{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_67573/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_67573","id":"gutenberg_67573","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/67573","summary":null,"tags":["Antimachus, of Colophon -- Characters","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Greek poetry -- History and criticism","Women and literature -- Greece","Women in literature"],"text":"ANTIMACHUS OF COLOPHON\n\nAND THE\n\n_POSITION OF WOMEN IN GREEK POETRY_\n\n\n\n\n ANTIMACHUS OF COLOPHON\n AND THE\n _Position of Women in Greek Poetry_\n\n _E. F. M. BENECKE_\n\n A Fragment\n PRINTED FOR THE USE OF SCHOLARS\n\n [Illustration]\n\n _LONDON_\n SWAN SONNENSCHEIN & CO., LIM.\n 1896\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n PAGE\n\n ESSAY I. WOMEN IN GREEK POETRY 1\n\n \u201d II. WOMEN IN GREEK COMEDY 117\n\n EXCURSUS A. THEOGNIS (l. 261 _seqq._) 199\n\n \u201d B. THE \u201cPHAEDRA\u201d OF SOPHOCLES 201\n\n \u201d C. THE \u201cANDROMEDA\u201d OF EURIPIDES 203\n\n \u201d D. THE \u201cHIPPOLYTUS\u201d OF EURIPIDES (Two Emendations) 206\n\n \u201d E. THE SECOND BOOK OF THEOGNIS 207\n\n \u201d F. WOMEN IN THE MIDDLE COMEDY 210\n\n \u201d G. WOMEN IN THE MIDDLE COMEDY FRAGMENTS (Analysis\n of passages) 219\n\n \u201d H. WOMEN IN THE FRAGMENTS OF THE EARLY NEW COMEDY\n (Analysis of passages) 233\n\n \u201d I. \u201cWOMEN\u2019S RIGHTS\u201d IN THE MIDDLE COMEDY 243\n\n \u201d K. SOME FURTHER NOTES ON FAMILY RELATIONS AS TREATED\n IN MIDDLE AND NEW COMEDY 245\n\n INDEX A. OF AUTHORS AND SUBJECTS REFERRED TO 247\n\n INDEX B. OF PASSAGES EMENDED OR DISCUSSED 252\n\n TABLE OF COMIC FRAGMENTS 253\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTORY NOTE\n\n\nThe author of the following pages met with his death in Switzerland on\nJuly 16th, 1895, in his twenty-sixth year. Had he lived to complete the\nwhole work of which they form part, he might have recast it throughout;\nand some apology is, perhaps, needed for its appearance in the present\nform. Several scholars have, however, expressed their opinion that the\nmaterial contained in the extant fragments might be useful to those\nengaged in similar studies, and they are accordingly published, in the\nhope that this may prove to be the case.\n\nFrom the author\u2019s papers it appears that his work was, if completed, to\nhave been entitled \u201cWomen in Greek Poetry: being an Enquiry into the\nOrigin of the Romantic Element in Literature.\u201d It was to have contained\nthree divisions, dealing respectively with (1) the position occupied by\nwomen in the Greek lyric and tragic poets, (2) the part played by women\nin Greek comedy, (3) the Alexandrian ideal of woman. The former of the\ntwo essays contained in this volume (\u201cWomen in Greek Poetry\u201d) no doubt\nincludes much that would have been incorporated in the first of these\nthree divisions. At the same time, as it was, in all probability, written\nbefore the whole scheme was arranged, and was intended to be complete\nin itself, it contains allusions to certain subjects which would more\nnaturally have fallen into the third, and would have received fuller\ntreatment there, while several points which belong properly to the first\ndivision have not been treated on the scale which would finally have\nbelonged to them. The second essay (\u201cWomen in Greek Comedy\u201d) corresponds\nmore nearly in subject to the author\u2019s matured plan, but had still less\nthan the first essay the benefit of his final correction and revision.\nThis much is said, not in order to deprecate criticism (a result which\nthe author would have been the last to desire), but merely in explanation\nof the occasional repetitions, and possibly also inconsistencies, which\nare to be found in this volume.\n\nIn preparing the work for the Press as few alterations as possible have\nbeen introduced, and the essays appear substantially in the form given\nthem by the author. Thus the second essay is divided into nine chief\nsections, while the first has no such sub-divisions. Again, Excursus\nF (which was originally written for the first essay) contains much\nmaterial which is elaborated in the second essay. In several places also,\nespecially towards the close of the volume, reference is made to parts\nof the work which seem never to have been written. It is believed that\nthe reader will be anxious to possess the author\u2019s own words so far as\npossible, and, accordingly, the changes which have been adopted are only\nsuch as the author would probably have made himself when revising his\nwork.\n\nIn references to the Greek lyric poets, the numbers are those of Bergk\u2019s\n_Poetae Lyrici Graeci_ (4th edition, 1878-82). The fragments of the\ntragedians are cited from Nauck\u2019s _Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta_\n(2nd edition, 1889). For the comic fragments the author used Meineke\u2019s\n_Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum_ (five vols. 1839-57). Meineke\u2019s\nnumbering has been kept in the text, but a list will be found on page\n253, giving the corresponding references to Kock\u2019s _Comicorum Atticorum\nFragmenta_ (three vols. 1880-88) in all cases where the two editions\ndiffer seriously. The references to Theocritus, Plautus, and Terence\nhave been verified from the editions of Ziegler, Ritschl, and Dziatzko,\nrespectively; but where the text is doubtful, the author appears to have\nadopted what seemed to him the most probable reading, without following\nany editor exclusively.\n\nAdditions by the editor of this volume are enclosed in square brackets.\nHe has to acknowledge most gratefully his indebtedness to several friends\nfor advice and assistance on various points.\n\n\n\n\nWOMEN IN GREEK POETRY\n\n\nGreek literature may be divided roughly into two parts, the earlier\nschool which culminated at Athens, and the later school which culminated\nat Alexandria. The obvious differences between these two schools of\nart have often been described, and there is no need to dwell on them\nhere; but the great, the essential difference between them has been too\ngenerally ignored.\n\nThe chief inspiring element of all art is love; and it is in their\ninspiration\u2014that is to say, in their view of love\u2014that the real\ndifference between the two schools consists. The love of the later poetry\nis the love of man for woman; the love of the earlier poetry is the love\nof man for man.\n\nBy \u201clove\u201d I mean here love in the modern sense. A man of the Alexandrian\nAge might say \u201cI love you\u201d to a woman, and mean by that what a man may\nmean if he says as much to-day; before that time a man could only have\nsaid \u201cI love you\u201d in this sense to a friend of his own sex. There is no\ntrace in literature of what we now understand by the word \u201clove\u201d earlier\nthan the end of the fourth century.\n\nThis phenomenon has been noticed before\u2014indeed, it is one that could not\nvery well escape notice\u2014though its true importance has not always been\nappreciated; and the general consensus of opinion has agreed to ascribe\nthis great change, the greatest change perhaps that has ever come over\nart, to the influence of two men, Euripides and Menander. My object in\nwriting now is to endeavour to show, firstly, that this general view is\na mistaken one, arising from an insufficient appreciation of the true\nnature of the change; and secondly, that the real originator of that new\nfeeling which we encounter in Alexandrian literature,\u2014in other words, the\nfirst man who had the courage to say that a woman is worth loving,\u2014was\nAntimachus of Colophon.\n\nThe commonly accepted view as to the origin of that \u201cromantic\u201d feeling\n(for so, for briefness\u2019 sake, it will be convenient to call it)[1] which\nmeets us in Alexandrian literature, would seem to be due to a confusion,\narising from a misunderstanding of what that feeling really is. This\nconfusion takes two distinct forms. Thus, in the case of some writers,\nthe improved tone with regard to women which appears in Greek erotic\nliterature from the fourth century onwards, has been confounded with\nthat improvement in their social and intellectual position which was\nso marked a feature of the latest period of the history of classical\nGreece. In other words, romantic feelings have been spoken of as if they\nwere identical with feelings of social and intellectual respect. That\nthey are not, scarcely requires even to be stated. Others again, while\nperceiving the distinction between these two entirely different things,\nhave yet argued as if the one were the natural and inevitable outcome\nof the other, and inseparably connected therewith; as if, in fact, all\nthat was necessary to purify and elevate the feelings of men towards\nwomen had been the social emancipation of the latter. This view is of\ncourse possible, and as such is entitled to consideration rather than\nthe previous one; but not only is it improbable in itself, but it is\nalso in direct opposition to the teaching of history: for while no one\nwould deny that this emancipation, if more or less simultaneous with the\nappearance of the romantic feeling, would serve at once to disseminate\nand to dignify it, how entirely independent the one is of the other is\nsufficiently proved by the conditions prevailing in the Middle Ages.\nIt is surely a fact which cannot well be ignored in discussing this\nquestion, that just during that period of history when \u201cchivalry\u201d and\n\u201cromance\u201d were at their height, the social and intellectual position of\nwomen, both absolutely and relatively, was perhaps lower than at any time\nbefore since the creation of the world.[2]\n\nWhen once the romantic element is cut clear from all extraneous\nentanglements, so that it is possible to recognise what it really is, it\nbecomes, I think, immediately evident that neither Euripides nor Menander\ncan have much to do with its origin. The leading motive of romance is the\nidea that pure love for a woman may justifiably form the chief interest\nin a man\u2019s life. But this idea, as I hope to be able to show clearly,\ndoes not appear in literature until after the time of Euripides, while it\nis already to be found fully developed before the time of Menander. This\nbeing so, it seems impossible to regard either of these writers as the\noriginators of it.\n\nIn the course of the following pages, I shall therefore endeavour to\nshow, by a detailed examination of such parts of the contemporary\nliterature as bear upon the subject, that low as was the social position\nof woman in most parts of Greece during the so-called classical period,\nthe place which she occupied in the minds of men and in their art was\neven lower, and that her subsequent social emancipation did not by any\nmeans immediately lead to her being regarded with any more real respect.\nIn the course of this argument, I purpose to dwell especially on the\ninfluence of Euripides, and hope to succeed in making it clear that\nthough he, as judged by his works, was strongly in favour of giving\nwomen larger liberties, and firmly convinced that their capacities both\nfor good and evil were far greater than the more old-fashioned among\nhis contemporaries supposed, there is yet nowhere in his plays any real\nlove-element as between man and woman, nor is it anywhere suggested that\nlove for a woman may be a determining factor in a man\u2019s life.\n\nSecondly, I purpose by a similar process to show that that place which\nin later Greek art and in modern times is occupied by the love of man\nfor woman, was occupied among the earlier Greeks by the love of man for\nman\u2014a fact which, though it may at first sight appear foreign to the\nimmediate subject of our enquiry, is yet of such extreme importance for a\ntrue understanding of the history of the origin of the romantic feeling,\nthat a consideration of it can on no account be omitted from any work\nprofessing in any way to deal with that question. For it cannot be too\nstrongly emphasised that those who wish to study the development of love,\nas we now know it, must commence their studies with an examination of\nthis essentially primitive emotion. It cannot be too strongly emphasised\nthat love, as it now exists, has been evolved, not from the sexual\ninstinct, but from the companionship of the battle-field, that the first\nreal lovers the world ever knew were comrades in arms. The _Iliad_ of\nHomer is a love story, its heroes Achilles and Patroclus; the _Ajax_ of\nSophocles is a love story, its heroes Ajax and Teucer. To ignore such\nfacts as these is wilfully to misunderstand the meaning of Greek poetry\nand the meaning of Greece in the history of the world.\n\nHaving thus cleared the ground, I hope finally to show that it was\nAntimachus who first taught that that love which was possible between man\nand man was possible also between man and woman.\n\nAntimachus stands at the junction of the two great tendencies of\nhis time. The influence of Sparta and of Euripides was gradually\nre-emancipating women, and showing that their powers and their passions\nwere at least equal to those of men; the steady growth and development\nof that relation between man and man which found its highest exponent in\nPlato had made it clear, even to the blindest, that love was possible as\ndistinct from lust. It was left to Antimachus to unite the two streams\nof thought in one, and to show that woman, with her newly-awakened\ncapabilities, was a worthy object of pure and chivalrous devotion.\n\nThe works of Antimachus are lost, and none of the few fragments which\nsurvive are of any importance. All discussion with reference to them\nmust therefore be based on suppositions and an examination of relative\nprobabilities. The risks of error in entering on such doubtful ground\nare manifestly infinite, and conclusions can be reached only through the\naccumulation of a mass of evidence, the separate particles of which are\noften in themselves of very little weight; the veil of darkness covering\nall such Greek literature as does not bear the hall-mark of Athens is so\nthick that it is perhaps no longer possible for the real truth about it\never to be known. _Ceterum, fiat justitia._ It is a bold claim, I know,\nthat I am making for Antimachus; it is a claim which, if established,\nwould give him right to rank among the greatest poets of the world: it\nwould give him right to rank as the founder of modern literature. How\ngreat a poet he really was we do not know. Perhaps my estimation of his\nimportance is altogether exaggerated. His contemporaries, we know,\npreferred Choerilus; perhaps they were right; for myself, _Malo cum\nPlatone errare_.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt is generally agreed that in prehistoric times the position of women\namong the Greeks was a much higher one than was the case subsequently.\nThere seems every reason to believe that the social conditions of the\nLesbians and the Dorians and the other nations which did not come under\nthe influence of the history-writing Ionians, were but the survivals of\nwhat was originally a more or less general state. It is of considerable\nassistance for a proper comprehension of the earliest literature, if one\nremembers that at the time of its production the enslavement of women had\nonly comparatively recently taken place.\n\nThe reason of the influence of primitive woman over primitive man is\nprobably not very far to seek. In early times women were regarded with\nsuperstitious reverence[3]\u2014one need only watch a woman making lace,\nsay, to be able nowadays still to quite appreciate the feeling\u2014and with\nnatural woman\u2019s wit for a time kept up the illusion, the hard head of man\ntaking some time to come to maturity. But when man did at last wake to\nthe fact that he was physically, and therefore, for practical purposes,\ngenerally superior, an inevitable reaction set in, and the history of\nearly Greece shows women as occupying on the whole a very low position\u2014a\nposition, too, which became lower still with advancing civilisation.[4]\n\nThat the original state of women was not one of slavery is clearly\nshown by the early epics. The _Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_ are pictures of\nan earlier state of society than that of the poet who describes them.\nA man living in a society in which women were despised, had to deal\nwith legends belonging to an earlier social condition, in which women\nplayed a prominent part. Traces of this anomaly are easy to find in both\npoems. The Trojan war was the work of a woman, but how very little that\nwoman appears in the _Iliad_! A woman has been managing the affairs of\nOdysseus for twenty years in an exemplary fashion; but the hero of the\n_Odyssey_ on his return prefers to associate with the swineherd. It is\nby this contradiction between the actual experiences of the poet and\nthe social conditions which he was called upon to depict, that the many\ninconsistencies in the treatment of the Epic woman must be explained.\n\nAnother excellent illustration of this conflict between the primitive and\nthe subsequent views of the nature and importance of women is furnished\nby the elaborate treatment of the Pandora legend in the _Opera et Dies_\nof Hesiod. On the one hand is the early conviction of the power of\nwomen\u2019s influence\u2014it is only by the help of a woman that Zeus can outwit\nman: on the other the later conviction that this influence must be for\nevil\u2014before Pandora came\n\n \u03b6\u03ce\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u1f76 \u03c6\u1fe6\u03bb\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03c6\u03b9\u03bd \u1f04\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf. (l. 90)\n\nAnd a like contradiction runs through all the details of the description.\nWoman will be man\u2019s ruin, but he cannot fail to love her all the same\u2014\n\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019\u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n \u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u1f11\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. (l. 57)\n\nWoman will gain man\u2019s heart by her beauty, which is like that of the\nimmortals\u2014\n\n \u1f00\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b8\u03b5\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f66\u03c0\u03b1 \u1f10\u0390\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ae\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd (l. 62),\n\nby her skill and by her charm; it is but as an afterthought that the poet\nadds\u2014\n\n \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f26\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2\n \u1f19\u03c1\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f24\u03bd\u03c9\u03b3\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd. (l. 67)\n\nAnd, lastly, it is through a woman that trouble comes into the world; but\nit is this same woman\u2019s doing that Hope at least is left. It was Pandora\nherself that shut down the lid of the casket before Hope had flown; it\nwas she that preserved this \u201cdream of waking hours\u201d for mankind.[5]\n\nBut if we pass from the general condition of women, as depicted in\nHomer or Hesiod, and come to our own more immediate subject, it must be\nadmitted that neither in the prehistoric legends, nor in their subsequent\ndevelopment, is there any trace whatever of a romantic sentiment existing\nbetween men and women to be found. Considering the important position\noccupied by women in these poems, the absence of the love element is most\nremarkable.\n\nThe insignificant part played by Briseis has always struck those who\nhave wished to regard the _Iliad_ as an Achilleis, of which she is the\nheroine; nor can Agamemnon\u2019s love for the daughter of Chryses be said to\ngo very deep. He is distressed at losing her, no doubt, but the loss is\nfar from irremediable. He evidently agrees with Antigone, \u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd.\n\nParis again had originally been a celebrated warrior, and it was to\nthis that he owed his position and his name. But his love for Helen,\ninstead of inspiring him, seems to have had the very opposite effect. One\nexception there is, no doubt, to all this\u2014the relation between Hector\nand Andromache. But the relation between Hector and Andromache (as\nillustrated by _Iliad_ vi. 392, _seqq._) is unparalleled in all Greek\nliterature, and it is not, perhaps, without significance that they are\nTrojans and not Greeks. How great was the impression that they made is\nvisible in the way in which the later literature cites Andromache rather\nthan any Greek woman as the ideal of a wife. At the same time, how little\nreally sympathetic to the Greek of the period was this wonderful and\nunique passage is sufficiently shown by this very fact, that no attempt\nwas ever made to imitate or develop it. It may sound strange to say so,\nbut in all probability we to-day understand Andromache better than did\nthe Greeks for whom she was created; better, too, perhaps than did her\ncreator himself.\n\nIn the _Odyssey_, well nigh the entire action is in the hands of women.\nWhat with Athene and Leucothea, Circe and Calypso, Nausicaa and Penelope,\nOdysseus himself hardly comes to the fore at all; and yet it cannot be\nsaid that anywhere from beginning to end is there so much as a suggestion\nof a love-motive.\n\nNausicaa is always regarded as a charming type of woman, but, after all,\nhow one naturally thinks of her is as a charming type of washerwoman.\nPenelope again is merely the ideal housekeeper: she longs for the return\nof her husband, no doubt, but what really grieves her about the suitors\nis not their suggestions as to his death, but the quantity of pork they\neat.\n\nAs for any idea that her devotion requires similar constancy on the part\nof Odysseus, it is not so much as suggested. The _Odyssey_ opens, it is\ntrue, with its hero longing to see even the smoke of his home rising in\nthe air; but it must be remembered that he has been spending seven years\nalone with Calypso on a desert island, which for a man of his tastes was\ndoubtless exceedingly tedious. There is no reason to suppose that he did\nnot enjoy the first year or so of his stay quite as much as his visit to\nCirce or Aeolus.\n\nAn examination of other Greek myths and legends that have any claim to\nantiquity will furnish a very similar result. Whether in those myths\nof gods and heroes which found their way into literature from its\nbeginning, or in those local legends which, though first appearing in\nthe Alexandrian writers, are evidently in reality much older, wherever\nthe antiquity of the story can be proved, two characteristics are very\nnoticeable. The first is the importance of women as the originators\nof the action; the second is the absence of the romantic element. The\ncapabilities of women are thoroughly recognised, though the tendency of\nthe time is to describe their influence as for evil rather than as for\ngood; their importance is everywhere admitted: but that a man should be\nreally or seriously in love with a woman is a thing unknown.\n\nThis is certainly at first sight a strange anomaly, and yet it is,\nperhaps, capable of explanation. The developer of the myth could not fail\nto be confronted by a great contradiction\u2014the traditional importance of\nwomen and their actual condition of repression. He saw in the stories\nthe women, like Medea or Ariadne, profoundly influencing the career of\ntheir lovers, while the men, like Jason or Theseus, stood helplessly and\nmore or less apathetically on one side. The converse of such positions\nhe naturally did not find. His surroundings forbade his drawing the true\ndeduction, that the stories were intended to illustrate the helplessness\nof men without a woman to direct them; he drew therefore the contrary\ndeduction, that the dignity and superiority of man prevented him from\ntaking an active interest in any matter where a woman was concerned. From\nthis deduction, combined with all that was known of the emotional and\npassionate character of feminine nature, there followed that view of the\nrelation between man and woman which is so noticeable in all the myths\nand legends as we find them in literature. A woman may be desperately in\nlove with a man, but the converse is impossible.[6] Love may lead women\nto humiliation, to treachery, to crime, and to suicide, but never, except\nunder the most extraordinary circumstances, men.[7]\n\nThe most cursory examination of the ordinary and most familiar Greek\nlegends will sufficiently illustrate this.\n\n\u1f18\u03ba \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1. Of the many amours of Zeus, the only one of at all a\npermanent character, the only one which he thought it worth his while to\nlegalise, was that for Ganymede.[8] His treatment of Minos, again, was\nvery different from that which any of his female friends received.[9]\n\nThe goddesses suffer for their indiscretions, never the gods. Aphrodite\u2019s\npathetic confession to Anchises,[10] or her agony for Adonis, the\nhelpless devotion of Luna to Endymion, or of Aurora to Tithonus, can find\nno parallels among the stories of the gods. Love may drive Apollo to tend\ncattle, but it is love for Admetus.\n\nIn the lower stratum of humanity, the treachery of Medea or Ariadne, the\nstory of Scylla[11] with its dozen variants, the guilt of Stheneboea, of\nMyrrha, of Pasiphae, the deaths of Byblis or Phyllis,[12] are but a few\nof the more obvious examples.\n\nThe idea that a man could be subject to such passions is not to be found\ntill much later in the history of the legends. The original version of\nthe story makes Eriphanis follow Menalcas through the forest and die\nfor his disdain;[13] that Menalcas should afterwards die of love for\nEuhippe is an addition by Hermesianax.[14] In the old legend, Daphnis is\nthe companion of Artemis, and the nymph who loves him seeks him in vain\nby every fountain and by every grove;[15] it is Sositheus who tells of\nhis search for his lost Pimplea,[16] and Alexander Aetolus, or whoever\nTityrus may be, who sets him wandering over the mountains after Xenea.[17]\n\nA good commentary on all this is furnished by the stories selected,\napparently more or less at random, by Parthenius in his \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f18\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03a0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, and an examination of this work (dedicated to the Roman\nCornelius Gallus) may serve to show how tenaciously the original idea of\nthe relative positions of men and women retained its hold even among the\n\u201cromantic\u201d Alexandrians.\n\nThe stories narrated by Parthenius number 36 in all.\n\nIn three cases, those of Leucophrye (5), Peisidice (21), and Nanis (22),\nlove induces women to betray their country to the enemy; in each case the\nsuggestion of treachery is made by them. In one case a man, Diognetus\n(9), is guilty of similar treachery, but here he is trapped into it by\nan oath to his lady to do whatever she asks him\u2014an oath which he swears\nwithout thinking what it may imply; and, besides, he betrays, not his own\ncountrymen, but merely his allies.\n\nOf other sorts of treachery there is enough and to spare, and always\nattributed to the woman. Penelope (3), out of jealousy, induces Odysseus\nto kill his son Euryalus; Erippe (8), owing to her love for a barbarian,\nplots against her husband\u2019s life; Cleoboea (14) tries to seduce Antheus,\nand, failing, murders him.\n\nWhere a man is led by love to any unnatural crime, it is invariably\nexcused as being the result of temporary insanity or the vengeance of\nsome deity. Leucippus (5) falls in love with his sister \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2; for Byblis (11) no such excuse is alleged. Clymenus (13)\nviolates Harpalyce \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f14\u03ba\u03c6\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9; Orion, Hero (20) \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03c2\n\u1f14\u03ba\u03c6\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd; Assaon\u2019s love for his daughter Niobe (33) is a punishment from\nLeto; Dimoetes\u2019 love for a corpse (31) is brought on by a curse. The sins\nof Neaera (18) and Periander\u2019s mother (17) have no such palliative. The\nunique case in which Alcinoe (27) is driven \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b9\u03bd \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 to elope\nwith a stranger (as a punishment for sweating her sempstress) is derived\nfrom Moero, who would naturally regard women from a peculiar point of\nview.\n\nLastly, Rhesus (36) and Leucippus (15) are, it is true, induced,\nlike Eriphanis, to follow the objects of their affection into the\nhunting-field, but in each case their devotion is very promptly rewarded.\n\nThe foregoing examination of the myths and legends of early Greece has\nled to certain definite results; but the importance of these results\nhas been in many cases discounted by the impossibility of assigning any\neven approximate date to the myth or legend from which they have been\ndrawn. Even if, in the case of any given legend, one could determine\nwith certainty the occasion of its first appearance in literature, one\nwould in reality be very little nearer determining the date of the\nlegend itself. To the stories in Homer everyone is willing to allow a\nrespectable antiquity; but who can say how long the story of Phaedra had\nbeen current at Troezen before Sophocles adopted it? It is satisfactory\ntherefore to be able to leave this doubtful ground, and come to something\nmore definite, in the shape of the actual words of the subjective lyric\nwriters, who belong to the second stage of Greek literature.\n\nIt is, perhaps, generally agreed that romantic love-poetry was not\nproduced by the early Greek lyric writers. What is less generally\nappreciated is the fact that these writers, at any rate before the time\nof Anacreon, wrote practically no love-poetry (addressed to women) at\nall.[18] So little indeed has this fact or its meaning been understood,\nthat not a few passages in the fragments of these writers have been\nmisinterpreted or strained; but really, if one comes to think of it, this\nabsence of love-poetry is quite capable of explanation. The subjective\nlyric literature of early Greece, which extends roughly over the seventh\nand sixth centuries, and lasts on, in a desultory sort of way, into\nthe fifth, is chiefly Ionian, and introduces one to a very different\nstate of society from that of the heroic age. The actual social and\nintellectual position of women is, in the main, a very low one; and in\nother respects also the place which they occupy in the interests of\nmen is very insignificant. But this is not all. The ideal woman of the\ntime is not one to whom love-poetry could be addressed. The Greek of\nthis period looked upon a woman as an instrument of pleasure, and as a\nmeans of creating a family, nothing more. The comparison of marriage to\ncattle-breeding sounds quite natural.[19] Now such feelings as these can\nneither of them provide the material for love-poetry of even the most\nrudimentary kind.[20]\n\nThe former of these two ideals we shall have frequent opportunities\nof encountering in the next few pages. A striking commentary on the\nlatter, and, of course, more general one, is furnished by that important\ndocument for the early history of women in Greece, the \u201csatire\u201d of\nSimonides. If one examines the types of women that Simonides describes,\nand the objections that he urges against them, and compares these with\nthe types one encounters in Juvenal, for instance, a noteworthy fact\nat once becomes apparent. The faults which Simonides blames, as well\nas the virtues he somewhat grudgingly commends, are simply those which\nconcern woman as a housekeeper; those faults and vices which provoke the\nindignation of Juvenal are but lightly touched upon, or not mentioned at\nall. One woman is slovenly, another talks her husband\u2019s head off, another\nis always eating, another is a thief, another is too fine a lady to do\nany cooking or sweeping; and the only three definite virtues of the woman\n\u201clike a bee\u201d are, that her husband\u2019s income increases, that her children\nare satisfactory, and that she does not waste her time gossiping with the\nneighbours.\n\nIndeed, the famous lines (_Fr._ 6)\u2014\n\n \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bc\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1 \u03bb\u03b7\u0390\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u1fe5\u03af\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2,\n\nmight almost be translated, \u201cThere is nothing better in the world than a\ngood cook, and nothing worse than a bad one.\u201d[21]\n\nSimonides grumbles a great deal, and thinks most women a great nuisance;\nthat a woman could be more than a nuisance, or, if God were good,\npossibly a convenience, does not enter his head.\n\nA century and a half later we find little change. Phocylides divides\nwoman into four types: three bad\u2014the flirt, the slattern, and the shrew;\none good, the efficient housekeeper.[22] Another hundred years later the\nideal of a wife is still unchanged.[23]\n\nThere was little reason, then, for these Greeks to address love-poetry to\ntheir women, or, indeed, to sing of \u201clove,\u201d otherwise than in its purely\nanimal aspect, at all. It remains to convince oneself, by an examination\nof what remains of their works, that they actually did not. It is, of\ncourse, a very general opinion that Archilochus, the earliest lyric poet\nabout whom we know anything of moment, addressed love-poetry to a woman,\nNeobule.\n\nThis view rests mainly on two fragments (_Fr._ 84, 103), which it is\ncustomary to consider as having been addressed by the poet to his lady at\nan early stage of their acquaintance, or as being, perhaps, recollections\nof this happy state.[24] Where all is uncertain, one does not like to\nspeak with confidence, but there really seems to be no adequate reason\nfor supposing that they are anything of the kind. There is nothing,\nwhatever in _Fr._ 84\n\n \u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u1ff3\n \u1f04\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u1fc7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f40\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f15\u03ba\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f40\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd,\n\nto prove that it was addressed to a woman, or, indeed, referred to one at\nall. It is at least as probable that it was addressed to the same person\nas _Fr._ 85\n\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac \u03bc\u2019 \u1f41 \u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c2, \u1f66 \u2019\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b5, \u03b4\u03ac\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2,\n\nor someone similar.[25] _Fr._ 103 again must be taken in conjunction with\nthose that go before and those that follow it. The whole scene described\nin these fragments[26] is very suggestive of the story in Proverbs vii.\n6 _seqq._ A lady of mature charms (100) and somewhat doubtful character\n(101, 102) receives a youthful visitor, whose feelings are described in\n_Fr._ 103\n\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c7\u03bb\u1f7a\u03bd \u1f40\u03bc\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03c5\u03b5\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c1\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nThe subsequent fragments deal with the arrival of the husband, and the\nchange to the more rapid metre must have been very effective. This\ncontext, of course, makes it clear that \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2 means simply\n_coitus cupido_, and there is no reason to suppose that this fragment\never formed part of what could properly be called an erotic passage.[27]\n\nAs a matter of fact, all that we know of Archilochus tends to make it\nextremely improbable that he addressed love-poetry in any sense of\nthe word to women. There is no evidence that he addressed any poems\nto Neobule (or for that matter to any other woman) except satires. In\nthese satires we know that he referred to Neobule in terms of the vilest\nabuse. There is no evidence in his fragments that he ever referred to\nher otherwise. What reason, then, is there to suppose that he did? His\nlove for her, such as it was, was confessedly purely animal.[28] This\nis not the kind of love that finds consolation in reminiscences and\nregrets. His pride was hurt, and he determined to take vengeance on the\npersons who had offended him. If one of these persons happened to be a\nwoman, that was just as much a matter of chance as the fact that one of\nthe enemies of Hipponax was a sculptor. The woman, like the sculptor,\nhad tried to make the poet ridiculous, and the poet proceeded to have\nhis revenge by satirising her. The fact that she was a woman may have\ngiven the satires a certain peculiar colouring, but it certainly did not\nmake them love-poems. Under the circumstances it was not to be expected\nthat Archilochus should express his feelings in erotic poetry, and, as\na matter of fact, on the present evidence there is no reason to believe\nthat he did.[29]\n\nThe claims of Alcman in this respect seem at first sight somewhat\nstronger.[30] He has been described as \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd;[31]\nthis has been supposed to mean that he was the first poet who wrote\nlove-poems, and it has been assumed that these poems were addressed to\nwomen. This is not, however, all so certain as one might at first be\ninclined to suppose.\n\nIt has been said that Alcman was \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd; but in how far\nwere these \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7 \u1f00\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 love-poems as we now understand them? All that\nthe words of Archytas imply is that Alcman wrote melic poems, of which\n\u201clove\u201d was the chief subject. There is nothing whatever to prove that\nthese \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7 were personal, or addressed to any particular woman; it is a\nmisuse of words to call them \u201clove-poems,\u201d and then think of them as if\nthey were what modern love-poems are. As soon as subjective poetry came\nto be written at all, it is obvious that the sexual passions must have\nappeared in it in some form. This no one would wish to deny. But there is\na great gap between singing of \u201clove\u201d in general, of the pleasures of\n\n \u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03b7 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03c7\u03b1 \u03b4\u1ff6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bd\u03ae,\n\nand singing of love as existing between two particular persons. It is a\ncommonplace that every new lover loves as no one has ever done before.\nUntil a poet speaks of himself in this way, until he emphasises the\nindividuality of his own particular passion, he cannot be said to write\nreal love-poetry. And certainly the fragments, at any rate, do not supply\nany proof that Alcman ever wrote such love-poetry. He may have been in\nlove with Megalostrate; as far as we know, he never said so.[32]\n\nAgain, it must not be forgotten that Alcman also wrote poems addressed\nto boys, and it is at least possible that some of those erotic fragments\nwhich are preserved may have belonged to these.[33]\n\nAs for the _Parthenia_, they are not love-poems in any sense of the word.