Herodas  

From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia

Related e

Wikipedia Wiktionary Shop Featured: Rhombicuboctahedron by Leonardo da Vinci

Herodas (Greek: Template:Polytonic), or Herondas (the name is spelt differently in the few places where he is mentioned), was a Greek poet and the author of short humorous dramatic scenes in verse, written under the Alexandrian empire in the 3rd century BC.

Apart from the intrinsic merit of these pieces, they are interesting in the history of Greek literature as being a new species, illustrating Alexandrian methods. They are called Mimiamboi (Greek: μιμίαμβοι, "Mime-iambics"), or mimes. Mimes were the Dorian product of South Italy and Sicily, and the most famous of them — from which Plato is said to have studied the drawing of character — were the work of Sophron.

These were scenes in popular life, written in the language of the people, vigorous with racy proverbs such as we get in other reflections of that region — in Petronius and the Pentamerone. Two of the best known and the most vital among the Idylls of Theocritus, the 2nd and the 15th, we know to have been derived from mimes of Sophron. What Theocritus is doing there, Herodas, his younger contemporary, is doing in another manner — casting old material into novel form, upon a small scale, under strict conditions of technique. The method is entirely Alexandrian: Sophron had written in a peculiar kind of rhythmical prose; Theocritus uses the hexameter and Doric, Herodas the scazon or "lame" iambic (with a dragging spondee at the end) and the old Ionic dialect with which that curious metre was associated. That, however, hardly goes beyond the choice and form of words; the structure of the sentences is close-knit Attic. Herodas did not write his mimiambics in the contemporary Greek koine of his period. Rather, he affected a quaint style that imitated the Greek spoken in the sixth century. (Cunningham 14)

But the grumbling metre and quaint language suit the tone of common life which Herodas aims at realizing; for, as Theocritus may be called idealist, Herodas is a realist unflinching. His persons talk in vehement exclamations and emphatic turns of speech, with proverbs and fixed phrases; and occasionally, where it is designed as proper to the part, with the most naked coarseness of expression. The scene of the second and the fourth is laid at Cos, and the speaking characters in each are never more than three.

Herodas' mimes

Mime I

In Mime I the old nurse, now the professional go-between or bawd, calls on Metriche, whose husband has been long away in Egypt, and endeavours to excite her interest in a most desirable young man, fallen deeply in love with her at first sight. After hearing all the arguments Metriche declines with dignity, but consoles the old woman with an ample glass of wine, this kind being always represented with the taste of Mrs Gamp.

Mime II

This is a monologue by the "whoremonger" prosecuting a merchant-trader for breaking into his establishment at night and attempting to carry off one of the inmates, who is produced in court. The vulgar blackguard, who is a stranger to any sort of shame, remarking that he has no evidence to call, proceeds to a peroration in the regular oratorical style, appealing to the Coan judges not to be unworthy of their traditional glories. In fact, the whole oration is also a burlesque in every detail of an Attic speech at law; and in this case we have the material from which to estimate the excellence of the parody.

Mime III

Metrotimé, a desperate mother, brings to the schoolmaster Lampriscos her truant son, Cottalos, with whom neither she nor his incapable old father can do anything. In a voluble stream of interminable sentences she narrates his misdeeds and implores the schoolmaster to flog him. The boy accordingly is hoisted on another's back and flogged; but his spirit does not appear to be subdued, and the mother resorts to the old man after all.

Mime IV

This is a visit of two poor women with an offering to the temple of Asclepius at Cos. While the humble cock is being sacrificed, they turn, like the women in the Ion of Euripides, to admire the works of art; among them a small boy strangling a vulpanser — doubtless the work of Boethus that we knowand a sacrificial procession by Apelles, "the Ephesian," of whom we have an interesting piece of contemporary eulogy. The oily sacristan is admirably painted in a few slight strokes.

Mime V

This brings us very close to some unpleasant facts of ancient life. The jealous woman accuses one of her slaves, whom she has made her favourite, of infidelity; has him bound and sent degraded through the town to receive 2000 lashes; no sooner is he out of sight than she recalls him to be branded "at one job." The only pleasing person in the piece is the little maidservant permitted liberties as a verna brought up in the house whose ready tact suggests to her mistress an excuse for postponing execution of a threat made in ungovernable fury.

Mime VI

A friendly chat or a private conversation. The subject is an ugly one, Metro has arrived at Koritto's house to ask her where she acquired a dildo, but the dialogue is as clever and amusing as the rest, with some delightful touches. Our interest is engaged here in a certain Kerdon, the maker of the dildo and who hides this trade by the front of being a cobbler. On acquiring the information she desired, Metro leaves to seek him out.

Mime VII

The same Kerdon and Metro whom we see in VI appear, Metro bringing some friends to Kerdon's shoe shop, (his name, which means "profiteer", had already become generic for the shoemaker as the typical representative of retail trade) he is a little bald man with a fluent tongue, complaining of hard times, who bluffs and wheedles by turns. The sexual undertones which we have come to expect from his involvement in VI are only realised at the end when Metro's friends have left the shop.

Mime VIII

Opens with the poet waking up his servants to listen to his dream; but we have only the beginning, and the other fragments are very short. Within the limits of 100 lines or less Herodas presents us with a highly entertaining scene and with characters definitely drawn.

Discussion

Some of these had been perfected no doubt upon the Attic stage, where the tendency in the 4th century had been gradually to evolve accepted types--not individuals, but generalizations from a class, an art in which Menander's was esteemed the master-hand.

Their effect is achieved by true dramatic means, with touches never wasted and the more delightful often because they do not clamour for attention. The execution has the qualities of first-rate Alexandrian work in miniature, such as the epigrams of Asclepiades possess, the finish and firm outlines; and these little pictures bear the test of all artistic work — they do not lose their freshness with familiarity, and gain in interest as one learns to appreciate their subtle points.

Full text [1]

Silver Coin of Kos. British Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins.

Caria, Plate XXXI, 2. Obverse : Head of Herakles, wearing lion's skin. Reverse : Crab and bow in case.

Inscription : KfllON, and magistrate's name, M02XIAN. Date : 300 to 190 B.C.

Silver Coin of Kos. British Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins.

Caria, Plate XXXII, 4. Obverse : Head of AsUlepios, laureate. Reverse : Coiled Serpent.

Inscription : Kfl, and magistrate's name, AEINIA25 NIKOST. Date: about 166-88 B.C.

/A

Gold Coin of Arsinoe II Philadelphos (3i6?-27o b.c).

British Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins. The 'Ptolemies,

Plate VIII, 1. Obverse : Head of Arsinoe, veiled and diademed, with horn of

Zeus Ammon. Reverse : Double Cornucopia bound with fillet. Inscription : AP2INOH2 *IAAAEA*OT.

HPOIAOT MIMIAMBOI^ THE

MIMES OF HERODAS,

^ A

EDITED

WITH INTRODUCTION, CRITICAL NOTES, COMMENTARY, AND EXCURSUS

BY

J^ ARBUTHNOT NAIRN)" M.A.

HEADMASTER OF MERCHANT TAYLORS' SCHOOL AND SOMETIME FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE. CAMBRIDGE

TOGETHER WITH FACSIMILES OF THE RECENTLY- DISCOVERED FRAGMENTS, AND OTHER ILLUSTRATIONS

OXFORD

AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 1904

HENRY FROWDE, M.A.

PUBLISHES TO THE UNIVBB8RT OF OXFORD

LONDON, EDINBURGH

NEW YORK

To E. A. N.

PREFACE

The preparation of an edition of Herodas first suggested itself to me on the occasion of the performance of one of the Mimes (the Aib&o-KaXos) in June, 1902, by some of the boys of Merchant Taylors' School. The lack of an adequate English commentary was then forcibly brought home to me. In con- sequence, I determined to undertake an edition which should embody the results of the constant attention paid to this author during the past twelve years. For a considerable time no complete commentary has appeared, even on the Con- tinent : and a great mass of new material has been meanwhile accumulating.

The plan of my book includes Introduction, apparatus criticus, explanatory notes, and a Bibliography. It has been my aim to give the student all needful assistance towards the correct interpretation of this difficult author. I have, however, decided for several reasons not to add a translation.

The literature on the subject of Herodas is scattered up and down among a large number of periodicals, which I have searched as carefully as possible for everything bearing on the text or its interpretation. In particular, I have endeavoured to assign priority in regard to emendation to the proper quarter, and in so doing have given to English critics their due share of credit : from some current German editions it might be inferred that the value of the work done on Herodas in this country is less than is actually the case.

It remains for me to express my warm thanks to all those who have assisted me in various ways in the preparation of this edition : to Professor Sir Richard Jebb, who read through the larger part of the book in proof, and contributed several suggestions of importance : to Dr. Kenyon, who gave me most

vi PREFACE

valuable help in reading the papyrus, and has shown the ut- most kindness in replying to the somewhat exacting questions which I have from time to time addressed to him : to Mr. A. H. Smith and Mr. G. F. Hill, also of the British Museum, who helped me with their advice in regard to the illustrations : to Dr. Grenfell, who read the second Excursus in proof, and gave me the benefit of his criticism.

To three of my colleagues on the Staff of Merchant Taylors' School I am indebted for considerable assistance. The Rev. Frederick Conway, by his accuracy and width of knowledge, has been of great service in the laborious task of proof- reading. Mr. R. J. Cholmeley's excellent edition of Theokri- tos, and his knowledge of Alexandrine literature in general, were naturally of special value. Mr. J. C. Stobart has materially increased the utility of the book by the Greek and Subject Indexes which he has compiled.

Finally, I would acknowledge the substantial help which I have throughout received from my wife.

To the Delegates and Secretary of the Oxford University Press I tender my warm thanks for their uniform courtesy and consideration.

I hope that my work may facilitate in some measure the study of Herodas ; and shall be satisfied if I succeed in im- parting to others some share of the pleasure which I have experienced in editing an author, remarkable alike from his novel point of view, and from the circumstances of his re- appearance.

J. A. N.

December 1903.

Vll

CONTENTS

PAGES

List of Illustrations viii

Introduction ix-lxxxviii

Chapter I. Herodas and his Work . . ix-xxii „ II. The Mime .... xxii-xxxiv „ III. Herodas and his Contem- poraries .... xxxiv-xli „ IV. Evidence for the Text. . xli-lvii „ V. The Dialect, Grammar, and

Metre .... lviii-lxxxvii

1. The Dialect . . . lviii-lxi

2. Grammar .... lxi-lxxviii 8. Metre .... lxxviii-lxxxiii

Conspectus of the more important Litera- ture of Herodas lxxxiv-lxxxvii

Explanation of some Abbreviations . . lxxxviii

Text and Notes 1-104

Excursus I, II 105-108

Indices 109-116

via

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Plate of Coins ....

. Frontispiece

Vase signed by Duris

to face page 29

Erotes as Shoemakers |

Flogging-Scene J

41

Votive Relief to Asklepios .

„ 46

Boy strangling Goose

49

Frieze of the Parthenon

» 54

Two Women conversing .

69

Lady visiting Shoemaker .

81

Three Plates of Facsimiles .

108

IX

INTRODUCTION

I. HERODAS AND HIS WORK.

The year 189 1, an annus mirabilis in the history of classical studies, Discovery gave back to the world, among other long lost works of ancient authors, ™™^ the Mimes of Herodas. This was brought about by the discovery, in Egypt, of a papyrus roll containing some 700 lines of the work of this poet \ The name of the author indeed is missing from the roll, but his identity with Herodas the writer of Mimiambi known to us from antiquity was at once substantiated ; for out of ten fragments known to us already by citation in various sources, no fewer than five appeared in the newly-found roll f . And though the importance of the discovery was at first somewhat thrown into the shade by the inevitable com- parison with the wider issues of the 'A^votW IIoXiTcta, first published at the beginning of the same year, it was nevertheless seen that the find was a most valuable one. In Herodas we recovered one of the leading representatives of an important branch of Greek literature, the Mime, which had hitherto been known to us mainly from certain pieces of Theokritos, in whose hands the true characteristics of this form were felt to have been slightly obscured by poetical treatment.

Until 1 89 1 the great reputation which Herodas enjoyed among the ancients had to be taken on trust. The younger Pliny s had put him on a level with Kallimachos ; but had he not been cited several times by Stobaios and Athenaios we should have had almost nothing of his work left to us. As it was, only some ten fragments, consisting of twenty-two lines, averaging two lines each, remained. But on the discovery of the newly-found papyrus roll it became at last possible for us to appraise the judgment which ancient critics of merit, such as Pliny, had formed of Herodas the mimographer.

The importance of the find was felt by classical scholars in almost every branch. The textual critic, the historian of manners, the

1 A portion of one column of the MS. had been already seen by Prof. Sayce in Egypt, and had by him been communicated to the Academy. See the Academy for April 19 and Oct. 11, 1890. Also H. Weil, Revue des £tudts grecques, iii. 309.

• See notes on i. 15 sq., 67 sq. ; iii. 10 ; v. 32 sq. ; vi. 37-39.

• Ep. iv. 3. 3. Letter to his friend Antoninus : k Ita certe sum affectus ipse cum

Graeca epigrammaia tua t cum iambos {mimiambos one MS.) proxime Itgerem. Quantum ibi humanitatis I quam dulcia i/fa, quam amantia, quam arguta, quam recta I Callimachum me uel Heroden uel si quid his melius tenet e credebam*

x INTRODUCTION

archaeologist, the palaeographer, were all faced with fresh problems. The paroemiographer found a field after his own heart. The numismatist could glean fresh information from the seventh Mime. The references to Kos in the second and fourth Mimes appealed to many who had just before had their interest in that island awakened by the work of Paton and Hicks. And a wider public was attracted by the discovery of a writer whose methods presented several points of similarity to those of the Realists of our own day. The number of translations of Herodas that have already appeared in France and Germany is a sign that the interest in Herodas has been by no means confined to the learned. The editio A transcript l of the MS. of Herodas was published in the summer pnnceps. qC ^^ ^ p r Kenyon, who, coming fresh from the laurels won by his work on Aristotle, gained scarcely less praise by the care and general correctness with which he presented Herodas to the world. His transcript was preceded by an Introduction summing up our previous knowledge of Herodas, and briefly analysing each piece, with valuable comments on various points of interest connected with the newly-discovered poems. At the same time appeared an edition by Dr. Rutherford.

Then the interest of scholars in the discovery showed itself in a number of articles, usually of criticism of the text * ; while in a few cases isolated Mimes were edited with brief apparatus criticus and notes. Thus Bticheler edited Mime i in Rheinisches Museum ; Kaibel iv and vi in Hermes ; Gercke and Gtinther iii in the Berliner Wochen- sckrift/Ur klassische Philologie, Early in 1892 appeared Herwerden's edition in the pages of Mnemosyne. In February, 1892, Bticheler followed up his edition of Mime i, already referred to, by a complete edition of the Mimes, of which a reissue, with additions and corrections, appeared in March of the same year. Crusius' valuable Untersuchungen bears in the preface mid-May, 1892. His first edition is dated June, 1892. Meister's edition (1893) closes the early era of activity in the study of Herodas 8 . Contents of The MS. thus given to the world contains seven poems, in a tolerably and later complete condition : viz. UpoicvKkU tj Mocrrpoiro? (90 w.\ IIopvo/focrKos discoveries. (102 W.) 9 AtoaoTcoXos (97 W.), *Ao7cAi77ri<3 dvart&icrat #cal 0wta£ovoru

1 Classical Texts from Papyri in the British Museum. London, 1891.

3 We may mention, honoris causa, in this connexion the names of Blass, Bticheler, Crusius, Diels, Ellis, Headlam, Hicks, Jackson, Kaibel, Nicholson, Palmer, and Weil.

8 For a list of the more important works and articles on Herodas that have appeared since 1891, v. infra at the end of the Introduction.

HERODAS AND HIS WORK xi

(95 W-), ZiyXonnros (85 w.\ OiXio£owat tj 18ia£ovo-ai (102 w.\ Sicvrcvs (129 w.). The eighth poem ('Ekwtviov), as printed by Dr. Kenyon, consisted of but 3 vv. Besides the above, however, eleven detached fragments were preserved, including the title of one additional poem ('A^oi^<m£ofi€vai). The text of these new fragments was published in an Addendum to the volume containing the editio princeps 1 . There was then no reason to suppose that any other fragments existed. However, in the course of 1900, to use the words of Dr. Kenyon, * a small box was sent to the British Museum which was found to contain a quantity of papyrus fragments. The frag- ments were very small, some of them being reduced to mere powder ; but it was evident at first sight that they formed part of the great discovery' (of the year 1891). Dr. Kenyon adds that they must have remained in the possession of some native of Egypt when the main bulk of the discovery was transferred to the British Museum *.

These new fragments have been put together by Dr. Kenyon ; and the results of his combinations show that the fragments form part of the four columns following next after the continuous portion of the roll. The new fragments have not been published in any edition previous to the present one.

The Mimes consist of short dialogues in verse, written in the metre TheMimes. known as the scazon or choliambic, and depicting scenes from every- day life. They are ' tableaux de genre,' drawn from personal observa- tion 8 . They are written in the language of the common people, with its colloquialisms, vulgarisms, and a large number of proverbs, the features which are characteristic of that language, and which we find reflected, e. g. in Petronius and the Pentamerone. It is clear that Herodas, besides his personal observation, has drawn from literary sources, notably Hipponax, Sophron, and Aristophanes. However, in the manner in which he casts old material into novel form upon a small scale, and under strict conditions of technique, he is entirely Alexandrian 4 , and reminds us of nothing so much as the epigrams of the Anthology, notably those of Asklepiades, where the qualities are those of the best work in miniature.

