^{page 32 note 2} I believe that the dialect employed by Herodas did not admit aspiration, and hence print no rough breathings. I hope to justify this in a later article, but in the meantime refer to Meister's edition (Abh. d. kgl. sächs. Ges. d. Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl. xiii. 7 [1893], 776 f.Google Scholar). In general I give Knox's text (Loeb, 1929); differences in the marking of doubtful letters are due to a re-examination of the facsimile.

^{page 32 note 3} Crusius's view (Unterstich. zu den Mimiamben des H. [Leipzig 1892], 118;Google ScholarPhilol. lxxix [1924], 377Google Scholar), that this is a malicious reference to the two poetesses Nossis and Erinna, who were probably contemporary with Herodas, is given added probability, as Prof. Lloyd-Jones notes, by the inclusion of and in the list of shoes (?) in 7. 57–58, Baucis being the addressee of Erinna's most famous poem.

^{page 32 note 4} Herwerden, (B.ph. W. xi [1891], 1219)Google Scholar: Headlam, olim (Athenaeum 1891, 354Google Scholar). The use of the indirect interrogative pronouns in exclamations in classical Greek is (despite Lagercrantz, O., ‘Zu den jriech. Ausrufesatzen’, Eran. xviii [1918], 33–36Google Scholar) uncertain (the date of Ps.-Theocr. 20. 6, not mentioned by Lagercrantz, is indeterminable, cf. Gow, , Theocr. ii. 364Google Scholar), but there is no doubt about that of the direct interrogative: (Il. 1. 552, wrongly punctuated as a question by Allen and others), and see, after Lagercrantz, I.c. 27–30, Schwyzer, , Gr. Gr. ii. 626,Google Scholar and Lorimer, W. L., C.R. N.s. ii (1952), 94.Google Scholar Milne (ap. Knox) read hence Cataudella, (Eroda, I Mimiambi, Milano, 1948Google Scholar) and Puccioni, (Herodae Mimiambi, Firenze, 1950)Google Scholar; but I think that as was previously read, is better, and aphaeresis after a short vowel is hardly possible. Against Knox's text see Puccioni, , ‘Eroda vi. 65’Google Scholar, S.I.F.C. xxiv (1949). 231–3.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 5} On the correct form of this name, and not , see Schulze, W., ‘Zu Herodas’, Rh. M. xlviii (1893), 252–3Google Scholar = Kl. Schr. 418–19.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 1} The propriety of using the expression ‘the same character’ might be doubted if it were maintained that, as Herodas works in the field of stock types and shoemakers are conventionally bald and called Cerdon, therefore the bald shoemaker Cerdon of 6 is neither the same man as nor a different man from the bald shoemaker Cerdon of 7. This raises an important point which is too far-reaching to be gone into here. However, the evidence that the bald shoemaker Cerdon is a stock type is not conclusive. Baldness appears to be a characteristic of low, cunning people, including shoemakers but not peculiar to them (cf. Hcadlam, p. 2): and Cerdon is normally a slave name, given to a shoemaker elsewhere only in Martial (3. 16, 5g, 99; all of the same person), and there is some truth in Headlam's point (p. xlix) that ‘the very conjunction sutor Cerdo in Martial [59: also sutorum regule, Cerdo in 16] shows that there may be no intimate connexion of the two names—one would have been enough’. The possibility cannot, however, be excluded that our evidence is defective. This would not affect my main point, but only the manner of presentation: one should then start from the identity of subject, and in view of this consider to what extent, if at all, Herodas thought of his characters as individuals, not as stock types.

^{page 33 note 2} R.É.G. xiii (1904), 285.Google Scholar Reinach had previously (R.É.G. iv [1891], 228)Google Scholar followed the general opinion.

^{page 33 note 3} Les Mimiambes d' Hérodas i-vi (Groningen 1922), p. 176. Unfortunately he delayed a full discussion till his commentary on 7, which has never appeared.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 4} Hérondas, Mimes. Texte ttabli par J. A. Nairn et traduit par L. Laloy (Paris, 1928).Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 5} Op. cit.