\nThe poet is merely \u1f41 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2,[34] which\nwas possible in the happy condition of Spartan society, quite without\nanything further being implied.\n\n \u201cMulta tuae, Sparte, miramur iura palaestrae.\u201d\n\nOne of these poems was written in old age;[35] perhaps all of them\nwere.[36] Besides, they celebrate a number of girls indifferently;\nlove-poems would not do that.[37]\n\nTill Egypt renders up some more Alcman, it will be impossible to prove\nthat he ever addressed a love-poem to a woman.\n\nStrange as it may perhaps seem, it is almost an equal misuse of words to\ncall Mimnermus a love-poet. It has so long been customary to regard him\nas such, that it is at first hard to realise that, in all probability,\nhe was never anything of the kind. As a matter of fact, it seems\nnaturally reasonable to suppose, and there is at any rate nothing in the\nfragments to contradict this view, that Mimnermus was, like the other\nelegiac writers of his age, purely didactic.[38] The philosophy which\nhe inculcated differed from that of Tyrtaeus or Solon, no doubt, but it\nwas none the less a philosophy. Mimnermus argued that, considering the\nshortness of life, and especially of youth, it was advisable to devote\none\u2019s self immediately and strenuously to sensual pleasures, before the\npower of enjoying them was lost. The argument was quite general. \u201cWhat is\nlife without love?\u201d he says; he does not say, \u201cWhat is life without your\nlove?\u201d[39] This enunciation of general principles is not love-poetry. As\nhas already been remarked, no poetry can properly be so described until\nthe personal element has entered into it, and of this personal element\nthere is no evidence in the case of Mimnermus.\n\nAs for the actual poems themselves, there is no evidence that any of them\nwere, as is generally tacitly assumed, addressed to Nanno or any other\nwoman; and indeed, if one considers their nature, one will see that there\nis really no reason why they should have been. It is worthy of note, in\nthe first place, that the only definite evidence of the existence of such\na person as Nanno is that furnished by Hermesianax,[40] and that this\nwriter\u2019s information as to the early poets was not always very accurate,\nis sufficiently shown by what he says of Homer, Sappho, Anacreon, and\nothers.[41] But granted that the story of the poet\u2019s love for Nanno was\ntrue, that is very far from proving the fact that he addressed his poems\nto her. What seemed only natural in the fourth century, was by no means\nso in the seventh. But besides this (as it ought to be superfluous to\nremark, and probably is not), Hermesianax never states that Mimnermus\ndid so; he does not even go so far as to say that the latter alluded to\nNanno in his elegies. Hermesianax makes three definite statements about\nMimnermus:\u2014(1) that he invented or utilised the pentameter; (2) that\nhe was in love with Nanno, and used often (in consequence?) to attend\nentertainments; (3) that he suffered from the enmity of Hermobius and\nPherecles. More than this is not to be found in the passage, however\none may emend or explain it. As for the supposition that Mimnermus\ngave to his collected elegies the title of Nanno, there is no evidence\nof a collection so entitled before the time of Strabo, by which time,\nof course, the influence of writers like Hermesianax had long been at\nwork.[42] In short, there is no evidence whatever to lead one to suppose\nthat the elegies of Mimnermus were anything but purely impersonal\ndidactic moralisings on the shortness of youth, and the consequent\nadvisability of making the best possible use of it.[43] Mimnermus was a\nphilosopher;[44] to call him a love-poet is a misuse of words. He wrote\nexquisite poetry, and his service in developing the forms of art was\nunquestionably very valuable, but he brings us very little farther in the\nhistory of the treatment of women in literature.\n\nIt is in Anacreon that we find for the first time love-poetry addressed\nto women;[45] though one must never forget, as some modern writers seem\ninclined to do, that this writer also addressed a number of love-poems\nto boys, and that, in fact, these formed the bulk of his work.[46] The\npoems addressed to women were many of them, perhaps all, the work of the\npoet\u2019s old age,[47] and their general tone is sufficiently indicated by\nsuch fragments as 55, 59, 161, etc.:[48] these two features serve, of\ncourse, to connect Anacreon with his predecessors; at the same time, the\nindividualisation of this particular emotion, which we find here for the\nfirst time clearly indicated, was obviously a great advance in the art of\nthe subject. Purely animal emotions, however highly developed or refined,\ncould never lead to that feeling which we have called the romantic, and\nhence the direct importance of Anacreon for our immediate subject is but\nsmall; but the individualisation of these animal emotions was obviously\nof inexpressible importance for the development of the literature that\ndealt with them. The first essential of art is accurate observation, and\nthe essence of accurate observation is attention to a definite object.\nBy appreciating this fact, and concentrating upon a definite object\nthe general emotions described by Mimnermus and the like, Anacreon\ncreated love-poetry as between man and woman, and thereby created that\nform of art in which the romantic feeling, when it arose, found the\nreadiest means of expression. Thus, though in no sense of the word a\nromantic writer, or one who would have been likely to sympathise with\nromantic ideas, Anacreon was yet, unconsciously and indirectly, doing an\nunquestionable service in preparing the way for the dissemination, if not\nfor the evolution, of this later feeling; and in so far this \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f20\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1 deserves, at least, recognition, if not respect.\n\nThe last of the personal lyric writers on whom it will be necessary to\ndwell is Theognis.\n\nOn the general theory that the book of Theognis is a collection of poems\nby a number of writers of various dates, scholars have agreed to agree;\non the details of the theory, they seem to have agreed to differ. For\nthe present purpose, however, these details are unimportant, and it will\nbe sufficient to assume that, while some of the poems are doubtless\nearlier, and others again later, the great bulk of the first book of the\n\u201cTheognis\u201d poetry belongs to the first half of the fifth century, while\nthe second book is considerably later.[49]\n\nIt is equally indifferent for us how this heterogeneous collection arose;\nwhether it was a chrestomathy \u201cfor the use of schools,\u201d or whether, as\nhas been argued with great force, it is in reality a volume of songs to\nbe sung at social gatherings, and the forerunner of the later collections\nof epigrams.[50]\n\nWhat is of importance for us is that, in any case, whatever theory as\nto its origin may be adopted, this book may be taken as presenting on\nthe whole[51] a collection of those opinions and views of life which\nwere generally held and generally accepted during the fifth century or\nthereabouts; for neither the schoolroom nor the dinner table is exactly\nthe place where new and startling theories are welcomed.\n\nLooking at this volume, then, as containing a collection of the ordinary\nand more or less commonplace views of the time, it is interesting,\nthough, of course, not really surprising, to find that, while boy-love is\nuniversally acknowledged and forms the subject of not a few of the poems,\nwomen\u2019s love is well-nigh entirely ignored;[52] and where the latter is\nmentioned, its sensual side merely is touched upon.[53]\n\nIndeed, all the allusions of any importance to women can be very briefly\ndismissed.\n\nIn l. 183 _seqq._ marriage is compared to cattle-breeding, the folly of\nmarrying for money being deprecated as spoiling the breed.\n\nLl. 257 _seqq._ are possibly the complaint of a woman with an unsuitable\nhusband, though what is the nature of the objection to him, and indeed\nthe whole allusion, is not clear.\n\nLl. 261 _seqq._ appear to deal with the behaviour of a man towards a\nwoman on some occasion; but, what with the doubtfulness of the reading\nand the uncertainty as to whether the lines belong to one poem or two,\nthe exact sense has never yet been ascertained.[54]\n\nIn l. 457 _seqq._ the infidelity of a young wife to an old man is tacitly\nassumed. \u201cGirls will have boys.\u201d\n\nLl. 547 _seq._ express vague disapprobation of dissolute habits.\n\nLl. 1063 _seqq._ are merely a reiteration of the philosophy of Mimnermus,\nthe value of which philosophy for the development of love we have already\ndiscussed.\n\nLl. 1225 _seq._, \u201cNothing is sweeter \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2.\u201d So said also\nSimonides, and what he meant we know.\n\nAnd this is all. The result is truly remarkable in its barrenness.\nPerhaps in no other literature would it be possible to find a collection\nof short poems on general subjects, of equal length, in which the\nrelations of men to women are so utterly ignored.\n\nNor is there anything peculiar or exceptional in this. In the somewhat\nsimilar _Scolia_, absolutely the same is the case. The democrat sings of\nHarmodius, the aristocrat of Admetus;[55] the rare allusions that there\nare to women are regularly trivial or coarse.[56]\n\nIn the choral lyric writers, with whom it will now be necessary to deal,\nthe character of the evidence to be examined is widely different from\nthat of the evidence which we have hitherto been considering. The Greek\nchoral poets were (with one notable exception) hardly ever subjective\nin their treatment of erotic matter. The erotic element, such as it is,\nconsists in these writers almost entirely of erotic legends or myths,\nwhich would seem to have been recounted without special comment on the\npart of the poet and, in most cases, without elaborate analysis of the\nemotions of the characters introduced. The stories therefore that these\nwriters tell, rather than the actual words in which they tell them, will\nrequire consideration in the present connection. The subjective lyric\nwriters were, as we have seen, in the main Ionian. The choral writers, on\nthe other hand, are in the main Dorian; consequently, one would naturally\nexpect to find women occupying a more prominent place in their works. And\nthis is, in fact, also the case. From the very beginning, already we find\nstories about women repeated with an interest and an appreciation which\nwould have startled what one is generally taught to regard as orthodox\nGreece. At the same time, however, the true nature of this feature of\nchoral poetry must not be overlooked. Though the efforts of these writers\nto re-awaken interest in women were unquestionably of importance for\nthe ultimate development of the romantic element in literature, it is\nunjustifiable to suppose, as is too commonly done, that these writers\nwere in themselves \u201cromantic,\u201d or, indeed, that they had any idea of\nwhat romantic feelings are. An examination of their works, as far as we\nknow them, will show with sufficient clearness that in its essence their\nview of women differed little, if at all, from that of their Ionian\npredecessors and contemporaries. They thought more about women, perhaps;\nthey did not think more of them.\n\nA case in point is Stesichorus. In spite of the important part that\nfemale characters play in his poems, a result, no doubt, of his Boeotian\nconnections and his freedom from Ionian influences, the poet\u2019s way of\nregarding women is practically identical with that which we have already\nencountered among the Ionians. In the first place, Stesichorus appears\nalways, professedly at least, as a misogynist. The legends in which he\ndelights are those which relate the ruin caused by women\u2019s influence.\nBesides the famous _Ilii Persis_, one need but mention the stories of\nScylla, of Eriphyle, of Clytemnestra (in the _Oresteia_).[57] Even in the\nstory of Artemis and Actaeon, he will not admit that the vengeance of the\ngoddess was due to those feelings of outraged propriety to which it was\ngenerally ascribed.[58] As for his palinode of Helen, composed late in\nlife, he was evidently induced to write it by strong private pressure of\nsome kind, perhaps on the part of \u201cHelen of Himera\u201d;[59] but how isolated\nan expression of opinion this was, and how very unusual were the whole\ncircumstances of the case, is shown by the great interest which the poem\nexcited in antiquity.\n\nIn the more purely erotic legends again, it is striking how he conforms\nto those views as to the relative positions of men and women which, as\nhas been already pointed out, were current in all Greek erotic stories of\nearly date; the woman falls in love with the man, never, apparently, the\nreverse. Striking examples are the stories of Calyce, and probably also\nof Scylla; another, perhaps, that of Daphnis;[60] that of Rhadina seems\nat first sight a contradiction, but it must be noticed that Strabo (viii.\n347) gives no information as to how the intrigue first began.[61]\n\nThat in addition to these poems concerned with women, Stesichorus\ninterested himself also in the treatment of love in its more\ncharacteristically Greek aspect, may be gathered from Athenaeus xiii.\n601 A, though, perhaps, no fragment dealing with this subject is\npreserved.[62] This side is, however, very strongly developed in his\nfellow-countryman Ibycus, who is again a most interesting figure in the\nhistory of the artistic development of Greek love.\n\nIbycus would seem to have been the first of the choral lyric poets who\nmade use of this form of art for the expression of personal emotion.\nAll the important fragments of him that remain seem to have belonged to\npassages of this kind. Two at least we know of as being addressed to\nparticular individuals. Those who have been following the development of\nGreek feeling on this matter will not be surprised to find that these\npoems were addressed exclusively, as far as we know, to boys. It was a\nbold thing to introduce personal feelings at all into these choral odes,\nfor a certain odour of sanctity was still hanging about them, and the\nGreeks had a natural aversion to the public expression of all violent\nemotions; but to have introduced anything so entirely sensual as woman\u2019s\nlove was then felt to be would not have been allowed. If love was to\nbe tolerated at all, it must be that form of love which was generally\nrecognised as dignified and ennobling. This amalgamation of ceremonial\nand personal poetry does not seem to have been popular or to have found\nimitators. The Greeks probably felt, what the modern glee-singer does\nnot, the absurdity of a whole chorus expressing their undying devotion to\none and the same person; but it is at least a very characteristic fact,\nand, for those that will not learn, a very instructive one, that boy-love\nwas the only form of the passion which it was considered possible to\nattempt to treat in this way.\n\nOf Ibycus\u2019 views on women we know little.[63] That he followed the\ntendencies of Stesichorus, sometimes rather wildly,[64] and gave\nconsiderable prominence to love stories between women and men, is clear\nenough; but there is no evidence to show that these stories of his\nwere any different in their essential characteristics to those of his\npredecessor.\n\nThe other choral lyric poets have remarkably little to say on this\nsubject.\n\nMyrtis\u2019 story of Ochne is but one of the usual type, showing to what\n_spretae iniuria formae_ may lead a woman. If Corinna tells of the\nheroism of the daughters of Orion, it is, after all, only what one would\nexpect occasionally from a poetess.\n\nNeither Pindar nor Simonides has anything of interest to say about women.\nFor Bacchylides the climax of the charms of peace is\n\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af \u03b8\u2019 \u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c6\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.[65]\n\nAmong the dithyrambic writers, Licymnius tells the story of the treachery\nof Nanis, but the sort of legends which seem to interest him more are\nthose of Hypnus and Endymion, Hymenaeus and Argynnus, and the like.\nThe same was perhaps true of Cydias. But one interesting figure these\nwriters do supply; that is the Cyclops of Philoxenus. A good deal has\nbeen written about this \u201cromantic\u201d conception, and it has been generally\nconsidered as a proof of how strongly the romantic feeling must have been\nalready developed that it was possible to represent Polyphemus as in\nlove with Galatea. Those who have considered what has already been said\nmay perhaps be tempted to come to a somewhat different conclusion. The\nbarbarous and boorish Polyphemus spends his time in singing of his love\nto Galatea, because no one who was not a barbarian and a boor would be\nsuch a fool as to waste so much time about a woman. This view spoils the\nidyllic charm of the picture rather, perhaps, but it may be the true one\nfor all that.[66]\n\nIn the foregoing examination of the remains of the lyric writers, it was\nalways necessary to regard, not only the date of each writer, but also\nthe country to which he belonged; for, as we have already had occasion\nto notice, the social position of women differed widely in different\nparts of Greece, and this fact could not fail to be, to a certain extent,\nreflected in such literature as dealt with them.\n\nIn examining the work of the tragedians, this necessity will no longer\nbe present. Early Greek tragedy is entirely under the influence of\nAthens. The only tragedians whose works have been to any considerable\nextent preserved were Athenians; and such fragments of the non-Athenian\ndramatists as have survived do not in any way lead one to suppose that\ntheir work was in any essential characteristic different from that of\ntheir Athenian contemporaries.\n\nAt Athens the social position of women was, on the whole, a very low\none, and consequently the relations between men and women were not on a\nparticularly high level. The men cared very little either for or about\nthe women, and there is nothing therefore surprising in the generally\nadmitted fact that the love-element as between the sexes plays but a very\nunimportant part in the early tragedians. Aeschylus seems well-nigh to\nhave ignored it; in Sophocles it played a prominent part in but two, or\nat most three tragedies;[67] even in Euripides the proportion of plays in\nwhich love of any sort supplies the main interest is very small.[68]\n\nBut one question may very naturally be asked. Assuming that the way\nof regarding women at Athens rendered it difficult or impossible to\ninterest an Athenian audience with a love-story, as between man and\nwoman, why should not the tragedians have made more use of the many\nstories that told of the love of men for men? If, it may be argued, this\nform of love was really so important an element in the life of the time,\nif it really occupied that place in the hearts of men as a whole that is\nnow occupied by the love of women, why did Aeschylus and Sophocles only\ndevote a couple of plays between them to its treatment?[69] Sophocles, at\nany rate, ought to have understood all about it.\n\nThe answer is probably to be found in the fact that the passion of love,\nin any shape or form, is foreign to the true spirit of Greek tragedy. The\ntaste of the Greeks, refined in this as in most other things, considered\nlove as essentially unfitted for the stage. That two people should stand\nup and make love to one another with a crowd looking on was, to the\nGreek mind, essentially unfitting. Love was an emotion which concerned\nindividuals; it was an emotion which ought to be controlled in public,\nand only find expression in private.\n\nThe whole history of Greek poetry is so much commentary on this one fact.\nThe love-poems of Sappho or Anacreon, just like the later love-poems of\nAsclepiades or Poseidippus, were meant to be sung by a single singer\nto a small and select audience. In the choral poetry, which required\na number of performers, and was listened to by a large audience, the\npersonal love-element is well-nigh non-existent. The attempt of Ibycus to\nintroduce it, and his failure to find imitators, we have already noticed.\n\nAnd in the choral poetry sung in honour of Dionysus, from which tragedy\nhad its rise, it is obvious, when one considers the intimate connection\nbetween the rites of Dionysus and Artemis, and the ascetic principle\nunderlying their worship, how especially out of place a love-element\nwould have been.\n\nThe fact, therefore, that love as between man and man does not play any\nvery prominent part in the early tragedies, must simply be explained by\nthe Greek dislike to the public display of violent private emotions.\nIt took a long time to overcome this old-fashioned prejudice, and\nestablish the love-element as an integral part of tragedy; and it is not\nuninstructive to observe how the movement began. The earliest love-story\nadmitted on the Greek stage was the story of Achilles and Patroclus.[70]\n\nBut before entering upon the more detailed examination of the relations\nbetween the sexes, as illustrated by the Attic tragedians, it is\nnecessary once more to call attention to, and warn against, a very\nfertile source of confusion.\n\nIt is above all things necessary that the reader should carefully\ndistinguish between two very different things, two very different ways of\nregarding women, which are not uncommonly confused\u2014woman as an object of\ninterest, and woman as an object of love. As objects of interest, we find\nthe female characters of the tragedians steadily developing throughout\nthe fifth century; as objects of love, we do not find them develop at\nall. The relations between women and men are, in reality, as far from\nthe modern in the last plays of Euripides as in the first of Aeschylus.\nTowards the close of the century, a very considerable proportion of the\ntragedies concern themselves with studies of female character in its\nvarious phases; the power of women for good and evil (especially the\nlatter) is very generally acknowledged; their passions and their emotions\nare carefully analysed and elaborately discussed; and yet in all this\nanalysis and discussion the love-element, in any modern sense of the\nword, plays no part whatever. By this time, woman at Athens held an\nimportant place in the mind of man; as yet she held no place in his heart\nat all. From end to end of the three great tragedians, there can hardly a\nsingle passage be quoted which so much as suggests the possibility of an\nunselfish and unsensual attachment between man and woman, playing at all\nan important part in the life of either; and this important fact it will\nbe the object of the following pages to make clear.\n\nAeschylus, as has been said often enough, never brought on the stage a\nwoman \u201cin love.\u201d[71] That he should never have brought on the stage a man\nin such a condition went of course without saying; even Euripides was\nnever accused of that. Indeed, Aeschylus\u2019 characters do not think much\nof women at all. That girls should not misbehave, if left to themselves,\neven their own father finds it hard to believe;[72] that in any sort of\ndifficulty they should be a hindrance rather than a help, is only what\none would expect.[73] Women are certainly not worth fighting about;[74]\nwhat really acquits Orestes is the fact that, after all, it was only a\nwoman he killed.[75]\n\nAn apparent exception to all this is of course Clytemnestra. Why should\nAeschylus, having so poor an opinion of women, have given so prominent a\nplace to Clytemnestra in the murder of Agamemnon? The answer is doubtless\nto be found in the very significant fact that between Homer and Aeschylus\nthe story had been treated by Stesichorus, to whom the prominence of\nClytemnestra was beyond all reasonable doubt due.[76]\n\nAeschylus, then, has little enough to say about women; but in Sophocles\nthere is fortunately somewhat more to be found; indeed, it is probably\nthe female characters of Sophocles that are most generally appreciated by\nmodern readers. And yet, for all the great part played by women in the\nSophoclean drama, the part played by women\u2019s love is wonderfully small.\n\nTake a woman like Deianira; the man who can listen to her without feeling\na positive shock must be more in sympathy with Athens than I ever wish to\nbe.\n\nShe guesses the truth from Lichas about Heracles and Iole (_Trach._\n436), and begs him to tell her all, for she is no coward, nor yet is\nshe the sort of woman who would refuse to admit a husband\u2019s right to an\noccasional infidelity.\n\n \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1fc7,\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u1f25\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9\n \u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03c6\u03c5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b5\u03af.\n\n\u201cLove is irresistible,\u201d she says; \u201cif I were to blame my husband or this\nwoman for falling victims to it, I should be a fool. Do not be afraid\nto tell me all. Has not Heracles often done this sort of thing before\nwithout making me jealous? Why should he make me jealous now? And as for\nthe woman, why, I can only pity her, when I see how her beauty has made\nher lose her home and her home comforts, for which, _expertae crede_, the\nlove of Heracles is hardly a sufficient compensation.\u201d\n\n \u1fa4\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03c3\u2019 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9\n \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ce\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd.[77]\n\nWhen this is Sophocles\u2019 ideal wife, one can hardly wonder that Haemon\nowes the only word of sympathy he gets from his Antigone to the\neditors.[78]\n\nBut even Deianira has her human moments, and in one of these she utters\nthat wonderful lament of hers for the joys of her lost maidenhood, and\nthe sorrows of her married life (_Trach._ 144 _seqq._), a passage which\nmay well be compared with one from the _Tereus_. (_Fr._ 524, Nauck). Both\nthese dwell sympathetically on the slavery of married life, and almost\nmake one think at first sight that the poet must have felt what a mockery\nhis \u201cideal wife\u201d really was. But a little further examination will show\nclearly enough that Sophocles is not expressing his own views in either\nof these two passages. The protest in the _Tereus_ is merely the direct\noutcome of the decidedly exceptional circumstances in which Procne finds\nherself\u2014a woman who has just cooked her only son is hardly likely to have\nunprejudiced views on matrimony\u2014and as such it is not meant to be more\nthan one of those outcries against irresistible destiny, which one may\npity if one likes, or even pardon, but which one cannot pretend to treat\nseriously. For a girl to complain of having to marry was as reasonable as\nfor a man to complain of having to die.\n\n \u03c4\u03af \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\n \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f05\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03ba\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1fb6\u03bd;\n\nAs for the passage from the _Trachiniae_, that seems to be simply an echo\nfrom Sappho, and Sappho\u2019s views on marriage were naturally different from\nthose of Sophocles.[79]\n\nTo suppose from these passages that Sophocles saw anything inappropriate\nin the existing conditions of married life, or that he would have\nwelcomed any change in them, is an unjustifiable inference.[80]\n\nBut the one play of Sophocles which is generally considered to be of\nsupreme importance for this particular subject is the _Phaedra_. This\nplay, which is supposed to have been the model for the _Hippolytus_ of\nEuripides, is generally looked upon as the first \u201clove-tragedy\u201d of the\nGreeks. But was it a \u201clove-tragedy\u201d at all, in any sense in which the\nwords are now understood? To judge by analogy, there is every reason to\nsuppose that it was not.\n\nThe fragments unfortunately prove little, for no very important ones are\npreserved, and the one or two of them that do speak of love, merely speak\nof it in the regular Sophoclean way, not as a human passion, but as an\nunavoidable kind of disease, something like measles or distemper.[81]\n\nBut in spite of the paucity of the fragments, the main principle on\nwhich the legend (of which we have already spoken)[82] was treated,\nis sufficiently clear; and this principle is such as is, I venture\nto submit, incompatible with the presence in the play of any real\nlove-element.\n\nPhaedra\u2019s love is not passion but madness, it is not an emotion but a\ndisease. Aphrodite treats her in exactly the same way as Athene treats\nAjax. Her love is so entirely outside her control, it is so entirely the\nresult of external influences, that while one can perhaps pity her, one\ncertainly cannot sympathise with her, for the simple reason that her\nmisfortune is entirely outside human experience. She loves Hippolytus,\nas Oedipus kills Laius, for no earthly reason except that the story said\nthe god made her do so. The Phaedra of Sophocles, like the Clytemnestra\nof Aeschylus, is made an instrument of divine vengeance for reasons which\ndo not concern her personally in the least; one pities her, not as an\nunhappy lover, but as the victim of fate. She is no longer a human being\ninfluenced by human emotions; she is simply a tool in the hands of a\nrelentless deity. In other words, she is never in love with Hippolytus at\nall, in any commonly-accepted sense of the term.\n\nAnd thus it must be sufficiently clear to anyone who is able to get rid\nof preconceived ideas on the matter, that the _Phaedra_ was in reality\nno more \u201cromantic\u201d than the _Trachiniae_ or the _Antigone_. Like the\nrest of the plays of Sophocles, it merely drew the usual picture of the\ngods playing shove-halfpenny with human souls; the fact that Aphrodite\nfor once took a hand in the game gave it on this occasion a peculiar\ncharacter of its own, but of anything in any way resembling a modern\nlove-element there is no more trace here than there is anywhere else.[83]\n\nBut what really affords a more conclusive proof than any other of how\nutterly anything of the nature of modern love between man and woman was\nunknown to Sophocles, is the remarkable prominence given in his plays\nto the affection between brother and sister.[84] The relations between\nElectra and Orestes, or Antigone and Polynices, are absolutely those\nof modern lovers; but Sophocles could not conceive of such relations\nas existing between people whom he would have called \u201clovers,\u201d and,\ntherefore, he had to think of the parties to them as brother and sister.\nHe wished to draw a picture of pure, noble, and unselfish devotion\nexisting between man and woman; the only conditions under which such a\nthing seemed to him possible were that the man and the woman should be\nclose blood relations.\n\nThere are those who complain of the indifference of Electra to Pylades,\nor of Antigone to Haemon, and think that a little love infused into\nthese heroines would make them more human. These people have overlooked\nthe fact that Electra and Antigone are in reality quite as much in love\nas ever woman was; but they are in love with their brothers. They did\nnot know it perhaps; Sophocles did not know it; but the fact remains.\nAntigone despises love\u2014what she and her audience thought was love.\nBetween Polynices and Haemon there is never a moment\u2019s hesitation; almost\nher last words are an exclamation of the bitterest contempt for marriage:\n\u201cIf my husband had died, I could have married another; if he had failed\nto get me children, I could have committed adultery; but\u2014my brother is\ndead!\u201d[85]\n\nAnd yet, Antigone comes far nearer to a modern lover than Phaedra ever\ndoes.\n\nThis is a fact of the greatest importance in the present connection,\nand one that cannot be too much emphasised. The relation of the sexes\nwas such among the early Greeks that a pure love between man and woman\nseemed to them a sheer impossibility, and yet their instinct told them\nthat pure love was not really an impossible thing. The ways in which the\ndifficulty was surmounted were various. Of the love of man for man and of\nwoman for woman we have already spoken; in Sophocles a third alternative\nis suggested. The lovers are made man and woman, but the possibility of\nsensuality is first removed by making them brother and sister. A woman\nwho loves a man may love him purely, says Sophocles, if she is in such a\nposition that she cannot love him otherwise.[86]\n\nIn the first two of the Athenian dramatists there are then, as we have\nseen, practically no traces whatever to be found of a love-element in any\nreal sense of the term. But this, it may be said, is nothing wonderful.\nThis everyone will admit. For the love-element one looks to Euripides. In\nthe following examination of Euripides, I hope to show that not only is\nlove, in any modern sense, quite unknown to his characters, but also that\nthe whole \u201cromantic\u201d element of his plays, on which it is the custom to\nlay such stress, is much less pronounced than is generally supposed; in\nother words, that his men take really very little interest in his women.\n\nBut before discussing what Euripides did not do, it is well to have a\nclear conception of what he did do; for he did do a great deal. The\ngreat service of Euripides to art was that he emphasised unmistakably\nthe importance of women. He seems to have been the first emphatically\nto enunciate that doctrine of _cherchez la femme_, which has been the\ngroundwork of all modern art. He was not the first man to discover it;\nthe men who made the story of Troy knew it as well as he did; but he was\nthe first, as far as we know, consciously to adopt it as an artistic\ncanon. He was the first deliberately to maintain that the highest\nartistic effects were to be obtained by the contrast of the sexes. The\nwomen of the earlier tragedians, as far as they are of any interest,\nare merely women, as it were by accident; they are men in everything\nbut their dress. The women of Euripides, however unpleasant they may\nbe, are always intensely feminine. The emphasis which Euripides laid on\nthe feminine as opposed to the masculine element is at once his chief\ncharacteristic and his chief merit.\n\nThe ways in which he emphasises the importance of women are various.\nEveryone knows the stress he lays on their power of doing harm; the\n\u201cmisogyny\u201d of Euripides need hardly be illustrated here.[87] At the same\ntime, he is fully aware of their power for good.[88] He dwells on their\ncleverness repeatedly: \u201cIf supremacy were a matter of brains, and not\nof brute force, men would not have a chance.\u201d[89] He is convinced of\ntheir heroism: Iphigeneia goes to her death with far more dignity than\nAntigone. He is even convinced, in a way that not all his successors have\nbeen, of their reasonableness: there are few men who could discuss their\nown deaths as calmly and clearly as Phaedra[90] or Polyxena.[91] It would\nbe easy to multiply instances if there were any need to do so.\n\nAll this Euripides did. He made his women powerful, intelligent, heroic,\nreasonable. He did not make them loved or loveable. In this Euripides is\nwell-nigh as old-fashioned as any of his predecessors. In all the extant\nplays there is not a single instance of a man in love with a woman;\nthere is no evidence, except perhaps in one isolated case,[92] of such a\ncharacter in any of the plays that have been lost. So far from Euripides\nbeing the poet of love between man and woman, there are numerous\nsituations in his plays where it seems simply extraordinary to the modern\nreader how such obvious opportunities for the introduction of such love\ncan have been missed or ignored.[93]\n\nA detailed examination of some of the plays will bring this out clearly;\nbut before proceeding to this, it would be well to observe certain of\nthe more general features of the Euripidean conception of the relations,\nother than social and intellectual, existing between men and women.\n\nThe first point to be noticed is that Euripides, too, just like\nSophocles, speaks of love as a sort of irresistible madness or\ndisease,[94] which seizes on its victims without any particular reason,\nand can only be cured or borne by being allowed to have free course.\nIt is, as I have said before, exactly like measles; the only proper\ntreatment is to help it as much as you can to \u201ccome out,\u201d as then it is\nless painful at the time, and less likely to have serious consequences.\nInstances of this view are sufficiently numerous. It forms the chief\nframework of the _Hippolytus_, and all attempts to interpret the emotions\nof that play in accordance with more modern notions, are without success.\nThe same was still more the case in the _Phoenix_, as Suidas distinctly\nimplies by his use of the words \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c5\u1f31\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03ae\u03bd in this\nconnection.[95] It is enunciated by Jason to Medea in the _Medea_\n(526 _seqq._) as a proof that he owes nothing to her, as she was not\nresponsible for her actions in saving him; by Helen to Menelaus in the\n_Troades_ (945 _seqq._) as a perfect excuse for her conduct with Paris.\n\nNow it is just here, one may as well notice at once, that the difference\nbetween Euripides and modern writers, with the Alexandrians at their\nhead, is so striking. The lovers in Euripides, as far as they are lovers\nat all, are carried along by a forcible external impulse, the direction\nof which is entirely sensual and entirely selfish. If, or as soon as,\nthey fail in achieving the gratification of their sensual desires, their\n\u201clove\u201d immediately turns to hate. The idea of devotion or self-sacrifice\nfor the good of the loved person, as distinct from one\u2019s own, is\nabsolutely unknown. \u201cLove is irresistible,\u201d they say, and, in obedience\nto its commands, they sit down to reckon how they can satisfy themselves,\nat no matter what cost to the objects of their passion.\n\nLove is irresistible still, one knows, as irresistible now as ever it was\nin Greece, but the impulse it gives has a different direction. To put it\nperfectly crudely, the Euripidean woman who \u201cfalls in love\u201d (it is of\nwomen we are speaking now) thinks first of all, \u201cHow can I seduce the man\nI love?\u201d The modern woman thinks, \u201cHow can I die for him?\u201d This is the\ndifference between ancient and modern love, and in Euripides the old is\nstill untouched by the new.[96]\n\nIt is this sensual, this well-nigh mechanical view of love which makes\npossible that conception of the ideal wife, of which we have already\nspoken in the case of Sophocles\u2019 Deianira, and which is so strongly\ninsisted upon in the Andromache of Euripides.\n\nAndromache regularly appears as the model wife, not only in the play\nwhich bears her name, but also in the _Troades_. Her views on married\nlife have, therefore, a peculiar weight of their own.\n\n \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f66 \u03b3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9,\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f01\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2,\n\nshe explains to the youthful Hermione.