches.

/88See :on <eden ,=- /0/ and *a%ies /675- ,66;0 #or brie# discussion o# chattel sla%er" in)tolemaic Eg"pt.



81

Conclusion

1his paper began with an o%er%iew o# the #eatures o# iambic poetr"- #ocusing

particularl" on the ancient iambographer's concern with aesthetic and ethical criticism.

Statements critical o# aesthetic %alues and judgmental o# moral and ethical beha%ior are

recogni@ed as a #eature o# iambic poetr". 4# an author locates himsel#hersel# in the

iambic tradition- then it is highl" likel" that their poetr" will demonstrate this same

#eature. Adopting this simple h"pothesis- 4 ha%e endea%ored to show two things+ #irst-

Herodas consciousl" locates himsel# within the iambic traditionD second- his mimes

demonstrate an important #eature o# iambic poetr" that has o#ten gone unnoticed or

unappreciated- statements o# aesthetic and ethical criticism.

4t is the eighth mime that pro%ides ke" insight into Herodas' %iew o# the new

genre- mimiambos- that he has in%ented. 1he odd #usion o# mimos with iambos e2posed

Herodas and his poems to criticism. 4n response to such critiues he produced and

circulated the eighth mime as a programmatic piece de#ending his new genre while

assigning it a place within the traditional poetic classi#ication scheme. 4n this poem he

appeals jointl" to *ion"sus and Hippona2- the #ormer to lend dramatic gravitas to the

low;brown genre o# mime- and the latter as an iambic authorit" whose own poetr"

pro%ided the model #rom which Herodas would draw the iambic spirit o# his

mimiamboi . B" the end o# the eighth mime Herodas has openl" adopted Hippona2 as

his model- de#ended his poetr" #rom critics- de#ined his new genre using e2isting poetic

classi#ication terms- and ended on an optimistic note predicting #ame and success #or

himsel# and his work. 1he eighth mime is o# the greatest importance #or this paper



82

because it #irml" places Herodas within the iambic tradition.

3ith Herodas' iambic allegiance clearl" shown in the eighth mime- 4 then turned

m" attention to statements o# aesthetic and ethical criticism in his mimes. 4 ha%e argued

that the #ourth mime- #eaturing two women %iewing artwork in a temple- are intended to

ser%e as an Janti;modelO #or the ideal audience o# Herodas' poems- rel"ing on the

parallel between a %iewer o# %isual arts and the readeraudience o# poetr". 4n#used in the

entire #ourth mime are Herodas' own aesthetic %alues and awareness o# his own poetr"

and poetic %oice. $sing the parallel between %isual art and literar" poetr" he teaches his

audience to re#lect acti%el" on his poetr" and to look be"ond the ob%ious realistic

ualities noted b" so man" scholars- and represented b" the #emale %iewers #ocus on the

%ersimilar ualities o# the objects o# %isual art in the #ourth mime. He promotes as an

ideal %iewer one who is mo%ed to contemplation b" art. 4 ha%e argued that Herodas'

interest in aesthetic %alues- particularl" as related to his poetr"- e2tend throughout his

corpus- and ha%e worked to demonstrate that his mimes demonstrate ele%ated concerns

that ha%e recei%ed too little attention.

!rom elements o# aesthetic criticism 4 mo%ed on to ethical criticism- which 4 ha%e

used to re#er to statements judging moral or ethical beha%ior. Such statements are o#ten

placed in the mouths o# characters whose dispositions appear at odd with ele%ated

philosophical and moral concernsD in #act- in most o# the e2amples it appears that the

characters are not consciousl" aware o# the issues the" are raising. >ne o# the greatest

di##iculties in dealing with these ethical statements is understanding Herodas' own %iew.

4 ha%e not attempted to do so- as his %iews are thoroughl" obscured b" the placement o#

such statements in the mouths o# characters who are not part o# the elite- intellectual



83

discourse o# which Herodas and his audience were participants. 4nstead- 4 ha%e

suggested that the ethical and philosophical concerns raised in the mimes correspond

roughl" to broad trends- such as the changing structure o# the #amil"- sweeping the

Hellenistic world at the time o# Herodas' composition o# the mimes. 4 ha%e tried to show

that an interest in ethical issues is- in #act- present in the mimes- as such an interest has

recei%ed little attention.