The tone of the. Mimes is also indicative of the society which they Their tone, profess to represent. It is vulgar, sordid, even vicious. The first

1 See also C. R, v. 480. Two additional titles (Xwtpyatffx&at and Mo\vav6s) are recorded by Athenaios and Stobaios respectively.

• 'Some new Fragments of Herodas': Arckiv fiir Papyrusforschung, I. 379.

Mime viii, with fragments 12-30 incorporated in the text, is printed on pp. 385-6 of that article. For fragments 31-60 see photographic plates a and 3 in this edition.

• C£ H. TNtML, Journal des Savants, 1893, p. 35.

4 Cf. Headlam, article * Herodas' in Encyclop. Britannica (edition x).

xii INTRODUCTION

two of these qualities were at once apparent ; the third quality became even more apparent when the real meaning of the sixth Mime was unravelled. It was then seen that in Herodas we had a convinced and uncompromising realist. It must be admitted of the things of which he writes that ' some are darker than you would like, and not family subjects V We need not, however, dwell unnecessarily on the grossness of part of Herodas* work, but rather endeavour to appre- ciate the art whereby his delineations even now retain their vitality. Meaning of The word /u/iui/ifioi means simply ' mimes in iambi '; cf. the title ]uuiauB<H °* Babrius' work, pvOCafifioi, i. e. fables in iambi. The name iambi covers the scazon as well as the ordinary iambic metre. In the Pro- oimion prefixed to Mime ix, Herodas seems to say that he had first employed the latter, but afterwards adopted the scazon. Both metres found warrant in the old Ionic iambographi. Archilochos and Simo- nides of Amorgos had used the iambus for purposes of satire. Hip- ponax had used the scazon for a similar purpose. On the word ^ua/A/?oi, which is sometimes used in connexion with Herodas, cf. Susemihl, i. 231, notes 91, 92, and my note on viii. 59. Proper We have already stated that the name of the writer of the Mimes

theaJJJhor's * s unfortunately missing from the roll. We are therefore still left name. in doubt as to the proper spelling of Herodas. The name of this author is variously given in ancient texts as Herodes, Herodas, or Herondas. Pliny the younger 2 and Zenobios 8 give Herodes. Stobaios 4 supports both 'HpwoV and 'H/woSas. Against these is to be set Athenaios 6 ; the Codex Marcianus of this author has in one passage Upwvoas. Meister has adduced weighty evidence in favour of 'Hpw&a? (with the iota subscript). (1) Grammarians attest the existence of the name € Hpw8i;s='Hpo>i8i;s, and inscriptions, until the second century b.c, preserve the form 'Hpa>t8as; (2) the agreement of at least two inde- pendent sources, Pliny and Stobaios, with regard to the absence of the letter v from the name of the poet, must prevail against the isolated evidence of Athenaios. Herwerden adds that 'Hpwoas in Athenaios may be due to a misreading of the older and more correct c Hpa>2oa$.

It is to be observed that the occurrence of the name Herodas on Graeco-Egyptian inscriptions is of no weight, as we have nothing to show that there is any connexion between these inscriptions and the writer of the Mimes. Names in -covSas (cf. Haywvoas, ^a/icuwSa?)

1 R. A. Neil, C. R. vii. (1893), p. 317, quoting Mr. Borthrop Trumbull on the Old Masters.

a Ep. iv. 3. 8 Cent. vi. 10.

4 Flor. 78, 6. 116, 18, ai-3 (Bpfoov); 98,28. 116,24 (HpM); 74, i4(*H/)^ow al. 'P&Sa). » iii. 86 B.

HERODAS AND HIS WORK xiii

are mainly Boeotian, and if we assign this termination to the name of the poet, we must assume that this and similar forms are not indigenous to Kos, but came there with the immigration from Orcho- menos in the fourth century b.c. * It has been suggested that the form in -cooas is due to a corruption of -w&as. But as H/woV is a very common name, while H/wooas is comparatively rare, we should have expected to find that if Hp<t>v$as was corrupted at all it would be changed not to 'Hpa>oas but invariably to Tlpa&ys.

Hence 'HpwvSa? does not account for the existence of 'H/xooW On the other hand 'HpanSa? accounts both for 'H/xovSas (as we have seen) and for 'H/xoSas (by the mere omission of iota), and is for this reason, and for those already given, to be preferred 8 .

Derivatives of the stem f Hpo>- are often found as proper names in Asia Minor ; thus 'H/Hoyo^s (Mylasa), Upotfc/xi? (Smyrna), 'H/xovtm? (Smyrna). The hero in question was, according to Fick 8 , Herakles ; according to Meister 4 , Asklepios, on the ground that these derivatives are found only in countries where the worship of Asklepios prevailed. We find on Koan inscriptions the proper names Botoas, SoKravopiSas, OiA*wm8as, P.-H., Index I.

The date of Herodas cannot be fixed with certainty, but several Bate of pieces of evidence, all pointing in the same direction, are to be found ** *** in the Mimes themselves.

( i) i. 30-3 1 : Oc&v a&€\<t>(Dv relievos, 6 /fcuriXcvs XpiyoTos, fwwrrjiov, kt\.

See the note on this passage, where it is shown that the earliest possible date for the first Mime is 270 b.c. That the words $€wv d&A^&v refer to the second Ptolemy (Philadelphos) 5 and his queen Arsinoe {et soror et coniunx) is admitted, and this fixes the date as subsequent to the deification of Arsinoe in 270-69 b.c. But there is some doubt as to whether 6 fSaviXcvs ^jotos refers to Philadelphos (285 to 247 b.c.) or to Euergetes (247-222 b.c). For some time after the publication of Herodas it seemed to be generally accepted that Euergetes 6 was intended ; but the ' king ' referred to is just as likely to be Philadelphos, whose praises have been sung by the other Alexandrian poets, including Kallimachos and Theokritos. An objection has been raised that 6 /feo-iXcvs xpiyoTos cannot refer to one of the two $€<ov d&A^&v, that the same person cannot be in the same breath foos and /foo-iAcvs. This objection does not seem to me to be

1 v. scholiast on Theokr. vii. ai. I have, however, used Herodas as the English form; Heroidas seems somewhat pedantic.

• Griech. Personmnamen, p. 174. * p. 752 sq.

• Cf. Susemihl, ii. 70a. * Rutherford, Weil, and Bucheler held this view.

xiv INTRODUCTION

serious. Herodas could surely refer to the excellence of Ptolemy as a man without denying his position in the Egyptian Pantheon. Moreover, if Euergetes is meant we should have expected some mention of the cult of the $€ol Evcpyercu to balance the Ocol dScA^ot. The Ptolemies were deified regularly with their consorts, and we find on Ptolemaic docu- ments the list Oe&v %DTrip(i)v /cat 0€<ov 'AScX^wv #cat 0€tt>v Evepyciw, &C. 1

(2) The next indication of the date of Herodas is to be found in the fourth Mime (vv. 23, 73, 76-9). In the first of these passages a group of statuary in the temple of Asklepios is ascribed to the ' sons of Praxiteles/ i.e. Kephisodotos the younger and Timarchos, whose floruit is placed by Pliny in the 121st Olympiad, 296-293 b.c. The artistic activity of these sculptors 8 must have begun before 323 B.c., for they executed a portrait-statue of the orator Lykurgos who died in that year. They also executed a statue of the poetess Myro (floruit 284 b.c). In Herodas they are referred to as still alive s ; and it would not be safe to date the passage in question much later than 270 b.c

(3) In Mime iv. w. 76-79 Apelles is referred to as being lately dead : and his memory is defended against certain unnamed detractors 4 with an energy which shows that controversy on the subject of his work was still active. Apelles was born not later than 356 b.c Assuming that Apelles was born in the year 356 b.c, and lived to the age of eighty, his death would fall in 276 b.c; if then an interval of six years is left before the scene described in the Mime took place 5 , we have 270 for the date of Mime iv.

The fourth Mime was probably written at the time at which it purports to be written, i.e. soon after the death of Apelles. For it is plain that in the passage where Apelles is defended against his critics Herodas is speaking in his own person, expressing his own view of the great painter. These lines (iv. 76-79) would fall flat if written at a time when Apelles had been dead a long time ; for, as Professor Palmer remarks 6 , ' detraction does not live long after death.'

1 e.g. Tebtnnis Papyri, 6, i7sqq. Mahaffy (Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 130, n. 2) tacitly assumes that Philadelphos is meant at Her. i. 30. Previously he hesitated between Philadelphos and Euergetes, and also suggested one of the later Ptolemies, e. g. Philopator, on account of vi. 64 {History of Greek Literature, vol. i. pt. ii. p. [196]). a v. note on iv. 23.

8 iv. 25-6. There is no reason to suppose that this is an anachronism: cf. Mekler, Neues von den AUen, p. 26.

• For the enemies of Apelles, cf. Pliny, N, If, xxxv. 89 ; Lukian vcpl rod 1^

fatioos vi(TT€V€iv &ia0o\y t ch. 2.

5 On the chronology of Apelles v. now Dziatzko in Paulv-Wissowa, s.v. Apelles who seems to favour a somewhat earlier date. I do not Know on what authority, Palmer gave the date of Apelles' death as c. 290 B.C. (Hermathena, viii. 237).

• Hermathena, viii. 237.

HERODAS AND HIS WORK xv

(4) Reasons will be given in the next chapter for believing that Mimes i and iv contain imitations of Theokritos xv, the date of which lies somewhere between 279 and 270 b.c.

(5) The works of art referred to in the fourth Mime have been studied by Gurlitt 1 , who endeavours to fix the date of the Mime by considerations based on the subjects depicted. His conclusion is that the Mime is probably to be placed somewhere between 270 and 260 B.C.

To sum up this evidence : the date of Herodas i cannot be earlier than 270: and that of iv is 270 or a little later. We can scarcely attain to greater precision than this. I should fix the date of Herodas' birth as about 300 b.c There is no evidence that he lived to see the reign of the third Ptolemy (Euergetes), who ascended the throne in 247 b.c We may therefore assign as the lifetime of Herodas 300- 250 B.c. a He would thus be a younger contemporary of Theokritos (born c. 310 b.c), cf. below, ch. III.

The scene of two of the Mimes (the second and fourth) is un- The home questionably Kos. There is considerable probability that the scene of Herodas - of Mimes i, iii, and v is also to be laid there 8 .

This conclusion is supported by the fact that there is a remarkable similarity between the proper names mentioned in the Mimes and those found on Koan inscriptions, or known to be connected with Kos. Thus to take only a few of the names of persons common to Herodas and to the Koan inscriptions we find "Aprc/us, BitSs, BiVivm, rvXA&, *EKarrj f *Ep/«i>v, Eu/fovAiy, EvOirp, Kovoas, Ko#c#caA.iy, &c. 4 More r over the derivative syllables from which proper names in Herodas are formed present an equally striking resemblance 5 ; thus with Mrjrpixn (Her. i) cf. ^mrCxq (P.-H), with Barrapo? (Her. ii) cf. Birrapos MivkcU (hqv (P.-H.), with BCnwa (Her. v) cf. UXdnwa Tkviawa&Ckiwa (P.-H.),

1 ArchdoL-epigr. Mittheil aus Oesterr. xv. 169 sqq. Meister puts the date of Mime iv between 284 and 280 B.C. He thinks that Ptolemy Philadelphos, who began to reign in 285 B.C., proceeded without delay to adorn the Asklepieion with works of art. But of this there is no evidence : see pp. xx sq.

' The view put forward by Professor Ellis that Mapwv in iii. 24 was the poet Vergil is untenable (v. note ad loc.). The same scholar has put forward, in reference to ii. 73, a view according; to which that Mime could not be earlier than the reign of Philip III of Macedon (220-1 79 B.C.). This view also must be rejected (v. note). Wilamowitz gives it as his opinion that Herodas lived to the end of the third century B.C. (Nachr. v. d. Gott. Ges. d. JViss., 1894, p. 29 n.).

9 v. the Introductions to the several Mimes, where the necessary details are given. For the scene of vi and vii, v. Introd. to vi.

• For a complete list see Crusius •, Index Nominum, I, II, III. ^

• The analogy has been fully worked out by Gurlitt : ArchaoL-epigr, mittheil. aus Oesterr. xv. 169 sqq. P.-H.=Paton-Hicks, Index I, where see references.

xvi INTRODUCTION

with MvpraXivrj (Her. vi), MaraXCvrj (Her. i), cf. MucvXivrj Atcr^vXtvos A/xxrivo? (P.-H.).

It has been pointed out that the geography of Herodas is almost exclusively that of the eastern side of the Aegean. Thus we have allusions to Chios, Erythrai, Brikindera (in Rhodes), Abdera, Phaselis *. The mention of the daric (vii. 102, 106, 122) points to the same conclusion, and the prevalence of names beginning with Mrjrp- implies an Asiatic locality.

It is plain from what has been said, that Herodas was very familiar with Kos and its people, and that he must have lived for some con- siderable time on the island. Whether he was a native of Kos, or was merely attracted thither like other literary men of his day, we cannot tell.

It will be shown that during the era of the early Ptolemies, and especially in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphos, relations between that island and the Alexandrian court were of the friendliest Kos en- joyed constant intercourse with Alexandria by sea, and to the literary men of Alexandria was a sort of retreat, where they could devote their time to quiet study, far away from the noise and bustle of the great city. t

However, the Doric form of the name in -8as favours the theory j

that Herodas was a Koan*. We seem to find further traces of this [

(1) in the affectionate tone of Kw ykvKtjav (iv. 2), and (2) in the defence of Apelles (iv. 72-79), who, though an Ephesian by birth, had settled in Kos, and painted for the Koans some of his most famous pictures. i

The scene of two of the Mimes, vi and vii, is probably laid /

at Ephesos 8 . Herzog has suggested 4 that Herodas had lived for '

some time in that city, which he would naturally visit as the birth- }

place of his master Hipponax, and also of Apelles (cf. iv. 72). There >

may be a reference to the temple of Artemis at Ephesos in i. 26 (v. r

note). But the direct evidence in support of this theory is after all slight f

etch of The history of Kos has been excellently sketched by Paton and j

1 1 history Hicks in the Introduction to their standard book 5 based on the results t

Kos. j

1 v. notes on ii. 57-59, iii. 45, 51, v. 3 a (C^P 640 ")* ▼*• 5 8 > ▼»*• 86; also Intro- duction to Mime vi. j

• This view is held e.g. by Crusins, Unters. p. 187 (cf. however his German I

translation, p. xxiv, where he seems less positive). Crusins also refers to the j Doric forms found in Herodas in confirmation of his view : see, however, ch. V

(Dialect). !

• v. Introduction to Mime vi. [

• Berl. phil. Woch., 1898, 1 249-1 353 (review of Olschewsky's work). Cf.

Crusius (German translation, I.e.).

• Inscriptions of Cos, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1891. This book has an excellent map.

HERODAS AND HIS WORK xvii

of excavations in that island ; and more recently Herzog l has investi- gated the ancient remains afresh, with the result of adding many new inscriptions, and much fresh information. The following account of Kos down to and during the time of Herodas is based on the two works referred to, to which I would here render acknowledgements for the assistance derived from them throughout this edition.

Next to Rhodes, Kos is the largest of the Dorian Sporades. Its Geo- circumference is given by Strabo as 550 stades, by Pliny the elder as ^ r *^ ical 100 Roman miles. The island falls into three divisions (1) the eastern district, bounded on the south by a high range of mountains ; upon these mountains are the healing springs, which are still famous ; (2) a plateau furrowed by watercourses, and for the most part desolate and barren ; (3) the mountainous western district, with a distinct range of its own.

Most of the island is remarkably fertile, and noted for its wines. Kos is badly supplied with harbours. Its people were of a sober, steadfast character, as befitted their Doric origin. The youths of Kos were famous for their beauty 8 . They adhered faithfully to ancient ritual, especially in regard to the worship of Asklepios, which came to them from the mainland of Greece*. In the fifth century the Koan school of medicine, which continued famous for a considerable period, was founded by Hippokrates; he based his observations on the votive models in the temple of Asklepios, which constituted a kind of anatomical and pathological museum.

The history of the settlements on the island is as follows. In the Early Homeric catalogue 4 we find Kos, with its dependent islands (Nisyros, ^Jj* 8 Krapathos, Kasos, and the Kalydnian group), sending a contingent island. of thirty ships to help the Greek cause. The contingent is led by Pheidippos and Antiphos, the sons of Thessalos, a Herakleid. In the Iliad we also hear twice 5 of Herakles having been carried to Kos by contrary winds through the anger of Hera, on his way from the sack of Troy. He is attacked by the natives of Kos, according to the fuller form of the legend, and slays the king of the island, Eury- pylos, marries his daughter Chalkiope, and begets a son, Thessalos. This legend is now seen to be referred to by Herodas 6 . Thus, even

1 Koisclu Forschungen und Funde. Leipzig, 1899.

8 Cf. i. 29 {v€T)vi0/coi) : Kos could appreciate the handsome young Egyptians.

• Wilamowitz {Isyl/os, 49) believes that it came from Thessaly. v. Thraemer

in Pauly-Wissowa, s. v. Asklepios. Hicks (Introd. p. xv) says it came from Epi- dauros, but Paton (Appendix F, p. 347) refers its origin to Knidos.