[97] \u201cNow the greatest of these\nvirtues is, to be content with your husband and not to be jealous. You\nare jealous of me. What would you do, supposing you were married to a\nThracian king with twenty wives instead of only two? You would murder\nthem all, I suppose, in your jealousy, _showing thereby how utterly\nunbridled was your lust_. I was never jealous; _I used to act as\nfoster-mother to Hector\u2019s illegitimate children_.\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n\u201cBut you, you are afraid to let a drop of rain fall on your husband\u2019s\nhead.\n\n \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3, \u03b3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9,\n \u03b6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd.\u201d\n\n\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1![98]\n\nThis is not irony; it is just sober earnest, the sober earnest morality\nof respectable Athens. The view is by no means confined to Andromache.\nIt is deliberately propounded by Electra to her mother,[99] and Jason\ntwice taunts Medea with her failure to live up to its level.[100] Indeed,\nit may be said to colour, to a certain extent, the whole conception of\nmarried life. For a woman to wish to keep her husband to herself was a\nsign that she was at once unreasonable and lascivious.\n\nThis doctrine of the absolute subjection of the wife[101] is emphasised\nin various ways. That a really respectable wife not only always stays at\nhome, but also never sees visitors, is more or less of an axiom.[102] To\ngive a woman her head is dangerous in the last degree, and if you do, you\nwill probably get murdered for your pains.[103] Suicide for a husband\u2019s\nsake is only respectable on the part of a woman,[104] for her husband is\nher life.[105]\n\nBut where is one to find such a model wife? for marriage is such a\nlottery that one ought really to be allowed, if one can afford it, to\nhave several tickets, in case the first doesn\u2019t turn out well.[106] The\nonly chance is to marry a woman of good family; in other words, the only\nthing worth marrying for is rank.[107] To prefer to marry for love is not\nonly foolish, but unfair on one\u2019s children.[108]\n\nIt is this view of married life, this devotion to an ideal of drudgery\non the part of the woman, and the calm acceptance of such devotion as\na matter of course on the part of the man, which explains such a play\nas the _Alcestis_.[109] The woman is devoted to the man, not because\nhe is himself, but because he is her husband. For the man she does not\ncare in the least, but for the husband\u2014for the ideal of the family\u2014she\nis perfectly ready to die. It is this which at once makes the story\nof Alcestis possible, and robs it of half its pathos. Had Alcestis\nloved Admetus as a man, she could not but have felt the bitterest\ndisappointment at his accepting her offer. As it is, she seems to regard\nhis conduct almost as much as a matter of course as he does.[110]\n\nThe brief examination of one further point in the Euripidean view of\nwomen may serve as introduction to the more detailed discussion of the\nromantic element in his plays, or, rather, of its absence. Euripides\nspeaks frequently as if there were a sort of freemasonry existing among\nwomen, which makes one woman always ready to side with another as against\na man. Instances of this are common, especially in the relations between\nthe heroine and the Chorus, when the latter, as mostly in Euripides,\nconsists of women.\n\nThus Medea, when asking the Chorus not to reveal her plans, says\u2014\n\n \u03bb\u03ad\u03be\u1fc3\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd,\n \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f56 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae \u03c4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c6\u03c5\u03c2. (_Med._ 822.)\n\nSimilar in spirit is a line from the _Alope_ (_Fr._ 108):\n\n \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u1f74 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f76 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c6\u03c5\u03ba\u03ad \u03c0\u03c9\u03c2,\n\nor l. 329 of the _Helen_:\n\n \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f76 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae.\n\nIn this same play, too, Menelaus decides that _his wife_ is the proper\nperson to go and ask help of Theonoe:\n\n \u03c3\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae. (_Hel._ 830.)\n\nA \u201cromantic\u201d writer might have thought that the prayers of Menelaus\nhimself would have been more effectual with a lady.[111]\n\nThe most important of the extant plays of Euripides is, for the\nstudent of the development of the romantic tendency, undoubtedly the\n_Hippolytus_. But, in thinking of this play, the reader must first of\nall guard against a very common and, for a modern, very natural mistake.\nHe must remember that the interest of the piece is intended to centre,\nnot on Phaedra, but on Hippolytus. The main interest of the plot is the\nstruggle between asceticism and self-gratification, as personified in the\nmaiden Artemis and the sensual Aphrodite.[112] Phaedra is only made to\nfall in love with Hippolytus in order that he may reject her advances,\nand thereby irritate her into working his ruin. As has already been\npointed out, she is dragged into a quarrel which does not concern her,\nfor a purpose which does not interest her personally in the least.[113]\n\nBearing this in mind, the reader will be able to understand that\ncombination of passionate desire and cold-blooded reasoning which marks\nthe utterances of Phaedra. She has come to the conclusion, she says at\nlast (l. 391 _seqq._), that love is an irresistible disease; and since\nher position as a married woman makes impossible the only means of cure\nwith which she is acquainted, she decides that, _for the sake of her\nhusband and children_, she had better die. She will never dishonour her\nchildren, for, next to money, there is nothing so valuable as a good name.\n\nTo this the Nurse replies (l. 433 _seqq._) that of course love is\nirresistible, and there is only one way to cure it; but she points out\nthat this way may perfectly well be adopted. The fact that Phaedra is\nmarried need not be any obstacle, for husbands are used to seeing more\nthan they say.\n\n \u201c\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019, \u1f66 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03b7 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6, \u03bb\u1fc6\u03b3\u03b5 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd,\n \u03bb\u1fc6\u03be\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 _\u1f51\u03b2\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u2019_: \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf \u03c0\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u1f55\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2\n \u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76, \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\n \u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1\u00b7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5.\u201d\n\n\u201cLeave the matter to me, and if women can\u2019t effect a cure, perhaps men\ncan.\u201d\n\nPhaedra protests. The Nurse answers with a little very natural impatience\n(l. 490)\n\n \u201c\u03c4\u03af \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2; \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c3\u2019, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2.\u201d\n\nPhaedra admits this, but insists that it would be more respectable to\ndie. The Nurse, however, persuades her to try a love-potion first, and\nwith this excuse leaves her to look for Hippolytus. Hippolytus, as\none knows, rejects the Nurse\u2019s proposals, and Phaedra takes refuge in\nsuicide, making, as she dies, one last desperate attempt to save her own\ngood name at the expense of the man she is supposed to love (l. 715).\n\nThis, then, is the story of Phaedra. Where in all this is there a trace\nof what we now call love? Where is there a single expression of affection\nfor Hippolytus, a single expression to show that she thinks of him\notherwise than of one who has done her a great and irretrievable injury?\nShe seems to think of him as one would think of a man from whom one had\ncaught the cholera. \u201cLove is all bitterness,\u201d she says (l. 349); \u201cand he\nis the cause.\u201d The catastrophe comes, and she walks off quietly to murder\nhim,\n\n \u201c\u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f50\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u1fb6 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03bd,\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ae \u03c4\u2019 \u1f44\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1.\u201d\n\nIf this is love, the world must be a poorer place than I gave it credit\nfor.\n\nThen follows the great argument between Hippolytus and his father, which\nto the Athenians was doubtless the chief point of the play. On the speech\nof Theseus we need not dwell, though it is perhaps just worth noticing\nthe way in which he enunciates, as a sort of great discovery which his\nown experience and observation have enabled him to make, the theory that\nit is possible for the initiative in a criminal liaison to come from the\nside of the man (l. 966 _seqq._).\n\nThe answer of Hippolytus, however, is well worth study. For the first\n24 of his 52 lines he describes in general terms his own blameless\ncharacter, and it is only at the 25th that he condescends to discuss\nthe particular incident. \u201cBut you do not perhaps believe all this\nabout my chastity,\u201d he says (l. 1007); \u201cbut do tell me, then, what was\nthe temptation in this particular instance? Was this woman\u2019s body so\nespecially beautiful? (1\u00bd lines.) Or did I wish by my conduct to become\nyour heir? (2\u00bd lines.) Or to become king? (3 lines.) Surely you know my\nonly interest is in athletics.\u201d (5 lines.) Then, having finished the\narguments which he is able to bring forward, he proceeds to swear, and so\nconcludes. In other words, in a speech of 52 lines, the suggestion that\nhe might have been in love with Phaedra, even in the most rudimentary\nsense of the words, is contemptuously dismissed in a line and a half, and\nno one seems to think that this part of the subject ought to have been\ntreated at greater length. Now this one fact seems to me in itself almost\na sufficient proof that \u201cromantic\u201d ideas, even as they were understood at\nthe end of the fourth century, were utterly foreign to Euripides.[114]\n\nTo come to another play. There are probably few things in all literature\nso strange, not to say comic, to modern ideas, as the relations between\nAchilles and Iphigeneia in the _Iphigeneia in Aulis_.\n\nClytemnestra has been trapped into bringing her daughter to Aulis, on\npromise of marriage with Achilles, and when, in the scene which begins\nat l. 801, she discovers the truth, she appeals to him for protection.\nAchilles, \u201cthe nearest approach to a modern gentleman of all the Greek\ntragic characters,\u201d[115] replies as follows (l. 919 _seqq._):\n\n\u201cI am a person of the highest breeding, and therefore you may trust me\nto give you the correct answer under the circumstances. Your daughter,\nhaving been betrothed to me, shall not be killed; it would reflect\ndiscredit on me if she were, and that I cannot permit. No one shall so\nmuch as touch the hem of her garment. _It is not, of course, for her\nsake that I undertake to do this_, but because I consider that Agamemnon\nhas treated me shamefully. He used my name to trap you into coming here\nwithout asking my consent; _of course I should have allowed him to use it\nif he had asked me_, for I always put patriotism before everything; but\nhe did not ask me. I feel grossly insulted, and he will touch Iphigeneia\nat his peril.\u201d\n\n\u201cYour sentiments, Achilles,\u201d remarks the Chorus, \u201care worthy alike of you\nand of your divine descent.\u201d\n\n\u201cHow can I thank you enough,\u201d replies Clytemnestra, \u201cfor all the trouble\nyou have promised to take in this matter, which cannot interest you\npersonally in the least?\u201d\n\nThere is a moment\u2019s pause; then she suggests timidly, \u201cBut would you like\nthe girl to come to you herself?\u201d\n\n\u201cGod forbid!\u201d exclaims Achilles with horror. \u201cHow can you suggest\nanything so improper?\u201d Then after a little he adds, \u201cYou must first of\nall go and argue the case with Agamemnon.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhy that?\u201d asks Clytemnestra. \u201cThere is no chance there.\u201d\n\n\u201cPerhaps not,\u201d he answers, \u201cbut still I wish you to try; _for I should\nvery much prefer, if possible, that my name should be kept out of the\nbusiness altogether_.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat you say does you credit,\u201d she answers. \u201cI will do my best to obey\nyou.\u201d\n\nFor the modern reader who studies this scene, and then leans back and\nthinks a little what he would have done or thought in Achilles\u2019 place,\ncomment is, I imagine, superfluous.[116]\n\nOr look at Andromache\u2019s speech in the _Andromache_. (l. 184 _seqq._) She\nis accused of occupying too high a place in the favour of Neoptolemus.\n\u201cTell me,\u201d she answers to Hermione, \u201cwhat reason could I possibly\nhave for wishing to stand well with your husband? Do I wish to reign\nin your place, or to have more children, or to make my children kings?\nOr what reason could he possibly have for preferring me? Is my native\ncity so powerful? Have I such influential friends?\u201d &c. &c. As in the\n_Hippolytus_, the idea that there may be love on either side is dismissed\nwithout discussion.\n\nOr look at the character of the Autourgos in the _Electra_. He has\nmarried Electra, but refuses to touch her, and why?\n\n \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f40\u03bb\u03b2\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03b1\n \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f51\u03b2\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03ce\u03c2. (l. 45.)\n\nHe is distressed that the daughter of such wealthy parents should have\nmade so poor a match. It is pity for the house of Agamemnon that affects\nhim, not pity for Electra.[117]\n\nHecuba again, in the play that bears her name, does not think that it is\nmuch use to appeal to the \u201cromantic\u201d feelings of Agamemnon.\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u1f34\u03c3\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u03b5,\n \u039a\u03cd\u03c0\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. (l. 824.)\n\nIn the _Phoenissae_ there is not much love lost between Antigone and\nHaemon (cp. l. 1672 _seqq._). In the _Orestes_ the only incident\nwhich causes Pylades to take the slightest interest in Electra is her\nsuggestion that they should murder Hermione. (l. 1191 _seqq._) In the\n_Helena_ the first exclamation of Menelaus, when his wife assures him\nthat she has really been faithful to him all the time, is, \u201cHow can you\nprove it?\u201d[118] In the _Medea_ again the absence of the love-element is\na distinct loss. No one can doubt that the character of Medea would have\ngained at once in probability and in pathos, if she had been allowed to\nrecur, if only for a moment, to the memory of her early love for Jason.\n\nIf more plays had been preserved, it would, doubtless, have been easy\nstill further to multiply instances; but what has been said already is\nperhaps enough to show that the romantic element in Euripides is really\nmost conspicuous by its absence. And this cannot be a surprise to anyone\nwho cares to go to the root of the matter. That relation between men and\nwomen which we call the \u201cromantic\u201d is founded upon sentiments and ideas\nwhich are entirely distinct from the sexual emotions. Euripides, as we\nhave had occasion to notice again and again, though he had carefully\nstudied the sexual instinct in all its workings, had never been able\nto conceive of a relation between man and woman which had not this\nfor its basis.[119] Without pure\u2014I had almost said Platonic\u2014love for\nits fundamental principle, romance is an impossibility. The romantic\nAlexandrian writers may not have themselves loved purely, but they knew\nwhat pure love was, and such love was their ideal. With Euripides it was\nnot so, and this one fact is enough to show that he belongs to the old\nliterature and not to the new. That Euripides, by the emphasis which he\nlaid on the female character, contributed largely towards preparing men\u2019s\nminds for the growth of romance and what we now call love, cannot be\ndenied; but that he himself had more than the very faintest glimmerings\nof what such love really was, cannot be maintained by anyone who has ever\nread his works.\n\n * * * * *\n\nAnd here we may close this first part of our enquiry. The foregoing\nexamination of the Greek writers, though it has made no mention of\nvarious well-known names, has yet been for our present purpose a\npractically complete one. Pindar was prevented by the nature of his\nworks from dealing to any large extent with the position of women or\ntheir relations with men;[120] and even where he has an opportunity of\nso doing (as, _e.g._, _Fr._ 122), the result is very disappointing,\nespecially in view of his Boeotian origin. The fragments of the early\ntragedians, other than the three discussed, are strangely deficient in\nreferences to women. Nor need the old Attic Comedy detain us. The general\nspirit of this thoroughly Athenian product is sufficiently summed up\nin what profess to be the earliest words of it extant, the fragment of\nSusario,\n\n \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bb\u03b5\u1ff4\u00b7 \u03a3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5,\n \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u039c\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03a4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2,\n\nwhile it may be doubted whether in the whole course of this literature a\nfemale character was ever introduced on the stage, except with the view\nof leading up to some form of indecency.[121]\n\nThe net results of this examination, though chiefly negative, are yet\nfairly clear. It has, I hope, been shown that\u2014\n\n(1) That relation between men and women which is now called \u201clove\u201d was,\nas far as can be gathered from literature, non-existent among the Greeks\ndown to the end of the fifth century.\n\n(2) The position occupied by women in the consideration of men was\nso unimportant, that even the sensual relation of the sexes was but\nlittle treated of in literature till a comparatively late period, and\nwas always, down to the end of the fifth century, looked upon by a\nconsiderable section of society as unfitted for public discussion and\nrepresentation. In other words, love-poetry in the modern sense is\nnon-existent in classical Greek literature; while love-poetry in any\nsense, addressed to women, is a far more insignificant element in that\nliterature than is commonly supposed.\n\nThat what has just been said does not hold good of the \u201cAlexandrian\u201d\npoets is so obvious that it hardly needs to be stated. Equally true,\nhowever, and not equally obvious, is the fact that, from the very first,\nthese writers talk of women and women\u2019s love in an entirely different\ntone to that adopted by those of whom we have hitherto been speaking.\nThe line of cleavage between, say, Asclepiades and Euripides, is in\nreality quite as marked as that between Euripides and Apollonius. On\nthis subject, therefore, it is perhaps worth while to say a few words,\nthough the terribly mutilated condition in which the works of the earlier\nAlexandrians especially have come down to us, makes it very difficult to\npoint to striking examples of what has been said.\n\nThe first representatives of the \u201cAlexandrian\u201d school of poets\u2014that is,\nof the school of women-lovers\u2014are Asclepiades and Philetas;[122] and in\nboth cases the mere nature of their works (quite apart from their tone)\nis sufficiently striking when compared with the literature that had gone\nbefore.\n\nWhether Philetas actually gave the title of Battis to a collection of his\npoems is difficult to say\u2014it is, perhaps, on the whole, not improbable\nthat he did\u2014but in any case there can be no doubt that a considerable\nnumber of his elegies were either actually addressed to Battis, or\nelse treated of her. The erudite and elaborate style of these poems is\nequally indisputable. Now, whatever may have been the actual tone of\naddress in these elegies\u2014the fragments unfortunately tell us nothing,\nand such other evidence as there is on the subject is of the scantiest\ndescription[123]\u2014the two facts above-mentioned form of themselves a\ncombination quite without parallel in the Greek literature of which we\nhave hitherto been speaking. That anyone should have taken the trouble\nto devote erudition and elaboration to the praise of a woman, would have\nbeen an unheard-of thing in early Greece.\n\nAsclepiades is an equally striking figure in the early Alexandrian\nliterature; for it was he who was the first to introduce woman-love\ninto the epigram\u2014the first, in fact, to give it that social recognition\nwhich we have seen already accorded to boy-love, well-nigh two centuries\nbefore.[124]\n\nBut what renders Asclepiades particularly important for us just now\u2014far\nmore so than Philetas\u2014is the fact that some forty of his epigrams have\nbeen preserved, and that it will therefore be possible, by examining\nthese, to study at close quarters the points in which the tone of this\nnew love-poetry differs from that of the old.\n\nIn the epigrams of Asclepiades we find, for the first time, love for a\nwoman spoken of as a matter of life and death:\u2014\n\n \u03bf\u1f34\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u2019, \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f44\u03bb\u03c9\u03bb\u03b1, \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03af\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03b5\u03af\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\n \u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03bd, \u1f20\u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03b8\u03b9\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u2019 \u1f08\u0390\u03b4\u03b1.[125]\n\n _Anth. Pal._ v. 162, 3-4.\n\nHere, for the first time, such love appears as an end in life\u2014as an\nobject for which a man may well brave death:\u2014\n\n \u03bd\u1fd6\u03c6\u03b5, \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03b2\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9, \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b1\u1f36\u03b8\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5,\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u1f76 \u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b5 \u03bd\u03ad\u03c6\u03b7.\n \u1f22\u03bd \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u1fc3\u03c2, \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u1f22\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u2019 \u1f00\u03c6\u1fc7\u03c2 \u03b6\u1fc6\u03bd,\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1, \u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n _Anth. Pal._ v. 64, 1-4.\n\nSimilar in spirit to this is the epigram in _Anth. Pal._ xii. 166:\u2014\n\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03b8\u2019 \u1f45 \u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2, \u1f45 \u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u03ae \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u2019, \u1f1c\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2,\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03cc \u03b3\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f21\u03c3\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b7\u03bd \u1f04\u03c6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5.\n \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u03ae, \u03bd\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03cc\u03be\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad \u03bc\u2019, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\u00b7\n \u03bd\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c6\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd \u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03ba\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03b7\u03bd.\n \u03bd\u03b1\u03af, \u03bd\u03b1\u03af, \u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u1f1c\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2,\n \u1f40\u03be\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34 \u03b3\u2019 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9, \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nor another\u2014perhaps the most beautiful of all his poems that we know\u2014so\nlike, and yet so utterly unlike, the elegies of Mimnermus:\u2014\n\n \u03c0\u1fd6\u03bd\u2019, \u1f08\u03c3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c0\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b7\u00b7 \u03c4\u03af \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1; \u03c4\u03af \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2;\n \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c3\u1f72 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u1f74 \u039a\u03cd\u03c0\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b7\u0390\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf,\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c3\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03ae\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f30\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f1c\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2\u00b7 \u03c4\u03af \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9;\n \u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u0392\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b6\u03c9\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u00b7 \u03b4\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ce\u03c2\u00b7\n \u1f22 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03bd \u03bb\u03cd\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd;\n \u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f7a\u03bd,\n \u03c3\u03c7\u03ad\u03c4\u03bb\u03b9\u03b5, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u03bd\u03cd\u03ba\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1.\n\n _Anth. Pal._ xii. 50.[126]\n\nThe love of Mimnermus was hardly of a kind to bring tears to the eyes!\n\nYet, though this love has reached to such a passionate height, it does\nnot forget to be gallant and courteous;[127] and there is a striking\nabsence of that jealousy and that savage spirit of revenge which may\nalmost be said to be the one motive of the \u201clovers\u201d in Euripides. A\nremarkable instance of this most un-Greek willingness to forgive, is the\nepigram in _Anth. Pal._ v. 150:\u2014\n\n \u1f61\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u2019 \u1f25\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cd\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f21 \u2019\u03c0\u03b9\u03b2\u03cc\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n \u039d\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u1f64\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5 \u0398\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7\n \u03ba\u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f25\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9, \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03af\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u1f06\u03c1\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n \u1f24\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5; \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cd\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03b2\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5.\n\nwhile the sudden bathos of _Anth. Pal._ v. 7, is quite in the same\nspirit. Even where a more real punishment is suggested, its execution is\nput off into a very vague and distant future:\u2014\n\n \u03c4\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\n \u03c3\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c4\u1fb6\u03c3\u03ac \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.[128]\n\n _Anth. Pal._ v. 164, 3-4.\n\nStriking, too, is the note of resignation that marks poems like _Anth.\nPal._ v. 189, xii. 153.[129] Still more striking, to those who remember\nthe brutality of Epicrates\u2019 attack upon Lais,[130] is the tone in which\nthe aged courtesan is spoken of in _Anth. Pal._ vii. 217. The two little\npictures of happy lovers, so suggestive of the Acme and Septimius of\nCatullus, in _Anth. Pal._ v. 153, xii. 105, are also very far indeed away\nfrom anything of the kind that had ever gone before.[131]\n\nWe are thus confronted by a very remarkable fact. That way of regarding\nwomen which we may call the romantic feeling\u2014a feeling which we have\nnoticed to be conspicuous by its absence in Euripides\u2014appears suddenly\ndeveloped to a high degree, in what is practically the first poetry\nextant after him. The full meaning of this fact we shall come to consider\nlater; but before it is possible to do this, it will be necessary to\ninstitute some further preliminary enquiries.\n\n * * * * *\n\nAttention has already been sufficiently drawn to the almost entire\nabsence from the early Greek literature of love-poetry of any kind\naddressed to women; at the same time, it has been briefly pointed out\nmore than once that love-poetry addressed to boys or men is a very common\nphenomenon in this literature. This mere fact in itself would be one\nrequiring some investigation, in an examination of this kind; but when\nthe nature of this love-poetry comes to be considered, it will be seen\nhow particularly important, in the present connection, is this phase of\nthe Greek mind. For it is a fact which becomes immediately apparent, and\ngrows more and more evident, the more the matter is looked into, that\nwhile such little love-poetry as does exist, addressed by men to women,\nis entirely concerned with the purely sensual aspect of the matter, in\nthe very considerable volume of poetry addressed by men to men, this\naspect is well-nigh entirely ignored. But obvious though this fact must\nbe to everyone who reads the early Greek poetry with open eyes, the\ninfluence of our present methods of thought and training has been so\nstrong, that not only has its importance been strangely ignored by modern\nwriters, but even the fact itself has been questioned or denied. Under\nthese circumstances, it will not be superfluous to go into the matter at\nsome length, for reasons which will appear more clearly when the truth\nhas been established.[132]\n\nThe story of the _Iliad_ is a story without a heroine, a feature which\nmakes it well-nigh unique among national legends. This fact has struck\nvarious people, and has been accounted for in various ways, the favourite\nexplanation, perhaps, being that the Greek imagination was severer and\nmore self-controlled, more statuesque, one may almost say, than that of\nother primitive peoples, and was therefore content with a hero whose\nsole inspiration lay in love of glory and love of battle, apart from any\ngentler emotion whatever.[133] This estimate of the Greek imagination\nis no doubt a just one, but there is none the less a strong objection\nto seeking in it an explanation of the peculiarities of the _Iliad_. To\nregard the Achilles of Homer as a person animated solely by ambition and\nmilitary enthusiasm, is, in face of the facts of the case, impossible. As\nis well known, Achilles sulks because deprived of Briseis, and is only\nroused again by the death of Patroclus; that is to say, his two main\nactions are influenced entirely by motives outside of those which are\nlooked upon as his chief characteristics.[134] In other words, Achilles\nis not a military hero at all; the interest one feels in him is due\nalmost entirely to the emotional side of his character. But while this\nmuch is clear, the question still remains: Why has this emotional hero no\ncorresponding heroine? for, of course, one cannot regard Briseis as such.\n\nThe answer to this is one that will not please a certain class of modern\nminds, but that is no proof that it is not true. There is a heroine in\nthe _Iliad_, and that heroine is Patroclus. The Achilleis is a story of\nwhich the main motive is the love of Achilles for Patroclus.[135] This\nsolution is astoundingly simple, and yet it took me so long to bring\nmyself to accept it, that I am quite ready to forgive anyone who feels a\nsimilar hesitation. But those who do accept it, cannot fail to observe,\non further consideration, how thoroughly suitable a motive of this kind\nwould be in a national Greek epic. For this is the motive running through\nthe whole of Greek life, till that life was transmuted by the influence\nof Macedonia. The lover-warriors Achilles and Patroclus are the direct\nspiritual ancestors of the Sacred Band of Thebans, who died to a man on\nthe field of Chaeronea.\n\nThose who have made any study of the social life of early Greece, will\nhardly need to be reminded how important a part this relationship between\nolder and younger men played there. In some states, such as Megara, it\nwas specially patronised by the government. Among the Cretans, and to a\ncertain extent also among the Lacedaemonians,[136] it formed the basis\nof the military organisation.[137] At Thespiae, the festival of the\nErotidia was consecrated to this form of love.[138] At Elis there was a\nperiodical beauty-competition among the youths, the prizes consisting of\narms and armour.[139] A somewhat similar contest took place every spring\nat the tomb of the hero Diocles at Megara.[140] Nor was this all. In many\nstates this relationship came to be looked upon as well-nigh an emblem\nof constitutional liberty;[141] so much so, that the tyrants used to\nregard it as a standing menace to themselves, and actually took steps to\nsuppress it.[142] Thus Polycrates destroyed the gymnasium[143] at Samos\n\u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9, and others are said to have behaved\nin a similar way.[144]\n\nBut while the social importance of this relationship cannot be\nquestioned, its character is equally unmistakable. In principle, and also\nin practice, it was pure. Its first and most striking feature, a feature\nspecially emphasised by almost every ancient writer who alludes at all\nto the subject, is its perfect purity. The very idea of sensuality in\nconnection with it is almost invariably vigorously repudiated,[145] and\nthe author of the \u201cErotic Oration\u201d of Demosthenes is but expressing the\nuniversal convictions of his predecessors when he says, \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2\n\u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u2019 \u1f02\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03be\u03b9\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd.[146]\n\nHow entirely this was the case will be still more apparent when we come\nto examine the writers who dealt with the subject. Here it may suffice to\nremark that, apart from that main sewer, the Old Attic Comedy, there are,\nin all the Greek poetry extant down to the end of the fifth century, but\na couple, or at most three, passages in which sensuality is so much as\nsuggested in this connection.[147]\n\nTo trace the growth and development of this form of love\u2014for love it was\nin the most modern sense of the word\u2014would be extremely interesting; but\nit would be a long and difficult undertaking, which cannot be attempted\nhere. The main outlines of its history are, however, sufficiently clear.\nOriginating in the companionship of the battle-field, where the younger\nand weaker combatants would naturally look to their elders for help and\nsupport, it introduced itself also, as we have seen, into those peaceful\nexercises which serve to train the soldier; and hence, as soon as we find\ncivilised communities, we find both the army and the gymnasium organised\nwith reference to it. When a somewhat more settled condition of affairs\nhad succeeded to the constant warfare of earlier times, we find it losing\nto some extent its distinctively military character, though this never\nentirely disappears, as is clear from the institution by Epaminondas of\nthat \u201cSacred Band\u201d of which we have had occasion to speak already. And\nso, in peace and war alike, it continues throughout classical times a\ndominating element in Greek society. Its highest development was due,\nof course, to Socrates and his followers; but from the end of the fifth\ncentury onwards it was beginning to lose its hold upon the Greek mind.\nThe improved position of women, and that improved way of regarding\nthem which was gradually springing up about this time, could not fail\nto affect it prejudicially, while other equally potent causes were at\nwork to bring about its overthrow; indeed, it is not long before we find\nwriters speaking in open disparagement of it.[148] And in all probability\nthis contempt for the \u201chypocrisy of the philosophers\u201d was now, to a great\nextent, justified; for there is little reason to suppose that at this\nperiod that high standard of moral purity, with which this form of love\nhad been originally associated, was any longer a prominent feature of it.\nThe Macedonians, in destroying the old Greek states, were destroying at\nonce the home of its birth and the cause of its existence. It is small\nwonder that it failed, like so many other of the old Greek institutions,\nto adapt itself to its new surroundings, and that it could not survive\nthe downfall of those virtues of patriotism and independence of which it\nwas at once the outcome and the emblem.\n\nBut the fragrance of its early purity and beauty was never quite lost,\nas long as the classical world remained. In well-nigh all the poetry\ndealing with it there is a tone of dignity and chivalry to which the\npoetry addressed to women never, perhaps, wholly attained. The charming\ngrace of the 12th Idyll of Theocritus is unsurpassed in any of his other\nworks; the passionate despair of the 23rd is unequalled. The contrast in\ntone between the 12th and the 5th books of the _Anthology_ is one of the\nmost remarkable features of that remarkable collection of poems.[149]\nEven Catullus, when striving to give expression to a love purer and more\nintense than any Roman had ever known, still feels the spell of early\nGreece upon him.\n\n \u201ctunc te dilexi, non tantum ut vulgus amicam,\n sed pater ut natos diligit et generos,\u201d\n\nhe exclaims. \u201cI loved you, not as a man loves a woman, but as a man loves\na youth!\u201d[150]\n\nWe have hitherto been speaking chiefly of the social aspect of this\nform of love; we can now proceed to examine somewhat more in detail its\ninfluence upon literature. And here two striking facts will at once\npresent themselves to us, the exact converse of those which met us when\nexamining the early literary treatment of woman-love. From the earliest\nperiod onwards we shall find the love of man for man taking a prominent\nplace in poetry, while at the same time this love as there depicted is\nremarkable for its chivalrous and unsensual character. In other words,\nwhile the love of man to woman was among the early Greeks a love of the\nsenses, the love of man to man was a love of the soul.