Search Results

This chapter focuses on the Fragments, which is part of Herodas' Mimiamb 8. It presents Hippônax, who criticizes Herodas' poetry for crossing the form of the genre of comic drama and the metre of the genre of iambic invective. Herodas pleads guilty as charged, but none the less defends and maintains his procedure. This he does by invoking the sanction of the god of poetry, noting the signs of humility present in his closing comment that he will sing choliambic poetry after Hippônax. The chapter discusses the 'crossing of genres' as a well known and understood characteristic of Hellenistic poetry, in which the Hellenistic poets cross the form of the 'grand' genres, especially the hexameter of epic. It also mentions the humorous clash of content and form in Theokritos' fourth and fifth Idylls, where country folk pass the time of day or obscenely abuse one another in grand hexameters.

This chapter talks about Mêtrô in Herodas' Mimiamb 7, who made clear contact with Kerdôn and is on equal intimate footing with him. It analyses the line on Kerdôn selling shoes to Mêtrô's companions, which hints at his more intimate products for Mêtrô's benefit. It also elaborates the moments when dildoes appear to be alluded to in the practice of using them orally, which on the surface level references to nothing but shoes. The chapter discusses how Mêtrô is so concerned about having her cover blown by Kerdôn that she ostentatiously tries to preserve outward respectability in front of her friends. It examines how Mêtrô adopts a guise of imperiousness, which at times turns into irony and sarcasm.

This chapter examines the self-conscious Hellenistic poets who were concerned to set their own seal or sphragis on their poetry, and to defend it against its detractors. It analyses how Herodas proves to be no exception to Hellenistic practice with his eighth Mimiamb. It also discusses several points of contact between Mimiamb 8 and Idyll 7, in which both poems have a festival as their setting and involve a rustic contest over poetry. The chapter describes a dramatic element of Mimiamb 8 through the setting of the festival to Dionysos, the god of drama. It mentions Hippônax, who criticised Herodas' poetry for crossing the form of the genre of comic drama and the metre of the genre of iambic invective.

This chapter discusses the publication of the second-century A.D. papyrus that contain eight and a fragmentary ninth of the Mimiambs of Herodas in 1891 by F.G. Kenyon. It explains how Herodas was known only through approximately twenty lines that survived in quotations found in Athenaios' Scholars at Dinner and in the fourth book of Stobaios' Anthology. It also examines the remark by Pliny the Younger around 100 A.D. about his friend Arrius Antoninus' epigrams in Greek and his iambic poems as the only ancient comment about Herodas. This chapter looks at the evidence that Herodas lived during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphos from 285 to 247 B.C. It describes Herodas as a contemporary of the greatest of the Hellenistic poets, Kallimachos, Theokritos, and Apollonios.

This chapter focuses on Herodas' first Mimiamb, which admirably illustrates Herodas' technique of characterization. It mentions the figure of Gyllis, who speaks over two-thirds of the first Mimiamb's lines. It also analyses the prefatory remarks to Mimiamb 1, which emphasize the character of the more-or-less professional go-between that was a special feature of Sophrôn's mimes, the magoidiai and New Comedy. The chapter discusses how Gyllis have come further down the social scale into the proper province of mime and become a representative of a stock type in mime and comedy. It explains how Herodas takes the type and individualises it with particular traits called the mosaic technique.

This chapter talks about Battaros in Herodas' second Mimiamb as a representative of a type in Middle and New Comedy, such as the brothel-keeper. It discloses how Battaros is related to a type in mime and bad oratory, exemplified by Sophrôn's Boulias. It also describes Battaros as a composite type by Herodas' original audiences or readership, emphasizing that the brothel-keeper had stock attributes of greed, impudence, dishonesty, and old age. The chapter examines how greed is in evidence throughout Mimiamb 2, citing financial motives underlying Battaros' hypocritical show of fatherly concern for Myrtalê before the jury. It points out Battaros' dishonesty, which consists largely of gross exaggeration and self-contradictory description of the facts.

This chapter examines Herodas' Mimiamb 3, which is unique among the poems preserved by the papyrus as it deals with a family. It describes the characterization of Mêtrotimê and her family circumstances, as well as her attitude to Kottalos as the aim of Mimiamb 3. It also discusses the Mêtrotimê that has affinities with the New Comedy type of the woman chatterbox and her 57.5-line monologue that was cut short abruptly by Lampriskos. The chapter mentions Kottalos as the family's only child and sole hope for Mêtrotimê's superannuation. It analyses how Herodas steadfastly presents Mêtrotimê in all her ugliness in order to pursue a detached, objective version of the humour that is associated with slice-of-life comedy.

This chapter focuses on the fourth Mimiamb, in which Herodas give hints of the scene as the Koan Asklêpieion, and constructs a precise picture of women's movements within the precincts of the early-third century temple. It looks at the kind of supplementation that is quite characteristic of Hellenistic poetry and art. It also locates Herodas's poem in a known Asklêpieion that could help his contemporary Hellenistic audiences fill in the gaps in their mental images of the works of art that the women see and react to in the precincts. The chapter looks into the knowledge of the art-holdings of the temple that would help visualise the works of art to which the women refer without actually giving a description. It envisages the first 26 lines of Mimiamb 4, which describes the women facing the altar of Asklêpios and Hygieia.

This chapter mentions W. Geoffrey Arnott, who rightly regards Herodas's Mimiamb 5 as an instructive example of the mosaic technique. It explains the mosaic technique as a general type or basic mention that individualize a type of figure by encrusting on to it a mosaic of little detail observed from real life. It also talks about David Konstan, who placed the emphasis on Bitinna's despotism, which echoes the social independence that women were beginning to enjoy in the early Hellenistic period. The chapter cites Bitinna who has raised Gastrôn to her social level by admitting him to her bed while remaining his owner and social superior. It analyses the sense of betrayal that heightens Bitinna's vindictive cruelty, particularly in her command that Pyrrhiês cut into Gastrôn's arms with the ropes.

This chapter examines Herodas' technique of creating an interplay between Korittô and Mêtrô in the sixth Mimiamb, which is almost as important as his characterization of the two women. It cites Korittô, who is characterized as obsessed with sexual gratification. It also points out Korittô's lines that were mostly devoted to her narrative of her admiration for the dildo, which she dwells on in loving detail. The chapter discusses Korittô's outrageous comparison of Kerdôn's workmanship with that of Athene as the crowning hyperbole in her enthusiasm for the dildo. It describes how Korittô is being presented as almost paranoid in her concern with what people think of her alongside her obsession with sex.