86 t h e c la s s i c a l r ev i ew

exhaustively treated in other books. However, if the aim of the series ‘Lyricorum
Graecorum Quae Extant’ is complete coverage, the choice seems odd: now there
should follow a book Callimachi Iambi I–XIII, perpetuating the exclusion of 14–17
from the collection...
In any case, Iambi 1–17 treated on this scale would have been a mega biblion indeed,
since the Introduction and commentary are extremely full. Even with the same
amount of citation and explication, a more condensed style would have resulted in a
shorter book. But the extensive treatment brings its own rewards. Each poem is
treated μrst in an essay as part of the Introduction and then by lemmatised
commentary at the back. Thus for 16 (228 Pf.), the Apotheosis of Arsinoe, the
Introduction includes a four-page biography of the queen, as well as a full account,
rich in quotations, of all known treatments of Arsinoe II in Hellenistic poetry. The
commentary for each poem starts o¶ with a description of textual witnesses and
history of the text, followed by metrica (full and useful) and lists of dialect forms
before the lemmatised part.
The beginning of the same poem will provide an illustration of the commentary
section. First lines 1–4 are handled together: it is established that both Apollo and the
Muses are treated. What sort of scene do we have? L. sets out two options: either the
image of the ‘poetic road’, or a dance of Apollo and the Muses. Probably the latter for
L., but characteristically he parallels both possibilities with equal generosity, so that
the reader is not compelled to agree (with both Parmenides, fr. 1.21 D–K and Pindar,
Paean 7B cited, I missed a reference to G.B. D’Alessio in SIFC 13 [1995], 143–81; but
in general, reasonably, the commentary is heavier on primary than secondary
material). For discussion of the hapax πσοποδε6ξ, the word which might seem to have
most bearing on this question, we wait for separate treatment two pages further on:
on the data cited by L. (usage of πσοποδ@ειξ, already cited by Pfei¶er, but explained
more fully here, with the interpretative payback described) a dance scene indeed seems
more likely.
In the sections on metrica L. is laudably willing to provide ‘characterisations’ of the
metres as well as technical description, etc.; similarly in the commentary he gives his
impression of the ·avour of a passage. The beginning of the Apotheosis is ‘an ample
and solemn invocation of the divinity which inspires the song, a generically “elevated”
motif traditionally associated with epic and thus appropriate to the occasion of the
composition’ (p. 155).
A review on this scale can provide only a hint of the wealth of illustration and
analysis provided here, but su¸ce to say that L.’s rich and scholarly book will be of
great use to all students of Hellenistic poetry.
University College London RICHARD RAWLES
rixhard.rawles@ucl.ac.uk

HERODAS
D i G r e g o r i o ( L. ) (ed.) Eronda: Mimiambi (V–XIII). (Biblioteca di
Aevum Antiquum 16.) Pp. xii + 454. Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 2004.
Paper, €40. ISBN: 978-88-343-0955-1.
doi:10.1017/S0009840X07001941

Seven years after the publication of the μrst volume of Di Gregorio’s massive
commentary (with text, an over-full apparatus criticus and facing translation into

The Classical Review vol. 58 no. 1 © The Classical Association 2008; all rights reserved
 t h e c la s s i c a l r ev i ew 87

Italian) on Herodas’ Mimiambs 1–4, this substantial volume is an impressive scholarly

achievement, although it presents the same weaknesses as the μrst (reviewed by W.G.
Arnott in CR 50.1 [2000], 16–8). Herodas, with his preference for erudite yet concisely
written poetic compositions, would probably have mixed feelings about both G.’s
volumes. The μnal instalment of this erudite project comprises the following: a brief
bibliographical list of secondary sources (this is in addition to the bibliographical list
included in the μrst volume, but it contains neither the sigla used in the apparatus
criticus nor a complete list of abbreviations); the text of mimiambs 5–11 and of two
fragments (three lines each) attributed to untitled mimiambs of Herodas; a full
apparatus criticus; an accurate facing translation into Italian (but G. does not
translate lines which he marked with cruces in the text: see 6.94); 361 pages of learned
commentary on 419 lines of text; and three extremely useful and detailed indexes of
proper names, vocabulary, and subject matter for both volumes.
Comparing G.’s text with that of Cunningham’s Loeb, I found at least 80
di¶erences, most of them regarding aspiration and spelling practices: for instance, G.
prints Hτυε not Iτυε, ν=σαξ not ν=σθξ, Jν
σαξ not Kν
σθξ, τπασ0υυειξ not
τπασ0ττειξ. Cunningham recently defended his editorial practice on aspiration in an
unfavourable review of G.’s μrst volume (Gnomon 73 [2001], 171, n. 1). I have not
found any examples in which readings rejected by Cunningham but adopted by G.
produce an entirely di¶erent meaning. Nor does one μnd G.’s name in his apparatus
criticus. This often contains too much information: why, for example, do we need to
know the names of all the editors before G. who favour a supplement of an
incomplete word (e.g. on 6.10) or a reading in the papyrus (7.50)?
Cunningham and G. di¶er in their allocation of lines to characters in six places
(5.5, 6.15b–17a, 7.64–6, 77–8, 83–90, 93–9). At 5.5, I agree with Cunningham’s
attribution to Bitinna of the words πσοζ0τιΚ π8ταξ Jν
σαξ MμλειΚ ‘you draw out
excuses all day’, because these words would be inappropriately rude if given to the
slave Gastron. Bitinna is already jealous of him and suspicious of his dealings with
other women, so it would not be advantageous for Gastron to speak disrespectfully to
his mistress. On the other hand, this cutting remark would greatly suit Bitinna’s bad
temper, and would suggest that jealousy is a fundamental feature of her personality.
The uncertain identity of the female interlocutor(s) of the cobbler Kerdon in
mimiamb 7 is discussed in detail in G.’s commentary (pp. 215–20), but he puts too
much weight to the arguments of Mastromarco (see pp. 215–16) and, unlike
Cunningham, unnecessarily allocates the lines spoken by Kerdon’s interlocutor to an
unnamed female client brought by Metro to Kerdon’s workshop. (Metro certainly
speaks lines 1–3a, Kerdon addresses her in lines 3b, 14, 17, 20, 50, and 127, and refers
to her in line 107; so why assume that Metro has suddenly become a less important
character?) In mimiamb 6 Herodas presents Metro’s visit to Koritto and their private
conversation concerning a scarlet dildo. Koritto is portrayed as a bullying and bossy
mistress who constantly rebukes her slaves for their idleness (lines 1b–11). When
Metro is about to reveal to Koritto the reason for her visit, it appears that an idle
slave-girl is standing by. It would make more sense if the speaker who hurled abusive
remarks at this person, thus interrupting the ·ow of the conversation, were the
mistress of the household rather than her visitor. G.’s attribution of lines 15b–17a to
Koritto is therefore more plausible than the arrangement proposed by Cunningham,
who assigns these lines to Metro.
G. is a mine of information, but you need to dig very deep to μnd what you need.
The commentary on each of the poems 5–8 is preceded by three brief sections entitled
‘La struttura’, ‘La scena’ (this refers to the geographical location, the setting, and
88 t h e c la s s i c a l r ev i ew