\n\nOf the _Iliad_ we have spoken already, and we need not speak further, for\nthough, as we have already pointed out, the relations between various\nof the Greek heroes there described are strong presumptive evidence of\na state of affairs parallel to that which we know to have existed in\nhistorical times,[151] it is in the nature of an epic to be unable to\nsupply proof of so positive a kind as is to be found in lyric poetry,\nwhich is generally, anyhow in early times, the expression of the writer\u2019s\nactual feelings with reference to actual surrounding circumstances.\n\nIn dealing with the lyric writers we shall therefore be on firmer ground.\n\nHere, in the fragments of Archilochus already we find very strong\nevidence of the existence of love-poems addressed to men; indeed, it is\nimpossible satisfactorily to explain _Fr._ 85\u2014\n\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac \u03bc\u2019 \u1f41 \u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c2, \u1f66 \u2019\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b5, \u03b4\u03ac\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2,\n\non any other supposition. This being so, and there being no evidence of\nany erotic poems addressed to women, it is justifiable to consider that\n_Fr._ 84 also belonged to this same class of poetry[152]; while there\nis further no reason to believe that these two passages were unique in\nthe works of Archilochus. In other words, love-poems addressed to men are\namong the earliest known forms of subjective Greek poetry.\n\nBut while both Archilochus and Alcman[153] produced works of this kind,\nthe fragments of these which remain are too scanty for it to be possible\nto feel any real certainty as to their exact nature; nor again was either\nof these two authors particularly celebrated in ancient times for this\nclass of composition.\n\nIt is different with Alcaeus. Alcaeus was recognised throughout antiquity\nas the master _par excellence_ of this form of poetry, and though the\nactual fragments of his works on this subject which remain are not much\nmore satisfactory than is the case with his predecessors, we have most\nvaluable evidence as to their nature in two poems of Theocritus, the one\nprofessedly and the other evidently imitated from them.[154] These poems\ncontain certain evidently Alexandrian elements,[155] and, consequently,\nit would be unjustifiable to press any particular detail of them as\nillustrating Alcaeus, but, at the same time, there seems every reason\nto believe that in their general tone they reflect the spirit of their\noriginals, and it is to their general tone that I wish to draw the\nreader\u2019s attention.\n\nTo take the first of them (_Idyll_ xxix.). The speaker is about to tell\nsome unpleasant truths, but he feels constrained to apologise for so\ndoing (1-4). After a passionate but dignified protestation of his love\n(5-8), he appeals to his friend\u2019s better feelings (9), and urges him to\nbe constant in his affections (10-20).\n\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u1f70\u03bd \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03bd \u1f11\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3,\n \u1f45\u03c0\u1fb3 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03af\u03be\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f04\u03b3\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f44\u03c1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n\u201cIf you do so,\u201d he continues\u2014\n\n \u201c\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b1\u03b9\n \u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd,\n\nand Love will deal kindly with you, and save you from such pangs as I\nhave suffered (21-24). For we grow older every day, and youth is the\nseason for forming those friendships which last a lifetime (25-34). Now,\nI would readily do anything for your sake, but if you disregard my words,\nthe time may come when even if you call me I will not answer\u201d (35-40).\n\nBut anyone who has ever read this charming little poem will not need to\nhave its character further forced upon him. The manliness, the dignity,\nthe courtesy of it, are patent in every line; more striking still to\nthose who know Greek literature is the spirit of self-negation which\npervades the whole; and all this, combined with a passion which is none\nthe less real because it is kept rigorously under control. Even in\nAlexandrian times it would be hard to find a poem addressed to a woman\nwhich can equal this in its chivalrous tone; to look for such a poem in\nearly Greek literature would be vain indeed.\n\nIn the second of these two pieces (_Idyll_ xxx.), also in all probability\nmodelled on Alcaeus, the purely erotic side of the matter comes more to\nthe front than in the one we have just been discussing, but here, too,\none cannot fail to be struck by the quiet earnestness of the tone, which\nis as far removed from the good-humoured banter of Asclepiades as it is\nfrom the outspoken brutality of Archilochus.\n\nBut perhaps the most striking commentary on this state of feeling is\nthat furnished by the other section of the Lesbian school of poets. It\nhas troubled the minds of many modern commentators to think why Sappho\nshould have addressed love-poems to Anactoria; for those who have formed\na true idea of what \u201clove\u201d between a man and a woman meant in Greece of\nthe seventh century, and compared this with the love then existing among\nmen for one another, the question answers itself. Sappho, in addressing\nlove-poems to Anactoria, was but adapting to her own circumstances and\nsex the universal contemporary principles of love-poetry. It seemed so\nunnatural then, and so impossible, to connect the sexual instinct with\nany pure or noble feeling, that Sappho, because her love was pure and\nits ideal a noble one, instinctively and inevitably chose as the object\nof this love her fellow-women, just as the men of her time chose their\nfellow-men.[156] To the Greek of the period the association of the sexes\ninevitably suggested sensuality; Sappho loved Anactoria, just as Alcaeus\nloved Lycus, in order that this suggestion might be as far as possible\nexcluded. Sappho loved a woman because her love was too pure to allow her\nto love a man. All this sounds strange\u2014monstrous almost\u2014to modern ears;\nand yet, of all the scandal of the centuries which has heaped itself up\naround the name of Lesbos, what Sappho herself would have resented most\nwould perhaps have been the story that she was in love with Phaon.\n\nWe have already had occasion to notice that Anacreon, while he was the\noriginator of love-poetry addressed to women, at the same time addressed\na large number of his poems, in fact, the majority, to boys. In his\ncase, therefore, it is possible for the first time to compare the two\nforms of \u201clove\u201d in the same individual. The comparison is not much to\nthe advantage of the newer feeling. While the outspoken sensuality of\nthe poems devoted to women cannot be matter of dispute, even judging\nfrom such fragments of them as remain, the chaste and sober nature of\nAnacreon\u2019s relation to his boy-lovers is not only a feature of the extant\nfragments, but is also alluded to more than once by ancient writers, who\nhad his complete works from which to draw their inferences. Thus Aelian\n(_Var. Hist._ ix. 4), speaking of the love of Anacreon for Smerdias (cp.\nAnacreon, _Fr._ 48) says\u2014\n\n \u03b5\u1f36\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f25\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f20\u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\n \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f56 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1, \u1f10\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1\n \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a4\u03ae\u03ca\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u2019\n \u1f00\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9.\n\nMaximus Tyrius again, who several times alludes to Anacreon (and always\nunder the title of \u1f41 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c2 or \u1f41 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2), expressly compares his love to\nthat of Socrates (xxiv. 9)\u2014\n\n \u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a4\u03b7\u0390\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f24\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u1fb7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2. \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f84\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03ae\u03c2 \u03a3\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u039a\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0392\u03b1\u03b8\u03cd\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u1f70\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f45\u03c1\u03b1. \u1f14\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. (_Fr._ 44) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f56\u03b8\u03b9\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\n \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af.\n\nA similar compliment to Anacreon seems to glimmer through Athenaeus\u2019\naccount of Polycrates, (xii. 540 E.)\n\nHow deep the difference really went, it is of course impossible, in the\nabsence of the poet\u2019s complete works, to show, but, as already remarked,\neven in the few fragments we have, the distinction between the strong\npassion with which he speaks of his boy-loves and the frivolous tone of\nhis addresses to women is very noticeable.\n\nOn the deep significance of the attempt of Ibycus to introduce personal\nerotic poetry into the choral hymns, we have also dwelt,[157] so that we\ncan proceed without further delay to the works which bear the name of\nTheognis, a body of poems which, in the present connection, are perhaps\nthe most interesting in all early Greek literature.\n\nThe great mass of these poems are in the form of short pieces addressed\nby the writer to his youthful friend Cyrnus, and, as such, are one long\ncommentary on the subject we are discussing. Regarded from this point\nof view, several features at once force themselves upon the attention.\nNotwithstanding the fact that many of them are thorough love-poems, yet\nnot only is the sensual side of the matter entirely ignored, but even\nthe erotic, as far as that is subjective, is kept rigorously in the\nbackground. The counsel Theognis gives is such as a father might give to\nhis son\u2014[158]\n\n \u03c3\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f37\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03bb\u03ac. (l. 1049.)\n\nIndeed, he is afraid lest Cyrnus\u2019 eagerness may lead him into temptation,\nand so even urges him not to be over-loving.\n\n \u03bc\u03ae \u03bc\u2019 \u1f00\u03ad\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b2\u03af\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u1f04\u03bc\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5,\n \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bb\u03af\u03b7\u03bd, \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03bd\u03b5, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.[159] (l. 371.)\n\nHe will not thrust himself upon his friend if the latter is unwilling; he\nwill rather himself bear the pang of parting\u2014\n\n \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7\n \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c7\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9,\n \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\n \u1f10\u03c7\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd. (l. 1091.)\n\nYet he is always ready to sympathise with him when in trouble\u2014\n\n \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03af, \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03bd\u03b5, \u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b9\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1. (l. 655.)\n\nThough Cyrnus does not heed him, he will yet make him immortal by his\nsongs.[160]\n\nMuch more there is, similar in tone, chiefly advice as to the choice of\nfriends and the like, but it would be an endless task to examine all this\nin detail. The reader may open the collection at random, and at once\nfind further proof of what has been said here. Whatever the subject of\nthe poems and whatever their occasion, they are all well-nigh equally\nremarkable for their dignity, their temperance, their manliness, and for\ntheir most un-Greek virtue of unselfishness, and remarkable, no less,\nfor the absence from them of that meanness and spitefulness which even\nin modern times so often mark the unfortunate lover. It does one good to\nread these poems; they are keen and clear like a mouthful of mountain\nair; and it does one good, too, to think of the \u03b8\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bb\u03ac\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\nwhere they were sung and where the spirit of them was understood. After\nall, modern writers may decry and defame these _amantes contra naturam_\nas much as they please, but they cannot deny that they were the first to\nteach that the mission of love was to make men better.[161]\n\nThe intimate connection between the poems that bear the name of Theognis\nand the _Scolia_ has already been noticed; it will not therefore be\nsurprising to find that the latter are almost as full as the former of\nreferences to our present subject, though, as it is in their nature to be\ncommonplace, they need not detain us long.\n\nOf the 25 _Scolia_ preserved by Athenaeus,[162] 15 deal with friendships\nof this kind;[163] these may be roughly divided into two classes: those\nwhich sing the praises of famous pairs of friends, and those which\ncontain general remarks on the subject. A striking instance of the first\nclass is, of course, the well-known _Scolion_ of Callistratus (9-12),\nin which it may be observed that in the second verse, where Harmodius\nis promised immortality among the celebrated heroes of antiquity, the\ntwo of these specially mentioned are Achilles, the lover of Patroclus,\nand Diomed, the lover of Sthenelus. Other examples are _Scol._ 21,\nreferring to Admetus, and _Scol._ 17, 18 referring to Ajax, the latter\nof whom is a hero in the _Scolia_ as early as the time of Alcaeus. In\nthe second class, perhaps the most interesting are _Scol._ 23, with its\nvery Theognis-like advice, and _Scol._ 19, of which we have already\nspoken.[164]\n\nAs is, of course, only to be expected, these poems do not add much to\nour knowledge of the subject or its treatment; but it was none the less\nworth while to call attention to them, owing to the fact that verse or\ndoggerel of this kind, though it may not be of much importance itself, is\nyet able to furnish important evidence as to the nature of the popular\nfeeling to which it owes its origin. The views expressed in these poems\nare not those of individual authors, they are the views of the whole\ncommunity; and it is this fact which gives to the _Scolia_ a far deeper\nsignificance than would at first sight appear to belong to them.\n\nSo far, the examination of such fragments of the early Greek literature\nas have survived, has resulted in the discovery of a body of evidence\nwhich, if not very voluminous, is yet remarkably unanimous. It remains\nto be seen in how far it is possible to supplement this from the works\nof the Attic tragedians, which have been preserved in a more perfect\ncondition. At the first glance the prospect is not very promising; love\naltogether, as we have seen, plays a very subordinate part in the Attic\ndrama, while that form of love which we are immediately considering,\nseems at first sight to be especially neglected. And indeed, to a certain\nextent, this is really the case, for very obvious reasons. In the early\ndays of tragedy, when the love-element was well-nigh entirely excluded,\nin obedience to the then artistic canons, it was not to be expected that\nexception would be made in favour of this particular form of it;[165]\nlater, when the love-element was gradually forcing itself into the drama,\nthe playwrights were all, whether they cared to confess it or not, under\nthe influence of Euripides, who, as we know, was a special student of\nfeminine nature, and as such, felt only a qualified interest in the\nmutual relations of men.[166] But at the same time, a closer examination\nof the Attic tragedians will perhaps reveal that this characteristically\nGreek emotion has had a greater influence on their work than one would,\nat the first moment, be disposed to believe.\n\nTwo plays, the _Myrmidones_ of Aeschylus and the _Niobe_ of Sophocles,\nare specially mentioned by Athenaeus[167] as introducing \u1f00\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76\n\u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2; unfortunately, however, in neither case are the fragments\npreserved of a kind to throw much light on the method of treatment\nadopted.\n\nThe _Myrmidones_, which seems to have been the first play of a trilogy,\ntreated of the death of Patroclus and Achilles\u2019 lament for him,[168]\nwhich seems, to judge by such expressions as those preserved in _Fr._\n135,[169] 138, to have been of a passionate character; but whether the\nerotic element was the only interest in the play, and whether it was in\nany way developed in the latter part of the trilogy, it is impossible\nnow to say. The _Niobe_ recounted the misfortunes of that heroine, with\nher subsequent grief and exile from Thebes, the scene of the tragedy,\nto Lydia. But a striking feature, the most striking, perhaps, if we\nmay draw any inference from the statement in Athenaeus[170] that this\nplay was commonly known as \u1f21 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u1ff3\u03b4\u03af\u03b1 \u1f21 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, was the relation\nrepresented as existing among Niobe\u2019s sons.[171] This would appear to\nhave been especially emphasised in the account of the death-scene[172]\u2014a\npassage which we can gather indirectly to have been the most popular in\nthe play;[173] whether it was at all prominent in the previous action we\ncannot tell; and, indeed, the fragments of the _Niobe_ are of a quite\nparticularly meagre description.\n\nTo these two plays mentioned by Athenaeus must be added a third, the\n_Chrysippus_ of Euripides, a work which is peculiarly interesting\nfor two reasons\u2014its author and its subject. The _Myrmidones_ and the\n_Niobe_, of which we have just spoken, seem, as far as can be judged\nby the little of them that remains, to have dealt with what may be\ncalled simple straightforward love-stories. Men are introduced as in\nlove with other men, and this love is brought to a climax by the most\nusual of expedients\u2014the death of the loved object. Euripides, on the\nother hand, was, as we have seen, above all things a student of the\nemotions in their more complex phases, and a _d\u00e9nouement_ of so ordinary\na kind could not have failed to appear commonplace to a writer who took\nsuch an interest in the pathology of the senses, even when he for once\nabandoned his favourite field of the feminine passions, and undertook the\nexamination of a form of love, the symptoms of which are notoriously more\neasily capable of diagnosis. And, as a matter of fact, the _Chrysippus_\nintroduces us to a novel and most interesting side of the question. The\nstory on which the play is founded is, to quote the words of the Argument\nto the _Phoenissae_, as follows:\n\n \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (\u1f41 \u039b\u03ac\u03ca\u03bf\u03c2) \u1f00\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f2e\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03ce\u03bd, \u1f43\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03ba\n \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039f\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f39\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f01\u03bb\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9, \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u0398\u03ae\u03b2\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f24\u03bd\u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u1fc6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70\n \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03ce\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\n \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0393\u03b1\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03ae\u03b4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2. \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a0\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c8 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u039b\u03ac\u03ca\u1ff3 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03b7, \u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nOr, according to a slightly different version found in \u201cPeisander\u201d:\n\n \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03a0\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c7\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f2d\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f21 \u03a3\u03c6\u1f76\u03b3\u03be\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u0398\u03b7\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0391\u1f30\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n \u039b\u03ac\u03ca\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f43\u03bd\n \u1f25\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a0\u03af\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03c9\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf ... \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u039b\u03ac\u03ca\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03bd. \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a7\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2\n \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03be\u03af\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9. (Schol. _ad Eur. Phoen._ 1760.)\n\nThe moral of both these stories is obvious. The behaviour of Laius\ntowards Chrysippus was a crime deserving the most exemplary punishment.\n\nNow this fact at once affords us a clue as to the real nature of Laius\u2019\nconduct. It seems impossible that the statement that Laius \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03bd can be taken to mean that he was the founder\nof love as between man and man in the same way as this is related of,\nfor instance, Orpheus. It seems impossible to believe that any legend\nshould have described the originator of that form of love with which,\nas we know, the highest thoughts and ideals of the early Greeks were\nso intimately associated, as a criminal worthy of divine punishment.\nEuripides himself might not have shrunk from such a course, but it does\nnot seem conceivable that he should have found any existing legend on\nwhich to begin to work;[174] and it seems, therefore, unquestionable that\nthe meaning of the story cannot have been this. As a matter of fact, a\ncareful examination of such evidence as we have, affords every reason\nfor believing that its meaning was a very different one.\n\nThe true meaning of the legend is this. Laius was the first to violate\nthe universal law that the love between man and man must be pure; and it\nwas this transgression that involved himself, his family, and his country\nin such universal ruin.\n\nThat this meaning is in itself a more likely one than the other, will\nprobably not be disputed by anyone who has formed a true conception of\nearly Greek feeling on the subject; more than this one cannot expect. But\nwhile actual proof on the point is impossible, it may not be inapposite\nto draw attention to the way in which the sensuality and unreasoning\nanimalism of Laius are emphasised at every turn, with the view doubtless,\nin the first case, of preventing any conceivable misunderstanding of the\ntrue purport of the tradition.\n\nIn the play itself, the nature of his passion is shown only too clearly\nby the famous distichs (_Fr._ 840, 841):\n\n \u03bb\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad \u03bc\u2019 \u1f67\u03bd \u03c3\u1f7a \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2,\n \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac \u03bc\u2019 \u1f21 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n \u03b1\u1f30\u03b1\u1fd6, \u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u2019 \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd,\n \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd, \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03ae.\n\nCicero says as much (_Tusc._ iv. 33, 71): Quis ... non intellegit quid\napud Euripidem et loquatur et cupiat Laius? Aelian, too (_N. H._ vi. 15),\ndraws an unconscious comparison between this play and the pure old-Greek\n_Niobe_ of Sophocles when, after describing how the dolphin that loved\na boy \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b2\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, he adds, \u039b\u03ac\u03ca\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u1ff3, \u1f66 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f72 \u0395\u1f50\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03b7, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd.\n\nThe sensuality of the passion is clearly shown, too, by various features\nof the legend as recorded by various writers, above all by the fact that\nHera is the goddess outraged, and by the peculiar nature of the curse of\nPelops. The actual words, moreover, of the Scholiast of the _Phoenissae_\n(\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039b\u03ac\u03ca\u03bf\u03bd _\u1f00\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1_ \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd _\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd_ \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5) and\nof the argument of that play (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 _\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u1fc6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7_ \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03ce\u03bd), seem all to point the same way.[175]\n\nIn fact, the sensuality of Laius is made such a feature of the story in\nevery case in which it is narrated, that it cannot well be doubted that\nthis sensuality was a feature of the story in its earliest form; and if\nthis be granted, there can be very little question as to the meaning of\nthe story itself, as originally current.\n\nWe thus have three plays, one by each of the great dramatists, dealing\nwith this subject, two of them dwelling upon the intense and unselfish\nnature of the passion in its true form, the third emphasising the\ndisastrous consequences of any transgression of that purity which was so\nintegral a part of it; but are these three the only ones of their kind?\nThey are the only three, perhaps, that dealt with the purely erotic\nside of the matter; but its general influence evidently extended over a\nfar wider field. This influence makes itself felt in various ways and\nin varying degrees, and it would be a lengthy task, and one beside the\npresent purpose, to endeavour to trace its workings wherever they are\nvisible in Attic tragedy; but a few noticeable instances of it are well\nworthy of attention.\n\nOne of these is the _Ajax_ of Sophocles. It is a common complaint against\nthis play that the second half of it is inferior in interest to the\nfirst. The admirers of Sophocles, however, contend that, to an Athenian\naudience, the details of funeral arrangements were matters of such\nparamount importance that, in a play intended for the Athenian stage, a\nsecond act dealing entirely with this subject would not by any means be\nof the nature of an anti-climax. I am no great admirer of Sophocles, and\nstill less am I an admirer of the mob that pelted Aeschylus and hooted\nEuripides, but yet I should be disposed to give the Athenians credit for\nrather higher tastes than this would seem to imply; while, even had the\npredilections of his audience been so strongly those of the undertaker,\nit might surely have been hoped that a poet of Sophocles\u2019 genius would\nhave had the courage to ignore them. Indeed, as long as the interest\nof the second half of the _Ajax_ is considered as centred on the dead\nbody of the hero, it is impossible successfully to refute the charge of\nbathos; but a more careful consideration of this part of the play will,\nperhaps, show that the interest is by no means intended to be attached\nin this Mezentius-like manner to a corpse. The interest is meant to\ncentre on Teucer, the _amasius_ of the dead Ajax,[176] and on his efforts\nto prove himself worthy of his heroic lover; for his lover\u2019s sake, in\nspite of every obstacle, and in the face of what looks like certain\ndeath, he insists that due respect shall be paid to the dead; in fact,\nthere are in this situation the germs of the situation which excites\nsuch general interest in the _Antigone_.[177] There the character whose\nweakness is made strength through love, is a woman, and so we moderns\nadmire; here it is a man, and so we misunderstand; but it does not follow\nthat the Greeks were equally narrow in their sympathies.\n\nAnother instance, less obvious at first sight, but equally convincing on\nnearer examination, is the _Alcestis_. The _Alcestis_ is a very difficult\nplay to understand, as far as the motives of its leading figures are\nconcerned; nor is it enough to say that, because the play has been\ndescribed as \u201csomething of a satyric drama,\u201d therefore all its characters\nare meant to be grotesque. The self-concentration of Admetus and the\ncomplete acquiescence therein of Alcestis, must surely be capable of some\nmore satisfactory explanation.[178] This explanation is, perhaps, to\nbe found in the relation existing between Admetus and Apollo. The story\nof the love of Apollo for Admetus is sufficiently familiar,[179] and\nhas been alluded to on various occasions in the preceding pages. Both\nat Athens and Sparta the legend seems to have been well known,[180] and\nthere can be no doubt that an audience, when called upon to listen to a\nplay dealing with Admetus, would instinctively call to mind this incident\nin his life.[181] Granted this, it is not, perhaps, too bold to say that\nit is equally unquestionable that this recollection on their part must\nhave influenced their view of the hero\u2019s character. He was unwilling to\ndie; for any Greek to be unwilling to die was excusable in a way which\nwe who live in English fogs can never understand; but for Admetus, the\nbeloved of the Sun-god! If he, who for nine years had met Apollo face to\nface, shrank from the mould and the mud of Hades, what reason to wonder\nat it? To a Greek, to live was to see the sun; surely then, to one whom\nthe Sun-god loved, life must be doubly precious, precious to a degree\nthat less happy mortals could never comprehend.[182] Then, again, if one\nthought of who Admetus was. Surely the man whom the Sun-god loved was a\nman whom the world could not spare, a man for whom it was a privilege\nto be considered worthy to die. Patriotism, too, no less than personal\naffection, would seem to compel a sacrifice on behalf of the man in whose\nkingdom a god took such a special interest;[183] nor, again, was the\ngift of a divine lover a thing that it was safe lightly to put aside.\nAll this, and much more of a kindred nature, must have been present in\nthe minds of those who first saw this strange play, and must have served\nin part to mitigate its strangeness. It could not, perhaps, explain the\ncentral mystery; but then, the mystery of self-sacrifice has never been\nexplained yet.\n\nAnother striking instance is the persistent way in which Orestes and\nPylades figure in the Athenian drama. They play a prominent part in no\nfewer than five tragedies, in one of which, the _Iphigeneia in Tauris_,\nthe scene between them became proverbial;[184] and thus we get repeated\nagain and again the, to modern minds, almost grotesque situation of the\nintense affection between Orestes and Pylades, and the intense affection\nbetween Orestes and Electra,[185] and the supreme indifference between\nPylades and Electra, the two lovers who are going to marry one another\nas soon as the curtain comes down. And yet, those who have read what has\ngone before will know that not only did this situation seem natural to\nthe Athenian audience, but any other situation under the circumstances\nwould have seemed to them monstrous or absurd.\n\nIt is hardly necessary to follow this subject further, for enough has\nbeen said already to make its main features perfectly clear. Still less\nis it necessary, for our present purpose, to study the history of this\nemotion during the succeeding centuries. As we have already pointed out,\nfrom the end of the fifth century onwards it begins to lose its hold\non the popular imagination, and ceases to be a national institution;\nand when next we find traces of it in literature, we see at once that\nits nature has entirely altered. Paederastic poetry there is enough and\nto spare among the Alexandrians, but it is poetry which looks strange\nindeed by the side of Theognis.[186] What were the causes that led\nto this change, a change as great as that which about this time came\nover the relation between man and woman\u2014how far it was due to Persian\ninfluence, how far to the employment of professional soldiers instead of\nthe citizen-armies of an earlier period\u2014all these are questions of the\ngreatest interest in themselves, but they cannot be discussed here. The\nfact remains that that purity and self-devotion which had been the rule\nin one generation became the exception in the next, and that the downward\ncourse was never again fully arrested throughout classical times.\n\nAnd yet, even the most sensual of the later poets, somehow, sometimes,\nwhen speaking of this, rise to strange heights of beauty. Listen to\nRhianus:\n\n \u1f30\u03be\u1ff7 \u0394\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c7\u03bb\u03c9\u03c1\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff3\n \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03c3\u03c5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f37\u03bb\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7\n \u03c7\u1f61 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03ac\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03ce\u03ba\u03c5\u03b5\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c2.\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ce, \u1f66 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u2019 \u1f1c\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2,\n \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03af\u03c7\u03bb\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03c3\u03c5\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\n \u1f10\u03bd \u03c7\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03b3\u03b3\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u1f7a \u03b4\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5 \u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9.\n\n (_Anth. Pal._ xii. 142.)\n\nListen to Meleager, the last of the Greek poets:\n\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9 \u03a7\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f41 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u0394\u03af\u03b1 \u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9,\n \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03bd\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u1ff6\u03bd.\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u00b7 \u03c4\u03af \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b1\n \u1f04\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b8\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03bd\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd;\n \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019, \u1f22\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b9\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2 \u1f4c\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03ba \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bd\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f00\u03bc\u1f70 \u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u1fc3,\n \u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03cc\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2\u00b7 \u03b3\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u1f7a \u03b4\u2019 \u1f44\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b4\u03af\u03cb\u03b3\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03b4\u03bf\u03af\u03b7, \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b9 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u2019 \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03b9\u03b3\u03ad\u03c2.\n \u03c4\u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c7\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9 \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2. \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9,\n \u1f26 \u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u1f00\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n (_Anth. Pal._ xii. 68.)\n\n \u03b4\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03b1 \u03c3\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f29\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03b4\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1,\n \u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nThe foregoing discussion has covered a quantity of ground and dealt with\na large variety of topics, some of which may have appeared but remotely\nconnected with our immediate subject; but in the end it has succeeded\nin establishing certain facts very clearly. We have learnt from an\nexamination of such parts of the early Greek literature as have survived,\nand from a consideration of the probable nature of the rest, that\n\n(1) Love in the modern sense, as existing between men and women, was\nunknown in early Greece.\n\n(2) Such love on the part of men for men was not only a fact, but\nwas generally recognised as a social, and in some cases a national,\ninstitution.\n\nFrom this it would seem inevitably to follow, that the change which we\nfind at a later period to have come over the way of regarding women, was\ndue to a transference to the sexual instinct, and an amalgamation with\nit, of that form of emotion which had previously been confined to the\nmutual relations of men. In other words, men first began to look upon\nwomen as fit objects of pure and chivalrous devotion, when they began\n(to quote the expression of Alcman)[187] to look upon them as \u201cfemale\nboy-friends.\u201d\n\nNow, my reason for calling attention to this point is the following:\nIf one regards the origin of what, for briefness\u2019 sake, we have called\nthe romantic feeling, as entirely a new growth of the fourth century,\nunconnected with anything that had gone before, it is obvious that such\na growth, if indeed possible at all, can only have been made possible by\na simultaneous movement on the part of a large number of persons; for it\nis inconceivable that any one man, however great his influence, could\ninvent and popularise an entirely new emotion. But if, on the other\nhand, we regard the romantic feeling as simply due to the readjustment of\nan already existing emotion, it is no longer absurd to suppose that the\noriginal suggestion of this readjustment may have been due to some single\nindividual. Indeed, the probabilities rather point in that direction,\nfor it is a commonplace that revolutions of thought are generally due to\nthe discovery, on the part of some individual, of the apparently obvious\nformula for which the rest of mankind have long been seeking in vain.