As the pre%ious concluding paragraphs suggest- one o# the primar" goals o# this

thesis has been to demonstrate that Herodas is %er" much interested in the same elite-

intellectual topics e2plored b" his #ellow Hellenistic poets. His mimes are indeed

humorous- #illed with stock characters and scenes #rom the comic stage- %ulgarit"- and a

biting wit. But the mimiamboi also e2plore topics o# a weight" nature- include

contemporar" aesthetic %alues- the poet's cra#t- the parallels between %isual art and

poetr"- and philosophical and ethical concerns o# interest and immediate rele%ance to

his audience. 1he ideal reader- as established in the #ourth mime- will not sei@e onl" on

the sur#ace ualities so ob%ious to an"one- but will be mo%ed to a deeper contemplation

o# the more subtle elements hidden beneath the sur#ace- and then on to commentar".



84

6orks Cited

Acosta;Hughes- Benjamin. Polyeideia/ the Iambi o+ allimachus and the Archaic

Iambic #radition. Berkele"+ $C )ress- ,,.

Arnott- eo##re". JHerodas and the &itchen Sink.O %reece and !ome /7 /6=/+ /,/;/0,.

Bartsch- Shadi and as Elsner. JEight 3a"s o# ?ooking at an Ekphrasis.O lassical Philology /, ,=+ i;%i.

Bowie- Ewen. JEarl" reek 4ambic )oetr".O Iambic Ideas/ ssays on a Poetic #radition +rom Archaic %reece to the 0ate !oman mpire. Ed. Antonio Aloni- AlessandroBarchiesi- and Alberto Ca%ar@ere. Pew York+ <owman and ?ittle#ield- ,/. /;,7.

Bruss- on. JEpigram.O A ompanion to 'ellenistic 0iterature. Ed. ames Clauss andMartine Cu"pers. Malden- MA+ Blackwell )ublishing- ,/. //=;/09.

Burton- oan. #heocritus1 2rban Mimes/ Mobility, %ender, and Patronage. ?os Angeles+ $C )ress- /669.

Cameron- Alan. allimachus and 'is ritics. )rinceton $)- /669.

Care"- C. JArchilochus and ?"cambes.O lassical 3uarterly 08 /678+ 8;8=.

Cruces- and .C. *aroca. J1he Metre o# Cercidas.O eitschri+t +5r Papyrologie und

pigraphik /, /665+ 7/;65.

Cruisus- >tto. 'erondae Mimiambi . ?eip@ig+ 1eubner- /69.

Cunningham- 4.C. 'erodas Mimiambi . ?eip@ig+ 1eubner- ,5.

;;;. 'erodas Mimiambi . ?ondon+ >2#ord $)- /6=/.

*a%enport- u". #he Mimes o+ 'erondas. San !rancisco+ re" !o2 )ress- /67/.

*a%ies- .&. JCultural- social and economic #eatures o# the Hellenistic world.O #he

ambridge Ancient 'istory. Ed. A.E. Astin- M.3. !rederiksen- <.M. >gil%ie- and!.3. 3albank. Cambridge $)- /675.

*egani- En@o. Studi su Ipponatte. Bari+ Adriatica- /675.

*egani- H. 'ippona( #estimonia et 6ragmenta. ?eip@ig+ 1eubner- /670.

*i regorio- ?amberto. ronda/ Mimiambi 7I8I9:. Milan+ :ita e )ensiero- /66=.



85

*illon- Matthew. J1ragic ?aughter.O #he lassical -orld 75 /66/+ 059;099.

*uBois- )age. J<eading the 3riting on the 3all.O lassical Philology /, ,=+ 59;98.

Edmunds- ?owell. JCallimachus 4amb 5+ !rom )er#ormance to 3riting.O Iambic Ideas/ ssays on a Poetic #radition +rom Archaic %reece to the 0ate !oman mpire.Ed. Antonio Aloni- Alessandro Barchiesi- and Alberto Ca%ar@ere. Pew York+<owman and ?ittle#ield- ,/. ==;67.

!innegan- <.. J3omen in Herodian Mime.O 'ermathena /9, /66,+ ,/;0=.

!ord- Andrew. J1he Classical *e#inition o# „…†‡‡.O lassical Philology 70 /677+0;0=.

!ountoulakis- Andreas. JBitinna and the 1"rant+ Some <emarks on Herondas 9.=5;==.O Philologus /9/ ,=+ ,0;,50.

;;;. JHerondas 7.88;=6+ eneric Sel#;Consciousness and Artistic Claims in Herondas'Mimiambs.O Mnemosyne 99 ,,+ 0/;/6.

;;;. J `VG[U^[I in Herondas 7.8/.OA eitschri+t +5r Papyrologie und pigraphik /0/,+ ,=;,7.