some of the characters’ stage-movements), and ‘Personaggi e modelli letterari’. These

sections make for excellent reading and are invaluable for their sensible and
up-to-date scholarly overview of the key issues; anyone wishing to consult G.’s views
on a mimiamb should start with these pages. However, in his notes G. is much less
‘user-friendly’, for he has composed his commentary on chunks of the text, not on
individual lines; for example, the commentary on mimiamb 5 comprises 28
preliminary pages as described above, 5 pages on lines 1–7 analysed as a whole,
9 pages on lines 8–18, 4 pages on lines 19–25, and so on. This structure makes
it cumbersome and discouraging for a reader to μnd quickly whether or not G.
o¶ers any comments on a speciμc word or issue, and the di¸culties are exacerbated
by the fact that G. tends to include (sometimes even to cite) in his discussion
almost everything that has been written on Herodas from the end of the nineteenth
century till the day the typescript was sent to the printer. G.’s main focus is on the
literary interpretation of each mimiamb, so those interested in the language of
Herodas should still consult Cunningham’s 1971 commentary. It must be
acknowledged that G. has diligently read an enormous number of secondary sources,
but his scholarly eagerness has led to an uncritical presentation of them and to the
composition of paragraphs in which parenthetical sentences can be as much as 21
lines long (p. 60). I would therefore advise readers who wish to check G. for a speciμc
word or topic in Herodas to look μrst at the ‘Indice degli argomenti svolti’
(pp. 441–54), and then brace themselves to μnd their way through the dense
paragraphs of commentary.
University of Glasgow COSTAS PANAYOTAKIS
c.panayotakis@classics.arts.gla.ac.uk

MENIPPEAN SATIRE
We i n b rot ( H . D. ) Menippean Satire Reconsidered. From Antiquity
to the Eighteenth Century. Pp. xviii + 375. Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins University Press, 2005. Cased, £40, US$60. ISBN:
978-0-8018-8210-4.
doi:10.1017/S0009840X07001953

Menippus has a lot to answer for. His lost works inspired Varro and Lucian (among
others) to depict him as a social outsider who su¶ers no fools and has a taste for trips
to the underworld and other fantastic destinations. The notion of an astringent
‘Menippean’ viewpoint surviving only in fragmentary evidence (at least until we get to
Lucian) has been irresistible to critics: each critic’s Menippus re·ects his own strong
views. If he didn’t exist, would we have had to invent him?
In Menippean Satire Reconsidered, Howard D. Weinbrot deμnes Menippean satire
as ‘a form that uses at least two other genres, languages, cultures, or changes of voice
to oppose a dangerous, false, or specious and threatening orthodoxy’ (p. 6). W. argues
for an ‘amiably restricted’ (p. 16) approach to the genre, insisting that its distin-
guishing feature is ‘the protest against a specious but powerful threatening orthodoxy’
(p. 7). As such he excludes Apuleius’ Golden Ass or Tristram Shandy, which he
characterises as ‘mildly satiric without being Menippean’ (p. 11); in them, W. says, ‘fun
… remains fun’. He contrasts Pope’s Dunciad and Swift’s Tale of a Tub, in which ‘fun
… becomes frightening’ (p. 8), that is, the satirist expresses caustic and hopeless
despair.

The Classical Review vol. 58 no. 1 © The Classical Association 2008; all rights reserved