\nThis being so, it will be justifiable to apply the general principle to\nthe case before us, and it will no longer seem a fruitless task to look\nabout among the literary names of the close of the fifth century and the\nbeginning of the fourth, for the man who gave the first impulse to that\nremarkable movement with which we are at present concerned.\n\nThe great obstacle which here confronts us at the outset, and, indeed,\nmakes this whole investigation one of exceptional difficulty, is the\nfact that, of all the periods of Greek poetry, that which covers the\nfirst part of the fourth century\u2014in other words, that which forms the\ntransition from the classical to the so-called Alexandrian era\u2014is just\nthat of which the fewest monuments of importance have been preserved.\nFrom the death of Aristophanes to the time when Asclepiades began\nto write is pretty well 70 years,[188] but all the poetry which has\ncome down to us from this whole period consists of a few fragments of\ncomedy,[189] most of which it is impossible even approximately to date,\nand a few epigrams, the history of which is often more obscure still.\nThere is thus a great gap in our knowledge, and it is just during this\ninterval of darkness that the romantic feeling must first have found\nexpression, for while in Euripides, confessedly the most \u201cmodern\u201d of the\nclassical poets, no real trace of it is to be found,[190] in Asclepiades\nand his immediate contemporaries and followers we find it already so\nthoroughly established as a noteworthy factor in their work, that it is\nimpossible to doubt that its origin must belong to a considerably earlier\nperiod. This being so, it is impossible to speak with any certainty. It\nseems, however, most probable that the initiation of the movement was due\nto Antimachus of Colophon.\n\nAntimachus was a distinguished man in various ways. The author of an\nimportant critical edition of the text of the Homeric poems, he was\nhimself an epic poet second only in the general estimation to Homer, and\nhis _Thebaid_ was still read and admired more than 500 years after his\ndeath.[191] But the work on which his present claim rests is his elegiac\npoem, _Lyde_. It may not be amiss briefly to recall the circumstances and\nnature of this poem.[192]\n\nAntimachus, falling in love with some Lydian lady, married her, and went\nto live with her in her native country. Afterwards, on her death, he\nreturned to Colophon, where he composed, in her memory, the elegy _Lyde_,\na poem containing, in the form of digressions, accounts of most of the\nunhappy lovers of tradition or mythology.[193]\n\nNow, in this there are two features which it is impossible to parallel\nin any previous Greek poem. The _Lyde_ of Antimachus was a love-poem\naddressed to his wife, and written after her death. In these two facts\nwe recognise, on the part of the writer, a view both of married life\nand of women in general, which is entirely new. Mimnermus had said that\nlife without love was not worth living, but his was hardly the love\nto last after his lady\u2019s death. Simonides had sung the charms of the\nideal housekeeper, but one would not expect to find emotional poetry\naddressed even to the most perfect housekeeper, as such. Euripides had\nexpatiated on the powers and the capabilities of women; but there is\na difference between regarding a woman as a particularly cunning and\ndangerous sort of beast, and regarding her as a fit object for a life\u2019s\ndevotion. In Antimachus, for the first time, we meet with the new spirit\nwhich animates the new literature and forms the foundation of the Greek\nromantic conception; for it is respect for women and, above all, for\nmarriage, that constitutes the fundamental principle of the romantic\nfeeling throughout the later Greek poetry.[194] It was this spirit which\nrendered possible the artistic treatment of the story of Acontius and\nCydippe, and the growth of the novel, with its one inviolable canon that,\nwhatever trials or temptations might befall them, the two lovers must\nthroughout remain pure and faithful to one another.[195] It was this that\nrendered possible the New Comedy, with its endless variations on the\never-fresh theme of the unhappy lover, made happy at the last by marriage\nwith his lady.[196] It was this that rendered possible the Battis of\nPhiletas and the Leontium of Hermesianax, just as it rendered possible\nthe Delia and the Lycoris of a later time. Under the old _r\u00e9gime_ none\nof these things could have been. When Antimachus first sat down in his\nempty house at Colophon to write an elegy to his dead wife, consciously\nor unconsciously, he was initiating the greatest artistic revolution that\nthe world has ever seen.\n\nThe circumstances under which the _Lyde_ was produced were thus in\nthemselves sufficiently unusual to have made a deep impression, and\nthere is reason to believe further that the way in which Antimachus\nthere treated his subject was also strikingly original. Not only was the\nactual literary form a novel one, and one that subsequently became very\npopular, but the general tone evidently differed in a marked manner from\nthat of any love-poetry which had gone before. It was, above all things,\nnoticeable for its seriousness, its gravity, and its self-restraint,\ncharacteristics entirely foreign to any previous love-poetry addressed to\nwomen. Thus Poseidippus expressly contrasts the temperate Antimachus with\nthe licentious Mimnermus.[197] Something similar seems equally implied by\nthe epithet \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7 in the epigram of Asclepiades (_Anth. Pal._ ix. 63,\n2). Indirect evidence of the same nature is to be found in the remark of\nDionysius of Halicarnassus, who refers to Antimachus as an instance \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.[198] Lastly, it is not, perhaps, too far-fetched to\nsuppose that in Catullus xcv. the contrast between the _Smyrna_ and the\n_Lyde_ is not intended to be confined merely to the literary form, but is\nmeant to further imply the poet\u2019s preference for the story of Myrrha over\nthe less highly spiced anecdotes in Antimachus. Very interesting too,\nfrom this point of view, are the relations of mutual admiration which are\nknown to have existed between Antimachus and his younger contemporary\nPlato, an admiration illustrated by several striking anecdotes.[199]\nThat the philosopher\u2019s views on love were directly influenced by the\npoet cannot, of course, be absolutely proved. At the same time, the\nwell-authenticated story of this intimacy, coupled with all that we\nknow of the _Lyde_, is very suggestive of this, and might well furnish\nthe subject for more elaborate research on the part of some Platonist.\nIn spite therefore of the very scanty references to the _Lyde_, and\nthe still scantier remains of the poem itself, it seems to be clear\nbeyond doubt that, both in its circumstances of origin and its style, it\nwas entirely different from any love-poem which had preceded it; and,\nfurther, that both circumstances and style may justly be described as\nromantic. In other words, the _Lyde_ was a romantic love-poem.\n\nBut this is not in itself enough to show that the origin of the romantic\nfeeling which appears in Alexandrian literature was due to its influence.\nIt is further necessary to prove that those writers in whose works this\nfeeling first appeals\u2014viz. Asclepiades and Philetas\u2014were actually readers\nand admirers of Antimachus.\n\nThis it is, perhaps, possible to do more conclusively than the general\nabsence of evidence on the whole subject would have led one to expect.\nIt is just Asclepiades and his particular followers who speak with the\ngreatest enthusiasm of Antimachus. Very noteworthy are the words of\nAsclepiades himself\u2014\n\n \u039b\u03cd\u03b4\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f54\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u00b7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u039a\u03cc\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\n \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd.\n \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f14\u03bc\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f24\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5; \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u039b\u03cd\u03b4\u03b7\u03bd,\n \u03c4\u1f78 \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u039c\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5;\n\n _Anth. Pal._ ix. 63.\n\nAnd the passage in Poseidippus, where Antimachus and Mimnermus, coupled\nbut contrasted, are spoken of as the first two love-poets, is scarcely\nless emphatic.[200]\n\nIn the case of Philetas, the evidence is also strong. His elegies\naddressed to Battis are generally admitted to have been modelled, in\nform, at any rate, on the _Lyde_ of Antimachus; and it does not seem\nunjustifiable to infer from this that their spirit and their general\ncharacter were also, in the main, similar. The way in which the two poets\nare coupled by Ovid (_Trist._ i. 6, 1) seems to support this view, and,\nas we have already seen, there is no evidence to the contrary.[201] To\nsum up, then: the conclusions arrived at are briefly as follows:\n\n(1) In extant Greek poetry there is no trace of romantic love-poetry\naddressed to women, prior to the time of Asclepiades and Philetas.\n\n(2) In the works of these writers this element suddenly appears, not in\nthe nature of an experiment, but as a leading motive\u2014an almost sure proof\nthat they were not the originators of it.\n\n(3) The _Lyde_ of Antimachus was a work of such a kind, both in nature\nand in circumstances of production, that there is every reason to believe\nthat it was a romantic love-poem.\n\n(4) Philetas and Asclepiades were notoriously admirers of the _Lyde_ of\nAntimachus.\n\n(5) Therefore there is reason to believe that the romantic element\nappearing in their poems was due to the influence of Antimachus, who may\nthus be regarded as the originator of the romantic element in literature.\n\n_Vale, lector benevole, si quidem huc usque mecum perveneris._\n\n\n\n\nWOMEN IN GREEK COMEDY\n\n\nI. THE CLASSIFICATION OF COMEDY\n\nThe classification of Greek Comedy has been, from the earliest times,\na subject of dispute. The ancient critics, for the most part, divided\ncomedy into two classes only\u2014the Old Comedy, which has a _parabasis_, and\nthe New Comedy, which has none. According to these critics, the acme of\nthe Old Comedy was reached during the Peloponnesian War, that of the New\nComedy during the reign of Alexander. That this system of classification,\nthough sound as far as it goes, is not an adequate one, will be admitted\nby every student of the subject, and need not be further discussed.\nThe alternative division of comedy into three classes, corresponding\nroughly to the sixth, seventh, and eighth so-called periods of Greek\nliterature[202]\u2014a scheme of arrangement that has on the whole been most\ngenerally accepted in modern times\u2014is also not a very satisfactory\none; for, apart from the initial objection that it, like all similar\nchronological arrangements, is far too rigid to be applied to anything\nso intangible as a literary tendency, there is the further and graver\nobjection that there is really no essential difference whatever between\nthe comedies performed at Athens during the reign of Philip and those\nperformed there in the time of Alexander.\n\nThe _Orge_ of Menander, produced in the year after the death of the\nlatter monarch, might have been produced, as far as one can judge of its\ncharacter by its remains, in any year of the previous fifty.\n\nAt the same time, however, it is certain that a division of comedy\ninto three classes rather than two is necessary; for that the work of,\nsay, Apollodorus Carystius, differs as much from that of Antiphanes as\nanything the latter ever wrote does from the work of Eupolis, is a fact\nthat no one acquainted with the subject is likely to question.\n\nThe only satisfactory system of classification is that based, not on\nstyle or chronology, but on subject. Greek comedy falls naturally into\nthree great divisions\u2014the Political, the Social, and the Romantic,[203]\nand, to come at once to the point, these three divisions are\ncharacterised by three distinct ways of regarding women. The Political\nComedy practically ignores women altogether; the Social Comedy admits\nthe fascination of woman\u2019s society as an incident in a man\u2019s life;\nthe Romantic Comedy claims woman\u2019s love as the one topic of absorbing\ninterest for men.\n\nAnd here it may at once be observed that the relation between the first\ntwo forms of art is somewhat different from that which exists between\nthem and the last. The Social Comedy was the natural and logical\ndevelopment of the original primitive comedy, and the Comedy of Cratinus,\nwith its political motive, was but a temporary branch of the art, which,\nthough growing at one time to such striking proportions as well nigh to\nconceal the parent stem, yet never actually prevented the growth and\ndevelopment of the latter. The Romantic Comedy, on the other hand, was\nthe result, not of development, but of revolution. It was a deliberate\nattempt (undertaken in the first instance, it would seem, by a single man\nof genius) to inoculate the old Athenian drama with those romantic ideas\nwhich were by this time beginning to be freely expressed in various other\nparts of Greece, and to combine the teaching of the epic erotic legends,\nwhich were in essence ideal, with the realism of Social Comedy.[204]\n\nThis being the case, one would not unnaturally expect to find a more\ndecided line of cleavage between the writers of the two last phases of\nComedy than is apparent in the previous case. And this is unquestionably\nso. Throughout the fifth century we find political and social comedy\nflourishing side by side, the great mass of the comedians being equally\nat home in either branch of the art, while, towards the close of that\ncentury and at the beginning of the next, the boundary line between the\nwriters of \u201cOld\u201d and \u201cMiddle\u201d Comedy is notoriously a very faint one.\nAt the end of the fourth century, on the other hand, the victory of\nthe Romantic Comedy was rapid and well-nigh complete, while there is\ngenerally no difficulty in saying without hesitation to which of the\ntwo classes, the modern or the old-fashioned, any given play of the\ntransition belonged.[205]\n\nBut while the most satisfactory classification of Greek Comedy is\nunquestionably one on the lines suggested above, the ordinary division\ninto Old, Middle, and New Comedy, is so generally recognised that it has\nseemed to me inadvisable to ignore it altogether, and so these terms\nwill be found occurring repeatedly in the following pages. To avoid the\npossibility of any misunderstanding, however, it may be remarked that\nthe term, \u201cNew Comedy,\u201d will always be used in the sense of romantic\ncomedy. The term, \u201cMiddle Comedy,\u201d will be used in its ordinary sense,\nexcept that it will be extended to cover all works, irrespective of\nauthor, which are akin to the school of Antiphanes and Eubulus. The\nunsatisfactory term, \u201cOld Comedy,\u201d will only be used in those passages\nwhere the context renders its meaning unmistakable.\n\n\nII. THE ORIGIN OF COMEDY.\n\nComedy was, in its origin, as seems indeed necessary from its nature,\nsocial rather than political. The scenes which the first comic actors\naimed at depicting appear, beyond doubt, to have been representations of\namusing incidents in the everyday life of ordinary people, and were in\nno way concerned with state policy; while the personalities with which\nthis form of entertainment originally abounded, were aimed rather at\nrival actors than at well-known public characters, and had nothing at\nall in common with political lampoons. It is true that Comedy generally\nreceived its chief impulses at times of great popular license under\ndemocracies,[206] but this fact really means no more than that, at\nsuch periods, the amusements of the people received greater attention\nthan would be the case under a tyranny or an oligarchy. No doubt these\nextempore slanging-matches became, at an early time already, very\ngeneral in character, and contained, among other promiscuous allusions,\noccasional references, probably none too complimentary, to important\ncontemporary events or personages; but that this was not their main\nfeature, nor that which supplied their chief interest, seems shown,\n_inter alia_, by the fact that the first artistic development they\nreceived at the hands of Epicharmus was by no means in this direction.\nNor, indeed, do the earliest Attic comedies appear to have been political\nin character, the few fragments of them which survive seeming, in every\ncase, to deal with social subjects.[207]\n\nThe first writer to make Comedy political\u2014that is, the first writer to\ngive to the \u201cOld\u201d Comedy of Athens that which is, by modern readers,\ngenerally regarded as its most essential characteristic\u2014was Cratinus.\nHe, abandoning in great part that endeavour to amuse which had been the\nprimary object of his predecessors, deliberately made use of Comedy as a\npolitical party engine, or, as he would perhaps have preferred to call\nit, as a means of attacking those who did harm to the state.[208] The\nsuccess of the new element thus imported seems to have been very great;\nbut, at the same time, it must not be supposed that the work of Cratinus\nwas all of this nature. In the first place, some of his plays were of\na distinctly general character. Thus the _Odysses_ was a simple parody\nof the _Odyssey_ of Homer, and, as such, was the distinct forerunner\nof a class of piece very common in the Social Comedy of the fourth\ncentury.[209] The _Cleobulinae_, with its enigmas, is equally suggestive\nof another feature of the same period of art. In like manner, the\n_Panoptae_, with its attacks on the philosopher Hippo, the _Seriphii_,\nwith its mythological allusions, and the _Horae_, with its apparent\ndiscussions of tragedy, all point to the direction in which lay the true\ndevelopment of the art of Comedy.[210]\n\nBut, popular as the indiscriminate mud-throwing of Cratinus undoubtedly\nwas with a large section of that cultured Athenian audience which one\nis taught to admire, a certain reaction was, in course of time, almost\ninevitable; and such a reaction was actually furnished by the comedies of\nCrates. Crates is described as the first Attic comedian to develop Comedy\non the lines of Epicharmus, and to introduce a plot with apparently\nfictitious or allegorical characters, instead of merely bringing public\ncharacters on the stage and making them ridiculous.[211]\n\nFrom a very early period, therefore, Comedy at Athens falls into two\nclasses, the personal, which is usually also political, and the general\nor social, though the line of demarcation is not, of course, a very rigid\none, since writers of the latter class would seldom feel much hesitation\nin attacking anyone who had made himself particularly obnoxious to them,\neven if he were a political character, while those of the former were\nalso frequently compelled, for equally personal reasons, to set a limit\nto their righteous indignation. Thus Pherecrates, the most important\nof the actual imitators of Crates,[212] is by no means averse to an\noccasional personality, while a writer of the very opposite school,\nHermippus, was yet the author of the _Athenas Gonae_.[213] Plato and\nAristophanes are, of course, equally striking instances of the same fact\noccurring at a later date.\n\nFrom the preceding paragraphs, which might have been considerably\nextended, had it not lain somewhat outside the present subject to extend\nthem, one fact at least will be abundantly clear. That system of treating\nsubjects rather than persons as material for comedy which is sometimes\nspoken of as a distinctive feature of \u201cMiddle\u201d Comedy (using that term in\nits chronological sense), had already been in vogue at Athens from the\nvery earliest times; in fact, what are commonly called \u201cOld\u201d and \u201cMiddle\u201d\nComedy are, in spirit, intimately associated with one another, and the\nmost important differences between them are in purely external matters,\nbrought about by external causes.[214]\n\nThis fact will not be without its importance in considering our immediate\nsubject. In the first place, it will cause us to find in the early\nAthenian comedy two distinct ways of regarding women, which, while\ncontemporaneous, have very little else in common with one another.\nThe comedy of the school of Cratinus,[215] being concerned with\npublic characters and with them alone, naturally ignores women almost\nentirely.[216] The comedy of the school of Crates, on the other hand, is\nvery similar in its treatment of women to the comedy of the beginning\nof the fourth century, except that, in so far as the position of women\nin Athenian society was a less important one in the middle of the fifth\ncentury than it was some seventy years later, the female element is not\nsuch a pronounced feature of these early works as it is of the later.\n\nA detailed examination of the treatment of women in early comedy, as far\nas such is possible by means of the fragments, will serve to illustrate\nthe foregoing somewhat general remarks.\n\n\nIII. EARLY COMEDY.\n\nCratinus, in that work at any rate which is truly characteristic of his\ngenius, is entirely engrossed in public affairs, and in attacking the\ncharacters of public men. It is not, therefore, surprising to find that\nin his plays women are almost entirely ignored. The one notable exception\nis Aspasia, who is, it is true, alluded to more than once, and that in\nno very complimentary terms; but this is, of course, only what one would\nexpect of an opponent of Pericles.[217] The poet\u2019s views of married\nlife are sufficiently illustrated by his _Pytine_. It is, however,\nto be observed that, in those of his plays which, from legislative\ncauses, approximated more closely to the contemporary social comedy, the\nfemale element is more apparent, though even here it is never really\nprominent. Thus the _Cleobulinae_ appears to have introduced a chorus of\nwomen propounding enigmas, while both the _Nemesis_ and the _Seriphii_\ncontained at least allusions to erotic mythological incidents.[218]\n\nThe other early poets of the political school are still more barren of\nreferences to women; indeed the fragments of Teleclides, Hermippus, and\nEupolis,[219] put together, do not furnish a single noticeable instance.\n\nIt is otherwise, as already remarked, with the school of Crates. The\nfragments of Crates himself do not indeed furnish much of interest in\nthis connection, except, perhaps, the rather _risqu\u00e9_ remarks in _Fr.\nIncert._ 3 and 4, but from Pherecrates there is more to be learnt. In\nthe first place, three of his plays, the _Corianno_, _Thalatta_, and\n_Petale_, are named after Hetaerae, a common enough feature in later\ntimes, but rare at this early period; while the first two of these, at\nany rate, were evidently devoted to a study of the life of this class of\nperson. Thus the _Corianno_ describes (_Fr._ 1, 2, 3, 4) the drinking\npropensities of its heroine;[220] while the _Thalatta_ gives one even\nfurther particulars, _Fr._ 7 describing the arrival at Thalatta\u2019s house\nof her lover[221] (perhaps the Epilesmon, the \u201cAbsent-minded Man,\u201d from\nwhom the piece had its second title), and _Fr._ 2, 3, and 5 their supper\ntogether, while _Fr._ 4 shows clearly that a lover\u2019s quarrel of some sort\nduly found its place in the piece.[222] Of the _Petale_ no important\nfragment remains. Whether the _Pannychis_ dealt with one of those\nincidents which are so common in New Comedy, it is impossible to say.\n\n\nIV. ARISTOPHANES.\n\nThe remains of Pherecrates, therefore, notwithstanding their very meagre\ncharacter, supply ample evidence that, at this period already, some of\nthe most popular characters and scenes of early fourth-century comedy had\nfound a place on the Athenian stage[223]; but a still more interesting\nfield of study is furnished by those poets who belong to the period of\ntransition which commences with the decline of the Athenian power, and\nmore especially by those who began life as adherents of the personal and\npolitical school of Cratinus, and were afterwards compelled, by force\nof circumstances, to identify themselves with a different style of art.\nForemost among these is, of course, the name of Aristophanes. The earlier\nplays of Aristophanes contain few allusions to women, and throughout his\nworks it may be doubted whether he ever introduced a female character on\nthe stage except with the ultimate intention of leading up to some form\nof indecency. At the same time, since the fact that his plays have been\npreserved affords a better opportunity of judging of his views than is\nto be had in the case of any other writer of the period, it will perhaps\nbe well to examine some of his characteristics in greater detail.\n\nThe first and, perhaps, the most striking feature in the Aristophanic\ntreatment of women\u2014a feature which is very prominent indeed in certain\nplays\u2014is the respect which the poet professes to feel for women\u2019s\njudgment and powers of organisation. Thus, in the _Lysistrata_, the\ntreaty between Athens and Sparta, which is admitted on all sides to be\ndesirable, can only be brought about through the intervention of a woman.\nSimilarly, in the _Ecclesiazusae_, when the government of the city has\nfallen into a deplorable state, it is reorganised by the women, and their\nscheme of reorganisation is, we are given to understand, a complete\nsuccess, for the time being at any rate. Again, in the lost play of the\n_Scenas Catalambanusae_, there seems little doubt that the motive of the\naction was an appeal on the part of the poet from the male audience who\nhad not appreciated him, to a female audience which he expected to find\nendowed with better taste.\n\nAll this is very pleasing as far as it goes. The question is:\u2014How far\nis this respect professed for women, genuine? Enquiry would seem to\nshow that very little of it, if any, is genuine at all. Of the _Scenas\nCatalambanusae_ it is impossible to speak with certainty,[224] but, as\nfor the other two plays mentioned above, it is hard to believe that the\nwomen are introduced for any other purpose than that of leading up to\nthe various scenes of indecency which afford the main interest of both\npieces. The climax of the _Lysistrata_ is the pathetic speech of Cinesias\n(865 _seqq._), that of the _Ecclesiazusae_ the struggle between the \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c2\nand the \u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c2 (877 _seqq._), and neither of these scenes can be said to\nshow much respect for female nature. As for the success of the women\u2019s\nefforts in both these plays, it is perhaps sufficient to observe that in\neach case the poet\u2019s main object was to point out the advantages of a\nparticular course of action, not to suggest any novel method of procedure\nby means of which this course was to be adopted. The political object of\nboth comedies is merely to attack the government of the day. No one who\nhas ever read these plays would be likely to argue that they advocated\nthe extension of the franchise to women, or indeed concerned themselves\nin any way with any subject of the kind. To put it shortly, the women are\nintroduced for indecency\u2019s sake, and their revolutions succeed simply\nbecause they are revolutions against the existing order of things, an\norder of which Aristophanes did not approve. It would be as reasonable to\nsuppose that the _Aves_ was a serious piece of advice to the Athenians to\nconsult with birds about the management of the State, as to assume that\nthe _Ecclesiazusae_ meant to imply that the views of women were really\nworthy of consideration or adoption.\n\nThe incessant allusions in these plays, no less than in others, to\nthe incontinence,[225] the drunkenness, and the various other faults\nwith which it was usual at the time to tax women\u2014allusions which\nfrequently take the form of frank confessions on the part of the women\nthemselves\u2014are so numerous that there is no need to quote any of them.\n\nAnother rather striking feature is the way in which several of the plays\nof Aristophanes conclude with the wedding of one of the characters\u2014a\nfeature at first sight very suggestive of the comedy typical of a much\nlater period. The best known instance of this is perhaps in the _Eirene_,\nbut the same seems to have been the case in the _Polyidus_ (where the\nsuccessful soothsayer is rewarded with the hand of the king\u2019s daughter,\nPhaedra), and in the _Geras_, where the hero, having been miraculously\nrestored to youth, repudiates his former wife, and marries one more\nsuited to his recently acquired\u2014or lost\u2014years. It must, however, be\nobserved that in none of these plays, as far as one can see, is the\nwedding of the hero by any means the logical result of the action of the\npiece; it is merely an incidental episode introduced, in the _Eirene_ at\nany rate, and very possibly also in the others, simply with the view of\nproviding the chorus with an effective exit. In the _Polyidus_, moreover,\nit is clear that though Minos gives his daughter as a reward, he has his\nown opinion as to the value of the gift, an opinion which is hardly\ncomplimentary to Phaedra[226]; while in the _Geras_ there can be little\nreasonable doubt that the connubial arrangements were made the occasion\nfor a plentiful supply of obscenities, _quae nunc desiderantur_, if\none can use the words in such a connection.[227] One must be careful,\ntherefore, not to exaggerate the importance of this feature in the\nAristophanic treatment of women, though it cannot, of course, be denied\nthat to introduce a wedding at all on the stage was a distinct advance on\nstrict Athenian views with reference to such events.[228]\n\nAristophanes was above all things, by profession at least, a\nconservative and a _laudator temporis acti_; but, strangely enough,\nthis characteristic of his is but little noticeable in his treatment of\nwomen. Nothing would have been more natural, one would have thought, than\nthat he should, in the course of some of his highly-coloured pictures\nof primeval felicity before the days of Euripides and the philosophers,\nhave dwelt upon the purity of ancient family life and the chastity of\na previous generation of women, in contrast to that present depravity\nto which he makes such frequent allusion. But, true to his Athenian\ntemperament, he never follows any such line, nor indeed does he ever take\nup high ground on this subject. Ready as he is to moralise seriously on\nother matters, even on matters so distinctly erotic as the relations of\nman to man,[229] his tone with regard to women is invariably flippant.\n\nWomen are, above all things, conservative:\n\n \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. (_Eccles._ 225.)\n\nEuripides may have made rude remarks about women, but his suggestions are\npoliteness itself compared with what might have been said.[230] Indeed,\nthe main charge of the women against Euripides in the _Thesmophoriazusae_\nis not that he has maligned them, but that he has opened the eyes of\ntheir husbands to what they actually do.[231] It is needless to multiply\ninstances; the general tendency is plain. Woman in Aristophanes is\ninvariably an object of ridicule. So incapable was he of treating her\notherwise, that his one ideal woman, Eirene, for whom the knight-errant\nTrygaeus flies up to heaven on the dung-beetle, was a colossal failure,\na \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1 that was the general laughing-stock of his\ncontemporaries.[232]\n\nThis being so, there is but little need to dwell on such \u201cerotic\u201d\npassages as do occur, here and there in his works, between men and\nwomen. Such scenes, of which the best instance is perhaps that in the\n_Ecclesiazusae_ (877 _seqq._), are never the main motive of the plot;\nthey are merely more or less irrelevant incidents, developed or not\naccording to the chances they afford for the introduction of amusing\nindecencies. In these scenes Aristophanes is often to be seen at his\nvery best, but they cannot of course be drawn upon with the object of\nsupplying evidence as to his real views of women, except in so far as\nthey serve still further to emphasise what has already been said as to\nthe poet\u2019s disinclination to deal seriously with the subject of women\nat all. Indeed, his view of the proper relation between love and art is\nsufficiently illustrated by the famous argument in the _Ranae_ (1043\n_seqq._) between Aeschylus and Euripides, where, after the former has\nstated with pride:\n\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f25\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u2019 \u1f10\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1,\n\nand the latter has defended his own erotic treatment on the ground that\nit is realistic:\n\n \u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a6\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1;\n\nthe answer comes back:\n\n \u03bc\u1f70 \u0394\u03af\u2019, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u2019\u00b7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u1f74 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd.\n\nThe treatment of erotic subjects in a realistic manner is not the\nbusiness of a true poet!\n\n\nV. THE COCALUS.\n\nWith this before one, it would seem hardly necessary to say anything\nfurther about the erotic element in Aristophanes. There is, however, one\nplay of his\u2014the last, or last but one, that he wrote\u2014which seems at\nfirst sight to differ so entirely in spirit from the rest, that it is\nwell worthy of separate notice.\n\nThis play is the _Cocalus_, a work of which it is distinctly stated by\nancient authorities that it anticipated one of the most characteristic\nfeatures of romantic comedy\u2014nay more, that it actually served as the\nmodel for Menander and Philemon. Thus, in the _Vita Aristophanis_, p.\nxxxviii., it is said: \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b6\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2,\n\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03b5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff3 ... \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 \u039a\u03ce\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f03 \u1f10\u03b6\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5 \u039c\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, and again, p. xxxv.:\n\u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bd\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u1ff3\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03be\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039a\u03c9\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u1ff3, \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f57\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u039c\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd.\n\nOf these statements, the one part, startling as it is, must presumably\nbe accepted without question. In the face of such definite evidence,\nit would be rash to attempt to deny that one of the features of\nAristophanes\u2019 play was \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2\u2014a feature which is, as is\nwell known, not only one of the commonest in romantic comedy, but also\npeculiarly characteristic of the love-element as there treated. The sort\nof story of which we are speaking is sufficiently familiar to every\nreader of Terence. A man seduces a girl, either without knowing at all\nwho she is, or else under the impression that she is a foreigner or a\nslave. Afterwards she is proved to be an Athenian citizen, and he, being\nstill in love, marries her, with the double object of atoning for his\nfault and of continuing his amour on a legitimate basis.[233]\n\nBut here a question arises. Granted that Aristophanes anticipated one of\nthe most characteristic situations of the romantic comedy, in how far, if\nat all, did he anticipate the romantic treatment of that situation, such\nas we subsequently find it? Aristophanes, as we have seen, has the first\npart of the romantic love-story in his _Cocalus_; is it probable that\nhe also had the second? He has the seduction and the recognition; is it\nprobable that he had also the _amende honorable_ prompted by feelings of\nrespect and devotion? And, as a natural pendant to this, is it probable\nthat the _Cocalus_ was really, as asserted, the model after which the\nlater romantic comedy was formed?\n\nIt is not probable. No one who knows the works of Aristophanes, and\nconsiders the character of the Athenians of his day, would expect such\na thing; and, apart from this inherent improbability, there are various\nreasons which seem to suggest that the second part of the anonymous\ngrammarian\u2019s statement was based upon a misconception. But, before\ndiscussing any of these points, it will be necessary to investigate, as\nfar as possible, the exact nature of this play of Aristophanes, for which\nso much is claimed.\n\nAn examination of the actual remains of the _Cocalus_ will not afford\nvery much information, for the fragments preserved are few and\nunimportant, while the mercurial nature of Aristophanes\u2019 plots, as we\nknow them from existing plays, makes it obviously hazardous to venture\nconjectures as to what they may or may not have included. Certain facts,\nhowever, seem sufficiently clear. For one thing, the play was based, at\nany rate originally and ostensibly, on the legendary history of Cocalus,\nDaedalus, and Minos. This history was, briefly, as follows:\u2014\n\nDaedalus, after his flight from Crete, took refuge with Cocalus, king of\nSicily, and rose to high favour at his court. When Minos, having learnt\nhis whereabouts, demanded his surrender, Cocalus at first seemed willing\nto comply, and invited Minos to his palace. The latter, suspecting\nnothing, accepted the invitation, and was at once murdered in his bath,\neither by Cocalus himself or by his daughters.[234]\n\nThat the latter version of the final incident was accepted by\nAristophanes seems probable, but even so it is hard to see how the\n\u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 can be brought into the story. It is, perhaps,\njustifiable to assume that the hero of the amour was Daedalus, and that\nthe lady was subsequently recognised as a daughter of Cocalus; but how\nthis all came about, it is well-nigh impossible to say. In some of the\nfragments we are apparently introduced to a regular Hetaera (_e.g._ 2,\n10; and, perhaps, 6, 7); in another, however (_Fr._ 3), a woman seems\nvigorously repudiating some slur cast on her character. It cannot, of\ncourse, be proved that the plot[235] was not one of the regular New\nComedy kind: The daughter of Cocalus, being stolen as a child, became the\nproperty of a _leno_, and was thus brought in contact with Daedalus, &c.