Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T07:57:11.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Presentation of Herodas' Mimiamboi

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2015

Richard Hunter
Richard Hunter*
Affiliation:
Pembroke College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The mimiamboi of Herodas reveal familiar hallmarks of the poetry of the third century: characters drawn from socially humble backgrounds; a literary re-casting of sub-literary ‘genres’; the revival of an archaic metre; the free reconstruction of an artificial literary dialect; the reaching back to claim authority for poetic practice in a great figure of the past. Obvious links between the mimiamboi and the roughly contemporary ‘mime’ poems of Theocritus (especially Idylls 2, 3, 14, and 15) have always attracted attention since the publication of the major papyrus in 1891. No subject has, however, so dominated discussion of the mimiambs as the question of how they were intended to be presented to the public, and how indeed they were so. Were they merely to be read (privately), or to be ‘performed’ either by a solo performer (with or without the assistance of mute extras), or by a ‘troupe’ of actors? We must not assume, of course, that the mode of reception of all the mimiambs was the same, or that one poem was not at different times ‘performed’ in different ways. Moreover, the history of the debate since 1891, a history of which Giuseppe Mastromarco has given a full account, suggests that it is hardly possible on internal grounds alone to prove to general satisfaction that the poems were presented in one way rather than another.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 27 , November 1993 , pp. 31 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 In the notes the following are cited by author's name only: Cunningham, I.C., Herodas, Mimiambi (Oxford 1971)Google Scholar; Mastromarco, G., The Public of Herondas (Amsterdam 1984)Google Scholar; Piwonka, M. Puelma, Lucilius und Kallimachos (Frankfurt 1949)Google Scholar; Rosen, R.M., ‘Mixing of genres and literary program in Herodas 8’, HSCP 94 (1992) 205–16Google Scholar; Miralies, C., ‘La poetica di Eroda’, Aevum Antiquum 5 (1992) 89–113Google Scholar.

2 There seems no good reason to question the consensus, based though it is on very thin evidence, that Herodas wrote during the second quarter of the third century, cf. Cunningham 1-3; Fraser, P.M., Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford 1972) 2.876 n.30Google Scholar; Sherwin-White, S.M., Ancient Cos (Göttingen 1978) 94 n.60, 349–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 The choliamb in fact was widely used in the fourth and third centuries, particularly in moralising verse; cf. Gerhard, G.A., Phoinix von Kolophon (Leipzig/Berlin 1909) 202–27Google Scholar.

4 On the language of Herodas see especially Bo, D., La lingua di Eroda (Turin 1962)Google Scholar and Schmidt, V., Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Herondas (Berlin 1968)Google Scholar.

5 The actual extent of Herodas’ debt to Hipponax may be debated; cf. Degani, E., Studi su lpponatte (Bari 1984) 50–56 (with bibliography)Google Scholar; the wretched preservation of Hipponax must make any conclusions very tentative. Some shared vocabulary seems certain, though here, as elsewhere, Degani overstates the case. In Mimiamb 8 Hipponax is primarily invoked as protos heuretes of choliambic verse (cf. Test. 20-44 Degani); for the distinction between ‘narrative’ (Hipponax) and ‘dramatic’ (Herodas) choliambs cf. further below.

6 I do not mean to imply that many scholars have in fact realised that these are two separate issues, perhaps requiring different answers.

7 Cf. Mastromarco (n.l above), an unfortunately stilted English version (with some expansion) of Il Pubblico di Eronda (Padua 1979)Google Scholar. The best discussion of this book is that of Fantuzzi, Marco in Lingua e Stile 14 (1979) 721–4Google Scholar.

8 For an attempt to distinguish Herodas and Theocritus in these matters cf. further below. Despite Mastromarco's book, solo recitation seems to be the solution favoured by current scholarship.

9 Cf. Mastromarco 95-6. The singular ‘do you laugh?’, at 2.74 is formally addressed to Thaïes, but is also equally effective if aimed at the individual reader or directed by a performer at one of the audience.