• Iliad, ii. 676 sqq. 6 xiv. 255, xv. 28. • At ii. 96.

xviii INTRODUCTION

before the Dorian migration and the colonization of Ionia there was a Dorian settlement in Kos. It is thought probable that these Dorians came from Argolis. Herodotos 1 tells us that Kos and the adjacent islands were colonized from Epidauros, and in this way the old Dorian element was strengthened. The sterner features of the Dorian character were, however, mollified in Kos. The discipline (dytoyij) of Sparta and Crete is not found there, though the population of the island was purely Dorian, and was divided into the three Dorian tribes, the Dymanes, Hylleis, and Pamphyli. Six of the cities in this region formed a religious league, the Doric Hexapolis. They were, besides Kos, Lindos, Ialysos, Kamiros, Knidos, and Halikarnassos. These states met at the temple of Apollo on the Triopian promontory, to take part in the worship of the god and also in games. Later on Halikarnassos was expelled, and the Hexa- polis became a Pentapolis.

The dwellings of the earliest inhabitants of Kos were on the north- east coast, near the present town of Kos. The fountain Burinna 2 , which is alluded to by Theokritos 8 , and still remains, is situated in this region. The Dorian settlers saw the advantage of this side of the island, which brought them closer to the mainland ; they did not, however, confine themselves to the east coast, but spread over the island Kara icco/ias. In the sixth century the Lydo-Persian wars forced them to change the capital of the island to the opposite side, where they built 'AcrnnrdXauL, which served as the capital until the fourth century.

Kos in the In the fifth century we hear of Kos several times.

fifth cen- /j\ j t h a( j ^ en undg,. t h e ^jfe f Skythes, whose son Kadmos 4

tury B.C. x ' J '

voluntarily resigned the tyranny ; but the Karian queen Artemisia had been allowed to include Kos in her satrapy, and with three other states Kos sent a contingent of five ships with the queen to aid Xerxes 5 : a curious contrast to its efforts of bygone days against the barbarian.

(2) In the Athenian tribute-lists Kos is set down as paying 3^ to S talents : a relatively large sum, which shows the prosperity of the island.

(3) At the beginning of the Peloponnesian War Kos is reckoned as one of the allies of Athens. Towards the end of the war it was visited with both earthquake and invasion. The earthquake of

1 Hdt. vii. 99.

• Now Vonrina. It still supplies the modern city Jtftpa (on the site of Km 1}

WUpowis). » vii. 6. * Hdt. vii. 164. • Hdt vii. 99.

HERODAS AND HIS WORK xix

413 B.C. was the worst in the recollection of Thukydides *, and destroyed a great part of the town of Kos {Km y Mcpoirts). Soon after this, Astyochos, the Spartan admiral, landed and inflicted great damage (412 b.c.). Later on in the same year, Kos revolted against Athens, whereupon Alkibiades landed and plundered extensively. He repeated this in 408 b. c. None the less Kos held to the Spartan side.

In 394 b.c, however, it deserted Sparta, owing perhaps to its in the increased importance, and to the democratical ideas which had sprung ^ ourtl1 cen " up. In 366 b.c there was a sharp struggle between the old oligar- chical and the new democratic party, which resulted eventually in a compromise. All Koans of the various townships were to become citizens of one city, to be named Kos, and to be built at the harbour on the east coast. It was to be the 7i-o\is, the townships were to stand to it as Srjfwi*. In other words the owoucurfws of Kos was carried through. No doubt the requirements of trade had something to do with the rise of the party of progress. Expansion of trade im- peratively required a harbour on the east coast, both because of the proximity of such a harbour to the mainland, and also because the trade from Egypt, Rhodes, and Syria passed through the narrow straits to the east of the island.

After these reforms the city made great strides in wealth and power •. Its numbers were presently swelled by refugees from Orchomenos, when the Thebans destroyed that city (364 b.c). But the democracy soon gave offence, a fact which Aristotle * attributes to the bad advice of its leaders ; the oligarchy, at the instance of Maussollos of Karia, took the initiative, and Kos, with Chios and Rhodes, seceded from Athens. The social war of 357-355 b.c. followed. Athens was unable to reduce the allies, and concluded peace with them in the latter year. Kos passed before long into the hands of the lieutenants of Alexander the Great. From Macedon it next came under the influence of the kings of Egypt

One of these was destined to be brought into especially close rela- Kos and tions with the island. In 309 b.c Ptolemy I brought Queen Berenike S^?} 6 ?^ 11 to Kos on account of the salubrious climate and the excellent medical phos. school. Her son, Philadelphos, was born in the island the same year, and this established Kos in great favour with the Egyptian

1 viii. 41.

9 The Demes were named *^a, 'AXccV, 'Imrfa, 'AXdo-a/xva, *I<r$fi6s : we have also Zaftos 'AvT(/iax<8av ml AlytjXieay ical 'Apxiadav.

9 P.-H. xxvii, xlix ff.; cf. Strabo, xiv. p. 657 ; Diod. Sic. xv. 76.

• Politics, p. 1304 b.

b2

xx INTRODUCTION

dynasty 1 . It was permitted to have its own mint, and it attracted to itself many famous writers from Alexandria. Philetas, who founded the Alexandrian elegy, was born in the island, and many others, whose names will be given presently, sojourned there for a longer or shorter time. There was probably a daily service of vessels between Kos and Alexandria at this time.

The reputation which the island enjoyed at the end of the fourth century for its good government, is well illustrated by a rescript of Antigonos, who, in carrying the population of Lebedos over to Teos, orders that until a new code can be drawn up the laws of Kos are to be used by the population of the new city 8 . The date is between 306 and 301 b.c. Literary The literary activity of Kos at this time was very remarkable,

Kosunder an( * a charming picture of this aspect of life on the little island has the early been painted for us by Theokritos (Idyll 7). Philetas of Kos was toemies. tutQr ^ Ptolemy II when he was crown prince (circ. 295-292 b.c), also of Zenodotos and Hermesianax. He undoubtedly had con- siderable influence over a number of writers, including Theokritos, Leonidas of Tarentum, Alexander Aitolos, Nikias, Asklepiades, and possibly Hegesianax and Simmias of Rhodes. The period of Philetas* activity as the head of this group of literary men is given by Susemihl as 292-285 b.c. 8 Philadelphos possibly contemplated the founda- tion of a Koan University, having as its nucleus the school of medicine, but comprising other faculties, such as poetry, astronomy (represented by Dositheos and later by Berosos of Babylon : cf. tw aarpoou^cwv, iii. 54), philosophy (represented later by Ariston of Kos), grammar and rhetoric (on which last see Philodemos, ircpi prjropLicrjs, p. 44). This last-named faculty is particularly interesting to us in connexion with the second Mime. The Koan school of rhetoric seems hardly to have been independent ; in the time of Philodemos it was ancillary to Rhodes, on which Kos was then politically de- pendent. At the time of Herodas the Attic influence was predomi- nant; some have traced in the speech of Battaros imitation or travesty of Hypereides ; while there is at least one certain case where the influence of Demosthenes is traceable *.

It has been suggested that when Ptolemy Philadelphos came to the

1 Philadelphos reckoned Kos as belonging to the Egyptian dominions (Droysen, HelUnismuSy iii. 1, p. 380; P.-H. p. 7).

• As Charondas is not named in the rescript, it may be assumed that only part

of his code was in use in Kos ; cf. Mime ii.

8 i. 29a, n. 290 : see also Maass, Aratea, ch. viii, and editors of Theokritos.

4 Herzog, p. 212 sqq.; cf. Introduction to Mime ii.

HERODAS AND HIS WORK xxi

throne of Egypt he gave orders for the embellishment of the Askle- pieion, which existed certainly as early as the fifth century. A com- mission may have been given to Apelles, who painted for Kos his most famous work, the Aphrodite Anadyomene, and likewise another Aphrodite. As he left the latter unfinished when he died, it seems probable that he died in Kos.

The Asklepieion 1 is described by Strabo and by Aristeides, whoTheAskle- both visited it in person. It was, according to Herzog, near the P ie10 * ^? d walls of the modern town Xwpa, which corresponds to the ancient coveries. Kate (17 Mcpoirts). But Mr. W. R. Paton had expressed his belief 'that the remains of a large marble temple, situated near a ruined convent called Ilavayta Tdpcrov, at a distance of over two miles west of the town, belonged to the sanctuary of Asklepios. Excavations on this site, conducted by Herzog in 1902, proved that Mr. Paton's opinion was correct. The temple itself, which is peripteral, with six Doric columns at either end and eleven at the sides, was probably built about the beginning of the second century B.C., on the site of earlier temples. Below the flight of steps leading up to the temple terrace are remains of an older and smaller temple in antis. The altar, which stood on the east of this building, appears to have re- sembled in plan the great altar of Pergamum, though on a simpler scale. Near the altar are the bases of statues dedicated to Asklepios, which are referred to in the fourth Mime of Herodas' {Classical Review, xvii. 280, from Arch. Anzdger, 1903).

The following account of the constitution of Kos at the time of Constitu- Herodas may be of interest. The body politic was composed of tlonofKos «  members of the three Dorian tribes. Each tribe seems to have com- prised nine x^" 3 ""™*, three of which made up an kvdra (i. e. £ of the whole body of citizens). Each tribe had its ra/uas. The <rrparrfyo\ of Kos were elected one from each tribe. After 366 b.c the demes of Kos had the same relation to the irrfXi?, the crvfura? 817/10?, and the tribes, as the corresponding divisions had in Attica. Each 8£/aos comprised members of every tribe, and had its own Sdfxapxos and Tdfuai.

The citizens were divided, in point of age, into ^oXm-cu, vcot, fy^/fot, ircuScs.

The assemblies of the state were the fiovka and 8a/ju>9 (eicicXi/o-ui). The number of the fiovXa is not as yet certain, but it must have been a multiple of three.

> Ct P.-H. p. 137.

XX11

INTRODUCTION

The eponymous magistrate was called fjuovapx *- There was a priest with the title ycpccu^opos /ftwnAccov.

The generic name for the boards of magistrates was apx 0VT€ $- The board of wpoardraL 1 corresponded to the Athenian w/wTavcis. Their number is unknown, but like that of the fiovka must have been a multiple of three. They met in a irpvravtiov.

The arparayol were three in number, one from each tribe. Their duties were connected with civil administration, as in other cities.

The irtakrjTaX were concerned with state contracts. The priest- hoods were, however, put up to sale by the orparayoi, a peculiar method of increasing the revenue. We must remember that there were considerable perquisites attached to the office of priest.

We also hear of officers called vairouu, who appear to have been officers of the deme, and not, as elsewhere, of the state.

Origin of the Mime.

Evolution of the literary Mime.

II. THE MIME.

Mimus (ju/uos) is connected with /xi/acut&u, and signifies an imitation or imitator of a situation or person *. A Mime is a piece depicting actual life, generally the life of the common people, and employing their language. It differs from a drama in two respects : (i) while in the case of the drama the action is important, the Mime is chiefly con- cerned with the representation of character ; and (2) the Mime has no chorus.

At first imitation (/uteris) was mere buffoonery, without any literary merit, and perhaps without even the aid of language. Thus we hear in Plato {Rep. 396 B) of persons who imitated the neighing of horses, the lowing of bulls, the roaring of the sea, and other noises. Imitation, however, would soon require appropriate gesture, as in the case of those who imitated sailors, women, lovers, drunken men, &c. ; and in time a sketch in words would be added in order to fix more clearly in the minds of the audience the character delineated. But even so the entertainment would be of the nature of an improvisa- tion, suitable to the character of a southern people.

The literary value of the Mime was as yet insignificant ; the pieces were performed in the market-place or at the jugglers' booths 8 , where such vivid representations of men and things attracted crowds of

1 Cf.Her.ii.40.

• Diomedes, G, Z. I. 491 fup6s t<rri fdfxrjffis fiiov rd re oiry«cxw/>W&'a *a2

&<rvyx<bpr)Ta wtpiixw. Donatns says the xnimi were so named, ' ab diuturna imi- tation* vilium rerum et torium personarum. 1 Fiihr, de Mimis Gr decorum, p. 15.

8 iv rois ffVffAots, kv rots Batjuunv. Athen. X. 45 a f.

THE MIME xxiii

amused spectators. In the houses of the wealthy they were acted after banquets for the entertainment of the guests ; we read, e. g. in Xenophon's Symposium, of the marriage of Theseus and Ariadne being thus represented, in the house of Kallias at Athens. As yet symbolic gesture formed the chief part of the Mime, whence those who acted in the Mimes are often called 6pxn<rrcu (' dancers '). The literary Mime seems to be derived from the old Phallic comedy of Athens. Though Eupolis and Aristophanes headed a reaction against this, they had only a partial success at Athens, while in the Dorian states the popularity of the Phallic comedy was always great. It reached Tarentum from Sparta, Syrakuse from Korinth, and thus it struck root and developed new forms in Sicily and Southern Italy. Epicharmos raised its rough improvisations to the dignity of dramatic poetry. Rhinthon employed it for purposes of travesty, while in the hands of Sophron, the inventor of the Mime, comedy attained to a vivid realism which won the admiration of Plato himself 1 .

Sophron of Syrakuse is to be assigned to the fifth century b.c Sophron. What we know of him is mainly derived from Suidas *, and the other lexicographers, also from the Scholiasts on Nikander, Theokritos and Athenaios (see Gaisford's Suidas). We learn that he wrote two kinds of fufjLOL, called dvSpcibt and ywaiKcIoi; the names of some of the former are "AyycXos, ©vwo&ypas, iVpoircs 'AAiets, while among the fu/juoi ywauceloi are mentioned 'A/cco-Tpwu (' the Women Quacks/ from which the second Idyll of Theokritos is borrowed), ©a/zevcu ra *I<r0/ua (whence Theokritos xv), and UcvQcpa. The subjects of these pieces were drawn from the world of ordinary men and women. Their popular character is shown by the frequent use of proverbs, and com- parison with Theokritos and Herodas shows that this was a regular feature of the Mime. From the fact that Plato is stated to have derived from Sophron the form of his dialogues, we may infer that Sophron s characters themselves spoke in dialogue.

After Sophron, the Mime was cultivated by his son Xenarchos. Xenarchos. Of him we know little except that he used the Mime as the vehicle of political satire, and its history is broken from this point and only continued when we reach Theokritos 8 .

1 Cf. E. Reisch in Dorpfeldt, D.gr. Theater, 312 sqq.

• Sdty/wr Zvpaxovaios, *Aya$ofc\4ovs teal Aafiaavkkibos' rots 82 xP^ y0ls ty KaT ^

Bip^rjv teal Evpivtdrjv, *al typaipt fjdfwvs av&pdovs teal fttpovs ywaucuovs' del & MToXoyatyv (i.e. in a kind of rhythmic prose, v. infra) ScaAfcrp Aajpi&i. The fragments have been collected by Blomneld {Museum Criticum, ii. 340 sqq., 559 sqq-) » by Ahrens in his Greek Dialects ; by Botzon (Programm, Marburg, 1807), an ^ mo8t recently by Kaibel, Comm. grr.fragmm., vol. i. fasc. prior.

8 MM. Croiset {Litter, grecq. v. 173) wonld reckon as a Mime the interesting

xxiv INTRODUCTION

Theokri- Till the discovery of Herodas, the second, fourteenth, and fifteenth tos * pieces of Theokritos were our chief source of information as to

the character of the Mime in Greek. In ii, Theokritos tells how Simaitha, deserted by her lover, seeks to bring him back by magic in the still midnight. No one is near but her servant ; Simaitha chants the song, and by the magic wheel (tvy£) throws her spells round the faithless Delphis. She tells the moon, sailing overhead, the story of her ill-requited love.

xiv is cast in the form of a narrative. Aischines tells of a certain merry gathering, at which a spiteful jest on the part of one of the company leads to a quarrel between Aischines and his mistress. Despairing of a reconciliation he is about to enlist in the service of Ptolemy. This idyll is very dramatic ; the class of life represented in it reminds us of Herodas; while the praise of Ptolemy recalls the passage (Her. i. 27) in praise of Egypt and its monarch, to which reference has already been made.

The scene of Theokritos ii is certainly, and that of xiv very probably, laid in Kos.

In xv, Theokritos again touches on Egypt; but this time more fully and of set purpose, giving a description of a day in Alexandria spent by two Syrakusan dames in visiting the Adonis feast The greater part of the idyll is a sketch of their conversation and adven- tures on the way.

In this idyll, Theokritos has made innovations of an important character; (1) he has changed the scene twice, the piece being divided into three acts, of which the first takes place in the house of Praxinoa, the second in the street, the third in the king's palace; (2) the number of the characters is greater than usual. Besides Praxinoa, Eunoa (her slave), Gorgo (her visitor), we have an old woman and two strangers. The number of characters in a Mime is as a rule not more than three.

In the hands of Theokritos the Mime departed somewhat from the characteristics which had previously marked it, especially its realism. Theokritos draws, it is true, his characters and incidents from the people. Simaitha and Delphis (the unfaithful lover) in ii, Aischines and his friends in xiv, Praxinoa and Gorgo in xv are all drawn

piece published in 1896 by Dr. Grenfell, 'An Alexandrian Erotic fragment and other Greek papyri.' It is a monologue of about fifty lines, in which a woman complains that her lover has deserted her. Author and date are unknown. A Mime which in subject is closely akin to Her. v has been published in Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ed. Grenfell and Hunt, Part III. 413, pp. 41-57, but too recently to be discussed in this edition.

THE MIME xxv

from the common folk of his 'time ; while the incidents in ii and xiv at least are of a somewhat sordid nature. These three pieces thus show the same return to nature as the bucolic poems; but in neither class of poem is Theokritos wholly true to nature. He has added to each a delicacy and refinement of treatment, and a beauty of expression all his own. We forget the sensuality of Simaitha, the brutality of Aischines, the hot temper of Praxinoa in the pleasure which the poetry gives us. Moreover, the use of the hexameter is a clear proof that Theokritos treated the Mime from the point of view of a poet' 1 . This metre is a far more polished medium of expression than the prose which Sophron had employed ; and Theokritos has elaborated it in ii, xiv, and xv no less carefully than in his other poems. In a word, realism in the Mime as used by Theokritos, is tempered by poetic feeling.