\nBut it seems to me much more probable that the structure of the story was\nsomewhat of the following kind. The daughter of Cocalus is violated by\nDaedalus on the occasion of a nocturnal orgy, without being recognised by\nher lover. She, however, is aware of his identity, and consequently, when\nthe time comes, murders Minos, an event which necessitates explanations\n(the \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 of the grammarian).[236] One thing there is to be said\nin favour of this scheme of reconstruction, though, of course, when the\nevidence is so slight, it is impossible to feel anything like confidence\nwith regard to this or any other suggestion. If this view be adopted,\nAristophanes may be assumed to have chosen his story with the object of\nsatirising the _Pannychides_ and other similar orgies, which were always\na favourite subject of attack with him, and which he had already abused\nin the _Horae_,[237] the _Lemniae_, and, perhaps, elsewhere.\n\nBut, be this as it may, one thing is plain. There is nothing, either in\nthe story of the _Cocalus_ or in its treatment, as far as the fragments\nallow one to judge of this, which has any real sympathy with that later\nfeeling which inspires the romantic comedy. For one thing, the erotic\nincident, such as it is, belongs entirely to that primitive class in\nwhich the action is all on the side of the woman. The daughter of Cocalus\nsaving her lover is but a reflection of Medea or Ariadne. In the later\nromantic comedy, on the other hand, the action is regularly on the side\nof the man; for, as is well known, the attempts of the lover to outwit\nhis father or the _leno_ supply pretty well the whole stock of the\nincidents of New Comedy. Again, there is no suggestion whatever, as far\nas one can judge, of any marriage by way of reparation, or, indeed, of\nany marriage at all;[238] and marriage, as we shall see very clearly\nlater on, is the fundamental principle of Greek romance. Again, there is\nno suggestion\u2014and this is still more important\u2014that the love of Daedalus\nwas described as more than a mere temporary emotion; and here is another\npoint of difference between this play and the romantic New Comedy. In\nfact, if one comes to examine the story of the _Cocalus_ carefully,\nit becomes apparent that the essential features of Greek romance are\nentirely wanting. Indeed, the only real affinity of this play to the New\nComedy seems to be that it anticipated, or possibly suggested, some of\nthe rather cumbrous conventional machinery of the latter form of art.\n\nA further fact, which well-nigh precludes the possibility of regarding\nthe _Cocalus_ as the real model of New Comedy, is furnished by the dates.\nThe date of the _Cocalus_ cannot be fixed later than the year 380 or\nthereabouts. The first play of Philemon, admittedly the most ancient\npoet who wrote romantic comedies, appeared in 330. Thus, even if it were\ngranted that such romantic comedies were among the earliest of Philemon\u2019s\nworks, which was almost certainly not the case,[239] there would still\nbe an interval of at least fifty years during which the \u201cromantic\u201d\n_Cocalus_ of Aristophanes did not find a single imitator. The works of\nAntiphanes, Eubulus, and, indeed, all the typical writers of \u201cMiddle\u201d\nComedy, do not contain so much as a suggestion of a romantic element, and\nyet, before the time of all of them, there was in existence a perfect\nromantic comedy, which only needed to be revived by Philemon to bring\nabout a complete revolution of the canons of dramatic art. In fact, the\nintroduction of the romantic element into comedy\u2014that is, the birth of\nthe modern drama\u2014was due to a chance resuscitation by Philemon of an\nobscure piece that had been lying unnoticed for more than fifty years.\n_Credat Apella._\n\nMoreover, if one comes to consider the matter, there were powerful causes\nat work in the minds of the early critics, which may very well have led\nthem to assign an undue degree of importance to the _Cocalus_. Such\ncauses would be mainly of two distinct kinds.\n\nIn the first place, there was the tendency, with which every student of\nancient and mediaeval criticism is familiar, to exaggerate the merits of\ncertain individuals, and to ascribe to certain admittedly great names\nan even more extended influence than they actually possessed.[240] It\nseemed only natural, therefore, to the ancient critic to expect that\nAristophanes, being admittedly the greatest of the comedians, should\nnot only have profoundly influenced his own immediate field of art, but\nshould also have laid the foundations of every subsequent form of comedy.\nThe grammarian, therefore, who found in the story of the _Cocalus_ a\ncertain resemblance to stories with which he was familiar in the plays of\nthe New Comedy, felt no hesitation in affirming that the _Cocalus_ was\nactually the model on which these plays of the New Comedy were based,\njust as Platonius (p. xxxiv.) speaks of the _Aeolosicon_ as \u1f41 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u1ff3\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nIn the second place, the story of the _Cocalus_ had actually\nbeen converted into a \u201cNew\u201d Comedy play\u2014the _Hypobolimaeus_ of\nPhilemon[241]\u2014and the existence of this neo-comic version of the story\nmay very possibly have influenced the recollections of the original; for\nit is more than probable that the play of Philemon, while adopting the\nmain features of the story as it appeared in Aristophanes, yet differed\nconsiderably in its general treatment of the erotic incidents. In other\nwords, there is little reason to doubt that Philemon, actuated by the\nchanged spirit of his time, developed the romantic capabilities of the\nstory to the utmost, and gave a romantic interpretation to various\nsituations, where nothing of the kind had been done or intended by\nAristophanes. And hence the fact that a romantic version of the _Cocalus_\nwas familiar, served to spread the idea that the original _Cocalus_ was\nromantic also, and, as such, a forerunner of the romantic element in\nNew Comedy, whereas, as a matter of fact, it was nothing of the kind,\nowing its romantic colouring entirely to the influence of the ideas\ndisseminated by that New Comedy which it was erroneously supposed to\ninspire.\n\nTo sum up, then: There seems little reason to believe that the _Cocalus_\nis really as important for the history of the romantic element as would\nat first sight appear. Apart from the strong _prima facie_ improbability\nof finding a romantic love-story in a play by Aristophanes, there is the\nfurther remarkable fact that the Aristophanic suggestion, if really\ngiven, found no one to take it up for more than fifty years. Again, while\nthe legendary history of Cocalus and the fragments of the play, as far\nas such have been preserved, do not actually preclude the possibility\nthat the erotic incident may have been treated in a romantic manner, they\ncertainly furnish no evidence whatever in favour of such a view. There\nare, besides, various reasons which may have induced the ancient critics\nto see a greater resemblance between the _Cocalus_ and the plays of the\nNew Comedy than was actually present. On the whole, therefore, it would\nappear that the similarity between this work of Aristophanes and the\nromantic comedies of Menander and his followers, is merely an accidental\nand superficial one, and that it is incorrect to say, as some have done,\nthat the latter class of composition was derived from or inspired by the\nformer.\n\n\nVI. THE POETS OF THE TRANSITION.\n\nTo return after this somewhat lengthy digression to our examination of\nthe poets of the transition.\n\nPlato, even more than his model Aristophanes, was a follower of the\npolitical school of Cratinus, revelling in personal attacks of the most\nviolent kind, and hence there seems little reason to doubt that such of\nhis plays as bear the stamp of Middle Comedy belong to his later period,\nand were only produced, decidedly _invita Minerva_, when the free license\nof abuse had been artificially checked. Hence the allusions in his works\nto women or erotic subjects seem to have been unusually scarce. In the\n_Adonis_, mention is made of the rival lovers of the hero, Aphrodite\nand Dionysus; but there is nothing to indicate that this play contained\nanything of the nature of a serious exposition of the respective claims\nof male and female love. The _Zeus Cacumenus_ very probably introduced\nZeus in his usual comic character of the adulterer, as did the _Nyx\nMacra_,[242] and the _Europe_ may very possibly have treated of a\nsimilar subject. More original, however, and interesting than these is\nthe _Phaon_, which seems to have been one of the poet\u2019s latest works,\nand which furnishes a good specimen of his manner of treating women.\nPhaon, having been presented by Aphrodite with the cosmetics which\nwere to inspire universal passion, appears surrounded by a crowd of\nadmiring women, who are, however, refused access to his presence, unless\nthey perform certain propitiatory rites (_Fr._ 2), and otherwise prove\nthemselves worthy of the honour. The means by which one lady eventually\nqualifies (_Fr._ 4) can only be guessed, but the language of _Fr._ 3\nseems to suggest that the contest was somewhat after the manner of those\ndescribed in _Anth. Pal._ v. 35 or Alciphron i. 39, 4 _seqq._[243]\nThe interest of this piece lies in the fact that the plot is, despite\nits ribald handling, unequivocally a love-story, and, as such, perhaps\ndistinct from any piece that we have hitherto had occasion to examine.\nThat the love-story is, however, of the kind which belongs essentially to\nMiddle Comedy, and has nothing whatever in common with those of the later\nromantic comedy, will become abundantly clear when we come to deal with\nthe points of difference between these two schools of art.[244]\n\nThe information to be gained from the remains of the other poets of\nthe transitional period is sadly scanty. The _Moechi_ of Ameipsias, a\nplay which, to judge by the title, might have thrown much light on the\npresent subject, is hopelessly lost. Of the _Sappho_ even the title is\ndoubtful. The celebrated _Ichthys_ of Archippus seems to have contained\npunning allusions to the Hetaerae Sepia and Aphye, a sign of the growing\ninclination to discuss this class of persons on the stage. The latter\nlady, or a namesake of hers, is mentioned by Callias in his _Cyclopes_.\nOf the _Atalanta_ of the same writer, one line is preserved:\n\n \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f15\u03bb\u03ba\u03b5 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bd,\n\nwhich seems in some sort to suggest that episode in the life of\nthe mythical Atalanta, daughter of Schoeneus, which led to her\nmetamorphosis[245]; but, seeing that even the title _Atalanta_ is\ndoubtful, this conjecture cannot be considered as very certain. Strattis\nappears to have introduced Lais on the stage in his _Macedones_ (_Fr._\n5), and in his parodies of the _Medea_, the _Phoenissae_, &c., the\nfemale characters of Euripides doubtless came in for their full share of\nridicule, though no definite evidence to this effect has been preserved.\n\nA little more information is to be gained from the works of those\npoets who belonged to the very end of the period of transition. Thus,\nthe plays of Theopompus, which deal almost exclusively with Middle\nComedy subjects, furnish several instances of that treatment of female\ncharacters with which one is familiar in the plays of the Middle Comedy\nproper. The _Aphrodisia_ introduces us to the Hetaerae celebrating their\ncustomary festival. _Fr._ 1 affords a specimen of the remarks passed\non absent friends on such occasions,[246] while _Fr._ 2 gives further\ndetails of the festivities. The solitary but considerable fragment of\nthe _Nemea_ (called after the Hetaera of that name) gives a lively\ndescription of a scene in which an intending lover is doing his best to\ngain the approval of the lady\u2019s _lena_, a class which was, doubtless,\nas devoted then to the _curto vetus amphora collo_ as it was 400 years\nlater.[247] In the _Capelides_ it is equally possible to get a glimpse\nof the action of the piece. A man dropping in at the bar of a house he\nhas been in the habit of frequenting, and finding himself less effusively\nwelcomed than he had had reason to hope (_Fr._ 3, 4), threatens to\nattack the proprietress and the rival of whom he is jealous (_Fr._\n5). Of the rest, the _Hedychares_ described a wedding ceremony (_Fr._\n3),[248] the _Callaeschrus_ contained an allusion to the expensiveness\nof certain Hetaerae, and general erotic allusions are not uncommon\n(_e.g._ _Odysseus_ 1, _Medus_ 2). The _Stratiotides_ seems to have had\nsome points in common with the _Ecclesiazusae_ of Aristophanes. Alcaeus,\nwho is one of the very latest in date of the writers usually ranked as\nbelonging to the \u201cOld\u201d Comedy, deals in nearly all his plays with erotic\nsubjects, mostly in the shape of mythological stories burlesqued. To\nthis class belong the _Pasiphae_, the _Hierus Gamus_, the _Endymion_,\nthe _Ganymedes_, and perhaps the _Callisto_, unless this be, like the\n_Palaestra_, named after an Hetaera. From this list of titles it may\nbe seen that every style of love came in for treatment, but in no case\nare the fragments sufficiently numerous, for it to be possible even to\nhazard a guess as to what the nature of that treatment may have been.\nAs to the plot of the _Adelphae Moecheuomenae_, we are equally in the\ndark, though the title seems to suggest the _Aeolosicon_ of Aristophanes\nand the _Canace_ of Euripides. Lastly, in the _Antea_ of Eunicus and the\n_Thalatta_ of Diodes, both named after Hetaerae, we have two further\ninstances of a class of piece with which we have been steadily growing\nmore familiar, the nearer we have approached the confines of the typical\n\u201cMiddle\u201d Comedy.\n\n\nVII. THE MIDDLE COMEDY.\n\nThe poets of the transition, of whom we have just been speaking, have\nintroduced us, more or less, to most, if not all, of the features which\nbelong to the Middle Comedy proper; at the same time, it may not be\namiss, for clearness\u2019 sake, to recapitulate briefly those features, in so\nfar as they affect our immediate subject.\n\nThe points on which it is essential to concentrate the attention are\nthree in number:\u2014\n\n(1) In Middle Comedy, the preponderance of politics as the main dramatic\ninterest\u2014a preponderance which, naturally, tended to exclude women\nfrom the stage\u2014disappears, and, consequently, female characters step\ninevitably into a more prominent position.\n\n(2) The restriction of the original license of Comedy, had led the\ncomedians to devote their talents to parodying mythological subjects; the\nparodists of mythology would naturally find their readiest materials in\nthe stories of the amours of the various gods, and hence erotic stories\nof a sort at once come to the fore.\n\n(3) Middle Comedy being in great part, if not entirely, devoted to the\nrealistic treatment of contemporary social life, the Hetaerae, who\nformed an important feature in that life, were necessarily brought into\nprominence.[249]\n\nOf these three main features,[250] the first two will not require special\nillustration,[251] but the last is one on which it will be necessary to\ndwell for some time.\n\nThe Hetaera-plays[252] are one of the most characteristic features of\nthe fourth century; indeed, it may almost be said that admiration for\nthe Hetaera, and ridicule of the wife, were the two main social canons\nof the period. These plays seem to have been realistic representations\nof contemporary life, and their general character is sufficiently\ndemonstrated by the well-known retort of Antiphanes to Alexander;[253]\nbut while they all thus have, as it were, a certain family likeness,\nit would appear, beyond doubt, that they may be also divided into two\ndistinct classes, viz., those that have a distinct erotic plot, and those\nthat have none, the latter naturally belonging to an earlier period of\ndevelopment than the former.\n\nPlays dealing with Hetaerae were not, as we have already seen,\nexclusively a feature of the fourth-century Comedy, though the majority\nof such plays does, of course, belong to this period. In the very\nbeginnings of Comedy at Athens, we have at least three plays of this\nclass from the pen of Pherecrates,[254] while, at a later period of the\nfifth century, other works of a similar character seem certainly to have\nappeared.\n\nThe general character of these plays, however, seems, in spite of the\nmodernity of their subject, to have been essentially that prevailing\nduring the early period to which they belong. Pherecrates and his\nimitators seem to have been merely concerned in drawing a picture\u2014perhaps\na somewhat burlesque one\u2014of the general life of an Hetaera and her\nfollowers, and in dwelling upon the various comic incidents which might\noccur in her environment, without troubling to connect these incidents\nby means of any very definite story. In other words, the Hetaera-play\nof Pherecrates was still, in the main, that mixture of pantomime and\nvariety-show with which one is familiar in Aristophanes, and with which\none\u2019s ideas of the early Athenian Comedy are usually associated. And that\nplays of this class continued to be produced with success till well into\nthe fourth century, there seems no reason to doubt.\n\nThe typical Hetaera-play of the Middle Comedy, however, is of an entirely\ndifferent character. In this there is a definite plot, of which the\nHetaera is the heroine, while the action of the piece is supplied by the\nstruggles _de nocte locanda_ of her various rival lovers. In fact, the\nHetaera-play of Antiphanes or Alexis is a comedy in the modern sense of\nthe word, while the Hetaera-play of an earlier period is still nothing\nbut an extravaganza. The author of this great change is not known;\nperhaps it was Anaxandrides.\n\nIt is stated of Anaxandrides that he was the first to introduce \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c2[255] into Comedy. This statement is, at first sight,\nrather difficult to understand, when one considers plays like the\n_Nemesis_ of Cratinus, or the _Cocalus_ of Aristophanes, not to speak\nof erotic episodes like the one which terminates the _Ecclesiazusae_ of\nthe latter writer; and it must be apparent that the mere introduction\non the stage of such subjects cannot be the merit claimed by Suidas\nfor Anaxandrides. The most simple explanation of the apparent anomaly\nwould therefore seem to be, that what Suidas means to imply, is that\nAnaxandrides was the first to make erotic subjects the main interest\nof his plot, and to introduce his principal characters as taking part\nin them; for this, as we have already seen, was not the case with the\nearlier plays which dealt with erotic matters.\n\nWhether this great advance was really due to Anaxandrides cannot,\nunfortunately, be proved with anything like certainty, for such fragments\nof his works as have survived are remarkably reticent on this particular\nsubject;[256] but there can be no doubt that it took place about\nhis time, so that there is at least a strong probability, under the\ncircumstances, that it was the result of his influence.\n\nOn the first and older class of Hetaera-play, it is useless to dwell\nfurther; a certain vague idea of their general nature is all that can\nbe gained by the study of their fragments, and the external evidence\nas to their character is equally meagre, while the intentional want\nof coherence which marked their action makes it obviously absurd to\nendeavour in any way to reconstruct them. The character of the second\nand, for our purposes, more important class, will be best explained by a\nbrief examination of one or two striking specimens, the remains of which\nare sufficiently important to render it possible to follow their story,\nat any rate for a certain distance.\n\nThus, in the _Campylion_ of Eubulus, we are introduced to two men, one of\nwhom sighs with quite modern plaintiveness over the heavy burden of his\nlove for a certain \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b1:\n\n \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f41 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1\n \u1f22 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f1c\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u2019 \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd;\n \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f94\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03c7\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6.\n \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u1fe5\u1fb4\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd,\n \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03b4\u1fc7\u00b7 \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\n \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03c1\u1fb6\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1; \u03bb\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n (_Fr._ 3 _ap._ Athen. xiii. 562C.)\n\nThrough the agency of the friend, who is evidently more of a man of the\nworld, the lovers meet at a supper party, which was probably at least a\n_partie carr\u00e9e_. Here the friend gives vent to various cynical remarks on\nwomen:\u2014\n\n \u1f66 \u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03af, \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b5 \u0398\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u1f72\n \u1f14\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03be\u03b5 \u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c1\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b2\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2;\n \u1f26 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f25\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n (_Fr._ 2 _ap._ Athen. xi. 471 E.)\n\nand, evidently a little sceptical as to the inviolable \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 of the\nlady, makes various efforts to induce her to commit herself, either by\neating or drinking to excess[257] (_Fr._ 1, 5), or by displaying her\ntalents in a questionable \u201csong and dance.\u201d (_Fr._ 6.) His efforts seem,\nhowever, to be unsuccessful, and at the end of the evening the hero is as\nhopelessly in love as ever:\u2014\n\n \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03af\u03c9\u03c2, he exclaims,\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f14\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bd\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b2\u03c1\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f02\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03c5\u03b5\u03b8\u2019 \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u039c\u03b9\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1.\n\n (_Fr._ 4 _ap._ Athen. xiii. 571 F.)\n\nThe _d\u00e9nouement_ of this interesting little story we do not know; let us\nhope it was a satisfactory one.\n\nIn the _Agonis_ of Alexis again, we find a girl remonstrating with her\nmother, who wishes her to accept a rich but dissolute lover in preference\nto the \u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 of her choice.\n\n \u1f66 \u03bc\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1, \u1f31\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9 \u03c3\u03b5, \u03bc\u1f74 \u2019\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03ad \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039c\u03b9\u03c3\u03b3\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u1ff3\u03b4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u2019 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ce.\n\nThe mother, however, insists, in spite of the young man\u2019s professions of\n(imaginary?) wealth (_Fr._ 2), in carrying off her daughter to the rich\nlover\u2019s house, where, however, the hero also manages to turn up and make\nsome cutting remarks on the family portraits (_Fr._ 3).[258] He then\nsucceeds in making the mother drunk (_Fr._ 4), and so, we are led to\nbelieve\u2014for the end is again veiled in obscurity\u2014is enabled to elude her\nvigilance.[259]\n\nFurther evidence as to the character of this style of art may be obtained\nby studying several of the plays of Plautus, such as the _Truculentus_,\nthe _Mercator_, or the _Mostellaria_, which seem to have been adapted\ndirectly from Greek works of this class, without being in any way\ninfluenced by the later romantic ideas.\n\nBut while the incidents which occur in the individual plays are naturally\nof an endless variety, certain broad features are recognisable throughout\nthis literature.\n\nFirstly, not only is love for an Hetaera enthusiastically praised, but\nit is specially described as the one love in life worth loving. The\nadvantage of the Hetaera over the wife is such a stock subject, that\nit will be unnecessary to do more than mention one or two of the most\nstriking passages in which the feeling finds expression, such as that\ncited in Athenaeus, xiii. 559 A, from the _Athamas_ of Amphis:\n\n \u03b5\u1f36\u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03bd\u03bf\u03ca\u03ba\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b1; \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd \u03b3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2.\n \u1f21 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u2019 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9,\n \u1f21 \u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f22 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f60\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2\n \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f22 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nor that quoted in the same place from the _Corinthiastes_ of Philetaerus:\n\n \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd, \u1f66 \u0396\u03b5\u1fe6, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03bc\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9.\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6,\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nBut this is not all. The advantages of Hetaera-love over adultery are\nexpounded after a fashion that cannot fail to be startling to anyone who\nhas not formed a clear conception of what \u201clove\u201d meant in the Athens\nof Demosthenes. A striking instance of this occurs in the _Nannion_\nof Eubulus,[260] and the same idea is still further developed in the\n_Pentathlus_ of Xenarchus.\n\nAs for that \u201clove of a man for a maid,\u201d which is, so to speak, the very\nessence of the love-element in later Greek literature, it is simply\nignored in Middle Comedy. A girl that one is going to marry has all the\ndisadvantages of a wife, but for one thing. While the wife _in esse_ is,\nas a later writer feelingly expresses it, \u201can immortal necessary evil,\u201d\nand, therefore, cannot be altogether escaped from, there is no need to\nmeet troubles halfway by drawing attention to the wife _in posse_. Let us\neat and drink, for to-morrow we marry; and while we do so, let us have no\nAlexandrian skeleton at the feast to remind us of the fatal hour. And so,\nif the question be asked, \u201cWhat did the Middle Comedy writers think of\nsuch love?\u201d the answer is, \u201cThey did not think of it at all.\u201d[261]\n\nAnd this will serve to introduce us to a further question, in the answer\nto which lies the key to the whole of this part of our subject. What\nis actually meant by the \u201clove\u201d which we hear so often expressed for\nthese Hetaerae? The answer may be simple and brief: _ornari res ipsa\nvetat, contenta doceri_: the love of the Middle Comedy is animal passion,\npure and simple; the Hetaera caters for the appetites of the time in\nexactly the same way, even if in a different sphere, as the cook and the\nfishmonger, of whom we also hear so much, both to praise and blame, in\nthis literature.[262] Of love in the modern sense of the word, of love as\ndistinct from lust, there is nowhere any suggestion in the writers of the\nMiddle Comedy. This fact is so patent to anyone who is familiar with the\nplays of this period, that one may, perhaps, be spared the trouble of its\nillustration. If anyone is inclined to doubt it, let him open the third\nvolume of Meineke\u2019s _Comic Fragments_ at random, and read; he will soon\nbe satisfied.\n\nWhen this is the case, it is not surprising that we find \u201cPlatonic\u201d love\nheld up to consistent ridicule during the time of the Middle Comedy. A\nsufficiently striking example of this method is the passage quoted in\nAthenaeus, xiii. 563 C, from the _Dithyrambus_ of Amphis:\n\n \u03c4\u03af \u03c6\u1fc4\u03c2; \u03c3\u1f7a \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u1fb7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03ad,\n \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd,\n \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f44\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c2;\n \u1f04\u03c6\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u2019 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c2. \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n [_Fr._ 2.]\n\nBut the clearest proof of all is that furnished by the fact that Plato\nhimself, and Sappho, whose style of love was, as we have already had\noccasion to observe,[263] recognised as similar in spirit to that\nadvocated by the philosopher, are, perhaps, the two favourite butts\nfor the wit of the Middle Comedy. That the _Plato_ of Aristophon, like\nthe _Hedychares_ of Theopompus, of which we have already spoken, and\nthe _Sapphos_ of Antiphanes, Amphis, Ephippus, and Timocles, were, at\nleast some of them, in part devoted to this subject, it seems only\nreasonable to believe, while sporadic allusions to the matter are,\nof course, sufficiently common. The one possible exception to this\ngeneral rule appears in the _Helene_ of Alexis, where a character is\nintroduced upholding the Platonic view of love; but it would be bold,\nin the face of so much evidence on the other side, to assert that this\nisolated statement in any way indicates the general tone of the comedy in\nquestion. It is far more likely that the champion of these views (perhaps\nTheseus[264]) was made to see the error of his ways and repent his lost\nopportunities before the play was out.\n\nAnd akin in spirit to the above is the tendency, so common that it hardly\nneeds special illustration, to throw ridicule on the married state and on\nfamily life in general.[265] When the man, who is called the originator\nof the erotic element in Middle Comedy, can write words like these:\n\n \u1f45\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u2019, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n \u1f40\u03c1\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c2, \u03b4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c7\u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6,\n\n (Anaxandrides, _Incert._ 1.)\n\nand mean them, there can be little doubt as to the tendency of that\nerotic element which he was the first to introduce. In fact, not only\nis marriage a favourite subject of ridicule, but it is one on which the\nwriters of this period make some of their happiest remarks. There are few\nthings in Antiphanes as good as the passage in the _Philopator_, where\none man, meeting another, enquires after a friend, and hears that he has\ngot married.\n\n \u03c4\u03af \u03c3\u1f7a \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2; he exclaims in horror. \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c2\n \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f43\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd;\n\nAlexis is seldom as amusing as when he proclaims (_Incert._ 34) marriage\nworse than disfranchisement.\n\n \u03b5\u1f36\u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b3\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\n \u1f04\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f22 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd;\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff7 \u03b3\u03b5\u00b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u1fb7\n \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7\n \u1f10\u03c0\u1f70\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03ae\u03bc\u1fc3\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n \u1f14\u03be\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nSuch, then, is the erotic element of the Middle Comedy\u2014the praise of\nsensuality and the ridicule of all that is ennobling or virtuous. Alexis\ntells us all when he says:\n\n \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f21\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03ce\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1.\n \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u03b1\u1f35 \u03b3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b2\u03af\u1ff3,\n \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c7\u03c1\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd.\n\n (_Incert._ 31.)\n\n_Processit Vesper Olympo._ It was time the Macedonian barbarians swept\nall this away and made place for cleaner things.[266]\n\n\nVIII. THE NEW COMEDY.\n\nThe feeling on passing from the Middle to the New Comedy is like the\nfresh air on coming out of the bar of a public-house. The Middle Comedy\nis the last decaying branch of the old literature; the romantic New\nComedy is one of the earliest and most vigorous offshoots of that new\nliterature which sprang from the genius of Antimachus, and has continued\nto the present day. In the Middle Comedy, we are still face to face with\nthe women of typical Athens, with the women of Aristophanes, at best with\nthe women of Euripides,\u2014and with the way in which typical Athens treated\nthese women; in the New Comedy this is changed, and woman\u2014the woman that\ncan be loved as wife and mother\u2014steps into her true place as object of,\nand partner in, the intensest and the purest passions of which humanity\nis capable.\n\nIt will be remembered that the Middle Comedy treatment, of women and love\nfor women, had four main characteristics.\n\n(1) The glorification of the Hetaera and of love for the Hetaera.\n\n(2) The purely sensual nature of the love thus extolled.\n\n(3) The ridicule of all love that was not sensual.\n\n(4) The ridicule of family-life.\n\nThe New Comedy flatly contradicts every one of these principles. The love\nof which it treats is love for a _virgin_,[267] and the consummation of\nthis love is _marriage_. Such love is by no means purely sensual; indeed,\nat times it is almost of a \u201cPlatonic\u201d character. And lastly, not only\nis the sanctity of marriage strictly insisted upon, and the advantages\nof marriage as a system strongly maintained, but the family relations,\nanyhow among the younger generation, are often of a very pleasant\ncharacter.\n\nIn fact, while the action of the Middle Comedy is concerned with a love,\nthe consummation of which is a temporary sensual gratification, the\naction of the New Comedy is supplied by the efforts of its heroes and\ntheir adherents, to secure that the love which occupies so much of their\nthoughts may be made at once legitimate and permanent. It was New Comedy\nthat first introduced on the stage the love of a life, as opposed to\nthe love of an hour. If anyone were to ask what was the chief merit of\nMenander, the answer would be that he was the first to show the Athenians\nthat \u201clove for ever,\u201d with which every poetaster and novel-reader has\nnow been familiar for so many centuries.\n\nBut the differences between the treatment of women in the new literature,\nand that to which they were exposed in the literature we have just been\nstudying, will be most readily made clear if we proceed at once to the\ndetailed examination of the former.\n\nThe first and most prominent feature of the New Comedy treatment of the\nlove of men for women is its insistance on marriage\u2014that is to say,\non a definite guarantee of permanence and constancy\u2014as the one proper\nconsummation of such love. In fact, as we have already had occasion to\nobserve in another place, the idealisation of marriage is the basis of\nGreek romance.[268]\n\nThis insistance on marriage is, of course, most strikingly exemplified\nin the typical New Comedy plot, which is sufficiently familiar to every\nstudent of the Latin comedians. Thus, in five of these Latin plays, the\n_Heauton Timorumenos_ (of Menander), the _Phormio_ (of Apollodorus),\nthe _Rudens_ (of Diphilus), the _Curculio_, and the _Poenulus_,[269]\nthe story is of exactly the kind that subsequently appears in the Greek\nnovel\u2014a young man falls in love with a virgin, and, after various\nmisfortunes which threaten to separate the pair, they are eventually\nmarried, and live happily ever afterwards.\n\nOn this class of plot it is unnecessary to dwell, except that it may be\nworth while just to draw attention to the extremely passionate nature\nof the love which makes these young men so anxious to marry. The modern\nreader would instinctively expect that the confinement of love to these\nlegitimate and, as one would now consider them, commonplace channels,\nwould inevitably lead to a lessening of its charm, and a diminution of\nits force. As a matter of fact, the result was the very reverse. Not only\nhas the character of man\u2019s love for woman changed, but this love has\ndeveloped an intensity of poetry and passion which has never belonged\nto it before.[270] Instances are easy to find; the most striking one\nis perhaps shown us at the meeting of Phaedromus and Planesium, in the\n_Curculio_ (i. 3):\n\n PL. tene me, amplectere ergo! PH. hoc etiam est quamobrem cupiam\n vivere.\n quia te prohibet herus, clam hero potior. PL. prohibet, nec prohibere\n quit,\n nec prohibebit, nisi mors meum animum abs te abalienaverit.\n PH. sibi sua habeant regna reges, sibi divitias divites,\n sibi honores sibi virtutes sibi pugnas sibi proelia!\n dum mi abstineant invidere, sibi quisque habeant quod suum est![271]\n\nBut there are others, almost equally forcible, in the _Rudens_ (iv.\n8)\u2014where particular enthusiasm is expressed at the prospect of marriage,\nas opposed to the relation which had previously been the lover\u2019s highest\npossible ideal,\u2014the _Poenulus_ (v. 4, 49)[272], and elsewhere.\n\nBut another and equally important type of story is that in which the man\nfirst seduces the woman, and then subsequently marries her. Plays of\nthis description are the _Andria_, the _Eunuchus_, the _Adelphi_ (all by\nMenander), the _Aulularia_, and the _Cistellaria_.[273]\n\nOf these, the _Cistellaria_ is different from the rest. Here, the girl\nSilenium, who, though supposed to be the daughter of a _lena_, has been\nbrought up as a virgin (i. 3, 24), is induced by a promise of marriage to\nlive with the man Alcesimarchus, a promise which is afterwards fulfilled\nonly after a considerable delay. (i. 1, 90-100.) In the other four cases,\nhowever\u2014and this is very important\u2014the promise of marriage is subsequent\nto the seduction, and takes the form, not of an inducement to, but of a\nreparation for the latter. The lover regards the seduction as a crime,\nfor which he is willing to make amends to the utmost of his power, while\nat the same time he is anxious to perpetuate and legalise his amour.