During the past 20 years, interest in the Hellenistic author Herodas has flourished, bolstered by the publication of new editions of – and commentaries on – his Mimiambs: poems in choliambic metre, with subjects redolent of mime. Increasingly, Herodas is being made available to non-specialists – a recent notable contribution being G. Zanker's text, commentary and translation (Herodas: Mimiambs [2009]). R.’s book aims to follow suit, making Herodas accessible to ‘a wide spectrum of contemporary readers’ (p. 1).

The book consists of a general introduction; translations of the Mimiambs (Greek is not included) with individual introductions, rendered into an approximation of Herodas' metre; select bibliography; and an index. In her translations, R. successfully mediates between preserving textual accuracy and conveying the spirit of the Mimiambs: the archaisms and colloquialisms which R. employs capture what W. Headlam called the ‘pleasing incongruity’ of Herodas' dialect (Herodas: the Mimes and Fragments [1922], p. lxiv), for Anglophone readers. The translations are the strongest element of the work, and one can readily imagine them being utilised as scripts, introducing students to Herodas' poetry through performance.

In the general introduction, R. provides a brief overview of Herodas and his milieu. The range of apposite comparisons employed to acquaint those unaccustomed with the author is commendable: R. provides analogies through which to conceptualise Herodas for the reader familiar – among other things – with Monty Python or Shakespearean comedy. The most significant ongoing discussions of Herodean scholarship are outlined, including the debate surrounding the performance-status of the corpus and the presence of aesthetic criticism in Mimiamb 4. In addition, a beginner-friendly précis of Herodas' diction and the choliambic metre is provided. Given R.’s target audience, there is understandably less of note for the specialist, though R. does offer some food for thought: particularly, the suggestion that Mimiambs 1–7 constitute a series of complementary pairs (1/2, 3/5, 6/7, with 4 as a centrepiece) – organised according to the oppositional prominence of male and female speakers within the poems – warrants further consideration in discussions about the arrangement of the Mimiambs as book-poetry (p. 24).

In the introductions to each Mimiamb, the reader finds starting-points for further investigation, and is presented with a sound assessment of the issues each poem raises. However, two major lapses in interpretative quality must be flagged: first, on the occurrence of the names Nossis and Erinna in Mimiamb 6, R. states ‘both names are striking as having “lesbian” connections, Nossis being a third-century poetess who claimed to rival Sappho of Lesbos, and Erinna, her teacher and the close friend of the poet Baukis, to whom Nossis addressed a celebrated love-poem, “The Distaff for Baukis”’ (p. 92). There are numerous issues with this statement, chief among them being that we possess no evidence that Baucis composed poetry, and Erinna – not Nossis – is the Distaff’s author. Second, there are extensive problems with R.’s treatment of Mimiamb 8, which require detailed consideration. As a programmatic work, Mimiamb 8 has received considerable attention, but full comprehension is stymied by the lacunose state of the papyrus. In discussing the poem, R. returns to an argument she made previously (Phoenix 51 [1998], 354–63), that Archilochus is Herodas' antagonist within the dream-narrative, not Hipponax, as is usually held. R. asserts that Herodas composed iambic poetry – specifically, in a metre other than choliambic – prior to writing Mimiamb 8: the besting of ‘Archilochus’ within the dream is thus emblematic of his established iambic prowess. Evidence for Herodas' non-choliambic compositions is sparse, constituting only a quotation by the scholiast on Nicander's Theriaca of Herodas' ‘hemiambs’ (p. 377). R. notes this reference (p. 127), but does not mention – as in her 1998 article – that the quoted lines bear similarity to 59–60 of Mimiamb 8 (I give the line numbers of I.C. Cunningham's Teubner text [2004]), nor that the scholiast attributes the lines to a work entitled Ὕ πνος, strikingly reminiscent of Mimiamb 8's title, Ἐ νύπνιον. There is thus a question as to whether the scholiast refigured choliamb into hemiamb, in faulty recollection of Mimiamb 8, but R. does not flag this issue. Further, R. presents a letter of Pliny the Younger (Ep. 4.3) – wherein he likens the compositions of Arrius Antoninus, lauded for their sweetness and elegance, to the poems of Callimachus and Herodas – arguing that Pliny must here refer to now lost Herodean poetry, as the terms used to praise Antoninus' poems ‘hardly describe the Mimiambs' forceful and scathing tones!’ (p. 127). However, R. fails to mention that Antoninus' poems are explicitly identified as mimiambos by Pliny (4.3.3). Internally, R.’s argument depends upon reading ἰάμβων as referring to poetry previously composed (8.77), contrasting with Herodas' new ventures in singing τὰ κύλλα (8.78) – his apparent ‘second (skill)’ (R.’s reading of δευτέρη γν[ at 8.77). Despite R.’s confidence that Herodas ‘could hardly be plainer!’ (p. 124), the reality is that the text of the closing lines of Mimiamb 8 is parlous, and the evidence attesting to Herodean iambics hardly dependable.

Thus, R.’s assertion that Herodas depicts prior iambic success relies heavily upon identifying his opponent as Archilochus, but this is equally tenuous. R. announces that the character is easily recognised because he is depicted as angry, and ‘Archilochus was famous for anger!’ (p. 123), but this ignores the numerous sources which emphasise Hipponax’ wrath. R. also dismisses Herodas' apparent quotation of Hipponactean verse in this character's speech (pp. 126–7), suggesting that scholarly fixation on this as evidence that he is Hipponax is, at best, confirmatory bias; however, R. offers no discussion of any particularly Archilochean aspect to said speech. R.’s argument rests lastly on the supposition that Hipponax cannot be Herodas' antagonist because Herodas treats Hipponax as ‘his revered master’ at the poem's close (p. 126); this is a perplexing interpretation, as the text only submits that Herodas will follow μετ᾽ Ἰππώνακτα (8.78), offering no clarity regarding their precise relationship. R.’s interpretation of Mimiamb 8 is, therefore, unconvincing: furthermore, it is disappointing that a reader is offered no reference to the many scholars who present alternative readings of Mimiamb 8.

Throughout, the book suffers from lackadaisical editing – there are formatting errors, several spelling mistakes, and the index is riddled with incorrect or incomplete data: inter alia, ‘Erinna’ directs a reader to page 96 (instead of 92); ‘Plautus’ to 83 (instead of 84); R. Finnegan's surname is misspelled (‘Finnigan’); the name of Gyllis' daughter in Mimiamb 1 is given as Philaenis in the index, but Philainis in the main body; comedy receives an entry, but tragedy (discussed in relation to Mimiamb 8, pp. 122–4) does not. These mistakes are particularly galling given this slim volume's hefty £85 price tag. Furthermore, a reader with a burgeoning interest in Herodas could have been better served by the select bibliography. Most surprising is the omission of Zanker's commentary which, despite being cited repeatedly, and a natural next step for the nascent Herodean reader, does not receive a bibliographical entry. Additional mistakes hinder further reading: E. Esposito's chapter on Herodas in the Companion to Hellenistic Literature is given as Esposito (2010) in the bibliography, but (2014) – the year of the Companion's reissue – in an endnote (p. 33).

R.’s translation offers a valuable means of introducing Herodas to a wider audience, and the introductory material is a mostly equitable basis for further study. It is thus unfortunate that R.’s laudable endeavour in bringing this intriguing poet to new readers suffers from lapses of rigour and is diminished by slapdash editing.