Phoinix 9 of Kolophon, whose date is uncertain, wrote in choliambi short sketches from the life of his own and also of earlier times. His longest fragment, the Kopwiorat, will be found at the end of Crusius' editions of Herodas.

Hermeias of Kurion, and Parmenon s of Byzantium, are cited as writers of choliambi. Whether their work, like that of Phoinix, could be classed under the title of Mime is doubtful.

Such, in brief, is the history of the Mime down to the time of Herodas 4 . The scanty evidence at our disposal unfortunately does not warrant us in determining how far Herodas was influenced by the originator of the Mime 5 . The piece of Sophron called ©a/xcvai ra "la-Ofiui (where to, "L is more probably a sacrifice to Melikertes than the Isthmian games), was, we know, the model to Theokritos for his Adoniazusai (xv); and there is considerable probability that Herodas utilized the same piece of Sophron for his fourth Mime. None of the other Mimes of Sophron suggest by their tides com- parison with those of Herodas. Some future discovery may give back to us a complete Mime by Sophron, on the strength of which a comparison may be instituted between him and Herodas. The relationship between Theokritos and Herodas, both of whom were imitators of Sophron, will be considered in the next chapter.

1 Cf. Dalmeyda, Introduction, pp. 10 sqq.

• Susemihl, i. 229. * Id.,i. 235.

4 For the popularity of the Mime at this time or a little later, cf. the inscription in scazons, Dittenberger, Rh. Mus. xxxiv. 463, on a statue erected to Nikias yv&ftrjs rt titan . . . rcpnvGhr re peipwv otis typatf/w darc/ow.

5 For evidence that Herodas imitated Sophron, see Crusius, Unters. p. 187; also pp. 51, 115, 129.

xxvi INTRODUCTION

Literary Besides Sophron and the writers of Mimes generally, there were Herodasf otners under whose influence Herodas came or may have come. Hipponax. The first of these stands apart from the rest in respect of the amount of the influence which his work exercised over Herodas. In the Prooimion to the second Book of the Mimes Herodas refers by name to Hipponax, the celebrated Ionian lampoonist of the sixth century b.c. 'I sing my limping lays to the future generations of Ionians after the manner of Hipponax/ The debt which Herodas owed to Hipponax was manifold; (i) vocabulary 1 : the proverbial phrases and much of the racy vigour of Herodas' style was probably based on the terse and robust language of Hipponax. (2) dialect: Hoffmann considers that all that seems to be antique and individual (alles altertUmliche und eigenartigi) in the dialect of Herodas is really taken from the earlier poet 8 . (3) the names of some of his characters: MjjTpoTiiws, in Hipp./r. 78, recalls MifrporCfirj in Her. iii. (4) inci- dents: the similarity of a few of the longer fragments of Hip- ponax with Herodas is so great, that Herodas seems to have taken from Hipponax the idea for a whole passage or scene: cf. e.g. Her. ii. 23 with Hipp./r. 19, quoted in note to that passage. That Hipponax was much read by the Alexandrians is plain from Kallim. fr. 92, who describes himself as a sort of Hipponax redivivus : v. ch. Ill, infra. Also the scazon, the metre of Hipponax, was fre- quently used by the Alexandrians : see ch. V (Metre). . Other in- The other influences which probably helped to mould Herodas fluences. were ^ Epicharmos; (2) the Old Attic Drama, including the Trage- dians and Aristophanes ; (3) the Attic Orators ; (4) Sotades and the KivcuSokoyoi; (5) Rhinthon; (6) the New Comedy.

(1) Epicharmos, born in Kos, but taken in early life to Syrakuse, was the first to introduce comedies of character. His 'Aypwrnvos (countryman), and ©capot (sightseers) were plays of this kind. The latter play represented visitors to Delphi viewing the offerings in the temple of Apollo ; and the similarity of plot to Herodas' fourth Mime is at once apparent. This play of Epicharmos may have suggested to Sophron his ©a/xcvai to, *Icr0/ua, which as we have seen was imitated by Theokritos. Very probably Herodas knew of the work of his fellow countryman, who had shed lustre on the little island of Kos. On the relations between Kos on the one hand, and Sicily and Southern Italy on the other, cf. Crusius, Unters. p. 36.

1 e.g. X&nros, Hipp.yfr*. 3, cf. Her. viii. 36 ; daictplffica, <krW/xw, Hipp./rr. 18, 19, cf. Her. ii. 23 ; ioxwcu, Hipp. p. 500 Bgk., cf. Her. vii. 48. 8 iii. 196 j v. note on Her. iii. 71.

THE MIME xxvii

(2) Parodies of the Tragedians may be noted occasionally in Herodas; thus in iii. 5 & f t€V TaAaiViys rrjv are/i/v irerropOrjKev, iiciropO€Lv and orey^ (v. note ad loc.) are both derived from Tragic diction : cf. also the MoAn-civd?, x. 3, and notes on i. 57, v. 20, viii. 2.

Aristophanes has furnished Herodas with at least one noteworthy phrase at iii. 66 (v. note). The /tav/fov may have been derived from Aristophanes (v. Introd. to vi). The Lysistrata is the source of both these borrowings ; the Wasps, however, seems to have been more largely used by Herodas than any other play.

The following is a list of passages in Aristophanes which suggest comparison with Herodas : —

Acharn. 368 (&p4\tt) ; cf. Her. v. 85.

683 (Tov$opt(ovT€s) ; cf. Her. vi. 7. 743 (4 XifuJs); cf. Her. ii. 17. 749 ( X S0 » cf- Her. iv. 94. 77 a (al Xjs) ; cf. Her. viii. 6 («! 0&cit). 945 (** votSiv Kpkfuuro) ; cf. Her. iv. 78 (vMs */>1/muto). 1 1 66 (^Op4<rrrjs t the footpad) ; cf. Her. ii. 13 sq. Knights. 434 (xox&ya) ; cf. Her. vii. 48.

872 ((tvyos Ip&itoiv) ; cf. Her. vii. 80. 889 (0Kavrla); cf. Her. vii. 58. Clouds. 763 (firj\o\6v0fj) ; cf. Her. xii. 1. 2.

963 (Tp^oyros; cf. Wasps, 374, &c.) ; cf. Her. iii. 37, 85 ; vi. 34. 1 1 26 (rov riyovs rw Kipnpov . . . ffwrptyopcv) ; cf. Her. iii. 44. 1 156 (crfrof re kcU rdpxafa jcai tSkoi tokojv) ; cf. Her. V. 51 (airr&s air teal rdpxcua teal t6kovs tciVcis). Wasps. 39 (rpvrAyrfu) ; cf. Her. ii. 90.

140 (/<v<riroA.cf rt : n «' a little ') ; cf. Her. i. 7 (arptyw ri). 152 (<t«) r^r Obpav ; so Starkie) ; cf. Her. i. 3 (rls r^v $vprp>;). 213 (rl ovk dv(M<Hfi'fj9rjfi(v;) ; ct Her. vii. 77. „ (&rw artKifv) ; c£ Her. vii. 33 (phtf lew fiowfpr). 254 (wwter^aeTc) ; cf. Her. vii. 11. 295 (MprovOtv) ; cf. Her. ii. 2. 313 (06<TK€iv) ; cf. Her. vii. 44 (Crusins).

363 (£<rircp /ic yakfjv) for &<nrtp 70X17* pc ; cf. Her. iii. 33 (ptcms wr I* T€Tpr)nivT)s). „ (the thievishness of the yakrj ; cf. Peace 1151) ; cf. Her. vii. 89. 425 (cv €ltfj with hiatus) ; cf. Her. ii. 43. 433 (*/*fc) J cf. Her. ii. 100 ; iii. 36. 524 (rd Scfva) ; cf. Her. i. 44.

603 (omission of &<rrcp in similes) ; cf. Her. vi, 14 (v. note). 615 (&\€wp1i); cf. Her. ii. 25. 648 (jifarjv . . . vc6*oirrov) ; cf. Her. vi. 84. 756 (wov fJLOi yfivxfi ;) ; cf. Her. iii. 59 ; v. 9. 770 (wSitcw) ; cf. Her. vii. 89, 127. 805 (hiatus after rt ; cf. 956) ; cf. Her. v. 10 (note). 827 (iv rytclq. : * this crasis is almost unparalleled, except in Her. vi. 5 ' [not v. 15], Starkie).

xxviii INTRODUCTION

Wasps, 88a (omission of subject with gen. absol.) ; cf. Her. ii. 85.

897 (rimna) ; cf. Her. ii. 47, 53.

974 (kok6v = ' weak ') ; cf. Her. iii. 42.

997 (6vtojs) ; cf. Her. iv. 65 (note), ion (vvv piv); cf. Her. v. 81. 1060 (a proverb —fuimus Troes) ; cf. Her. vi. 54. 1075 (np6<7£<mv of a quality) ; cf. Her. i. 20. 1213 (xtfTAcwov) ; cf. Her. v. 84 (lyxvrkAffcjpey). 1294 (vov0v<ttik6s) ; cf. Her. vi. 16 (note). 1306 (jcaxpvonr . . . tlofx^/iivov) ; c£ Her. iv. 15. . 1362 (rw$d(rej) ; c£ Her. viL 103. 1402 (*tW) ; cf. Her. vi. 14. 1432 («lf rd Tlirr&Xov) ; cf. Her. v. 52.

Lysistrata. 81 (*&* ravpov dyxois) ; cf. Her. it 78. 109 (oXifffiov) ; cf. Her. vi. 19 {fiavfiatva). 473 *<1« 5 cf. Her. iii. 66 sq. (note). 592 (ftovoKotrovfiiv) ; cf. Her. i. 22 (rip piay Kolrtpr). 596 (rijs &( ywcu/c6s a/wcpfo 6 Kcup6s) ; cf. Her. i. 46 sq. 726 sq. (vpo<paffcts . . . tknovoiv) ; cf. Her. v. 5. 995 (6p<r&=6p$& f sens, obsc.) ; cf. Her. vi. 70.

Thcsmoph. 3 (wplv rbv avXrjva tcofutfj p.' U0a\€?v) ; c£ Her. iii. 70.

30 (votos ovros 'AyAOow ; see the whole passage) ; cf. Her. vi. 48. 212 (iftoi 8* 5ri 0ov\€t xpw kaf&v) ; cf. Her. v. 6. 222 (ifJL&akw <rot w6rraXov) ; cf. Her. iii. 85. 472 {ovtcu ydp kaptv : c£ Acharn. 504, 507) ; cf. Her. vi. 70.

Frogs. 616, 623 sq. ; cf. Her. ii. 87 sqq.

Plutus. 1096 (&<r*tp Xcwdj #.tA. ; cf. Wasps 105) ; cf. Her. xi (1w€pya{6fi€vcu).

This array of passages proves that Herodas had a very intimate knowledge of Aristophanes. The work of the great period of Attic comedy was attentively studied in Alexandria, and Herodas no doubt was drawn to it by the similarity of subject and the reality with which Aristophanes represents the life of the people.

(3) The Attic Orators.

These have been extensively used in Herodas ii. See the intro- duction to that Mime.

(4) Sotades, a native of Maroneia in Crete, lived under the early Ptolemies. Philadelphos was attacked by him in a scurrilous verse which cost the author his life. The titles of his works, such as Descent to Hades, Priapos, Belestiche (the name of one of the mistresses of Philadelphos), enable us, in the absence of the works themselves, to form some idea of his style — a compound of parody, lampoon, and ribaldry.

(5) Rhinthon, of Syrakuse or Tarentum, the son of a potter, lived like Sotades under the first two Ptolemies. He inaugurated the

THE MIME xxix

burlesque of tragedy called IXaporpayw&Ca. We have the titles of some of his pieces, e.g. Herakles, Amphitryon, Iphigeneia, in which the heroes of tragedy were burlesqued. The Amphitryon of Plautus was probably modelled on the play of that name by Rhinthon.

The IXapoTpay<i)8ta was only a literary form of a style which had existed in Magna Graecia before Rhinthon, a kind of popular drama in which an actor represented both male and female characters. Scurrility and licentiousness marked these pieces, which suited the taste of South Italy and Sicily for realistic rendering of low life l .

(6) The New Comedy was essentially a comedy of manners. The poets of the New Comedy made it their business to reproduce in a generalized form a picture of the everyday life of those by whom they were surrounded. Hence the question asked by the grammarian Aristophanes :

& Mcrov&pc kcu pUy irorcpos &p v/iStv irorcpov dirc/u/Mycraro ;

The standing characters of the New Comedy show that the ten- dency of the time was to seize upon the general features of a character rather than upon individual peculiarities. The method is diametrically opposed, for example, to that of Dickens, in whom the idiosyncrasies are given free play. Menander and the other poets of this school studied the general types under which characters may be classed. The leno periurus, for instance, constantly recurs in their plays. We can trace in Herodas the same tendency. His pieces are illustra- tions of types. We know that some of the characters which he delineated (e.g. Hopvofioo-Kos, Skvtcvs) had been employed before him by writers of the New Comedy. We find many resemblances between his diction and theirs ; with Menander a , in particular, Herodas has much in common, and if we had some complete comedies belonging to this school we could no doubt trace to their source many touches in Herodas the full meaning of which we do not yet appreciate.

The Mime in Italy may be regarded as a descendant of the New The Mime Comedy of Greece. It originated from the indigenous Atellan farce, m y# when this became engrafted with the ' etiological offshoots of Greek comedy which Alexandrinism cultivated V The Mime arose out of the dances in character, to the accompaniment of the flute, which were

1 Thus the nayy&os (the actor in such a piece) ir&ra worn ret Ifa ic6efwv f trroKpiv6n(vos wort filv ywcu/ca tccd /uwxovs teal pacrTpoirovs, nork 5* &tpa p*$voyra. Athen. 6a i c.

• v. notes on ii. 9, 3a ; v. 37, 51, 68 ; viii. 9.

5 Mommsen, History of Rome, iv. 579.

xxx INTRODUCTION

sometimes performed, e.g. for the entertainment of the guests during dinner, but more especially in the pit of the theatre during the intervals between the acts. It was not difficult to form, out of these dances, little comedies, by means of a more organized plot and a regular dialogue, and here the New Comedy was taken as a model.

The Mime was introduced into Rome at the end of the Republic, and gradually absorbed all the earlier kinds of comedy, until under the Empire it was in the ascendant. The plots were in general of an obscene character; founded on seductions, the cheating of husbands and fathers, &c. ; and complaints of their immoral tendency are frequent

The Mime in Italy has many points in common with the togala, also modelled on the New Comedy. The principal difference lies in the prevalence of scurrility in the Mime, where the chief aim was to provoke laughter. But in some writers of mimes there was a ten- dency towards sententiousness, and it has been noted that this combination of scurrility and wisdom is in keeping with the popular character of these pieces. Their artistic value depended wholly on the portraiture of the manners of common and low life. Cn. Setting aside Laberius and Publilius Syrus, who wrote for the stage,

Matius. tne name tnat i s f most importance to us in the history of the Mime in Italy is that of Cn. Matius (c. ioo B.C.). He is said to have imitated Hipponax, using the same metre, and attaining to equal elegance l . The fragments are scanty *, in all fourteen lines, which appear to contain descriptions of everyday life in the form of dialogues. His Mimiambi do not seem to have been intended for the stage, nor produced thereon. What we know of their contents and style recall Herodas, but apparently none of the fragments are based on that part of Herodas which we possess. The Greek We see then that the Mime was developed in Greece and Italy on ?* im fj COn " similar lines. In its affinity with Comedy, its buffoonery and vulgarity, with the it remained true to the conceptions upon which it was based ; but Italian. w hile in Greece it was apparently not intended for the stage, the divergent taste of the Romans brought into existence a form of Mime adapted for stage-representation 8 . Side by side with this is the

1 Terent. Manr. G. L. 6, 397, 2416 : hoc mimiambos Matius dedit metro: \ nam vatem eundem (Hipponax) est Attico thymo tinctum \ pari Upore consccutus et metro. Terentianus is speaking of the choliambic.

• They are printed at the end of Crusius' editions ; cf. Unters. 166 sqq.

8 Cf. Fiihr, De Mimis Gr decorum, p. 16 : the Roman Mime differed from the Greek ' quod tongas fabulas et finem aliquant spectantes habetJ To the Roman Mime Plutarch assigns a -nXofcfj (complication of plot) fya/jartjc^ teal iro\vwp6aomros (ii. 973 £) : cf. also Pint. Quaest. Conv. vii. 8, where the distinction is drawn between vitodiaus corresponding to the Roman, and naiyvia corresponding to the Greek, Mime.

THE MIME xxxi

literary Mime in the hands of such writers as Matius ; this no doubt followed closely its Greek model, and never enjoyed much popularity.

The choice of metre is noteworthy. Sophron had written in The use a peculiar kind of rhythmical prose K Theokritos uses the hexa- ° f tbe , meter, Herodas the scazon, i. e. the iambic metre with a spondee in Herodas. the sixth foot instead of an iambus. This choice is due partly to the example of Hipponax, whom we know to have been Herodas' model, but the latter deserves credit for perceiving the peculiar fitness of that metre for the subjects to which he applied it.

The scazon conveys an idea of studied inelegance, and in the hands of Herodas it suits admirably the vulgarity which it was his object to depict. For details of Herodas* use of the scazon, which differs in some respects from the practice of Hipponax, see ch. V (Metre).