!owler- Barbara. #he 'ellenistic Aesthetic. Madison- 34+ $ni%ersit" o# 3isconsin )ress-/676.

el@er- 1. ˆMimus und &unsttheorie bei Herondas- Mimiambus 5.O atalepton/ 6estschri+t +5r Bernhard -yss ;um <= %eburtstag. Ed. C. Sch‰ublin. Basel-/679. 68;//8.

oldhill- Simon. J3hat is Ekphrasis !orO lassical Philology /, ,=+ /;/6.

;;;. J1he Pai%e and &nowing E"e+ Ecphrasis and the Culture o# :iewing in theHellenistic 3orld.O Art and #e(t in Ancient %reek ulture. Ed. S. oldhill and <.>sbourne. Cambridge $)- /665. /6=;,,0.

ra#- !. JEkphrasis+ *ie Entstehung der attung in der Antike.O Beschreibungskunst8 >unstbeschreibung. Ed. . Boehm and H. )#otenhauer. MŠnchen+ 3. !ink- /669.

ut@willer- &athr"n. A %uide to 'ellenistic 0iterature. Malden- MA+ Blackwell)ublishing- ,=.

Hawkins- 1om. J>ut;!o2ing the 3ol#;3alker+ ?"cambes as )er#ormati%e <i%al to Archilochus.O lassical Anti*uity ,= ,7+ 60;//5.



86

Headlam- 3alter and A.*. &no2. 'erodas the Mimes and 6ragments. Cambridge$ni%ersit" )ress- /6,,.

Her@og- <. J*er 1raum des Herondas.O Philologus 08 /6,5+ ,=;88.

Hordern- .H. Sophron1s Mimes/ #e(t, #ranslation, and ommentary. ?ondon+ >2#ord$)- ,5.

Hughes- Benjamin. JCallimachus- Hippona2- and the )ersona o# the 4ambographer.O Materiali e discussioni per l1analisi dei testi classici 0= /668+ ,9;,/8.

Hutchinson- .>. 'ellenistic Poetry. >2#ord+ >2#ord $)- /677.

4nwood- Brad and ?.). erson. 'ellenistic Philosophy/ Introductory !eadings.4ndianapolis+ Hackett- /66=.

ones- C.). J1attooing and Branding in raeco;<oman Antiuit".O #he ?ournal o+ !oman Studies == /67=+ /06;/99.

ones- Picholas. !ural Athens 2nder the Democracy. )hiladelphia+ $ni%ersit" o#)enns"l%ania )ress- ,5.

&erkhecker- Arnd. allimachus1 Book o+ Iambi . >2#ord+ >2#ord $)- /666.

&irb"- E.1. Jreece+ 1he !orms o# *ion"sus.O %reek Drama. Ed. Harold Bloom.

Broomall- )A+ Chelsea House )ublishers- ,5. /86;,/.

&irkwood- .M. J1he Authorship o# the Strasbourg Epodes.O #APA 6, /68/+ ,8=;,7,.

&looster- acueline. Poetry as -indo" and Mirror/ Positioning the Poet in 'ellenistic Poetry. ?eiden+ Brill- ,//.

&no2- A.*. J1he *ream o# Herodas.O #he lassical !evie" 06 /6,9+ /0;/9.

&oenderink- . .- A.. %an *oorn- A.M.?. &appers- and .1. 1odd. J)ointing out o# thepicture.O Perception 00 ,5+ 9/0;0.

&onstan- *a%id. J1he 1"rant oddess+ Herodas's !i#th 'Mime'.O lassical Anti*uity 7/676+ ,8=;,7,.

&ut@ko- *a%id. J1he Major 4mportance o# a Minor )oet+ Herodas 8 and = as a {uasi;dramatic *ipt"ch.O Beyond the anon. Ed. M.A. Harder- <. <emco- !. <egtuit-and . C. 3akker. ?eu%en+ )eeters- ,8.



87

?ehman- &. J1he irl Beneath the Apple 1ree.O American ?ournal o+ Archaeology 56/659+ 50;500.

?e%ine- *aniel. JHomeric ?aughter and the $nsmiling Suitors.O #he lassical ?ournal=7 /67,+ 6=;/5.

Massa )ositano- ?. roda/ Mimiambo I9. Paples+ ?ibreria Scienti#ica Editrice- /6=0.

Mastromarco- iuseppe. #he Public o+ 'erondas. Amsterdam+ .C. ieben- /675.

Mc*ermott- Emil". uripides1 Medea/ #he Incarnation o+ Disorder. $ni%ersit" )ark-)A+ 1he )enns"l%ania State $)- /676.

Morgan- 1eresa. J thos+ 1he Sociali@ation o# Children in Education and Be"ond.O Aompanion to 6amilies in the %reek and !oman -orlds. Ed. B. <awson. >2#ord+ 3ile";Blackwell- ,/.