10 Pace, e.g., Positano, L. Massa, Eroda, Mimiamb I (Naples 1970) 15Google Scholar, little can, I think, be inferred from the fact that Poem 1 starts on a fresh piece of papyrus. As far as the facsimile permits judgement, no more space is blank above Poem 1 than on any subsequent sheet; where a poem ends at the very top of a column (i.e. 3.97 at the top of column 19 and 5.85 at the top of column 29), the same blank space appears above it. We cannot therefore rule out the possibility that Poem 1 was preceded by other poems, and there is no reason to assume that the space above Poem 1 was reserved for a heading.

11 RhM 46 (1891) 636Google Scholar. Bücheler in fact thought that ‘the king’ was Ptolemy Euergetes; Philadelphos is the usual choice of more recent scholars, cf. above n.2.

12 On the encomium of Ptolemy in Idyll 14 see the suggestive remarks of Burton, J.B., ‘The function of the Symposium Theme in Theocritus' Idyll 14’ GRBS 33 (1992) 227–45Google Scholar, at 240-2, and Beck, W., ‘Theocritus, Idyll 14: Alcaeus and Megara’ WJA 18 (1992) 171–82Google Scholar.

13 Cf. fr. 203.14 in a programmatic context. Among the scholars who do reckon with such a reference in Poem 1 are Puelma Piwonka 342 n.1; Massa Positano ad loc.; Stern, J., GRBS 22 (1981) 165Google Scholar; Hopkinson, N., A Hellenistic Anthology (Cambridge 1988) 240Google Scholar; Miralles 94-9.

14 For recent studies of this poem cf. Mastromarco, G., ‘Eine alexandrinische Kupplerin’, WJA 16 (1990) 87–99, and Miralles 94-9Google Scholar.

15 Such a scenario is not, of course, limited to mime—the opening scenes of Menander's Synaristosai (= Plautus, Cistellaria) and the third book of Apollonius' Argonautica are famous examples in other genres.

16 For the significance of the verb cf. Mogensen, E., Hermes 104 (1976) 498–9Google Scholar. I suspect that the same point is continued by (v. 2), which is very likely the correct reading: the loudness of the knocking suggests the of the knocker. ‘Door-knocking’ scenes are, of course, a familiar feature of many literary genres, especially comedy; the famous scenes in Plato's Protagoras and Xenophon's Symposium (1.11-12) may be influenced by comedy.

17 The anonymous referee rightly objects that Metriche merely tells Gyllis what she is in fact not going to do to her; pedantically, however, Gyllis’ song is ‘lame’, even if she herself is not (though note also the stress on her difficulties in walking through the streets, vv. 13-16). My guess is that different modern readers will inevitably assign different weight to this objection.

18 So, e.g., Hutchinson, G.O., Hellenistic Poetry (Oxford 1988) 240Google Scholar; Rosen passim. Miralles 103-13 explores at length the links between Mimiamb 8, Hipponax and Aristophanic comedy.

19 For tragedia as ‘goat-song’ see Brink on Hor. AP 220Google Scholar.

20 Critics note that v. 60 may look to Hipponax fr. 8 Degani = 20 West.

21 Rosen refines this guess so that the anger arises specifically from the ‘adulteration’ of the iambus with drama, i.e. because Herodas has replaced iambos by mimiambos.

22 Cf. Hor, . Sat. 1.10.48–9Google Scholar of Horace's own position with respect to Lucilius, inuentore minor; neque ego Uli detrahere ausim I haerentem capiti cum multa laude coronam. The parallel is particularly interesting in view of satire's obvious generic links with mimiamb.

23 This is mediated through the pun on (v. 71) as both ‘limbs’ and ‘songs’ (cf. Longus, , Past. 3.23.3Google Scholar). Disiecti membra poetae (Hor, . Sat. 1.4.62Google Scholar) is not dissimilar. Perhaps Cadmus is a closer analogy than Pentheus himself: (v. 71) almost puts the speaker in the relation of parent to his poetry.