In regard to the choice of dialect and vocabulary Herodas is not Dialect of wholly independent. Here again, as we have seen, Hipponax is the er *" model. In some respects, however, we can trace a development; thus the choice and form of words is Ionic, but the structure of the sentences is essentially Attic. There can be little doubt that as Herodas* choice of subject led him to study the literature of Attica very closely, he has modified the narrower Ionic traditions of Hipponax under Athenian influence. This would help to account for the numerous Atticisms which appear in the papyrus*. Thus in lan- guage and vocabulary as in metre Herodas exhibits the old traditions of Hipponax, modified however by the influences already mentioned, and more particularly by those of Athenian oratory, tragedy, and comedy 8 .

It remains for us to consider the question, How were the Mimes How were acted ? There has been divergence of opinion on this subject, some A( ^ ^ mes thinking that the Mimes were scenically represented by several actors 4 , with all necessary mise-en~sdne*\ others holding that they were merely recited with suitable gesture by one actor 6 . The arguments used by Crusius to support the former view are (a) the presumption that the Greek Mime was acted with the same elaboration as the Roman. This, however, is mere hypothesis. (3) The fact that several passages in the Mimes demand scenic representation in order to bring

1 KarakoydSffv (cf. supra on Sophron) ; cf. Hermann, Ad Arist. poet. p. 93 ; Fiihr, p. 55. Mahaffy, History of Greek Literature, I. ii. 186, compares the so-called poems of Walt Whitman.

a v. infra, ch. V (Dialect).

8 Cf. Weil in Journal des Savants, 1893 (Janvier), pp. 18-25.

4 v. Crusius in his German translation of Herodas, pp. xxxvii sqq.

• There was a theatre in Kos; v. P.-H. 10 a, 25. 13, 16.

• C. Hertling, Quaestiones Mimical (Strassbnrg, 1899).

xxxii INTRODUCTION

out their full meaning. This indeed may be granted. The change of scene, however, in Mimes i, iv, and v, required for full scenic repre- sentation by a number of actors, is a grave difficulty \

In Mime i Metriche is sitting in her chamber when she hears a knock at the door of the house. She sends her maid to find who is there. The maid opens the house door and admits Gyllis, whom she then conducts to the room where her mistress is awaiting the visitor. There are thus three changes of scene (i) when the maid leaves the room ; (2) when she admits Gyllis to the house; (3) when she returns with Gyllis to the room. Crusius, to get over these difficulties, supposes that the maid does not leave her mistress, but calls out to the visitor from within the room. But this does not harmonize with the construction of a Greek house. A visitor would knock at the outer door, not at the door of the room in which the mistress of the house was sitting.

In Mime v there is a change of scene after v. 53, when Bitinna, repenting of her harshness towards Gastron, sends her slave Kydilla in pursuit to bring him back. But Kydilla has to go some distance before she overtakes him as he is being hurried away. The scene from vv. 55 to 62 of that Mime takes place outside the house. The explanation of Crusius, that Kydilla stands at the door of the house and calls to Pyrrhias, is plainly unsatisfactory ; w. 55-6 force us to believe that Kydilla left the house in accordance with the command of her mistress, Ka\ei KaXei fipa/tcwra irplv fiaKprjv, SovXrj, | avrovs ycv«r0ai.

In Mime iv the scene is laid at first outside the temple of Asklepios, but it changes at v. 56 to the interior of the temple. This would entail somewhat elaborate scenery, the simplest solution being that there was a temple with doors that opened. But we must remember that the Mime is so short that it would not have been worth while to have such elaborate scenery or properties.

The supporters of the view that the Mimes were performed by one actor urge :

(a) That the artistic value of the Mime lies not in the action but in portraiture of character. Crusius himself observes * that in the Mimes one character stands out in importance beyond the rest. This is the case with Mime ii, and in a lesser degree with Mime vii. It holds good, but not to the same extent, of i, iii, iv, v, vi. Out of ninety verses in i, for example, Gyllis speaks about sixty. In iii, out of ninety-seven verses, Metrotime has sixty-five. The distribution of lines

1 The speeches in i and v might conceivably be spoken ' off ' the stage. 3 p. xxxii of his German translation.

THE MIME xxxiii

among the speakers in iv is somewhat uncertain, but Kynno may be called the irpwraywvumfc. In v, out of eighty-five verses, Bitinna has fifty-nine; in vi, out of 102 verses, Koritto has sixty-three. Crusius compares the outstanding character in each Mime to the archimimus at the head of his troupe. If, however, the main portion of a Mime belongs to one character it is a simple matter to assign the remainder to that character. Had the speaking parts been of equal importance it would have required much greater skill on the part of a single actor. As things are, one person could without difficulty represent the whole of any one Mime *. To assign to his Mimes a troupe of actors suitable to a piece ten or twelve times their length is to lose one's sense of proportion outright

(&) That the Mimes are not dramas, but dramatic scenes : elSvXXva Spafmruca or ircuyvta as they were called. Thus in the case of ii the speech of the accuser Battaros occupies the whole of the Mime. But to make this piece into a drama we should require the speech of the defendant, to represent the dyw, as in the case of the Old Comedy, and so to exhibit the passions of the two men working in opposition to each other. As it is, the piece closes with the exhortation to the judges to decide the case impartially. But the action does not end there in real life : such a piece is clearly only a fragment ; in fact Herodas was not concerned with the action as a whole, but simply with depicting the life and manners of his time.

The foregoing arguments are designed merely to show that the Mimes were not acted by several actors. But it is clear that they were meant for the stage and not merely for the study. There are many passages in the Mimes which could not be fully understood unless the Mimes were performed : where gesture and the modulation of the voice are absolutely essential to bring out the full meaning. This is particularly the case in Mimes iii and v. The desired result could be obtained by one actor with appropriate gesture (<rw viroKpwrci) ; and we know that this was a common practice 2 with the rjOokoyoi and dperaAoyoi of Magna Graecia, the original home of the Mime. It is true that the three poems of Theokritos which may be described as Mimes (ii, xiv, xv) were not primarily intended to be acted. But we cannot argue by analogy from one author to the other. Theokritos' pieces are essenti-

1 iv isperhaps a partial exception, but full scenic representation of this Mime (cf. above) is most improbable. The performance in Xenophon's Symposium is pantomime, and cannot be considered typical of the Mime proper : see p. xxiii.

9 v. Susemihl, i. 236, n. 4, who quotes A then. x. 45 a f.: KAiw 6 fd/Mv\os . . . rSry 'IraXitcwv fjdfiwv tipioros yiyovtv avrovpoaonros inro/cpiT7]S. His pupil Ischo- machos also {nr**piv*ro /if/iovs.

xxxiv INTRODUCTION

ally poetical; they are better adapted for quiet enjoyment in the study. On the other hand the vibrant metallic quality of Herodas makes him eminently suitable for acting. His shots are well aimed; there is nothing superfluous ; and in particular the conclusions of the several Mimes are so well managed as to indicate practical experience of the stage.

III. HERODAS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES.

It has been shown that Herodas owed much to the Ionic iambo- graphi, such as Hipponax, to Sophron (probably), and to the Athenian orators and comedians. He has, however, many characteristics in common with the other writers of the Alexandrian School. We may here consider what relation he bears to the more noteworthy of these. If the date given above for the birth of Herodas is correct, then he can scarcely have been an original member of the group of literary men who were attracted to Kos by the fame of Philetas. The death of Philetas being fixed as not later than 283 b. c, Herodas would then be only seventeen years of age. But there is nothing to prevent us from holding that Herodas met certain of these writers in Kos. The question, however, is full of uncertainty ; and in recent years doubts have been cast upon the existence of a regularly constituted Koan School of poets K

Among the writers of the Alexandrian School there are three who stand in an especially close relation to Herodas *. These are Leonidaa of Tarentum, Kallimachos, and Theokritos. Leonidas (1) Leonidas, apparently a contemporary of Pyrrhos, king of Tarentum. Epiros, wrote epigrams to order, in which the life of the common people is realistically described. He marks that reaction against the artificiality of life in cities, that longing for a return to nature, which may be traced as far back as Euripides, but was in full force in the Alexandrian age. It is this feeling which led to the realism of such writers as Herodas, while Theokritos in his pictures of rural life is also partly animated by the same spirit 8 .

The literary relations between Leonidas and Herodas are scarcely clearer than those which subsisted between Leonidas and Theokritos.

1 Cf. Wilamowitz, Aratos von Kos, in Nachr. d. Gcscllsch. d. Wissensch. zu Gottingen, 1894; Herzog, p. 208. On the members of this supposed school of poets v. above, ch. i.

3 Philetas and Asklepiades have a few passages which recall Herodas ; but no definite conclusion can be based upon them : Crasins, Unters. Index II. With Apollonins Rhodius ii. 1086 cf. Her. iii. 45 and vii. 47 (note).

8 Geffcken, Leonidas von Tarent, pp. 136-7.

HERODAS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES xxxv

There are several passages in which either may have imitated the other. I have noted the following : L. 34. 1 Mopwvis 17 <£i'Aoivos, cf. the bibulous propensities of Gyllis, Her. i. 86. L. 40 (on Hipponax), cf. the fragment of the Prooimion in Herodas. L. 53. 5 (^aKrra, the offering of the poor), cf. Her. iv. 92. L. 61. 1 (cwrwycov), cf. Her. viii. 17. L. 67. 2 (K/wyyvos), cf. Her. vi. 39. L. 79. 3 (darpayaAas 9 als iroAX* CTc/ATvaro, of a boy), cf. Her. iii. 7.

There is a noteworthy parallel between L. 29. 4 (in an &c^pa<ris (description) of the 'A^poSmy % Ava8vofUvrj) and Her. iv. 33-4. In each case a work of art is being described. L. has 28* m 'AircXA^s tcdWos Ifiepwarov \ ov ypcnrrov &XX 9 Zfjupvxov c£c/xa£dro. Her. nttkes one of his characters say ' before long men will be able to put life even into stone/ However, as Geffcken l remarks, the phrase of L., which has parallels in Theokritos and other writers 8 , is a natural expression of wonder before a picture that is true to life. The passages which have been quoted seem to prove that there was a certain common stock of ideas and phrases on which writers of the time drew equally; but we cannot in the present state of our knowledge go beyond this.

(2) We have seen that the younger Pliny coupled the names of Kalli- Kallimachos and Herodas so as at any rate to suggest literary machos - kinship between them. The passage is somewhat obscure ; but the arguments of Skutsch 8 have made it probable that Pliny referred to Kallimachos as having essayed both Epigrammata and Mimiambi, while Herodas confined himself to the latter. The scazons of Kalli- machos were an avowed imitation of Hipponax 4 ; but unfortunately very little of this side of Kallimachos' work has been preserved.

In the following passages there seems to be an affinity between Kallimachos and Herodas : —

With Kallim. Hymn, ad Apoll. 21 (ly Wi/ov) cf. Her. iv. 82.

With Kallim. Hymn, ad Z) Jan. 79 (a>s ore Kofxrg \ <£a>ros cvi&pvOeiaa KOfirpr hrcveifmr dXdwnyf) cf. Her. vii. 72.

With Kallim. Hymn, ad Del. 15, on the fishermen of Delos (t<£ cr^c kcli IxOvfioXfjes olXlttXool iwaxraravro), cf. Her. iii. 51.

With Kallim. ibid. 144 (Oepfxaarpou t€ fipipowriv v<f>* Ifycucrroto Trvpaypr)*) cf. Her. iv. 62.

With Kallim. ibid. 175 (IcraptOpuoi | rcipco-iv, ffvuca irXciora kot rjipa fiovKokiovTcu) cf. Her. i. 32.

1 Ibid. p. 70. " Crusius, Unters. p. 82. * Hermes, xxvii. (189a), 317-8. 4 Kallim. fr. 92 ducovaaff 'iwTrtkvcurros, ov ycLp d\k' Ijtcca

I* TWV 5*01/ &0W koWv&ov iriVpffffKOVClV.

c %

xxxvi INTRODUCTION

With Kallim. Ep. 56 (to koXov = koXws) cf. Her. i. 54.

With Kallim .fr. 133 (d a-e UpofirjOcvs | hrXaxre kcu TrqXov fxrj i£ eripov ycyovas) cf. Her. ii. 28.

With Kallim. fr, 205 (ical Kpifjuvov jcvkccovos an-oara£ovro$ 2/oa£c) cf. Her. vi. 6.

Cf. also the use by both writers of Xtfws fern., and of a/uOpciv for apiOfxclv.

There are indeed one or two passages in this list where Kallimachos and Herodas correspond closely in respect either of thought or lan- guage. But here again we feel the difficulty of arguing from a few isolated instances. It is a priori probable that Kallimachos' influence would be felt at Kos, which was in such close connexion with Alexandria. On the other hand Herodas won for himself, in Kallimachos* lifetime, recognition as the chief writer of Mimes ; and Kallimachos may quite well have employed consciously, or reflected unconsciously, an idea or expression found in the works of Herodas x . These two authors have a special affinity in their choice of metre. They both use the scazon. But as each acknowledges his indebtedness to Hipponax, they may have adopted the metre of Hipponax independently. Theokritos. (3) The passages bearing on the question of the relations between Herodas and Theokritos have been collected 8 , and afford unmistakable evidence that one of the two has utilized the work of the other. Thus, to take only a few examples, cf. Theokr. i. 18 (#ecu ol del opi/Aeia x°^ 7nn>l pivi Kd0Tjrai) with Her. vi. 37 (jirj 81J, Kopvrroi, rrjv Xokrjv irrl pevos | f^* cvOvs): Theokr. v. 51 (wwo fmXjajctarepa, cf. XV. 125) with Her. vi. 71 (17 /xaAa/c<m?s vm/os) : Theokr. xiv. 51 (/avs <f>avrl ®viavt\€ yevfieOa warcras) with Her, ii. 62 (jriirovda irpos OaXiyros oo"<ra kol 7ri<rcrg \ ftvs).

But the most striking parallelism between the work of Theokritos and Herodas is to be seen by a comparison of Theokritos xv and Herodas i and iv. The whole scene at the beginning of Theokr. xv is so closely similar to that in Her. i that we cannot resist the conclusion that one of the poets is directly imitating the work of the other 8 :

1 Crosius (German translation, p. xxvii) thinks that Kallim. must have imitated Herodas (1) because while Her. said that he only imitated Hipponax, Kallim. made Hipp, rise from the dead in person : cf.fr. 9a (above). Here, he thinks, Kallim. 1 overtrumped ' Herodas. (2) Her. uses A^ at ii. 16, while Kallim. has the later name TlroXcfiais (fr. 100 a). He also {Unters. p. 189) argues for the priority of Herodas at vii. 72 : ' Die Redensart vom " Fuchsbau " tritt bei Herondas, wenn mich nicht alles triigt, in urspriinglicherer und frappanterer Form auf.'

• By Kynaston, Classical Review, vi. 85.

8 For other points of comparison between these two poems see Herodas, i. 30 sqq. (praise of Egypt and its monarch), which recalls Theokr. xv ad fin., and Her. i. 85 (v. note on use of fia).

HERODAS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES xxxvii

compare too the wording of Theokr. xv. i (<*>$ xpoVw) with Her. i. 9 (rt <rv 0€os irpos dvtfpawrovs ;) : Theokr. XV. 7 (a & 600s crrywros* tu 8' €#caoT€po) a) /acX* d7ronc€is) with Her. i. 13 (jiaKprjv dirouccco, tckvov, cv 8c rats Xavpai? | 6 tzt/Aos a^pt? tynW irpo<r€<m)KCv).

Again there is a remarkable similarity between the treatment of the characters in Theokr. xv and Her. iv. The naive// of the women engaged in sight- seeing in these two poems presents many points of comparison, while there are not lacking passages where the very word- ing is closely parallel : cf. for instance Theokr. xv. 83 (o-o<£oV toi xfflp tbvOpuyn-os) with Her. iv. 33 {/m xpovtp kot' (ovOpwirot. | #ci)s tovs XlOovs c&vcri rrjv £orjv Otivat): Theokr. xv. 73 (<o0€vv0 , oWcp vcs) with Her. iv. 54 (cu0€tT(u), and the remarkable use of the future indie, in Theokr. xv. 79 (Oewv w€povd/mra ^ao*cis) with that of cpcis illustrated in the note on Her. iv. 28. There is a close correspondence between Theokr. xv. 147 and a passage in Her. vi (v. 97, see note).

But to return to the relation between Theokr. xv and Her. i. We Herodas an have seen that the date of Her. i is certainly later than 270 b.c. jjj^^jj, The date of Theokr. xv is as certainly before 270 b.c, for when that poem was written Queen Arsinoe, who died, in that year, was still alive \ The close parallelism between Theokr. xv and Her. i, pointed out above, makes it more than probable that one of the two poets imitated the other : and we have now the evidence of chronology to prove that it was Herodas who copied Theokritos and not vice versa.

Besides Theokr. xv, Herodas seems to have imitated Theokr. ii and xiv, the two remaining Mimes of that author : thus compare Theokr. ii. 55 with Her. v. 7 ; Theokr. ii. 70 with Her. vi. 55 ; Theokr. ii. 74 with Her. vi. 26; and Theokr. ii. 82 with Her. i. 56. The deserted Metriche in Her. i reminds us forcibly of Simaitha in Theokr. ii, and Gryllos, the young athlete, suggests Philinos the lover of Simaitha. Theokritos xiv has been utilized a few times: thus compare Theokr. xiv. 7 with Her. ii. 80; Theokr. xiv. 51 with Her. ii. 62 (quoted above). The praises of Egypt at the end of Theokr. xiv remind us once more of Her. i. 30 sqq. Points of comparison between Herodas and poems of Theokr. other than ii, xiv, xv are referred to in the notes.