\nHe therefore adopts what we are accustomed in modern times to call an\n\u201chonourable course,\u201d and offers marriage to the woman whom he has loved\nand still loves. The importance of this feature is twofold\u2014firstly,\nthe close association thus brought about between marriage and love of\nthe most \u201cromantic\u201d and unconventional description; and secondly, the\nperpetuation and legalisation of a form of love which is obviously by\nnature temporary and illegitimate. And thus the love-stories of the New\nComedy may be said to begin where those of the Middle Comedy end; while\nthe heroes of the latter are concerned with achieving the temporary\nsatisfaction of their sensual desires, the heroes of the former are\noccupied in striving to make permanent atonement for the indiscretions\nwhich such desires have led them to commit.\n\nTo quote instances of what has been said: in the _Andria_ the promise\nof marriage is distinctly an act of reparation, which the lover feels\nhimself in duty bound to make. This is evident from the argument of\nSulpicius Apollinaris,[274] and from various passages in the play.[275]\nThe same is the case in the _Adelphi_.[276] Here Aeschinus, as soon as\nhe considers what he has done, comes to the mother of Pamphila, and\nbegs with tears to be allowed to marry her by way of reparation.[277]\nIn the _Aulularia_, the petition of Lyconides to the miser Euclio is\nanimated by a very similar spirit.[278] In the _Eunuchus_ (which is,\nit must be remembered, the love-story of a boy of sixteen)[279], there\nis no opportunity for any such behaviour on the part of Chaerea, though\nhis sincere regret (ii. 3, 33 _seqq._), and his enthusiasm when the\npossibility of marriage becomes apparent (v. 8, 1 _seqq._), show clearly\nenough that he is not intended to be an exception to the general rule.\n\nIt must not, however, be supposed that the feeling, which prompts the\nvarious characters of whom we have spoken to make reparation for their\nwrongdoing, is merely a feeling of repentance, or a regard for public\nopinion. It is love, and love of a most passionate kind, that makes them\nso anxious to marry the women they have wronged. Of the enthusiasm of\nthe hero of the _Eunuchus_ at the prospect of marriage we have already\nspoken; in the _Adelphi_, Aeschinus is equally elated under similar\ncircumstances;[280] in the _Aulularia_, the anxiety and persistency\nof Lyconides are evidently inspired by the same feeling;[281] in the\n_Andria_, Pamphilus protests that nothing short of death will divide him\nfrom Glycerium.[282] That love which the Middle Comedy could not conceive\nof as outliving its sensual gratification, appears in the New Comedy, not\nweakened, but strengthened by time, and obstacles only serve to make the\nlover more determined to perpetuate and to legalise those emotions which\nhad, to a previous generation, owed their chief charm to their freedom\nfrom the restraints of constancy and propriety.\n\nIn the _Hecyra_ again, it is by marriage that, through a strange\ncoincidence, the hero is eventually able to repair the wrong done to the\nheroine. In the _Stichus_, too, the plot turns on the constancy of two\nwives to their absent husbands,[283] while, in the _Trinummus_, there\nseems strong reason to believe, that it is not all love for Lesbonicus\nwhich makes Lysiteles so anxious to marry the former\u2019s sister.[284]\n\nTo this evidence from the plays themselves may be added some further\nevidence of a more general kind. Marriage is mentioned by the anonymous\nauthor of the epigram in the _C. I. G._ 6083, as the most characteristic\nfeature of Menander\u2019s plays\u2014\n\n \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f1c\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41\u03c1\u1fb7\u03c2, \u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd,\n \u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5 \u039c\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bd\u03ba\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd,\n \u03bf\u1f55\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u2019 \u1f04\u03c1\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f31\u03bb\u03b1\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03be\u03b5\u03bd,\n \u1f21\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u1ff3.\n\nStill more emphatic is the testimony of Plutarch, who asserts (_Sympos._\nvii. 712 C) that Menander is peculiarly suited for married men to hear\nand read\u2014\n\n \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03c9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 ...\n \u03b1\u1f35 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9.\n \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\nIndeed, the essentially \u201cproper\u201d character of the Menandrean drama\nis emphasised by more than one ancient writer. That Comedy could be\nanything but indecent was a revelation to Athens of the fourth century,\nand it was a revelation for which she does not seem to have been\nparticularly grateful; but the fact that it was a writer whose works were\nfit \u201cpueris virginibusque legi,\u201d who revolutionized the dramatic art, is\none that a modern student of that revolution cannot afford to forget.[285]\n\nTwo of the plays mentioned above, the _Hecyra_ and the _Stichus_, lead\nnaturally to the consideration of another feature of the New Comedy\ntreatment of marriage\u2014a feature which, though less strongly marked than\nthat of which we have just been speaking, is yet, if one considers\nwhat Greek feeling had previously been on this matter, perhaps even\nmore remarkable. Not only is marriage held up as the lover\u2019s ideal,\nbut the actual married state is described as a state of happiness, and\nmarried people, even those who have been married for some time, are\nintroduced to us as strongly attached to one another. How complete a\nrevolution in Greek feeling such a state as this implies, need hardly\nbe emphasised.[286] Yet, in the _Stichus_, we have a plot based on the\ndetermination of two women to remain faithful to their husbands (who\nhave been absent for three years) in spite of the efforts of their\nfather to induce them to do otherwise; they insist on remaining faithful,\nthough their husbands are poor (Plaut. _Stich._ i. 2, 75 _seqq._), and\nthough they are uncertain whether their devotion is returned (i. 1, 36\n_seqq._). In the _Hecyra_ again, it is the behaviour of Philumena after\nmarriage which wins her husband\u2019s heart (Ter. _Hec._ i. 2, 85 _seqq._)\u2014a\nremarkably modern form of love-story.\n\nVarious fragments, too, of Menander have a similar import, such as the\nfamous passage from the _Misogynes_ on the advantages of marriage\u2014\n\n \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2,\n \u1f00\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\n \u1f14\u03b8\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03c2. (_Fr._ 1, 9.)\n\nor Menand. _Incert._ 73, where the husband takes up the cudgels in his\nwife\u2019s behalf. _Incert._ 101, again, dwells on the close relationship\nexisting between man and wife\u2014\n\n \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f66 \u039b\u03ac\u03c7\u03b7\u03c2,\n \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae,\n\n_Incert._ 100 points out that a wife must rule her husband by love\u2014\n\n \u1f15\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1f72\u03c2 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f50\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2.\n \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae,\n\nand a careful reader will have no difficulty in finding other more or\nless important examples of the same spirit, both in Menander and in the\nLatin Comedians.\n\nOne important exception there is, of course, to this state of affairs,\nand that is the relation between the old men and their wives. The types\nof the hen-pecked husband and the Xanthippe-like wife are too familiar\nto need illustration. But here it is to be observed, that the husbands\nwho appear in this position, are always old or elderly men, and this\nfact is probably not without its significance. In describing his elderly\nmarried men as unhappy, Menander was ridiculing, not marriage, but the\n_mariages de convenance_ which had, before his time, been the regular\nthing at Athens. \u201cThese men are unhappy,\u201d says Menander, \u201cnot because\nthey are married, but because they have married wives whom they never\nloved, and whom they chose merely because of their money, or to please\ntheir relations. If they had married for love, the case might well\nhave been different.\u201d And thus the hen-pecked husband, who belongs to\nthe old _r\u00e9gime_, is only a further argument in favour of the romantic\nlove-matches of which Menander approved.\n\nOf course the matter did not stop here. It was so easy to raise a laugh\nwith a row between husband and wife, that Comedy was sure not to abandon\nthe subject, even after its _raison d\u2019\u00eatre_ had disappeared; and a modern\naudience, we know, is just as ready to laugh at the husband who has lost\nhis latch-key as were the Athenians of the fourth century. But the point\nto be remembered is, that a pair of characters like Chremes and Sostrata\nin the _Heauton Timorumenus_, or Laches and Sostrata in the _Hecyra_,\nfurnishes no real argument against the view that Menander and his\nfollowers of the New Comedy regarded marriage, if properly entered upon,\nas a state of happiness.\n\nAnother exception, and one that is perhaps in reality a more important\none, is furnished by Menander\u2019s _Misogynes_, a work which gained very\ngreat popularity, doubtless owing to the way in which it appealed to the\nlower instincts of the audience whom its author was trying to educate\nup; but here it has to be observed that, in the first place, as the\nplay is lost, it is impossible to say what the actual _d\u00e9nouement_ was;\nwhile, secondly, there was no reason why a man of Menander\u2019s versatile\ngenius should not for once treat the subject of married life in an\nunusual manner, without in any way abandoning his general views on the\nsubject.[287]\n\nA further feature of the New Comedy treatment of marriage is the\nuniversal respect for its sanctity.[288] The adulterer, who is the\nfavourite hero of mediaeval romance, is here invariably held up to\ncontempt and hatred. The most familiar instance of this is, of course,\nthe story in the _Miles Gloriosus_ of Plautus, but it is far from\nbeing an isolated one. The _Halieis_ of Menander evidently treated\nof a somewhat similar subject,[289] which appears once more in the\n_Eunuchus_.[290] In the _Andria_ again, Charinus is horror-stricken at\nthe idea of committing adultery with the woman he loves, though, when\naccused of seducing the same woman, his only regret is that he cannot\nplead guilty to the charge.[291] An even more remarkable instance,\nand one perhaps without parallel, is furnished by the _Hecyra_, where\nthe Hetaera Bacchis asserts that she had refused to admit her lover,\nPamphilus, as soon as she learned that he was married.[292] It may be\nargued, of course, that she did this out of pique, but the very cordial\nnature of the meeting between the two (Ter. _Hec._ v. 4, 16, _seqq._),\nand the fact that Bacchis knew that her lover had abandoned her sorely\nagainst his will (i. 2, 45 _seqq._), and was still devoted to her (i. 2,\n82), seem to suggest that this is not the most natural explanation of her\nconduct.[293]\n\nThe passages just described may serve to introduce us to a further\nfeature of our subject\u2014a feature in which the New Comedy is, if possible,\neven more remarkably unlike the Middle Comedy than in those which have\nalready been discussed. In the Middle Comedy, as we have already had\nfrequent occasion to observe, the wife and the husband are invariably\nheld up to ridicule when compared with the Hetaera and her lover; in the\nNew Comedy we may find this position exactly reversed. Instances are\nrare, (as is indeed to be expected, when we consider, in the first place,\nthe strong current of popular feeling on the subject, and, secondly, the\npersonal relations between the leading writers of the New Comedy and the\nprominent Hetaerae of the time,) but they do unquestionably occur. The\nmost striking example is perhaps that in the _Heauton Timorumenus_, where\nnot only is the Hetaera contrasted unfavourably with the virgin, (as she\nherself admits,)[294] but her lover is made consistently ridiculous as\ncompared with the lover who contemplates marriage, and in the end comes\noff badly in the extreme. Very similar evidence is furnished by the\n_Hecyra_. In the struggle for the love of Pamphilus, which takes place\nin that play between the wife and the Hetaera, the former is completely\nsuccessful, and her victory is gained by sheer amiability of temper (Ter.\n_Hec._ i. 2, 85 _seqq._); indeed, so charming is she, that the Hetaera\nis driven in the end to congratulate her husband on his good fortune in\nhaving married her. (v. 4, 22.) And this victory of the wife becomes the\nmore remarkable, when we observe that the Hetaera is evidently intended\nto be a very favourable specimen of her class, in every way deserving of\nthe lover she is compelled to lose.[295]\n\nWhile on this point, it may not be amiss to remark that it is by no means\nimpossible that the famous _Thais_ of Menander really belonged to this\nclass of plays, and that the Hetaera, who gives her name to the piece,\nis intended as a _parody_ on the typical Hetaera of Middle Comedy. This\nview, which is not improbable in itself, receives some support from the\nmock-heroic tone of _Fr._ 1 of the _Thais_,[296] and still more from\nMart. xiv. 187;[297] but cannot, of course, be regarded as more than a\npossible suggestion.[298]\n\nOf mere vulgar ridicule or abuse of the ordinary Hetaera, as\nheartless,[299] mercenary,[300] and the like, there is, of course,\nenough and to spare; but it would be unjustifiable to claim expressions\nsuch as these as distinctive of New Comedy, in the face of passages like\nEpicrates, _Antilais_, 2, or Anaxilas, _Neottis_, 1. Menander indeed\nmakes a more serious charge, perhaps, when one of his characters asserts\nthat an Hetaera cannot be good, for she makes a trade of sin:\n\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u2019 \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd,\n \u1f23 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd.\n\n (_Incert._ 107.)\n\nThis is, however, an isolated expression, for Menand. _Incert._ 36, at\nfirst sight similar, is really different.\n\nBut, though the writers of the New Comedy are careful, as a general rule,\nto avoid anything that might have seemed too severe a stricture on that\nsystem of Hetaera-worship which was so distinctive a feature of the age,\nthey are unmistakably emphatic in their assertion that such sensual love\nis not the only kind of love of which a man is capable. The chivalrous\nmanner in which the lover of New Comedy often behaves to his lady, is one\nof the clearest features of the change which the authors of the romantic\nschool had succeeded in bringing about on the Athenian stage.\n\nAt once the most striking and the most perplexing illustration of this\nis furnished by the character of Thrasonides in Menander\u2019s celebrated\nplay, the _Misumenus_. This Thrasonides, who belongs to the regular type\nof the _Miles Gloriosus_, is in love with a slave-girl, whom he has\nobtained in the course of his wars;[301] but he has so disgusted her\nwith his boasting (like Leontichus in Lucian) that she has conceived a\nmost violent hatred for him. He then, though she is his slave, and though\nhis passion is so great that he cannot sleep for thinking of her,[302]\ninstead of using his undoubted power to accomplish what he wishes,[303]\ntries every means that he can imagine in order to conciliate her,\n\u201csending her gifts, and weeping, and praying,\u201d[304] that she may look\nmore favourably upon him.\n\nThe _d\u00e9nouement_ of the play is lost. It is not impossible that in the\nend the slave-girl was identified as an Athenian, and carried off by some\nmore acceptable lover, who thus profited by the chivalrous conduct of\nhis rival, or she may even have turned out to be the soldier\u2019s sister,\nas in the _Curculio_ or the _Epidicus_, in either of which cases the\nscruples of Thrasonides would be necessary to the working of the plot.\nBut all this is, for our present purpose, of no importance. What is of\nimportance, and of the utmost importance, is the fact that Thrasonides,\nthough he is so violently in love with the girl, will not make use of his\nunquestioned power to gratify this passion, because of the dislike which\nshe feels for him. In fact, his love is of such a kind that he does not\nmerely want to satisfy a sensual appetite\u2014he wants to be loved. Unless\nhe can feel that she loves him, none of those privileges, which, to the\nordinary Hetaera-lover of the day, would have been of themselves the\ncomplete consummation of love, are of any value to him. \u1f14\u03be\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1ff6 \u03b4\u03ad.\n\nThe aim of the lover is not to gratify himself, but to inspire love.[305]\nThat we are here face to face with a form of love which is not only\nactually absent from Middle Comedy, but is by nature absolutely foreign\nto that literature and could not possibly appear in it, is too obvious to\nneed further emphasis.[306]\n\nThis much, then, is clear; but there remains a most perplexing question,\nwhich, though it is a little aside of our immediate subject, is yet too\ninteresting to be passed by altogether. Why is it Thrasonides, the _Miles\nGloriosus_ whom all the Comedians are banded together to ridicule, who\nappears as the most chivalrous lover of the whole of New Comedy?[307]\nWhy is a man who is universally regarded as a fool, made to give\nexpression to such elevated sentiments, and to follow such a noble line\nof conduct? The first explanation that suggests itself is, of course,\n\u201cBecause he is a fool.\u201d This view is certainly advanced in a passage\nof Plutarch, where Thrasonides is compared to the miser who starves\nrather than make use of the food he has in the house,[308] and seems to\nfind favour too with Thrasonides\u2019 own slave.[309] But this explanation\nis not a very satisfactory one, somehow. However great a fool Menander\nmight wish to make of the mercenary soldier of the time, this does not\nseem the natural line for his folly to take, nor was it the line, as we\nknow from historical evidence, that the folly of these people actually\ndid as a rule take. A Pyrgopolinices must, one would have thought, have\nbeen a far more familiar figure to citizens who had enjoyed a Macedonian\noccupation, than a Thrasonides. One might, perhaps, imagine that the\nbehaviour of Alexander to the wife and daughters of Darius\u2014behaviour\nwhich was regarded in Greece as somewhat remarkable[310]\u2014had suggested\nthe character of Thrasonides, for, after all, the ideal soldier of\nthe age, whether for good or evil, is always Alexander; only it seems\ndoubtful whether a single action of an unusual kind could serve to form\nso constant a type as the chivalrous soldier-lover. At one time I thought\nthat, as the soldier of New Comedy has generally served in Asia, perhaps\nhe might be supposed to have imported his advanced romantic ideas from\none of those Greek Asiatic cities which were, as we know, the original\nhome of Greek romance, and indeed of all important developments of Greek\nerotic literature.[311] But there is to modern notions so great an\nincongruity in the idea of, say, the Colonel of a West India regiment so\ninfluenced by the latest school of literature as to model his life on it,\nthat, though such a character would not, perhaps, have seemed so absurd\nto the Greeks as it does to us, still, in the absence of all definite\nevidence, I have preferred not to lay undue stress upon what is, after\nall, entirely a matter of conjecture. Indeed, the question remains to me\na very obscure one, and I cannot at present see any satisfactory solution\nof it.\n\nBut, whatever may have been the causes which led to the creation of this\nparticular character, the soldier-lover of a more or less Thrasonides\ntype is an unquestionable feature of New Comedy. Besides the hero of\nthe _Misumenus_, of whom we have spoken, in the _Sicyonius_ (also by\nMenander) we find another soldier, Stratophanes, who buys a slave-girl,\nand then treats her as if she were a free woman.[312] To the same class\nof feeling, though expressed in a somewhat different way, belongs the\nremorse which the soldier Polemon (in the _Periceiromene_ of Menander)\nfeels for the wrong he has done to his \u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03ce\u03c4\u1ff3 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1fc3.\n\nA case in some respects similar, though in others different, is that of\nthe soldier Stratippocles, in the _Epidicus_, who falls in love with his\ncaptive, but does not touch her.[313] The differences, of course, here\nare that, firstly, the play belongs to Middle Comedy, its moral being\nthat Stratippocles will be happier with his _fidicina_ than with the girl\nof high birth, for whom he has formed the chivalrous attachment;[314]\nwhile, secondly, the continence of the hero is not so much a feature\nof his character as a necessity for the development of the plot; and,\nthirdly, the soldier is here not a mercenary, but an Athenian citizen,\nwho has been fighting against the Thebans. But though, therefore,\nthe case of the _Epidicus_ does not belong to the same category as\nthose previously discussed, the association in it of the soldier with\nchivalrous behaviour towards women is yet worthy of notice, and, even if\nonly a coincidence, is still an interesting one.[315]\n\nApart, too, from these very remarkable instances, there are not a few\npassages scattered about in the remains of the New Comedy which serve to\nshow that the \u201clove,\u201d of which there is so much talk in that literature,\nis not the merely animal passion of an earlier period. Of these, a\nstriking one is that preserved in Plutarch, _ap._ Stob. _Flor._ lxiii. 34:\n\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u039c\u03b5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, says Plutarch there, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f34\u03c3\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f01\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f13\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03c5\u03ba\u03ce\u03c2; \u1f43\u03bd\n \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f34\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. \u1f04\u03be\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b1\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c6\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6. \u03b5\u1f36\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u00b7\n\n \u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03af (sc. \u1f41 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2) \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5;\n \u1f44\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9; \u03c6\u03bb\u03cd\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb....\n ... \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2.\n\n (Menand. _Incert._ 14.)\n\nThat is: Menander, a writer familiar with love in its most passionate\nforms (\u03b8\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd), gives us a sober and serious view of\nthe matter. After expressing his astonishment at the ways of lovers, he\nfurnishes us with a realistic account of love as it actually is (\u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6),[316] and then proceeds to investigate its causes. For a\nmoment he is puzzled, and questions with himself, but soon he finds the\ntrue answer. \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2. Love is an affection of the soul\nas distinct from the body, and has only an accidental connection with the\nlatter.[317]\n\nEqually forcible, though in another way, is a passage from the\n_Poenulus_. The lover and his slave are watching the two girls, and\nthe slave expresses his utter contempt for his master\u2019s \u201cPlatonic\u201d\naffection, to which the latter answers that he loves Adelphasium as\nhe loves the gods.[318] Another case is in the _Curculio_, where the\nlove of Phaedromus for Planesium is fed on nothing more substantial\nthan kisses;[319] another in the _Hecyra_, where it is distinctly\npointed out that the love of Pamphilus for his wife is induced by other\nthan sensual considerations.[320] Other instances, of more or less\nsignificance, every reader of the Latin comedians will be able to supply\nfor himself; and it is further worth observing that when a New Comedy\ncharacter, as occasionally does happen, is made to speak slightingly of\n\u201cPlatonic\u201d love, such a character is always a slave, never a person of\nrefinement.[321]\n\nTo proceed to the final point of essential difference between Middle\nand New Comedy, it will be remembered that, in the former class of\nliterature, family life and the mutual relations of members of a family\nwere among the stock subjects of ridicule, and that no remarks expressive\nof any other views on this matter are to be found there, at any rate\nbefore a very late period.[322] Family life, as depicted in the New\nComedy, is by no means ideal; indeed, as we have already had occasion\nto remark, the unhappy relations between husband and elderly wife are,\nunder certain circumstances, a favourite subject of ridicule, even with\nMenander.[323] But yet instances to the contrary are to be found, and\nare, in fact, by no means very uncommon. Not to speak of the cases of\ndevotion of wife to husband and husband to wife\u2014such as those in the\n_Stichus_, &c., already sufficiently discussed[324]\u2014the relations between\nfather and children, and, still more, mother and children,[325] are often\ndescribed as of the most delightful character.\n\nOf the former, there are interesting examples in Menand. _Incert._ 59:\n\n \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1, \u039a\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd,\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\n \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u1fe5\u1fb3\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n_Incert._ 108:\n\n \u1f41 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1.\n\n_Incert._ 113:\n\n \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f40\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1, \u03b3\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9\n \u1f41 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u2019 \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n_Incert._ 117:\n\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1f72\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f54\u03b8\u2019 \u03c5\u1f31\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1\n \u03b5\u1f34\u03c9\u03b8\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1fc3.[326]\n\nThe charming interview between the father and his two daughters in the\n_Stichus_ (i. 2, 32 _seqq._), is a further, equally striking instance.\n\nOf the latter relation, that between mother and children, there is a\ngood instance in this same play (i. 2, 51), where, after the father has\npropounded his intention of marrying again, his daughter reminds him that\nit will be hard for him to find a second wife like his first.\n\n AN. pol ego uxorem quaero, postquam vostra mater mortua est.\n\n PA. facile invenies et peiorem et peius moratam, pater,\n quam illa fuit; meliorem neque tu reperies neque sol videt.\n\nA still more striking case is that in the _Hecyra_, where the mother of\nPamphilus, thinking that it is her presence which renders it impossible\nfor her son\u2019s wife to live with him, resolves to sacrifice herself, and\ngo into voluntary exile into the country.[327] The same idea, though\nless pleasantly expressed, is apparent in Syrus\u2019 remark in the _Heauton\nTimorumenus_ (v. 2, 38):\n\n matres omnes filiis\n in peccato adiutrices, auxilio in paterna iniuria.\n\nBut it is needless to multiply instances of a state of affairs with\nwhich every attentive reader of Plautus and Terence must be sufficiently\nfamiliar.[328]\n\n\nIX. THE ORIGINS OF THE ROMANTIC COMEDY.\n\nThe above investigation into the nature of New Comedy, and into the\npoints of difference between it and the earlier literature, leads\nnaturally to the consideration of a further and final question\u2014that of\nthe origin of these differences which are so strikingly apparent. We\nhave seen that the romantic New Comedy differs entirely in its treatment\nof women from every form of dramatic art which had preceded it.[329] In\nfact, we have seen that, while the Middle Comedy belongs still entirely\nto the first or classical period of Greek literature, the New Comedy,\nwith its striking romantic features, belongs essentially to that second\nperiod, which it is usual to call the Alexandrian, and forms, indeed, one\nof the departments of literature in which the romantic tendencies of that\nperiod can be studied to the best advantage. What we have to consider is\ntherefore this: How did Athenian Comedy acquire these romantic features\nwhich are so conspicuously absent from its earlier phases? when did it\nacquire them? and to whom was the acquisition due?\n\nThe last of these three questions may be best considered first. There\nseems every reason to believe that this introduction of the romantic\nelement was due to Menander rather than to Philemon.[330] There can be\nno question that of the two writers, Philemon is the less distinctively\nromantic. Of the typical New Comedy love-stories preserved in Plautus\nand Terence, not one professes to be derived from him. The allusions to\nwomen altogether are proportionately much fewer in his fragments than in\nthose of Menander; while a large proportion, again, of such allusions\nas there are, are either references to Hetaerae, or else belong to the\nold-fashioned misogyny of Middle Comedy. The detailed examination of his\nstyle of art, which occurs in the _Florida_ of Apuleius, is altogether\nstrongly suggestive of Middle Comedy;[331] indeed, Apuleius actually\ndescribes him as \u201cmediae comoediae scriptor.\u201d It is further to be\nremarked that the number of coarse allusions to women is proportionately\nfar greater in Philemon than in Menander. Indeed, the whole study of\nPhilemon\u2019s treatment of women leaves one with the impression, not only\nthat he was at heart a follower of the old school, but that even when\nhe did for any reason adopt the romantic principle, he developed this\nprinciple from a more sensual point of view than Menander. That this\ntendency to coarseness is in sympathy with the earlier spirit of Athenian\ncomedy, but is entirely foreign to its romantic development, need hardly\nbe emphasised, after all that has already been said on the subject. And\nit may not be altogether beside the question here, to call attention\nto Philemon\u2019s invariable pessimism\u2014pessimism most characteristic of a\nconservative mind in an age of progress, but hardly consistent with such\nqualities as would be required of the originator of a great artistic\nand social revolution.[332] Furthermore, Philemon is regularly spoken\nof as the rival of Menander;[333] the reverse is never the case,\nnotwithstanding the fact that the relative ages of the two playwrights\nwould have made the latter the more natural way of putting the case.\nAgain, the much greater success of Philemon at the time, notwithstanding\nthe well-nigh unanimous contrary verdict of subsequent ages,[334] seems\nto show clearly that he was the more old-fashioned of the two; for, as\nis well known, originality is seldom very welcome on the stage. And\nlastly, the very large proportion of Philemon\u2019s works which appear to\nhave belonged to Middle Comedy pure and simple\u2014a point which will be\nfurther discussed directly\u2014seems to be further evidence that this was\nhis natural _m\u00e9tier_, and that it was only a spirit of rivalry with\nMenander which made him turn his attention to a style of art with which\nhe had no real sympathy.[335] As for the _Hypobolimaeus_, that proves\nnothing, for there is no evidence whatever by which to fix the date of\nthis resuscitation of the _Cocalus_ of Aristophanes; indeed, if anything,\nit rather suggests that Philemon found such subjects so little congenial,\nthat he had to borrow his materials, instead of being able to produce\nthem himself.\n\nAll this, it may be argued, proves little as to the claims of Menander\nover Philemon. Indeed, it may even be urged that the very fact that\nPhilemon is the less distinctively romantic of the two, renders it\nprobable that the first introduction of the romantic element was due\nto him. But such an argument, though at first sight plausible enough,\nrests on an imperfect comprehension of the real nature of the romantic\nprinciple in Greek comedy. Were this principle a direct development of\ntendencies characteristic of the earlier phases of the literature, it\nwould doubtless be right to assume that its first appearance in any\ntangible shape would be of an unemphatic and tentative kind; but the\nromantic principle is no such development of previous tendencies. It is\nnot a development, but a regeneration; it is not a growth from within,\nbut an annex from without. Whatever anyone may suppose to be the origin\nof the romantic element, no one with any acquaintance with the subject\nis likely to wish to maintain that the virgin-love of New Comedy is\ndeveloped out of the Hetaera-worship of its predecessor on the stage.\nIndeed, there can be little doubt that, so far from New Comedy appealing\nto those tastes which Middle Comedy had fostered, its remarkable success\nwas in great part due to a strong reaction against the latter. And thus\nthere is every reason to believe that, when once the new emotion found\nexpression on the stage, such expression was immediately clear and\nunmistakable; and that therefore, in looking for the originator of the\nmovement, one must look for that writer of the period whose works exhibit\nthe romantic features most strongly and consistently, and must regard\nthose other writers, in whom such features are less prominent, as more\nor less unwilling imitators. And if this be so, there can be little real\ndoubt as to the validity of Menander\u2019s claim.\n\nThe next question to be considered is\u2014When was this introduction of the\nromantic element into Greek comedy first brought about? We know that\nPhilemon began to exhibit in 330, and that the date of Menander\u2019s first\nplay is 322; but these facts do not of themselves furnish any information\nas to the origin of New Comedy proper. For it is an unquestionable\nfact, and one of the greatest importance in this connection, that both\nPhilemon and Menander wrote plays which are not romantic, and which\nbelong, therefore, to Middle, rather than to New Comedy. And on this fact\nhinges the whole question of the date of the introduction of the romantic\nelement into Athenian Comedy.\n\nOf the ninety-seven plays of Philemon, which Platonius states were\nin his time extant,[336] hardly fifty titles are preserved, and of\nthese, well-nigh a third obviously belong to what were evidently Middle\nComedies.[337] When we consider how extremely probable it is that the\nmajority of the plays now entirely lost belonged also to this class (for\nit is obvious that a later age would tend to preserve such plays as were\nin harmony with the romantic tastes then prevailing, rather than those\nthat were not), it becomes clear that a very large proportion of the\nplays of Philemon were not New Comedies at all. With Menander the same\nis to a certain extent, though not in an equal degree, also true. Of\nabout a hundred plays that he produced during the thirty-two years of his\nliterary activity, while a dozen or so, presumably unsuccessful efforts\nof his earlier years, are entirely lost, some twenty besides, of those\nwhose titles we know, must be ranked with the old, rather than with the\nnew form of dramatic art.\n\nNow when we further reflect that it is not probable that, after a writer\nhas once taken to a new and successful development of art, he will\nthen fall back again to any considerable extent upon the old, and that\ntherefore the Middle Comedies of Menander, and also of Philemon,[338]\nbelong, in all probability, to their earlier period and are anterior to\nthe introduction of the romantic element, it becomes obvious that the\ndate of the introduction of this element into Comedy, (that is to say,\nthe date of the birth of New Comedy,) must be put considerably later than\nis usually done, and that, instead of fixing this date at 330, or even\nat 322, we must rather fix it somewhere between the years 315 and 310.\nFor assuming, as we seem in every way justified in doing, that about\na quarter of the plays of Menander belonged in spirit still to Middle\nComedy, and that his rate of production increased rather than diminished\nwith advancing years, a simple calculation will enable us to put the date\nwithin these limits.\n\nGranted then that the introduction of the romantic element into Comedy\nwas due to Menander, and took place about the year 312, there remains\nthe final question, Where did Menander get the idea from? It has,\nI trust, been made sufficiently clear by this time that he did not\nderive it from his predecessors in Comedy, nor yet from his favourite\nmodel Euripides. He may, of course, have evolved it independently for\nhimself, but this, seeing that a similar conclusion had been arrived at\nsome hundred years before, is not very probable. It has already been\ndemonstrated that the romantic idea, (that is to say, the idea that a\nwoman is a worthy object for a man\u2019s love, and that such love may well\nbe the chief, if not the only, aim of a man\u2019s life,) had originally\nbeen propounded by Antimachus of Colophon at the end of the fifth\ncentury[339]; it seems, therefore, well-nigh certain that this idea must\nhave been communicated in some way to Menander from Antimachus, and the\nonly point that remains to be considered is the probable method of this\ncommunication.\n\nIt is possible that the influence may have been direct. It is possible\nthat the accident of a copy of the _Lyde_ coming into Menander\u2019s hands\nmay have suggested to him the idea which he subsequently developed with\nsuch success. It is possible, and, in the absence of evidence, one way\nor the other, it would be bold to assert that it was not the case; but,\nat the same time, it seems on the whole more probable that the influence\nwas of a different kind, and that Menander\u2019s attention was first called\nto the views propounded by Antimachus through the medium of some third\nperson. While it is, of course, futile to expect proof in such a case as\nthis, there is, perhaps, one personality among those we know belonging to\nthe period, in favour of which, rather than of any other, the evidence\nseems to tend. This is Asclepiades, the originator of the erotic epigram,\nand a poet of great influence upon various contemporary writers. It is\ntrue that it is usual to place the date of Asclepiades somewhat later\nthan that which we have decided must be fixed for the appearance of\nthe New Comedy, but this later date does not rest on any very strong\nevidence. Asclepiades is mentioned along with Philetas in Theocritus vii.\n40, in a way which, at any rate, does not exclude the possibility that\nhe was a contemporary;[340] Philetas, as we know, was born in the reign\nof Philip,[341] say, 338; Asclepiades may have been born several years\nlater, even in 330, and yet have had an influence on Menander, for, as\nwe know, he began his career as an erotic poet at a very early age.