24 So, e.g., Puelma Piwonka 346 n.2. This interpretation seems to go back to Crusius (p. 76 of his fifth edition of the poems, Leipzig 1914); cf. also Herzog, R., Philologus 79 (1923/1924) 431Google Scholar; Mastromarco 69-70.

25 Considered ‘improbable’ by Knox ad loc.

26 Cf. Gutzwiller, K.J., Theocritus' Pastoral Analogies (Wisconsin 1991)Google Scholar. There may be a play between (v. 69) and (V. 71); such play would be of a type very familiar in dream interpretation, and it may be paralleled by Knox's attractive suggestion that (v. 70) is picked up by (v. 72).

27 PCGIV pp. 219-232; cf. Macleod, C.W., Collected Essays (Oxford 1983) 262–79Google Scholar.

28 Similarly, we should interpret quite broadly the reference to poets ‘in the holy contests of Dionysus’ at Theocr. 17.112-14; even a limitation to epic and dramatic poets would be too narrow.

29 See the bibliography at Cunningham 194 n.2, adding Puelma Piwonka 345-52. There is a helpful survey in Mastromarco 65-97.

30 Cf. Rosen 207-8, noting also the ‘initiations’ of Hesiod, Archilochus etc. It may or may not be significant that the passage of Plato's Ion to which I have just referred is also used in the ‘Reply to the Telchines’; cf. ZPE 76 (1989) 1–2Google Scholar.

31 So, with particular point, of Erinna's Distaff si Anth. Pal. 7.11.1Google Scholar (= Asclepiades XXVIII.l GP), 7.12.5. 3 2 Cf. Kassel-Austin on Cratinus fr. 276.

33 For a new interpretation of this fragment cf. Mineur, W.H., Mnem. 38 (1985) 383–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Cf. Theocr. 7.47-8 The two fighting cocks of the first version of Aristophanes' Clouds may also be relevant here; Aristophanic influence on Alexandrian polemic is familiar from the Aitia prologue.

35 Horace, , Satires 1.4 is a good example hereGoogle Scholar.

36 RE 8.1089–90Google Scholar.

37 Theocritus' Coan Pastorals (Washington 1967) 118–20Google Scholar.

38 For Lawall, as for some other scholars who have entertained the notion of a Herodan ‘poetry book’, the existence of Poem 9 (and probably more; cf. below) is something of an embarrassment. Lawall is forced to the view that Poem 9 was either ‘the beginning of a second volume or … the beginning of a series of other mimes which were not included by Herodas in his original collection but were added by later writers’.

39 That Callimachus himself is responsible for the arrangement of the Iamboi cannot, of course, be proved, but it is also not unlikely; cf. Dawson, C.M., YCS 11 (1950) 140–5Google Scholar.

40 Cf. Van Sickle, J., ‘The book-roll and some conventions of the poetic book’, Arethusa 13 (1980) 5–42Google Scholar.

41 I am thinking of such readings as that of Stern, J., ‘Herodas, Mimiamb 6’, GRBS 20 (1979) 247–54Google Scholar, who sees in Poem 6 a burlesque of Orphic myth and ritual (handling the baubon suggests familiar mystic practices) and a statement of poetics (the brilliantly fashioned baubon as an image for Herodas' poems). To my mind, this reading contains more of interest than the same scholar's ‘ritualist’ reading of Poem 1 (GRBS 22 [1981] 161–5Google Scholar).

42 I discuss Poem 2 at greater length in ‘Plautus and Herodas’ in Plautus und die Tradition des Stegreiftheaters (ScriptOralia; Tübingen 1995) forthcomingGoogle Scholar.

43 If Poem 2 was actually performed, we can only guess at how Myrtale was represented. The standard view about the appearance of ‘naked’ women in Old Comedy (Wasps 1326 ff., Peace 846 ff., Lys. 1114 ff.), that they were ‘impersonated by men wearing appropriately designed bodysuits and padding’ (Sommerstein on Lys. 1114) may be correct, but there is very little evidence for it.