1 v. Cholmeley's edition of Theokritos, Introduction, p. 3. The date of Theokr.'s stay in Kos has not yet been fixed. Herzog (JCoische Forschungm y p. 209) thinks that a visit of Theokr. to Kos in the lifetime of Philetas is not proven, and he gives 273 as the earliest date for this visit 'Theokritos, who came of a Koan stock, spent his declining years on the island, where he wrote the poems numbered i, ii, iii, vi, vii, zvii, and perhaps xxviii.'

I

xxxviii INTRODUCTION

Com- Reference has already been made to the views of M. Legrand on the

S?erodas° f re * at * ve mer *ts of Theokritos and Herodas as writers of Mimes ; and with Theo- it may here be said that his study of these two poets will be found kritos. highly interesting even by those who do not entirely agree with his conclusions. M. Legrand believes that in Theokritos xv for example we fail to find { what we expect in a sketch of manners, an adequate and integral expression of truth/ In Herodas, he thinks, mistresses scold their servants with much greater truth to nature than in Theo- kritos *. Theokritos describes the admiration felt by Praxinoa before some fine tapestry. ' What artists have traced figures so real ? How true to life they stand, how true they move. They are not embroi- dered, they live ! ' M. Legrand compares this passage with one in the fourth Mime of Herodas (w. 27 sqq.), where some works of art are described with minute detail. He concludes that the passage in Theokritos is too brief, conceived in terms too vague for us to discern an express intention to translate into words the aesthetic judgment of the common people.

In Herodas, on the other hand, we have no emphasis laid on the abstract quality of life — to £g>tuc6V — in the works of art under dis- cussion. ' His interest for the subject treated [by the artist] ... is shown at the same time as his admiration for the expressive qualities [of the work]/ ' Et surtout quelle exuberance ! quel heureux melange de description, de commentaire, et de propos a c6t6! Comme on devine que chaque phrase est accompagne'e de gesticulations, de grimaces, de haut-le-corps, et que les visiteuses, si je puis ainsi dire, admirent de toute leur personne ! '

While it is clear that Herodas in this piece declares his individual preferences, he has nevertheless studied and rendered with much liveliness the foolish remarks which works of art suggest to humble folk. The verses of Theokritos, on the other hand, may be taken pour de simples formules d admiration anonyme 2 . Theokritos I go almost as far as M. Legrand in my admiration of Herodas ; am ea st. ^ \ fo not consider it reasonable, or necessary, to depreciate the very different merits of Theokritos. M. Legrand does not seem to comprehend thoroughly the wide difference between the methods of the two poets whom he compares. Theokritos, the idealist, draws upon the customs of the common people ; but he transmutes them according to the canons of that style of poetry in which he was

1 £tude sur Thtocrite (Paris, 1898), pp. 126 sqq.

2 Cf. F. Spiro, Woch. /. klass. Phil., 189a, 402 sqq. (a review of BUcheler's edition).

HERODAS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES xxxix

Meister und Muster, that is, the Bucolic. A certain conventionality, approaching the unreal, was necessary in his treatment of the shepherds of Arcadia, if they were to be made proper subjects for his Muse. A similar process of selection he employed in cases where his characters are not taken from rustic life. But we may be grateful to him for the fine artistic touch with which he has presented the humbler scenes of the Greek life of his day, refining away those qualities which might wound and offend a sensitive reader.

Herodas, on the other hand, was a convinced realist \ and does Herodas not shrink even from coarseness in his striving after truth. His a realist - models, especially Hipponax, favoured plain speaking. The subjects which he deliberately chose to treat were of a vulgar and unpleasant nature ; and as the result he provides us with a very effective contrast to Theokritos and his method.

Professor Mahaffy speaks of Herodas in terms which seem to be His art im- undeserved when he says c the society of Herodas is lower than P ersona l- any decent average in any civilized country. It contains no virtues, and even its vices are low and disgusting V The subjects of Mimes i, ii, v, vi are, it must be admitted, unpleasant ; on the other hand those of iii, iv, vii, and apparently viii, are unexceptionable. More- over in i the virtue of Metriche triumphs over temptation ; in ii the very vileness of Battaros is meant to excite contempt, as his alterna- tions of vanity and humility provoke ridicule ; in v the appeal to the better nature of Bitinna is not unsuccessful. Herodas may have insisted too much on the vices of his age ; but in so doing he was true to the canons of the realists. As has been well said, he is distinguished from the modern school of realists by the impersonality of his art 8 . He never allows a preference for any of his characters to exhibit itself. He is concerned simply with reproducing the tone and manners of the common people; and he feels for them neither sympathy nor yet contempt ; they are to him merely the material which he works up into artistic shape.

Nor again is it just to say of Herodas that he is merely a c verbatim Quality of reporter, who does not know how to bring out salient points V He *"• work * set himself the task of drawing not individuals, but types; the characters are grasped with a really surprising firmness ; every touch tells, and no touch is absent that would help us to form a clearer

1 Cf. Mahaffy, History of Greek Lit. vol. i. pt. ii. p. [196], who speaks of Herodas as seeking to protest by an excess of realism against the artificiality so prominent in the writings of that age.

• History of Greek Literature, 1. c. • Dalmeyda, p. 54.

4 R. J. Cholmeley, in his Edition of Theokritos, p. 32.

xl INTRODUCTION

conception of the type. His work in this, as in other respects, is of such fine finish, its outlines are so firm, that it bears the test of all artistic work ; it does not lose its freshness with familiarity, but gains in interest as one learns to appreciate, its subtleties 1 . Some words of the late Professor Palmer * seem to me to contain a just estimate of the artistic value of the work of Herodas. He says : ' In dramatic power Herondas is at least equal to Theokritos. His Mimes are so many genre pictures, in which the subjects are chosen from the commonest scenes of everyday life, but painted with dexterous touch and in striking colours/ His characters are admirably drawn. 'The staid Mandris (sic: a pvrjfwvucov afiaprrrjfm for Metriche), the Penelope of the Mimes; the shameless Battams, with his coarse jests and reckless self-humiliation; that really noble picture of the women in the temple of Aesculapius . . . , the furious, jealous, change- able Bitinna ; those lewd, gossiping queans, Koritto and Metro ; the chattering, chaffering, bald-headed shoemaker; these are portraits which, once surveyed, live distinctly in the mind. Herondas is the Teniers* of Greek literature/ And this comparison of Herodas with the Dutch school of painting holds not merely in regard to choice of subject, but also to closeness of observation and care for form.

Imitations It is probable that the Mimes of Herodas were familiar to Catullus, of Herodas Propertius, and Ovid, as is shown by the close parallels pointed out writers. in the notes *. It is worth while to set them out connectedly.

(a) Catullus : with Her. i. 32 (comparison of the Egyptian women to the stars of heaven in point of number) cf. Cat. vii. 7 (of Lesbia's kisses) out quam sidera multa cum facet nox \ furtivos hominum vident amores: also Cat. lxi. 203-4. With Her. vii. 94 HoOoi tc k^/ckotcs cf. Cat. iii. 1 Veneres Cupidinesque.

(5) Propertius: with Her. i. 41 Sq. viyvs /uijs bf AyKvpn^ \ ovk aa-<f>aXrjs opfwwra cf. Prop. ii. 22. 41 nam melius duo de/endunt retina- cula navim. Propertius has perhaps taken a hint from the first Mime for his delineation of the pandar Acanthis in the fifth poem of his fourth book. Thus with Her. i. 38 cf. Prop. iv. 5. 59 sq.

1 Headlam in the article 'Herodas' in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 10th ed.

a Hermathena> viii. 360.

8 Th. Reinach {Rev. des £t. grecq. iv. 232) had already compared Herodas with Ostade and Terriers. Cp. also Dalmeyda, pp. 55 sq., who compares with Mime i a picture by Mi£ris at Dresden (La diseuse de bonne aventure) ; with Mime iii the Mattre cTJlcoU by Ostade at the Louvre; with Mime vii the Cordonnier renomme' by Corneille Dusart, a pupil of Ostade.

• Cf. Crusius, Unters. (Index) ; Zanei, De Heronda Mimorum Scriptore, Turin,

1894.

HERODAS AND HJS CONTEMPORARIES xli

(c) Ovid : with Her. i. 37 Odkwcts rbv hC<t>pov cf. Ovid, Medic, fac. 13 matrona premens altum rubicunda sedik. With Her. i. 60 /cat woOitov airoOmfo-Kei cf. Ovid, Ars am. i. 365 sqq. turn de te narret, turn per- suadenlia verba \ addat, et insano iuret amore mori.

In each of the two last passages the motive is an injured wife assailed by temptation from a lover, who employs the services of a pandar. The same motive is seen at Ovid, Amores, i. 8. 20 ff., where the pandar addresses a girl in language which seems to contain several reminiscences of Herodas. Cf. for example with Her. i. 37 kclt' oSv Alexis I TcuccMra^kcu o~€v to topifiov ri^prj ko^ci, Ovid, Amor. i. 8. 53 forma, nisi admillas, nullo exercente senescit.

Some of these reminiscences may have come through Matius \ the Augustan writer of Mimes. But it is equally possible that Herodas was familiar to the Roman poets in the original, as were Kallimachos (who as we have seen is coupled with Herodas by the younger Pliny in terms of high appreciation) and Philetas the poet of Kos.

(d) Petronius has several reminiscences of the Mimes: v. notes on v. 15, 27.

(<f) Seneca has (so it appears) made use of the Mimes in two passages : v. notes on i. 9, Hi. 75.

IV. EVIDENCE FOR THE TEXT, (a) The Papyrus.

The account of the papyrus which follows is based on the two detailed accounts given by Dr. Kenyon. The more recent, contained in his work Palaeography of Greek Papyri % t corrects in some important points the earlier one (in Classical Texts from Papyri in the British Museum) prefixed to his transcription of Herodas.

The sheets (KoWrj/jLara) of the papyrus are only 6 inches in width. The British Museum Odyssey is just over 9 inches, the Bacchylides between 8 and 9 inches. The length of a full-size roll of papyrus is from 20 to 30 feet ; that of Herodas is unfortunately incomplete, so we cannot say precisely what its length was; but it may be fixed at about 25 feet. The average height of a roll was from 9 to 11 inches. Herodas, which must be regarded as a kind of pocket- volume, such as

1 Cf. above, p. xxx.

1 Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1899. For references to the Herodas papyrus (cxxxv) see Index to that book.

xlii INTRODUCTION

volumes of poetry often are in modern times, is only 5 inches in height

It was usual to leave a blank column at the beginning of a roll. This is found in the papyri of Herodas and Aristotle and in the Harris Homer; but in none of these cases is the title written on it.

The MS. contains forty-one columns of writing, apart from some detached fragments, referred to in Introd. ch. I. Each column con- sists of from fifteen to nineteen lines, eighteen being the most common number. For the most part the papyrus is sound, and the writing clear and in good condition, but in some places, especially towards the end, it has been considerably eaten by worms, and in others the writing has been rubbed, which causes the text of part of the poems to be seriously mutilated.

Date of the Dr. Kenyon has modified his former opinion on this subject.

Ma P" In his earlier account he assigned it to the second or third cen- tury a.d. But ' increased knowledge makes it almost certain that this date is too late. The clearest proof of this comes from the accuracy with which non-literary hands can now generally be dated. In the course of the MS. a line [vi. 94] has been acci- dentally omitted, and has been supplied in the upper margin of the papyrus in a cursive hand; and it happens that this contains an q of the peculiar form ( ^ ), which is characteristic of the period from about a.d. 50 to 1 6a It is impossible to say how long after the transcription of the MS. this omission was made good. The proba- bilities are against an error in so comparatively rare a poet, and in a MS. in private hands, being corrected from any except the original MS. from which it was copied; but such a probability does not amount to an argument of much strength. It is however clear that the third century, or even the last part of the second, is too late a date to assign, and that the MS. should rather be placed in the first century, or the first half of the second century V

' The forms of the letters when examined in detail are unquestionably of the Roman period, but the general appearance of the writing is so unlike that of any other extant papyrus that it is exceptionally difficult for us to fix its date from palaeographical considerations/ It should be mentioned that authorities as eminent as Sir E. Maunde Thompson and Professor Blass * hold views differing from Dr. Kenyon's. Sir E. Maunde Thompson assigns the MS. to the third century a.d. 8 ,

1 Palaeography of Greek Papyri, pp. 94-5.

• Ibid. p. 95, note (2).

• Greek and Latin Palaeography (1894), p. 128.

EVIDENCE FOR THE TEXT xliii

while Professor Blass has recently, in a sort of obiter dictum, assigned it to the Ptolemaic period, on the ground of the frequent interchange of I and 61 which he regards as characteristic of this period, lasting from 300 (250) to 50 B.C. 1 On this second view Dr. Kenyon remarks '(1) a study of the non-literary hands of the first and second centuries shows that such iotacisms were extremely common then (and this evidence is especially applicable to a MS. which, like the Herodas, is evidently not the work of a highly-trained scribe ; and (2) the forms of the letters are wholly of the Roman type/ The Roman period began about 50 b.c. and ended about 300 a.d.

Meister, who speaks indeed with less authority on the subject of the dates of papyri, assigns the MS. to the second century b.c He relies partly on the statement that a portion of one column (41) of the MS., seen by Professor Sayce in Egypt before it reached the British Museum, had been found with the mummy of a person who died in the year 13 b.c; but there is the strongest reason, according to Dr. Kenyon, to doubt the accuracy of this statement. The date of the MS. must be decided by palaeographical considerations; and Dr. Kenyon's views, which it would be presumptuous of me to criticize, will probably be accepted in a matter upon which he speaks with paramount authority.

As regards the forms of the individual letters Dr. Kenyon remarks : 'A is of the rounded type; M is deeply curved (M AA); H has the top-stroke separate, but the middle and lower strokes united (31), a variant which may indicate a relatively early date, but is so rare as to provide no secure basis of argument. Y is very stiff and straight, usually with a very short tail/ Throughout, the hand ' is a plain representation of Roman semi-uncial, with less grace than usual, but quite without affectation or mannerism/

Reference has been made to the interchange of I and €1 in the MS. To speak more precisely, I is almost invariably substituted for €1. This may be due to the MS. having been written in Egypt, as this characteristic is not uncommon in papyri. But in the MS. of Herodas it is even more frequent than is usually the case in papyri, and some- times where 61 has been originally written the € has been deleted by a point placed above it.

Another indication that the MS. was written in Egypt is perhaps afforded by the form of the genitive of proper names in -as, e.g.

1 He also stated in an earlier article that in the second century A.D. we should have had many more instances of at and c confused (as at iii. 45), and regarded the accentuation as a sign of age : G. G. A. t 1891, p. 728.

xliv

INTRODUCTION

Punctua- tion and Accentua- tion. .

Biraros, vi. 25, 81, Kavoaros, vi. 87. Schulze (v. note on vi. 25) gives reasons for regarding the termination -ros in these genitives as due to Egyptian scribes, the true Ionic termination being in -$os.

The earliest system of punctuation * would seem to be that of leaving a slight space in the text, and placing a short horizontal stroke (irapa- ypa<t>os, or more rarely -irapaypa<f>r}) below the beginning of the line in which the break occurs a . The irapaypa^os marks the end and not the beginning of a sentence. In order to indicate the true word- division in cases where the reader might make a mistake a dot was used above the line, though rarely. A comma below the line is also employed occasionally for this purpose.

Accentuation is rarer than punctuation in Greek papyri, and quite as fluctuating in its appearance. The earliest example of the use of accents is in the Bacchylides papyrus, where they are also more plentiful than elsewhere.

In Herodas, as we shall see, there are only a few isolated examples.

A careful study of the MS. in regard to punctuation, accentua- tion, &c, has been made by Mr. J. H. Wright, whose results were published in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, vol. iv. 1893, pp. 169 sqq. The following account is based on Mr. Wright's article.

I. In about twelve per cent, of the verses in the MS. slight breaks or blank spaces occur. These are indications of punctuation, and are important for criticism of the text. They may be classified thus: —

(a) They accompany a change of speaker. Thus e.g. at i. 7, 20, 82.

(3) They stand at the end of a question where no change of speaker occurs. Thus e. g. at i. 9 ; iii. 43, 60.

(c) They have the value indicated in our texts by a period, as at i. 8, 79 : a colon (i. 15, 66, &c): a comma (i. 13, 67, &c).

(d) They stand where, though we may exhibit no mark of punctua- tion, at least a strong phrasing (or pause) was intended, as at ii. 2 ; iii. 10; iv. 42.

Alleged exceptions to the law that spacing always indicates punc- tuation are found at i. 64 ; v. 68 ; vii. 1 10, 118 ; viii. 3 ; but see notes ad locc.

II. Punctuation is also indicated by the use of the dot or point in

1 Kenyon, Palaeography of Greek Papyri^ pp. 27, 39.

1 Spaces in the text without wapdypcupoi are found in some literary papyri, e.g. the Herodas MS. (v. below), and not infrequently in non-literary papyri, espe- cially those of a legal nature. Ibid. p. 37 (2).

EVIDENCE FOR THE TEXT xlv

the line. This method of punctuation has not the significance of the former for purposes of text-criticism, since it may be in large part the arbitrary work of later correctors, whereas the spacing must have been by the original scribe, and was probably a reproduction of what he had before him. The points (omy/uu) are inserted with little discrimination. Probably some early owner of the papyrus began with the good intention of putting the points in, but soon gave up the task. Eight out of the thirteen or fourteen ariyfmi are found in the first Mime, and most of these near the beginning. See i. 3 (Jer\ 4, 8 ; also vii. 114, &c.