^{page 33 note 6} Op. cit. 97.

^{page 33 note 7} This is even more true if the order of the poems goes back to the author. There is no evidence either for or against this.

^{page 33 note 8} The context here is badly mutilated, but a tanner would apparently be appropriate. If the traces to be seen in the facsimile-three letters after a are ink, cannot be read: (Diels, , S.-B.Berl. 1892, p. 389Google Scholar) would be possible. That the given by the papyrus in this and similar names is a mistake for was shown by Schulze, I.c. 251–2 = Kl. Schr. 417–18.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 9} Herzog, in Crusius, O., Die Mimiamben des Her., 2. Aufl. (Leipzig, 1926), p. 27.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 10} See his introduction, pp. l-lii.

^{page 34 note 1} Knox ap. Headlam p. lii n. thought little doubt was left because of his placing of a fragment ov to fill the gap in 105, which he restored as Edmonds, , (C.Q. xix [1925], 136Google Scholar) rightly objected to (his own conjecture, is fanciful), and the papyrologist Lamacraft (in Knox's Loeb edition) reported that the placing of the fragment was in fact dubious (Knox there gives as an alternative to ). This is too fragile a basis to build on. Incidentally one may note that the only palaeographically suitable addition pro posed at the beginning of the line is (Herwerden, Headlam, Palmer).

^{page 34 note 2} There are two baubons in 6, and also on vase-paintings (e.g. JJ.D.A.I. xliv [1929], 173, and cf. n. 5).Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 3} In his translation of Herodas (Paris, 1893)Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 4} C.R. N.s. ix (1959), 99.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 5} Professor Dover reminds me of the Attic red-figure vase (Brit. Mus. E 815; full photograph in Licht, H., Sitlengesch. Griechenlands, iii. 201), which depicts a woman about to use one baubon in the normal manner and apparently about to place another in her mouth. This passage therefore may not be purely metaphorical.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 6} Professor Dover suggests understanding ‘in this way each of you will be able to see (from what the others choose) to what extent (or ‘in what way’) women and dogs, etc' But if the -form is correctly identified here, can hardly mean anything but ‘why’; in favour of this, though not decisive, is that elsewhere in Herodas, when (accusative) is not die direct object (3. 42, 6. 74), it always means ‘why’ (1. 9, 6. 44, 6. 47, 7. 77).

^{page 35 note 1} The slight uncertainties in the text do not matter in this context.

^{page 35 note 2} Headlam ad loc.

^{page 35 note 3} Crusius, , Untersuch. p. 145.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 4} Herzog, (Ph. W. xlvi [1926], 198Google Scholar), who points out that Headlam is wrong in taking it of speech (his examples are of ). Herzog is probably right in going further and seeing a reference to sexual intercourse; for such a use of Professor Lloyd-Jones compares Arist. HA 583^a16 sqq. (misleadingly referred to the lips of the womb by LSJ s.v. and ‘womb’ are not co-extensive, see the passages from Hippocrates in LSJ s.v. II 2).Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 5} øpovoṽvτa does not, pace Headlam, require the article (cf. Soph. El. 697 , with Jebb's note: Goodwin, , Moods and Tenses, § 827;Google ScholarSchwyzer, , Gr. Gr. ii. 408Google Scholar), although, as is rather an odd phrase and a caesura would be desirable, it might be better to read with Hicks, (C.R. v [1891], 357Google Scholar) and Schulze, (B. ph. W. xv [1895],Google Scholar 9 = Kl. Schr. 681Google Scholar). I can see no sense in (so divided first by Jackson, , C.R. v [1891], 360Google Scholar) could not mean ‘out of the heat’ (Headlam) or ‘sans haste’ (Knox), while suits very well.

^{page 35 note 6} defined by Hesych. [β 98] as and commonly used of a shepherd's cloak may perhaps be a name for, or an allusion to, the which is further suggested by the colour of “lobster-shoes”. Headlam ad loc.

^{page 35 note 7} I refrain from adding to the extensive literature on the exact values of these prices. It is enough that they are very high.