44 I print Cunningham's text, though I have no confidence in it.

45 The claim of ‘dramatic’ characters to be alone is a familiar irony, but is certainly not conclusive for the performance of the mimiamb; cf., e.g., Propertius 1.18 (haec certe deserta loca etc.) which will have different resonances for a reader and for someone listening to a recitation.

46 The connections of Petronius' Satyrica with the mime tradition are well known, and that text revels in the possibilities of deceptive vision.

47 Cf., e.g., Ph.-E. Legrand, ‘Problèmes alexandrins II: A quelle espèce de publicité Hérondas destinait-il ses mimes?’, REA 4 (1902) 5–35, at 7-8Google Scholar. It is important in assessing Legrand's influential article to note its assumptions: ‘dans un poème où la réalité est copiée d'aussi près …’ (p. 12).

48 For related concerns in Callimachus' hymns cf. ‘Writing the god: form and meaning in Callimachus, Hymn to Athena’, MD 29 (1992) 9–34Google Scholar.

49 Another such potential mode of reception which Herodas himself inscribes in his poems is the ‘mimetic realist’ reading, which has also, of course, had a thorough airing in modern scholarship and remains very much alive; I discuss this with regard to Poem 4 in ‘Plautus and Herodas’ (n.42 above).

50 Reviewers have frequently charged Mastromarco with underestimating the ability of a single performer to project more than one role; cf. Parsons, P.J., CR 31 (1981) 110,1.CGoogle Scholar. Cunningham, , JHS 101 (1981) 161CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 Cf. Mastromarco 15-16.

52 This seems, from what survives, to have been true also of Poem 9, the

53 Cf., e.g., Cairns, F., ‘Theocritus' first idyll: the literary programme’, WS 97 (1984) 89–113Google Scholar.

54 Cf. the citation of w. 1-2 as an example of at Hermogenes, Id. 2.3 (p. 322 Rabe).

55 For the texts see pp. 36-41 of Cunningham's Teubner of Herodas (Leipzig 1987); discussion, though far from persuasive where Herodas is concerned, in Wiemken, H., Der griechische Mimus (Berlin 1972)Google Scholar. It is noteworthy that Legrand (above, n.47) 23, having argued with great vigour for solo recitation in the case of Herodas, felt it necessary to hedge his bets by suggesting the use of a brief (unreported) prologue to set the scene, presumably along the lines of the opening of Theocritus 3.

56 Admittedly, the Muses have been explicitly named in a similar context in the opening verse of the poem.

57 Cf. Melero, A., ‘Consideraciones en torno a los Mimiambos de Herodas’, CFC 1 (1974) 303–16Google Scholar, who, however, rejects performance for Herodas because the text explains the action to us, ‘someone is knocking on the door’ etc. Such ‘explanations’ are, however, precisely what we find in (performed) comedy.

58 Cf. Maas, P., Greek Metre (Oxford 1962) 94Google Scholar (on the ‘bucolic bridge’), Slings, S.R., ZPE 98 (1993) 32Google Scholar (on ‘Attic correption’). The hexameters of the mimic section break Callimachean rules frequently enough to show that we must be dealing with a deliberate stylistic effect. (the sharing of a single verse between more than one speaker) is much more common in Herodas’ choriambs than in the hexameters of Theocritus (cf., e.g., Melero [above, n.57] 309-16), and here again the opening verses of Idyll 15 are unusual.

59 Cf. Ph.-E. Legrand, Étude sur Théocrite (Paris 1898) 414–18Google Scholar; Legrand argues that any ‘reception’ of Idyll 15 other than ‘silent reading’ is inconceivable, because of the formal problems raised by (e.g.) changes of place and speaker. His discussion fails to convince because of the limiting assumptions upon which it is based.

60 Cf. the survey in Bing, P., The Well-Read Muse. Present and Past in Callimachus and the Hellenistic Poets (Göttingen 1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 This paper has benefited from the comments of a seminar audience at the Institute of Classical Studies in London and of Antichthon's anonymous referee. Puchner, W., ‘Zur Raumkonzeption der Mimiamben des Herodas’, WS 106 (1993) 9–34Google Scholar, appeared too late to be taken into account.