III. The Trapaypa<£o5. A short horizontal line drawn distinctly, firmly, and usually with full reed, is frequently met with in the papyrus. It is used to indicate a change of speaker 1 in the dialogue, and in this function it may be identified with the ancient sign known as the irapaypatfios. It is always placed just under the beginning of a line, slightly projecting into the margin, and shows that within the line above, or at the end of the line there is a transition to a second speaker. There are some sixty cases of this use of the irapaypa<f>os in Her., but they comprise only from sixty to sixty-five per cent, of the necessary changes of this sort. Thus there should be a irapdypa<f>o9 tinder i. 3, 4, 5, but none is found in the MS. at these places.

At v. 55 the irapdypa<t>o^ comes a line too soon ; at i. 65 it also comes a line too soon, but is there cancelled, and given correctly below, under v. 66. At i. 81 ; ii. 54, 78 ; iv. 34 some scholars have argued that it is wrongly used; but at i. 81 there may be a change of speaker, 177, TvWi, irWi being given to Threissa instead of to Metriche. At ii. 54, 78, and also iv. 34 the 7rapdypa<f>o^ seems to mark a change of topic, not a change of speaker.

IV. The SiwXrj 2 . With the irapdypa<f>o$ must not be confused other short lines — not marks of accent or of quantity — found both in the text and on the margin of the papyrus. They are usually drawn from right to left obliquely downward. When placed in the body of the text a line of this description cancels an objectionable letter or group of letters. But the chief function of this oblique line is to call atten-

1 Change of speaker at end of line is indicated by vapdypaQos at i. 6, 12, 66; iii. 70, 76, 83, 85, 86, 88; iv. 38, 51, 53, 71, 78; v. 3, 7, 9, 18, 19, 25, 28, 34, 36, 38, 39> 62, 68, 79, 80; vL 11, 21, 26, 36, 56, 73, 78, 79, 84, 88, 92 ; vii. 63, 76, 78, 82, 92. Change of speaker in middle of line, there being none at the end, at iii. 58, 81, 87; v. 73; vi. 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 47, 98; ▼ii. 3.

• Wright calls this critical sign by the peculiar name 60*\6s, suggesting athe-

tesis, for which he himself apologizes, p. 180 (4). I prefer to call it the 8tirA$, as suggested by Wright himself.

xlvi INTRODUCTION

tion to verses requiring examination for one reason or another. In these cases it is placed on the left margin directly opposite, or near, the first letter of the line in question. While it signalizes many verses it by no means calls attention to all corrupt readings or obscure passages. In many instances it appears to be the work of the first hand : see e.g. iii. 80. But the corrections that it points out as neces- sary are not all actually made, nor when made are they invariably in the first hand.

The cases of this use of the 8nr\fj may be thus grouped : (a) It designates verses where letters have been omitted or wrongly given in the first draft, but are supplied or corrected either by the first or by a later hand, e.g. at ii. 3 NYN becomes vqw with H written above by first hand ; v. also iii. 45, 46, 80 ; iv. 67, 76.

(6) In the following places marks of accent are added: — ii. 83; iii 6; viii. 14.

(c) At iii. 49, KAAH6IN 0)C T€, after N above the line, in the first hand, a coronis is inserted.

(d) A short vowel is designated as such in vii. 108. At iv. 62 TTYPACTON, a short w is put over A, but at the same time a P is written above the T. The Y also bears a -.

(<?) At the following places a corrupt text seems to be indicated, but no attempt is made to correct it: — v. 59; vi. 63 ; viL 88, 96, no, 126; viii. 21.

(f) In two places there seems to be nothing the matter with the text ; each of the lines, however, appears to have something interesting to the scribe, viz. iv. 32, 50. At iv. 32 the difficult construction, at iv. 50 the obscurity of the dative (not as Wright the 'droll Homeric reminiscence' ); were in each case indicated by the BarXrj.

V. Other signs.

{a) The breathings. Only the rough breathing is written, and always in a rectangular form \ The cases are ii. 70 bvayifc, v. 20 ortfWica, vi. 25 ^ Btraros, vi. 68 a/xiWjj, vii. 46 tu

(&) The accents : — acute, circumflex, and grave.

The circumflex and acute are used with many proper names, but not with all; also to distinguish between words spelled alike but differently accented, and to indicate the correct grouping of letters into words, e.g. i. 29 64ai: i.e. not Scat; i. 85 pa not /ao. At ii. 9, rjfieas, the accent seems to suggest the synaloepha of the final syllable ; at v. 41 6Srj the accent may indicate 0817. At v. 49 atajKovw the acute may indicate a rising tone of voice, necessary in a question. At iv. 62 there is an acute accent over the v of wvpaurrpov. Crusius

EVIDENCE FOR THE TEXT xlvii

-wrongly took this as a sign of the ictus > but cf. Ludwich, BerLphiL Wock., 1892, 642.

The grave accent regularly appears to be used to provide against misapprehension. Thus ii. 70 wvayrjs, i.e. 6+avayr}^ not 2>v #ct\. : ill. 74 ircpvas, i.e. -irtpvas. See also i. 60, 76 ; ii. 1, 24 ; iv. 91 ; vii. 46, and probably vi. 25 (see below under (/)).

(c) The coronis ('), usually written at the top of the line (at L 15 and ii. 83 at the bottom), always appears to indicate elision at the end of words. The cases are i. 15 ; ii. 24, 83 ; iii. 49 ; iv. 5, 16, 41.

(d) The punctum delens. This is used to indicate omission or erasure, and is then regularly placed above the letter or letters to be rejected, e.g. at iv. 27; viii. 6. Occasionally it is also placed both above and below, and once or twice at the right side or on both sides of the objectionable word or letters. Thus at i. 50 Ucltoukiov • TvAAos* where the marginal r/wA(Aos) is to replace the word in the text.

(e) The point used to separate one word from another, as at iv. 50 cover • rffj^fnj, where it shows that we must not join rrffxeprj : so again at Prooim. 4 ra kvAA • oaZlv.

(/) The sign -. This is found in the papyrus : —

(1) Over iota, iii. 74 (is = c&), iii 79 (t = €t followed by enclitic), V. 5 (w/x>^a<ris=wpo^ao-€is), v. 18, Prooim. 4.

At iv. 43 ~ is not this sign, but a mark of cancellation. At vi. 25, BItcm-os, the - is probably a flat-lying grave accent, as the t is short and the sign - is elsewhere placed over long vowels only.

(2) Over alpha, i. 50, iii. 79 (toto), iv. 56.

(3) Over upsilon, iv. 62.

In all the cases where the sign is used with t = €t there exists a second form, with which confusion might arise. Thus at iii. 74 eh and ct9 : at v. 18 <f>epfe = <f>ip* eh (or <f>4p eh) not <f>epeis (which would be written <f>epis simply).

At Prooim. 4 cVtovo-t maybe bnfawn, but v. note ad loc.

Mr. Wright regards this sign as an intermarginal 'obelus' intended to call attention to dubious or peculiar forms and uses, but Ludwich, and now Crusius also, take it to indicate a long vowel. , ,

(g) The sign v . This is used five times in H., and may be'identified with the sign indicating a short syllable, as it is always over such a syllable. It stands usually in the fyoxs, but at vii. 108 in one of the resolved feet in the tfco-is. The cases are i. 50 (6 MaraiciVq?), i. 56 (Munys), iv. 30 (tov yipovra tt/oos MocpcW), vii. 108 [SvJvouto fi' cXacrat, and the difficult iv. 62 (q. v.).

In the first four cases the sign w is clearly a mark of quantity. At

xlviii INTRODUCTION

i. 50 the rarity of the name induced the scribe to mark the quantity of the second a as v , as he marked the first a with -. At i. 56 Mi<np is thus marked to show that it is not cognate with pmtos, &c. At iv. 30 the a of yipovra is not to be lengthened before wp-, as at iii. 62, v. 76. At vii. 108 the syllable -cur- is marked short, and thus we scan the second foot as a tribrach, not as an anapaest

There remains iv. 62. Various explanations have been offered: e. g. Crusius once took the v as a rhythmical sign, used to show that the penultimate syllable in the line is not stressed {Philol 1. 1891, p. 446). But Ludwich is probably right in taking the signs " v to indicate simply the natural quantity of the vowels. The scribe thought that he had before him, in the original, irvpaypov. The first syllable was (he thought) naturally long, on the analogy of irvp. The second sign, w , refers to the original or natural quantity of the second syllable, here made long by position (v. Berl.pML Wbch., 1892, c. 642-3).

Crusius has now come round to this view, and regards the signs - v in every case as marks of quantity {Bctl.phiL Woch., 1894, 578 sqq.).

After vi. 93 there is a sign a (= ava>), corresponding to a similar sign in the margin above the column (34), accompanying a line which is to be inserted after v. 93. This line is very carelessly written, in a hand which does not seem to be identical with any of the other hands in the MS. It may be read ravry yap /cat rjyoTrrjo'cv Mrjrpdi.

In the margin above column 40 is written o-cowrov aranfo v . This refers to vii. 99, where the line originally began with araTrjpas, omitting oxcovrov, which was added afterwards in the form o-ccorov. The adscript above the column gives the correct beginning of the line ; ararrfo v Stands for orarrjpas * ovna, i.e. crcawrov oTatrjpas is the true reading.

Glosses are very seldom found in P. After i. 25, n-en-cojccv c#e /catv^s,

AlKOC

there is added in the margin a double gloss, viz. KYCHC, i.e. the

word to be supplied with Kouvrjs is variously given as Kwnqs or kvXikos.

Also after i. 79 in the margin is written what looks like jcwrcAAa,

a gloss on /icAaiviSa. See also i. g, 15, go. The The question of the various corrections of the MS. and the

Correctors identification of their respective hands, is one of the first importance Papyrus. to tne editor of Herodas. It has been treated at length by Meister,

and by Crusius in his second edition, while the valuable papers by

Blass 1 must also be consulted by those who wish to pursue the

subject.

1 Gott. gel Anzeig.y 1891, p. 728 ; 189a, pp. 330 ff., 857 ff.

EVIDENCE FOR THE TEXT xlix

Meister recognizes five hands correcting the }/LS. Meister's

(i) That of the original scribe correcting his own work. To this Yiew ' hand are to be assigned all those corrections in which a letter already written or begun has been changed to another, cf. i. 46, ii. 4, &c. ; also most of those where the pen is drawn through a letter or letters in the text. Meister divides the corrections, according to their textual significance, into three classes: —

(a) Orthographical and dialectical, as c for ct (i. 6, &c), 17 for t (iil 33). Atticisms corrected, as a to 77 (i. 1, &c), w to * (ii. 73, &c).

(b) Correction of omissions and other similar blunders made in copying, as L 77 (rbv Sfypov for Mrjrpixqv, wrongly repeated from v. 76), ii. 49 (Barrapos for Barrows), iii. 80 {civ inserted).

(c) The following corrections, viz. at ii. 64, 79 ; iii. 19, 34, 50, 63, 71, 72 ; v. 9, 42 ; viii. 3. Here the value of the corrections is more open to question. Meister admits the reading of the corrector in four of these passages, viz. ii. 64 ; iii. 19, 63, 71. In four passages he pre- fers the original text, viz. at ii. 79 ; iii. 34 ; v. 9 ; viii. 3. The remain- ing three passages he leaves open. Crusius also accepts the reading of the corrector in four passages, viz. ii. 64; iii. 19, 71, 72. He prefers the original in the remaining seven passages.

(2) The second hand has written the verse vi. 94 in the upper margin in a cursive hand. It is this hand which has supplied Dr. Kenyon with a valuable piece of evidence bearing on the date of the MS. : v. above.

(3) The third hand has made the corrections at i. 37, 46, 71, 78; ii. 84; iii. 45 ; iv. 61. The writing is finer, more sloping, and more uneven than that of the first hand ; and the forms of the letters a, a>, /x, and ir also mark a different hand.

One of the two corrections (CO) at i. 17 appears to be from this third hand.

(4) The fourth hand has written apparently the corrections at i. 78; ii. 62 ; iii. 71, 72, 75, 91 ; iv. 12 ; v. 69.

This hand is less formed than the others.

(5) The fifth hand is to be observed at i. 5, 17 (•£•), 39, 50 (-A-); vi. 5, 36 («CA), 38: also apparently at i. 9, 15; ii. 10, 102; iii. 53, 62 ; v. 4. The writing of this hand is small and thick.

Crusius 1 assigns to the first hand (m. pr.) the following corrections, Crusius' viz. i. 3 1 , 76, 79 5 »• i7, 29, 49> 84 ; «*• ", i9> 2I > 45, 71* 1*, 82,™^ 84, 87; iv- 5, ", 5o, 63, 67, 76, 83; v. 4, 6, n, 18, 31, 43, 56, 77;

1 Introduction to his second edition (Teubner, 1894), pp. x sqq.

NAIRN (]

1 INTRODUCTION

vi. i, 6, 19, 30, 41,63, 81 ; vii.48, 58, 77,99* 109, no, 126. Some slight errors the m. pr. corrected as it wrote. Others were corrected by letters overhead, viz. at ii. 79; iii. 19, 34, 50, 71; v. 42; viii. 3.

Crasius is uncertain as to i. 2 ; ii. 64 ; iii. 63, 88. His general verdict as to the value of the corrections is given in the words 'lectiones pristinae nullo loco ferri non possunt.'

Crusius recognizes three hands besides that of the original scribe, viz.:

(1) m. rec.=manus recentior prior, a hand so like the original hand that it is difficult sometimes to distinguish between the two. To this hand Cr. would assign the corrections at ii. 64 ; iii. 72 ; v. 9 ; vii. 104 ; viii. 16 : also (but more hesitatingly) those at i. 9, 34, 39, 50 ; ii. 102 ; iii. 62, 72 ; v. 4; vi. 36, 38. The marginalia at i. 5, 15, 50 may also be assigned to this hand ; the corrections just enumerated are described by Cr. as f worthless conjectures.' This is certainly not true of ii. 64 (jjLurObv for /wlpav, now assigned by Cr. to the first hand), nor of v. 4 (rrjv Xeycts opwprjKa for t^v Mevcovos wprjKa).

(2) m. rec. 2 =manus recentior altera. The letters are thinner and sharper in this hand, which added the lineolae criticae. To this hand Cr. assigns the corrections at i. 17, 37 (doubtfully), 46, 71, 78 ; ii. 10, 62, 84 ; iii. 45, 53, 75, 80 ; iv. 12, 61, 67, 76, 83 ; v. 69 ; vi. 34.

(3) m. rec. 8 =manus recentior tertia. This (so Cr. thinks) has written the marginalia at L 25, 79.

Dr.Kenyon Dr. Kenyon has kindly given me his view of the corrections by various * cse va " ous hands as follows : ' Meister's general division seems hands. right, though I should occasionally differ from him in detail. No. 1 is the original scribe correcting his own work, and the majority of the corrections belong to him. No. 2 has written only the additional line above col. 34. As to No. 3 I am inclined to think that Oep/m in iv. 61 is by the first hand; but avOpwrois in i. 46 is not, and seems distinct from the other correctors. No. 4 is the thicker hand, to which I should assign not only HM in ii. 62, but TON AI<t>PON in i. 77. No. 5 uses an ink very like that of the original scribe, but the shapes of the letters are somewhat different (e. g. <ra in vi. 36 and #ea\ in vi. 38). He must be nearly contemporaneous with No. 1/

There are certain corrections which Meister was unable to assign with confidence to any particular hand. These cases Dr. Kenyon has been good enough to examine, with the following results : — To hand (1) belong the corrections at ii. 3, p6 (probably); iii. 21, 82

EVIDENCE FOR THE TEXT li

a pi?

{jrp7j<rt$)v certainly, irai&ov probably); iv. 21, 51, 94 (doubtful, perhaps third); vi. 11, 33 (probably), 36; vii. 58 (doubtful, perhaps third), 77 (probably), 104, 115; viiL 16.

To hand (3) belong the corrections at iii. 84; iv. 67, 76; v. 37; vi. 34.

To hand (4) belongs the correction at iii. 88, and possibly that at iv. 80.

The views which critics have taken of the importance of the correc- Value of tions in P have naturally been diverse. Bttcheler holds that these t^ng " 60 ' corrections are as a rule to be accepted in preference to the original reading. Crusius * on the other hand regards them simply as conjec- tures (except when obviously by the first hand), though he admits that one class of corrections (those by what he calls manus recentior altera) is superior to the rest. Blass 2 holds an intermediate posi- tion between these two views. The corrections, he thinks, are not mere conjectures, but variae lectiones from another MS. 8 ; and they are sometimes better and sometimes worse than the original text, as in the case of the papyrus of the 'AOrjvatw UoXircla.

The only satisfactory course to follow in endeavouring to settle this General question is to take the various hands one by one, and to examine the fusions, value of the corrections assigned to each. No two scholars will agree in the result, for this ultimately depends on the views taken on indi- vidual passages; one scholar will prefer the text and another the correction. I will therefore content myself here with giving the general conclusions which I hold, while the vindication of my views will more fittingly appear in the notes on the various passages referred to.

Hand (1)= manus prima (m. pr.). The corrections by this hand are mainly improvements on the text. They are usually grammatical or orthographical, and may always be regarded as the results of revision of his copy by the scribe without the aid of another MS.

Of the twenty-seven readings * by this hand' which alone need be considered here, eighteen have been accepted in the present edition ;

1 Preface to his second edition (1894), pp. x sqq. Esp. p. xvi.

8 For the opinion which Blass has formed of the value of the MS. tradition v. G. G. A., 1893, p. 859 : 'Die Ueberlieferung des Papyrus ist in der That nicht gut. Grammatiker haben sich, allem Anschein nach, nicht mit dem Text befasst, und so riss die Verwahrlosung ein, die ofters zu ganz greulichen und gar nicht mehr zu heilenden Verderbnissen gefuhrt hat.' On the other hand there are no interpolations in the MS.