Murra"- ackie. Poetically rect/ rinna and &ossis in 'erodas @ and . A)A- ,7-Chicago- 4?. $npublished con#erence abstract. <etrie%ed #rom+http+apaclassics.orgimagesuploadsdocumentsabstractsMurra"(/.pd#

Pairn- .A. #he Mimes o+ 'erodas. ?ondon+ >2#ord $)- /65.

Pappa- Christopher. J1he oat- the out- and the irl+ Catullus 86- =/- and ==.O Mnemosyne 9, /666+ ,88;,=8.

>nians- ohn. Art and #hought in the 'ellenistic Age/ #he %reek -orld 9ie" =8= B.. ?ondon+ 1hames and Hudson- /6=6

)age- *en"s ?. Select Papyri/ 0iterary Papyri/ Poetry. Cambridge- MA+ Heinemann-/65/.

)#ei##er- <. allimachus 6ragmenta. ?ondon+ >2#ord $)- /656.

)isani- :. Jlosse a Eroda.O Paideia = /69,+ 76;65.

)ollitt- .. Art in the 'ellenistic Age. Cambridge $)- /678.

;;;. #he Ancient 9ie" o+ %reek Art/ riticism, 'istory, and #erminology. PewHa%en+ Yale $)- /6=5.

<idgwa"- Brunilde. J1he Bo" Strangling the oose.O American ?ournal o+ Archaeology// ,8+ 850;857.

<ist- Anna. JA !resh ?ook at Herodas' Bucolic Masuerade.O Phoeni( 9/ /66=+ 095;80.



88

;;;. J1hat Herodean *ipt"ch Again.O lassical 3uarterly 50 /660+ 55;555.

<osen- <alph. JMi2ing o# enres and ?iterar" )rogram in Herodas 7.O 'arvard Studies

in lassical Philology 65 /66,+ ,9;/8.

;;;. JHippona2- Boupalos- and the Con%entions o# the )sogos.O #APA //7 /677+ ,6;5/.

<otstein- Andrea. #he Idea o+ Iambos. >2#ord+ >2#ord $)- ,/.

Scodel- <uth. J4ambos and )arod".O A ompanion to 'ellenistic 0iterature. Ed. amesClauss and Martine Cu"pers. Malden- MA+ Blackwell )ublishing- ,/. ,9/;88.

Sherwin;3hite- Susan. Ancient os. An historical study +rom the Dorian settlement tothe Imperial period. ‹ttingen+ :andenhoeck Œ <uprecht- /6=7.

Skinner- Maril"n. J?adies' *a" at the Art 4nstitute.O Making Silence Speak/ -omen1s9oices in %reek 0iterature and Society. Ed. Andre ?ardinois and ?aura McClure.)rinceton- P+ )rinceton $)- ,/. ,/;,,,.

Suire- Michael. JMaking M"ron's Cow Moo+ Ecphrastic Epigram and the )oetics o#Simulation.O American ?ournal o+ Philology /0/ ,/+ 976;805.

Stern- acob. JHerodas' Mimiamb 8.O %reek, !oman, and By;antine Studies , /6=6+,5=;95.

:on <eden- Sitta. Money in Ptolemaic gypt . Cambridge $)- ,=.

3ebb- <uth. kphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient !hetorical #heory and Practice. Burlington- :1+ Ashgate )ublishing Compan"- ,6.

;;;. JEkphrasis Ancient and Modern+ 1he 4n%ention o# a enre.O -ord and Image/9 /666+ =;/7.

3ebster- 1homas Bertram. 'ellenistic Poetry and Art . ?ondon+ Methuen- /685.

Yacobi- 1amar. J4nterart Parrati%e+ $n<eliabilit" and Ekphrasis.O Poetics #oday ,/

,+ =//;=56.

Yi#tach;!iranko- $ri. Marriage and Marital Arrangements. A 'istory o+ the %reek Marriage Document in gypt. MŠnchen+ C.H. Beck- ,0.

anker- raham. 'erodas Mimiambs. >2#ord+ >2bow Books- ,6.

;;;. J)oetr" and Art in Herodas- Mimiamb 5.O Beyond the anon. Ed. M.A.



89

Harder- <. <emco- !. <egtuit- and . C. 3akker. ?eu%en+ )eeters- ,8.

;;;. Modes o+ 9ie"ing in 'ellenistic Poetry and Art . Madison- 34+ $ni%ersit" o#

3isconsin )ress- ,5.

Documents

Aesthetic and Ethical Criticism in Herodas' Mimiamboi