9 G. G. A., 1892, p. 858.

4 I obtain the number twenty-seven by combining Meister 1 (c) as given above with the other corrections assigned by Kenyon to the first hand. Meister 1 (a) and 1 (£) must in any case be assigned to m. pr.

da

Iii INTRODUCTION

viz. those at ii. 3, 64, 79, 96 ; iii. 19, 21, 34, 50, 63, 71, 72, 82 (both the corrections) ; iv. 21, 94 ; vi. 33 ; vii. 58, 115. The remaining nine passages are iv. 51 ; v. 9, 42 ; vi. 11, 36 (irpooionv) ; vii. 77, 104; viii. 3, 16. At ii. 102 p is added by the first hand; but it is uncer- tain to what reading this may point (v. note).

Hand (2)=manus recentior prima (m. rec, 1). This hand has written one line only, viz. vi. 94.

Hand (3)=manus recentior altera (m. rec. 2). The corrections by this hand show traces of the use of another MS. besides the original one 1 . The new readings are very valuable, and I have accepted them in ten out of eleven passages where this hand can be distinguished, viz. at i. 37, 71, 78 (<f>axri); ii. 84; iii. 45, 84; iv. 61, 67, 76 ; v. 37. The only exception is at vi. 34, where the reading &K17 ypv£ai is certainly inferior to ywrj ypvfa, and has all the appear- ance of a gloss.

Hand (4)=manus recentior tertia (m. rec. 3). This hand has given us mere conjectures, which seem to me valueless, with the pos- sible exception of iii. 88, where the insertion of 8c has approved itself to the minds of many scholars. But this, like the other readings by this hand, could readily have been supplied by the veriest tyro. Readings of the stamp of o^t (for ovSc) i. 78, okov (for okcds) iii. 75 show plainly that this corrector solved his perplexity by conjectural emendation of a very unscientific nature. At iii. 92 he suggests ix-qOhr for prfiev. The form firjOev is not Ionic, but belongs to a late stage of Attic and also to Doric : P.-H. 36 a. 8.

Hand (5)=manus recentior quarta (m. rec. 4). This hand is, as we have seen, almost contemporaneous with hand (1): its value is about equal to that of the first hand, but less than that of hand (3). I have accepted five out of the nine passages where this hand has been identified : they are i. 17 (/caTa^cuSco), 39, 50 (TpvWos) ; v. 4 ; vi. 5. I have rejected the readings of this hand at i.9; iii. 53; vi. 36 (owpos), 38.

At i. 9 wpos for irapa is probably due to conjecture, irapa with the accus. of the person being perhaps a less familiar construction: at iii. 53 the rare use of ifiSoptf was not recognized, and the common word cfi&ofjuis (in the accus. pi.) was introduced contrary to the rules of the metre. At vi. 36 o-cwrpos is more likely to be a gloss on \crrp6s than vice versa. At vi. 38 we have the important evidence of Stobaios in favour

1 Wright (fferondaea, p. 184 sq.j thinks that a second MS. was used only to correct otherwise obscure passages (marked with the 6iir\rj) t not to prepare a critical edition. None of the corrections by the first hand require us to assume the use of a second MS. ; of the five possible exceptions given by Wright (p. 184, n. 3), only two, viz. iii. 80, iv. 11, are certainly by the first hand; v. notes.

EVIDENCE FOR THE TEXT liii

of <ro<f>bv against koXov. In all these cases an explanatory gloss has found its way in from the margin. At iii. 62 the letter A, which is added above the line in this hand, seems to have been afterwards cancelled. At i. 15 (MYC) and ii. 10 (N€M€IN) the marginal read- ings appear to be in this hand. At i. 15 the true reading is fxvta : as to ii. 10 we cannot speak with confidence owing to the MS. being defective at this point, but vi/unr seems right.

(#) Citations made expressly from Herodas in Ancient Writers.

We have seen that ten fragments, containing some twenty-two verses of Herodas, were known to us before the discovery of the papyrus, and that five of these, or just half the number, were found to be pre- served in the text. These five fragments contain in all about seven verses. Three of the fragments are derived from Stobaios, viz. i. 15- 16, 67 (with part of 68); vi. 37-9. One is from Zenobios, viz. iii. 10, and one from the Etymologicum Magnum, viz. v. 32-3.

(1) The MSS. of Stobaios in i. 15 preserve a trace of the true reading fiv? ocrov, which is however corrupted to fivuocrtav. In i. 16 for X?i a-Kirj they give *<u or ktjv o-kmJ. At i. 67 for TvXXl they have IWcu, which, though corrupt, points to TvAAt and not TvAAts (l"YNAI for rYAAl). At vi. 37 they have Koprq rv for Kopirrdi by itacism and con- fusion of the sounds of v and ot, which became very similar in course of time. At vi. 38 they confirm the reading of the first hand in P, <ro<l>6v (v. note).

In the fragments quoted by Stobaios, but not found in the papyrus (xii. 1 and xii. 2 of this edition, 3 and 5 in Bergk, and 14 and 15 in Kenyon), the MSS. read firjXavOaai for fjLrjXdyOyai (xii. 1. 2), f**%ov for fiutiov (xii. 2. 2). It is plain that the value of these MSS. of Stobaios for the criticism of the text of Herodas is lessened by the various corruptions which have taken place. In two passages however, i. 15 and vi. 38, we derive from them valuable confirmation of the reading of the papyrus.

(2) Zenobios. At iii. 10 (rjv to Nawcucov jcAawco) tjv is corrupted to tva in the MSS. of Zenobios.

(3) Etymologicum Magnum (Choiroboskos). The words of Herodas are rightly given, but the names of the author and of the metre which he used have been corrupted to UpoSoros and x°P^ a H L ^ 0V respectively (v. note on v. 32).

liv INTRODUCTION

(c) Citations not made expressly from Herodas.

It was to be expected that a writer such as Herodas would attract by his very difficulty the attention of the lexicographers and commen- tators of antiquity. In particular, the proverbs which are scattered so freely throughout his work would interest the ancient paroemio- graphers ; some of these however, e. g. Aristophanes of Byzantium, Didymos, and Seleukos, did not confine themselves to the explanation of proverbs, but included also literary reminiscences and historical allusions in dealing with the texts on which they commented. We find two or three noteworthy instances of the use to which they have put Herodas.

(i) At ii. 62 (v. note) the story of Mvs, the Tarentine boxer, in Zenobios is probably due to a misunderstanding of the text, where the words iv 7TMTOT7 /xv? irv£ eirXrrfqv come together ; the second clause suggested that the reference was to a boxer.

(2) At vii. 57 sqq. the names of the various kinds of shoes have been preserved in almost all cases in either Pollux or Hesychios. For the various corruptions in the MSS. of these writers v. notes on this passage. 'Didymum tenemus hunc locum cum cura excerpentem' (Crusius).

(3) At vii. 114 one of the glosses in Hesychios on the word ira& viz. vTroSrjfia evvirotyrov, must be derived from that passage of Herodas, where the exclamation ira£ is uttered by the cobbler after trying on a shoe. As at ii. 62 the gloss is based on a misunder- standing (v. note). See also notes on iii. 10 (to, Namucov), iii. 19 (XiirapiiyrepaL XrjicvOav), iii. 6 1 (rg 'Aicco-cai o-ckrpraiy). Crusius, who speaks with a special authority on the subject of the ancient paroe- miographers, is of opinion that it was Didymos who preserved most of the fragments of Herodas, partly through a collection of proverbs made by him in which only the more ancient poets were cited \

In one case (v. on v. 75) words have been cited as belonging to Hipponax which are now seen to occur in Herodas. It is improbable that Herodas borrowed the phrase in question from Hipponax : more

1 Unters.f p. 190 (note). We may observe a Koan source in some of the explanations of phrases in Herodas ; cf. e. g. the phrase fjv rd "Nclvv&kov icXaucroj (iii. to) : we have seen that the name 'Sdvvcucos occurs on Koan inscriptions. Possibly we owe our information on this and similar phrases to Nikanor of Kos, who wrote a commentary on Theokritos, in which he recorded stories and traditions current in the island (Wright, Herondaea, pp. 193 sq.).

EVIDENCE FOR THE TEXT lv

probably Eustathios, from whom we derive the quotation, has written Hipponax by mistake for Herodas, deceived by the similarity of their styles, and quoting from memory.

The errors committed by the first hand in the MS. may be classified ClassiHca-

as follows (changes of Ionic #c to Attic ir in kotc, &c, have not been tion of . the x ° ' ' errors in

considered here as errors) : the MS.

I. Errors due to change of pronunciation.

Al = E. This error seems to have been committed at iii. 45 -q^Oa for TjfjuouOa, and vii. 58 \ffivraKoux for xfriTraK&a (so Biicheler). In neither passage, however, is this explanation necessary (v. supra). rjfxeOa as the commoner word may have replaced q/uu0a, and ^ittokui not ^11- Taicca is the true form of the word in vii. 58.

The error Al for E does not become common in inscriptions until the time of Constantine (Reinach, Traiti cPfipigraphie grecque, p. 266) \

Itacism, vii. 109 {tovraXrjOivov for €ovra XlOlvov). But an isolated instance is scarcely enough to prove this.

II. Errors due to similarity of the form of letters.

These are without exception due to confusion of uncials, and as the forms of the letters, not their sounds (v. above), are misapprehended, it is clear that the MS. was not written from dictation.

A for A, iii. 19 (&u or Scat for 8cAi).

A for A, iv. 11 (iSco) for iAca>) ; iv. 94 (8a>i for Axut=Axu).

M for AA, iv. 67 (avaox/ios for avaoxAAos).

TT for TP, i. 2 (airoiKirjs for aypoua.7]s).

Y for T, iii. 34 (avpcv for aypcv : v. note).

0) for PO, ii. 49 (Barracos for Barrapo?).

III. Errors due to —

(i) Haplography: iv. 61 (0cp/ta written once instead of twice); vi. 30 (pLpjraxra instead of apnxurcura).

(ii) Dittography : v. 11 (tovtov for rov) ; vi. 48 (cppo^rc for cpo^c); vii. 106 (#c for ovros #co> owing to ov\i in next verse).

(viii) Iota adscriptum wrongly omitted :

(a) At the end of words, e. g. V. 79 (jierunria for fterawrau), V. 83, vii. 61, and probably at vii. 5 (Apt/wAx* for Apt/wAcoi, v. note).

(b) Internally: iii. 79 (frwyv for friniyv); vii. 115 (1-175 for 1-171$).

(ix) 7<?/0 adscriptum wrongly added : cf. iii. 80 (fivpo-ai), iv. 79, vi 17 (copnyi).

At iv. go sq. there is some confusion in the MS. owing perhaps to a mistaken view of the construction : v. note ad loc. IV. Other errors due to various causes may be seen in the critical notes at i. 13, 54, 89 ; ii. 17, 64, 84, 96 ; iii. 21, 63, 72, 82, 84 ;' iv. 21, 26, 57 ; v. 33, 60, 70; vi. 5, 60, 63 ; vii. 32, 104, 126.

(a) In some of these passages the mistake seems to be due to a wrong view of the meaning or construction, leading to unconscious or semi-conscious emendation, viz. at i. 12 (ravrr^ for ravrqv) ; i. 89 (ouvrrjv for ravrqv) ; ii. 96 ('Hpa#cA.i)$ for xqpaKXifc) ; iii. 84 (la^/icc for i<rxrjKas) ; iv. 26 (EvOltjs for EvOiy) ; v. 60 (rov? 6vo for tow 6vo) ; vi* 5 {furpiu) for furprff) ] vi. 60 (cucaoxus for cucacrcu).

(5) In others the reason probably is that a common word or form has taken the place of one that is rarer: thus i. 54 (#cap7ros for Kap<t>os) ; iv, 21 (rbv XlOov for rrjv \idov ; v. 33 {rbv vwtov for to v&tov, the masc. form becoming frequent in later Greek) ; v. 70 (/acf for fuv) ; vii. 32 (Pa8%€iv for /3a£eiv) ; vii. 104 (6Wois for ocwots).

(*•) The most important cases which remain are ii. 64 (/xotpov, a gloss on fiurdov) ; iii. 63 (ircfMrctv for ircufav is due perhaps to the desire to avoid assonance with valxrrpqv at end of v. 64); iii. 72 (yeveiW for ycvctov IS due to Moixrccuv 0. 7 1 ) > Hi. 82 ( 0V X* irai£a> for ov^i tc irprjfa : the ti was lost before ir, and for irprifa the word ircu£a>, suggested by the sense of the passage, was substituted).

The labours of an editor of Herodas are made much heavier by the state of the manuscript, which in several places has suffered extensively from worms, and in others has been so rubbed that but little trace of the original writing is left. The parts most affected by one or other of these causes are col. 3, i. 33-46 (beginning of the lines

EVIDENCE FOR THE TEXT lvii

much rubbed) ; col. 7, ii. 5-20 (beginning and in some cases middle of the line rubbed) ; col. 34, vi. 93-102 ; also col. 35-6, and part of 37, vii. 8-47 (worm-eaten); col. 40, vii. 105-9 (rubbed); col. 42-5, viii. 1 1-75 (fragmentary, v. Intr. ch. I) 1 . It is clear from the apparatus criticus that scholars are by no means at one as to the general sense of these mutilated passages, much less as to the actual words of Herodas : and this has confirmed me in the belief that the work of restoring the above-mentioned passages ought to be ap- proached with the greatest diffidence. I have made the fullest possible use of the papyrus itself, and have been most generously assisted in deciphering it by Dr. Kenyon. I have thus been enabled in my appa- ratus criticus to correct several misstatements made by previous editors in regard to the readings of the MS. ; but the number of pas- sages where I may claim to have effected a satisfactory restoration is small. One or two such restorations, viz. at i. 42-3, at i. 82 (irapaX- Xarreiv), and at vii. 69 (fr/fii & Kprjvai), are printed in the text ; at ii. 7 and vii. 107-8 suggested restorations will be found in the notes. The care with which the MS. has been read by such experts as Kenyon and Blass has left few gleanings for later students of the MS., and I have been unwilling to essay the hazardous feat of attempting restoration where the MS. fails us. In regard to this work of divina- tion the prudence of Biicheler is perhaps the best guide to an editor. Crusius, on the other hand, has formulated for his own guidance the singular principle audax esse volui ubi alii cauti fuerunt, contra cautus ubi alii audaces. On what occasions he fulfils the second part of this declaration I know not ; but he has certainly kept his word in regard to the first part. For my own part, I have thought it advisable to print in the text various restorations which, though in themselves uncertain, nevertheless assist the reader to follow the sense where the MS. remains enable us to make that out with tolerable certainty. The use of the square brackets in the text renders it easy in all cases to distinguish these restorations from the words actually preserved in the papyrus,

1 The various columns begin at the following verses respectively : Mime i. 1, 16, 32, 47, 64, 80 (columns 1-6).

ii. 5, ai, 36, 51, 67, 82, 98 (columns 7-13). iii. 10, 26, 43, 61, 79, 97 (columns 14-19). iv - J 7> 35> 53> 7i> 9° (columns 20-24). v. 12, 30, 49, 07, 85 (columns 25-29). vi. 18, 38, 55, 73, 92 (columns 30-34)- vii. 8, 26, 43, 62, 80, 98, 116 (columns 35-41). viii. 4, 22, 40, 58 (columns 42-45).

lviii INTRODUCTION

V. THE DIALECT, GRAMMAR, AND METRE. 1. THE DIALECT.

Herodas uses a dialect which is in the main that of his literary models, the old Ionic iambographi) especially Hipponax. 'On the resuscitation of choliambics by the Dorian Herodas the Ionic of the three iambograpM [Archilochus, Simonides of Amorgos, Hipponax] came once more into fashion. The papyrus of Herodas presents a tolerably faithful picture of the Ionic appropriate to this species of iambic composition. The Ionicisms seem to be imitative and not drawn from a living dialect' Such is the verdict of Dr. Smyth \ one of the chief authorities on Ionic : similarly Hoffmann, in his work on that dialect 1 , recognizes the dialect of Herodas to be artificial, comparing the use of an artificial Aeolic by Theokritos in certain of his poems. * The Ionic of Herodas is an excellent form of that dialect, being based on imitation of Hipponax, and so free from conventionality and affectation/

Herodas was probably a native of Kos 8 . The dialect of this island was Doric (with a few Ionicisms), as we see from the inscriptions ; but as Hippokrates, also a native of Kos, used the Ionic dialect which had been handed down as the recognized instrument of scientific thought, so Herodas used the dialect which was traditionally associated with the subjects which he depicted and with the metre in which he wrote.

It was held at first that the dialect of Herodas was in the main Ionic, with a slight admixture of Doricisms. This view, however, though true as regards Ionic, has to be modified in respect (i) to the extent of the admixture of Doric forms, (2) to the Attic forms found in the papyrus, which were left out of account in the early statements made regarding the dialect of Herodas.

(1) The Doric forms have been reduced in number as the result of more recent investigation. Thus of the four forms mentioned by Dr. Kenyon as necessarily Doric, three (6/wy, 6/a^s, yXacraa) are as much Ionic as Doric, while the fourth (Axi>/ft}r(u) is cited from Stobaios and has not the authority of the papyrus. In the same way /ujcko? (vi. 59) is not exclusively Doric 4 , the same is true of fjpa (iv. 21), while the evidence with regard to /na (i. 85) is not sufficient to show that it was a purely Doric word.

1 The Sounds and Inflections of the Greek Dialects: Ionic, 1894, pp. 46-7.

2 Die grieck. Dialekte, Bd. iii. (der ionische Diaieht), pp. 195-7. 8 Cf. above, ch. i.