[342]\nIt is by no means improbable that he may have visited Athens to complete\nhis education; his epigrams show an acquaintance with Athenian comedy and\nlife as there described which could hardly have been acquired elsewhere;\nsuch visits were paid to Athens by Callimachus, Aratus, and others. It\nwill, of course, be urged that the influence may have been just the\nreverse, and that Menander suggested the romantic idea to Asclepiades;\nbut this is improbable for two reasons. In the first place, Asclepiades\nis known to have been a student of Antimachus,[343] while Menander, as\nfar as we know, was not; in the second, though Asclepiades shows, as has\nbeen said, evident traces of the influence of comedy, such comedy is not\nNew, but distinctly Middle Comedy, as is sufficiently plain from the\ndrinking-scenes described in _Anth. Pal._ v. 181, 185, from the frequent,\nor rather, constant allusions to Hetaerae in his epigrams, and from the\ncomplete absence from them of those particular features of the romantic\nidea which Menander himself developed. It is therefore well-nigh certain\nthat, if there was influence from either side,\u2014and, when one considers\nthe close sympathy between the ideals of the two writers, the conclusion\nthat there was some more than merely fortuitous affinity between them is\nalmost irresistible\u2014such influence came from the side of the brilliant\nyoung Samian, who would thus deserve the credit of having originally\ninspired not merely the romantic epigram, but also the romantic\ndrama.[344] That this was actually so, no one can of course affirm; but\nthat it may have been, no one who is familiar with the \u201cwild-flowers of\nAsclepiades\u201d will be likely to deny.\n\n\n\n\nEXCURSUS A.\n\n[P. 31.]\n\n_THEOGNIS_ (261 _seqq._).\n\n\nThe great difficulty in the way of a satisfactory reconstruction of\nthis passage lies in the fact that it is not certain whether it is to\nbe regarded as simply a description of an erotic incident, or whether\nit is a \u03b3\u03c1\u1fd6\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2; in the latter and, perhaps, more probable case, it is\nimpossible to emend without first finding the solution, and to guess a\nriddle without knowing what that riddle is, rather requires a Daniel or\nsome similar commentator. It is not quite so impossible, however, to\nimprove the passage if it is looked upon as merely descriptive of an\nactual event, in which case the account of apparently similar scenes in\nthe Romance of Eumathius may, perhaps, throw some light on the subject.\n\nIn the scene depicted in Theognis, the \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 is fenced off from\nher lover, not only by an objectionable suitor, but also by the presence\nof her severe \u201cwater-drinking\u201d parents. Under these circumstances,\nit does not seem very probable that the lover would (as the ordinary\nreading makes him do) throw his arms round her waist and kiss her on the\nneck; such behaviour on his part (and its natural consequences) might,\nit is true, account for the abrupt termination of the poem, but still\nwould not be, as I have said, exactly probable, especially after he had\nbeen drinking only water. The scene actually described was, perhaps,\nrather somewhat of the following kind. When the time for drinking was\ncome, the girl in question got up and went round, like the Hysmine of\nEumathius, to hand the cup to the guests,[345] going, however, first\nto her parents;[346] as these were only drinking \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd, her office is\ncontemptuously described as being that of a water-carrier. The last two\nlines I would then read:\n\n \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd\u2019 \u1f10\u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1,\n \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd, \u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd \u03c6\u03b8\u03ad\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n_i.e._, as she came on her round to her lover, he put his arm on her\nwaist and kissed her on the elbow; and she, though she said nothing with\nher lips, \u201cher eyes were speaking.\u201d[347]\n\nWhether the actual words ought not to be still further emended, is\nquestionable; but, anyhow, the general sense thus given is a little more\ncomplimentary to Greek \u201ccompany\u201d manners.\n\nThe chief objection to this interpretation is, of course, that it bestows\non the epigram a decidedly erotic character, which is not elsewhere to be\nfound in this book, and would certainly be an anachronism if the lines\nbelong to the fifth century.\n\n\n\n\nEXCURSUS B.\n\n[P. 48.]\n\n\nThe fragments of the _Phaedra_ of Sophocles (among which may be included\nSoph. _Fr._ 855, and Eur. _Fr._ 431, which both very possibly belong\nto this play) are interesting for the many parallels they show to the\nHomeric Hymn to Aphrodite (_Hom. Hymn._ iv).\n\nThere, too, special emphasis is laid on the universal sway of Aphrodite,\nnot only over men (l. 3), but also over animals (l. 4-6), and over Zeus\nand the gods (l. 34 _seqq._). The animals fawn on her as she comes (l.\n69, 70, cp. Soph. _Fr._ 625). From l. 7 one might guess that Soph. _Fr._\n855, 13 was originally\n\n \u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u2019 \u1f14\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd,\n\nor something similar. Both l. 45 and Soph. _Fr._ 619 give Zeus as well as\nAphrodite the power of inspiring love; and other less important parallels\ncould be pointed out.\n\nThese parallels are very striking; and though one must, of course, beware\nof drawing conclusions from what may be merely accidental or external, it\ncannot be denied that, if it could be proved that Sophocles was working\nwith this hymn in his mind and with its conception of Aphrodite before\nhim, this fact alone would render it very unlikely that he would treat\nhis love-element in that \u201cmodern\u201d way in which it has hitherto been the\nfashion to assume that he did.\n\nAnyhow, it may not be inapposite to glance at the love-incident which\noccurs in this Hymn, for, if nothing else, it is interesting as a very\ntypical Greek \u201clove-story.\u201d What happens is briefly this:\n\nAphrodite, having fallen in love with Anchises, disguises herself as\na mortal maiden, and comes upon the object of her affection as he is\nwandering alone among the byres, singing to himself.\n\nAt first he takes her for a goddess, and is duly humble; but she assures\nhim that this is not the case, but she is the daughter of the king of\nPhrygia, and she asserts that she has been carried by Hermes away from\nher home to be his (Anchises\u2019) bride. In her helpless condition, she,\ntherefore, throws herself on his mercy, and begs him by Zeus and his\nparents:\n\n \u1f00\u03b4\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03bc\u2019 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u1f7c\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c3\u1ff7 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03be\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03ad\u03b4\u03bd\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03c5\u03af\u1fc3. \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\nHis answer to this appeal to his chivalrous feelings is prompt and to the\npoint:\n\n\u201cIf you are really not a goddess, but only a mortal,\n\n \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03c3\u03c7\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u03c3\u1fc7 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b9\u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd.\u201d\n\nAfter this, perhaps even the last two lines of his speech are an\nanti-climax.\n\n\n\n\nEXCURSUS C.\n\n[P. 52.]\n\n_THE ANDROMEDA OF EURIPIDES._\n\n\nOf all the plays of Euripides, the one which is generally looked upon as\nespecially \u201cromantic\u201d is the _Andromeda_,[348] and it must be confessed\nthat, at first sight, it does appear to have a certain character of its\nown. The common view of the story is, that Perseus, seeing Andromeda\nexposed, falls in love with her, and therefore rescues her. If this view\nis correct, this play will furnish the solitary instance in Euripides of\na man\u2019s falling in love with a woman.\n\nBut how far is this view correct? A careful examination of the fragments\nwill, perhaps, show that it requires at least to be modified.\n\nWhen the play opens, Andromeda is found exposed on her rock, and after\nshe has made due lamentations, there appears Perseus, bearing evident\nmarks of his long journey, and generally in a deplorable condition.[349]\nOn learning from her the state of the case, he pities her, and, say\nthe modern critics, falls in love with her. I doubt it. This is not at\nall the sort of occasion on which a Greek would be likely to fall in\nlove. Perseus is wet and dirty and hungry, and has the prospect of a\ndangerous encounter before him. Love, to the Greek, is essentially the\nchild of ease and idleness;[350] to connect it with stress and struggle\nis entirely a modern notion. The one and only thing which a Greek\nin Perseus\u2019 position would be likely to do, would be to try whether\nhe couldn\u2019t find someone\u2014a king by preference\u2014to lend him some new\nclothes;[351] and this, or something of the kind, is, in all probability,\nwhat he makes the condition of his saving Andromeda.[352] Then, cheered\nby the prospect of a warm bath and of a comfortable night\u2019s rest, he goes\nto face the monster.\n\nBut though he does not fall in love with Andromeda, _she falls in love\nwith him_, and begs him, when he returns victorious,[353] to take her\nwith him anywhere, if only as a slave. She will follow him anywhere,\nshe says, even through the sky if he likes.[354] In the improved state\nof affairs,[355] Perseus is not averse to these advances; but an\nobstacle arises in the shape of Cepheus, who objects to the disreputable\nappearance of his would-be son-in-law. Perseus argues his case with\nconsiderable fervour, but apparently without success; and it is Andromeda\nagain who, by some bold stroke, overcomes or outwits her parents,\nand brings off what she wishes\u2014\u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u03b5\u1f35\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc7\n\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03af, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\n\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1.[356]\n\nIn other words, the initiative in the love-affair of Perseus and\nAndromeda is again almost entirely on the side of the woman, and this\nplay forms in reality no exception to the general rule in this respect.\n\n\n\n\nEXCURSUS D.\n\n[P. 59.]\n\n\nWhile on the subject of the _Hippolytus_, I cannot refrain from\nsuggesting a couple of emendations in the last scene of the play, which\ncertainly improve the present text artistically, and, perhaps, gain some\nsupport from what we know of the two versions of the work.\n\nThe first version ended with the promise of immortality to Hippolytus as\na reward for his constancy (Eur. _Fr._ 446); in the second, this feature\nhas entirely disappeared, and the last words of the play are a lament\nfor the dead and a complaint of the injustice of heaven. Indeed, it may\nbe said that the injustice of heaven is the chief moral of this second\nversion.\n\nRead therefore in l. 1415\n\n \u03b5\u1f34\u03b8\u2019 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2.\n\n\u201cWere there but a little humanity in the gods!\u201d\n\nCould one but\n\n Pierce the cold lips of God with human breath,\n And mix his immortality with death!\n\nAnd, once again, in l. 1440, when Artemis leaves Hippolytus with the\nremark that she is very sorry, but she doesn\u2019t like death-bed scenes, he\nexclaims bitterly:\n\n \u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u1f7a \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c7\u03b5, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u2019 \u1f40\u03bb\u03b2\u03af\u03b1.\n \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1fe5\u1fb3\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd.[357]\n\nI don\u2019t much think that Euripides wrote either of these lines so, but I\nthink it is a pity he didn\u2019t.\n\n\n\n\nEXCURSUS E.\n\n[P. 87.]\n\n_THE SECOND BOOK OF THEOGNIS._\n\n\nThe second book of Theognis consists almost entirely of love-poems\naddressed to boys, and might therefore be expected to furnish\nparticularly valuable evidence in the present connection, especially\nas many of these poems are of a far more personal and purely erotic\ncharacter than those in the first book. The date of this book is,\nhowever, disputed, and I personally am inclined to believe that it is\nvery much later than the time of Theognis\u2014too recent, in fact, to belong\nto the period we are discussing at all. This being so, I have naturally\nnot chosen to lay stress on its contents. For the sake of completeness,\nhowever, I have added here a brief examination of its character, for the\nbenefit of anyone who may believe in it.\n\nThe general tone of these poems, though noticeably more passionate than\nthat of the earlier collection, is still chivalrous and dignified,\nand occasionally rises to a very high level indeed. That spirit of\nself-negation, which we have already observed to be peculiar among the\nearly Greeks to this form of love, is in places very marked. Few passages\nin all classical poetry can equal the pathetic dignity of these words of\nresignation:\n\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f15\u03c1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f34 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f04\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f66 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u00b7\n \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bb\u1fc7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1fc7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9,\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd.[358] (l. 1279)\n\nor of this farewell:\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u1f7c\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c6\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2,\n \u1f66 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u00b7 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03ad\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03ce\u03bd,\n \u1f60\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u1f15\u03c1\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f37\u03ac \u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f64\u03bd. (l. 1377)\n\nor of this:\n\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u03ac \u03c3\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u1f7c\u03bd[359] \u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad \u03bc\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bc\u03ae \u03c3\u03b5 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd. (l. 1363)\n\nSimilarly, that fatherly attitude on the part of the older man, which\nwe have noticed both in Theognis and in the Theocritean imitation of\nAlcaeus, is apparent in more than one place (_e.g._ 1351 _seqq._). This\nlends a particular point to those passages which compare the lover to a\nhorse\u2019s owner or rider (1249 _seqq._, 1267 _seqq._)\n\nAgain, there is the same appeal to the friend\u2019s better feelings that\nwe have noticed in Theocritus (1319 _seqq._), the same appeal to his\ncare for his good name (1295 _seqq._), all marked, too, by the same\nconsideration and courtesy (1235 _seqq._); there is the same exhortation\nto constancy, the same reproof of faithlessness (1257 _seqq._, &c.), the\nsame warning, full of earnestness, but withal full of tenderness, as to\nthe shortness of youth (1299 _seqq._, 1305 _seqq._).[360]\n\nBut it is needless to go further into detail. Enough has been said to\nshow the general character of these poems, and anyone who reads them can\neasily supplement these instances with others. So, whatever value one may\nbe inclined to assign to the evidence here adduced, it must, at least,\nbe admitted that there is nothing in it which in any way contradicts\nanything that has gone before.[361]\n\n\n\n\nEXCURSUS F.\n\n[P. 106.]\n\n_WOMEN IN THE MIDDLE COMEDY._\n\n [NOTE.\u2014A considerable part of the contents of this Excursus\n (originally written for the first of the two Essays in this\n volume) is repeated in the second Essay. The Excursus is\n printed here without alteration, but it should be noted that\n the author did not regard it as having attained its final form.]\n\n\nThe fragments of the Middle Comedy, belonging, as they do, to the\nearlier and middle part of the fourth century\u2014that is, to the period of\ntransition between the two great epochs of Greek literature\u2014might have\nbeen expected to afford very valuable evidence as to the development\nof the romantic feeling. Unfortunately, however, this is not the case;\nindeed, the information to be gathered from them is, in this respect, of\nso little importance, that it is hardly worth considering at all.\n\nVarious explanations suggest themselves to account for this somewhat\nsurprising fact. In the first place, the remains of the Middle Comedy are\nvery small compared with the enormous original bulk of this literature,\nand, besides this, nearly all the more important fragments that we\npossess are derived from Athenaeus, who generally quotes them with a\nview to elucidating questions of cookery, or illustrating the habits of\nfishmongers. But the real cause of the absence from these fragments of\nall traces of a romantic element is probably a less fortuitous one, and\nis to be found in the nature of dramatic literature in general, and of\ncomedy in particular. A play, to be successful, must be behind the times;\nif it treats its subjects in an enlightened manner, it will be above\nthe level of the mass of its audience, and they will declare it dull,\nor ridiculous, or both.[362] Dramatic authors know this well enough,\nand, for the most part, carefully refrain from insulting the spectators\nby telling them anything new. The writers of the Middle Comedy were no\nexception to this rule; and so, while their plays dealt very extensively\nwith women, and not unfrequently, it would seem, with love-stories of\na sort, the treatment of these subjects was, out of deference to their\npublic, far more antiquated and unsympathetic than one would have been\ninclined to expect from writers who were often well acquainted with the\nworks of the most enlightened thinkers of the time. Thus, therefore,\nstrange as it may at first sight appear, in all probability those\nfragments which have survived furnish, on the whole, a very good general\nidea of the relations between men and women, as depicted in the Middle\nComedy; and there is in reality little reason to believe that, even if\nwe possessed a far larger quantity of this literature, we should be able\nto learn much more about this particular subject. The romantic element\nis absent from these fragments because it was absent from the complete\nworks to which they originally belonged.\n\nThe main features of the Middle Comedy treatment of erotic subjects\n(as illustrated by the fragments) are very plain. There is nowhere any\ntrace of the romantic feeling; where \u201clove\u201d is praised or recommended,\nas is, of course, not unfrequently the case, what is understood thereby\nis always merely sensual gratification. Plato and \u201cPlatonic\u201d love are\nstock subjects of ridicule. Marriage is invariably alluded to in terms\nof contempt and dislike, and the women introduced are almost always\nHetaerae; but even these are hardly ever spoken of with any respect or\naffection, being generally described as vulgar, drunken, and stingy, and\nin some cases attacked with the most savage brutality. The effort which\nthe women at Athens were making about this time to gain larger liberties,\nalso comes in for its share of ridicule; and altogether, these comedies\nshow a want of sympathy with every honourable ambition of the age, which\nthrows a strange light on that cultured and artistic Athenian audience\nwhich one is generally taught to admire.\n\nI have before me an analysis[363] of all the passages in which women\nare in any way referred to in this literature; but, as I have already\nremarked, the amount of information to be gained from them is not\nsufficient to warrant a lengthy discussion. A few specimens from the\nbest-known writers will serve to illustrate what has been said, and will\ngive a sufficiently clear idea of the nature of the rest.\n\nANAXANDRIDES is described by Suidas as having been the first to introduce\n\u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c2,[364] and is therefore important as forming a\nconnecting-link between Old and Middle Comedy; but there is no important\nexample of this peculiar feature in any of the fragments of him that have\nsurvived, though passages like that in the _Gerontomania_ (_ap._ Athen.\nxiii. 570 D), and titles of plays like _Anteron_ or _Kitharistria_, serve\nto give a very fair idea of the nature of the \u201cerotic element\u201d thus\nintroduced.[365]\n\nANTIPHANES again, though making frequent mention of women, yet does not\ntell one anything of importance about them. His opinion as to their\nuntrustworthiness is at least emphatic,\n\n \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f76 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f15\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd,\n \u1f10\u03c0\u1f70\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b2\u03b9\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd,\n \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03b8\u2019 \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u1fc3.\n\n (_Incert._ 54.)\n\nand his invectives against marriage are occasionally humorous\u2014\n\n _\u0391._ \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5 \u03b4\u03ae\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5. _\u0392._ \u03c4\u03af \u03c3\u1f7a \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2; \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c2\n \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f43\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd;\n\n (_Philopator._)\n\nbut, on the whole, his allusions are not very interesting.\n\nEUBULUS was notorious as a special student and parodist of Euripides, a\nfeature apparent in the misogyny, real or affected, in which he indulges.\nA good specimen of this is the passage quoted in Athen. xiii. 559 B from\nhis _Chrysilla_. There is, besides, in the _Campylion_ an interesting\ndescription of violent love for a certain \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b1, one of whose\nchief charms, however, seems to be that she knows how to eat decently.\nThe same writer, in the _Nannion_, dwells on the folly of adultery,\nsupporting his view by arguments which hardly appeal to the \u201cromantic\u201d\nsense.[366]\n\nAMPHIS grows enthusiastic over the superiority of \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 to \u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03af,\n\n \u1f21 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u2019 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9,\n \u1f21 \u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f22 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f60\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2\n \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f22 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n (_Athamas._)\n\nand in the _Dithyrambus_ makes a contemptuous allusion to \u201cPlatonic\u201d love:\n\n \u03c4\u03af \u03c6\u1fc4\u03c2; \u03c3\u1f7a \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u1fb7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03ad,\n \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd,\n \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f44\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c2;\n \u1f04\u03c6\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u2019 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c2. \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9,\n \u03bf\u1f54\u03b8\u2019 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03bf\u03c7\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9 \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n (_Dithyrambus._ 2.)\n\nEPHIPPUS gives us a pretty picture of a woman (an Hetaera, of course)\ncoaxing away a man\u2019s trouble:\n\n \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03ac \u03b3\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u2019, \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03c4\u03cd\u03c7\u1fc3 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f10\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f21\u03b4\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2,\n \u1f10\u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b9\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1,\n \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n \u03c7\u03bd\u03b1\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u2019 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f27\u03c3\u03b5, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf,\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03ad \u03b8\u2019 \u1f31\u03bb\u03b1\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bb\u03b5 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03be\u03b5\u03bd \u1f35\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n (_Empole._ 1.)\n\nEPICRATES is chiefly noticeable for the brutality of his _Antilais_, a\nconsiderable fragment of which is preserved in Athen. xiii. 570 B.\n\nXENARCHUS\u2019 best contribution to literature is, perhaps, his famous\n\n \u1f45\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9.\n\n (_Pentathl._ 3.)\n\nLastly, there is ALEXIS, who, though he extends from the Middle well\ninto the New Comedy (388-284 are the dates\u2014rather trying to the\ncredulity\u2014given for his life), yet belongs very distinctly to the former,\nand shows no signs of a newer spirit, unless it be in the revolt against\nthe artificiality of the Hetaerae, of which there is a specimen in his\n_Isostasium_. He makes, however, a favourable allusion to \u201cPlatonic\u201d love\n(_Helene_), though he does not suggest the possibility of its application\nto women. For the rest, he confines himself to the ordinary topics, and\nhis complaints against wives are, here and there, amusing, as when he\nargues that marriage is worse than disfranchisement:\u2014\n\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u1fb7\n \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7\n \u1f10\u03c0\u1f70\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03ae\u03bc\u1fc3\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n \u1f14\u03be\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1.\n\n (_Incert._ 34.)\n\nThe examination of these fragments has been very barren of any but\nnegative results, but this very barrenness is not perhaps without a\ncertain significance. The Middle and the New Comedy kept the stage at\nAthens (to the exclusion, in great part, of original tragedy) without a\ncheck during the fourth century; but at the same time, the continuity\nof the dramatic tradition that pervades them is by no means unbroken,\nand the differences between the two styles of art are very marked.\nOf all these differences, there is none more striking than that in\nthe treatment of the erotic element. This, which, though introduced\nearly enough into the Middle Comedy, yet never attained to any real\ndevelopment there, appears suddenly in the New Comedy as a feature of\noverwhelming importance. Nor is this all. The erotic element, which,\nfrom henceforward, occupies so prominent a place in comedy, differs in\ncharacter _toto caelo_ from that which occurs in the earlier dramas.\nInstead of the \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b1, the New Comedy introduces us to the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2;\ninstead of marriage being the stock subject of ridicule, it becomes the\nhero\u2019s ideal.[367]\n\nThis change of attitude is so marked, that it seems impossible to regard\nthe later feeling as a development of the earlier; the revolution is so\nviolent, that it seems inevitable to admit that it came in some manner\nfrom without. And, as a matter of fact, if we consider the period from\nwhich the New Comedy dates, it is by no means difficult to conjecture\nwhat the source of this external influence may have been.\n\nMenander brought out his first play, at a very early age, in 322; about\nthis time, Asclepiades and Philetas were already coming into prominence;\nthose influences which induced the Coan school to speak of women in\na manner so different from that of previous writers, may well have\nimpressed the Athenian also, and produced a body of poets who, though\ndiffering in certain important points from the \u201cAlexandrians,\u201d were yet\ndistinctly romantic.\n\nTo this subject of the romantic element in the New Comedy, I hope at\nsome future time to be able to return,[368] so that I will not speak\nof it further here, except so far as to point out that, firstly (an\nobvious fact, but one that seems sometimes strangely ignored), the New\nComedy is distinctly later in date than the Coan school of poets, and\ncannot therefore, under any circumstances, claim priority for the\nintroduction of the romantic element into literature; while secondly, if\nthe introduction of this element was really due, as is commonly asserted,\nto the influence of Euripides, it seems strange that, while so many of\nhis views were common property at Athens from the very beginning of the\nfourth century, not one of the Athenian playwrights, some of whom studied\nhim so thoroughly, should have felt this particular influence till nearly\na century after his death.\n\n\n\n\nEXCURSUS G.\n\n[P. 150.]\n\n_WOMEN IN THE MIDDLE COMEDY FRAGMENTS._\n\n(Plays in italics and marked with an asterisk are wholly lost. Of those\nin italics no fragment of importance is preserved.)\n\n\nANTIPHANES.\n\nPlays named after Hetaerae:\u2014Antea?, _Archestrata?_, Chrysis, Malthace,\nMelitta, Neottis, Philotis.\n\nPlays dealing apparently with a similar class of society:\u2014Acestria,\nAleiptria, _Anterosa_, _Auletris?_, Corinthia?, Curis?, Dyserotes,\nHalieuomene?, Hydria, Mystis?, Neanisci.\n\nPlays relating to erotic mythological subjects:\u2014Aeolus, _Andromeda?_,\nAntea?, Arcas?, _Caeneus?_, Glaucus, _Melanion_ (the misogynist, cp.\nAristoph. _Lys._ 784), _Meleager?_, Omphale?, _Phaon?_\n\nOther plays, the titles of which suggest erotic incidents:\n_Acontizomene?_, Aphrodisius?, Asoti?, _Delia?_, Epiclerus?, Gamus?,\n_Harpazomene?_, Lemniae, Moechi, Sappho (in the fragments the poetess\nmerely appears as asking riddles).\n\n Acontizomene. The drunkenness of women.\n\n Aeolus 1. Parody of the prologue of the Canace of Euripides.\n\n Agroecus 2. Meretrix magnum malum.\n\n Aleiptria. The servant-girl threatens to pour hot water over\n some rude visitors.\n\n Arcas 2. Mention of the Hetaera Sinope, perhaps under her\n nickname of Abydos.\n\n Asclepios. An old woman induced to take medicine under the idea\n that it is wine.\n\n Asoti. Mulier ducit virum.\n\n Bacchae. The drunkenness of wives.\n\n Boeotia. A man urges a girl to try a citron at dessert. (Copied\n by Eriphus, Meliboea 1. Cp. Eubulus, Campylion 5.)\n\n Butalion. A girl (?) from the country is asked to order dinner.\n Cp. Acestria (where read \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7 in l. 3?), and Alexis, Homoea.\n\n Cepurus. Mention of the Hetaera Sinope.\n\n Chrysis. 1, 2. Description of a wealthy lover.\n\n Coroplathus. An obscene allusion.\n\n Drapetagogus. A woman\u2019s way of eating.\n\n Dyspratus 1. A woman\u2019s stinginess to her slaves. (Cp.\n Epicrates, Dyspratus.)\n\n Glaucus. Reference to a vesticontubernium.\n\n Halieuomene 1. A long fragment addressed by the fish-seller to\n her slave (containing various puns on the names of Hetaerae and\n their lovers.)\n\n Hydria 1. The praises of a true Hetaera.\n\n Malthace. The excuses of an Hetaera.\n\n Melitta. A merchant who boasts of his wealth.\n\n Metragyrtes. A girl washing a man\u2019s feet.\n\n Misoponerus. Complaints as to the trouble a baby is in the\n house.\n\n Mystis 3. A man inviting a woman to drink, apparently to\n excess. (Cp. Athen. x. 441 C; Eubul. Campyl. 5; Anacreont. iv.\n 12, \u03bc\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f21 \u039a\u03cd\u03c0\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1.)\n\n Neanisci 2. A girl arguing with her mother on the relative\n values of her poor and her wealthy lover (?).\n\n Neottis 3. Mention of Sinope.\n\n Omphale 3. Heracles ordering his dinner of Omphale.\n\n Philometor. Praises of a mother. (Cp. Alexis, Incert. 35.)\n\n Philopator. Marriage compared to death.\n\n Zacynthius. The pleasure of having one\u2019s feet washed by a\n woman. (Cp. Pherecrates, Thalatta, 7, and supra p. 128.)\n\n Incert. 12. Love cannot be concealed.\n\n 13. Homoeopathic cure for a wife.\n\n 51. Praise of love. (Also in Theophilus, Philaulus.)\n\n 52. Marriage the last of ills.\n\n 53. The burden of a rich wife.\n\n 54. The one thing in which you can trust a woman is,\n that when she is dead she will not come to life\n again\u2014nothing else.\n\n 55. The one advantage of ophthalmia is that you can\u2019t\n see your wife.\n\n 57. To tell a secret to a woman is like telling it to\n the town-crier.\n\n 71. An old man must forego the pleasures of love.\n\n 95. \u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c9\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f21 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03bd\u03b7.\n\n\nANAXANDRIDES.\n\nThe following titles of plays suggest erotic subjects:\u2014Aeschra (name of\nan Hetaera), Anchises, _Anteron_, _Citharistria_, Helene, _Locrides?_,\nMelilotus?, Protesilaus.\n\n Gerontomania 1. Two old men discuss Lais and the other ladies\n they used to know in their youth.\n\n Odysseus 1. Women are attracted by good dinners.\n\n Tereus 2. An allusion suggestive of Theocr. i. 87.\n\n 3. A royal bride.\n\nTheseus 2. A girl is easily pleased.\n\nIncert. 1. The troubles of being married.\n\n 5. A father tells his daughter that a wife should not leave\n her husband.\n\n 9. Women are slaves of pleasure.\n\n 10. Love the best schoolmaster. (Cp. Alex. Incert. 38, where,\n however, the image is somewhat different.)\n\n 13. An unmarried daughter is a terrible thing. (Cp. 17.)\n\n\nEUBULUS.\n\nPlays named after Hetaerae:\u2014Chrysilla, _Clepsydra_* (so called because\nshe used to regulate the duration of her favours by the clock), Nannion,\nNeottis, _Plangon_.\n\nPlays dealing with mythological erotic subjects:\u2014_Anchises?_, Echo?,\nEurope?, Ixion?, Nausicaa?, Pelops?, Procris?\n\nOther plays which seem to have dealt with erotic subjects:\u2014Astyti?,\nCampylion, Mylothris?, Orthane, Pamphilus, Pannychis, Pornoboscus,\n_Psaltria_, Stephanopolides.\n\n Ancylion 3. Kisses mentioned among the prizes at a \u201cpannychis.\u201d\n\n Campylion. _Vide supra_, p. 155.\n\n Cercopes 1. The dangerous attractions of Corinth, narrated by a\n traveller.\n\n Chrysilla 1. The folly of marrying again.\n\n 2. An attempted defence of women breaks down.\n\nNannion. The folly of adultery. (_Vide supra_, p. 158.)\n\nOrthane. A party of ladies and gentlemen come together to celebrate a\nsacrifice to Orthane.\n\nPamphilus 1. A man takes up his station at the window of an inn to watch\nthe proceedings of a lady opposite. (Cp. Ter. _Phormio_ i. 2, 38 _seqq._)\n\n 3. The drinking capacities of the lady\u2019s chaperone.\n\nPannychis. A description of Hetaerae, in part the same as in Nannion.\n\nPornoboscus 1. A woman describes her keeper.\n\nSphingocarion 2. Women anointing a man\u2019s feet.\n\n 3. A lady excuses her absence on the previous evening (?).\n\nStephanopolides 1. A flower girl (?) ridicules the cosmetics of the\nprofessional Hetaerae.\n\n 2. The pleasures of love from a woman\u2019s point of view.\n (A very graceful passage, with an allusion to the\n legend of Cissus and Ololygon.)\n\n 3, 4. The flower-girls making up and selling their garlands.\n (Another pretty passage, with perhaps an allusion to\n the Hetaera Nannion under her name of Aegidion.)\n\nIncert. 3. Why do girls prefer old wine, but young men?\n\n 9. A woman in a passion.\n\n 20. A man excuses himself and goes home.\n\n 25. Mention of the festival Stenia, at which the Athenian women\n used to abuse one another. (Cp. Theopompus, Aphrodisia 1;\n _supra_, p. 148.)\n\n\nALEXIS.\n\nPlays named after Hetaerae:\u2014Agonis, Atthis?, Choregis, Dorcis?,\nIsostasium, Lampas, Meropis?, Opora, Pamphile, _Pezonice_, Polycleia,\nPonera?\n\nPlays on mythological erotic subjects:\u2014Atalanta, Galatea, Helenes\nHarpage, Helenes Mnesteres, Hesione, _Iasis?_.\n\nOther plays apparently dealing with erotic subjects:\u2014Achaeis?,\nApocoptomenus, Bostrychus?, Brettia?, Cnidia?, Curis, Epiclerus?, Hypnus,\nLemnia?, Leucadia? (can this play have dealt with the proceedings of\nthe comic poet Nicostratus?), Mandragorizomene, Olynthia, Orchestris,\nPallace, Phaedrus, Philocalus, Philusa, _Po\u00ebtria?_, Traumatias.\n\n Agonis. _Vide supra_, p. 156.\n\n Apocoptomenus 1. Lovers have wings and Love has none.\n\n Cleobuline. A mention of the Hetaera Sinope.\n\n Curis 1, 2. A father of two sons, one highly respectable, the\n other less so.\n\n Dropides. An Hetaera brings in a decanter of sweet wine during\n dinner.\n\n Graphe. The story of the man who fell in love with the statue\n at Samos. (It would be obvious to suggest that in this play\n a man is introduced who falls in love with a picture. More\n probably, however, this passage comes from the speech of some\n painter who is extolling his art, possibly to some lady, in\n the way Ovid used to do. Cp. _Ars Amat._ iii. 397 _seqq._, 533\n _seqq._, etc.)\n\n Gynaecocratia. Perhaps introduced women in the theatre, like\n the Scenas Catalambanusae of Aristophanes.\n\n Helene. A mock (?) Platonic view of love. (_Vide supra_, p.\n 161.)\n\n Hesione 2. The heroine complains that, as soon as Heracles saw\n that his dinner was ready, he ceased to take any notice of her.\n\n Homoea. A girl is asked to order dinner.\n\n Hypnus 1. Two women asking one another riddles.\n\n Isostasium 1. An attack on the artificiality of Hetaerae.\n\n Lampas. The protest of an angry father at his son\u2019s\n extravagance. (Cp. Mnesimach. Dyscolus.)\n\n Lyciscus 1. A mention of the Hetaera Pythionice.\n\n Mandragorizomene 5. A lover visits his sick lady. The whole\n play seems to have turned on a subject of this kind (cp. Fr.\n 2), and calls to mind pictures like that in Ovid, _Ars Amat._\n ii. 319 _seqq._, especially 333 _seqq._\n\n Manteis. The slavery of marriage.\n\n Meropis. A lady complains of the late arrival of someone,\n perhaps her maid.\n\n Olynthia 1, 2. The poor circumstances of the heroine\u2019s family.\n\n Orchestris. All that women want is plenty of wine.\n\n Pallace. Perhaps the answer of the husband to his indignant\n wife.\n\n Pamphile. The proper food for a lover. (Cp. _Incert._ 18.)\n\n Phaedrus 1. The nature of love.\n\n Philocalos. A stingy man inviting ladies to dinner.\n\n Philusa 1. The Aphrodisia.\n\n Tarantini 5. An allusion to the Hetaera Nannion.\n\n Thrason. A talkative woman.\n\n Traumatias 2. Only lovers really live.\n\n Incert. 14. A repetition of the remark of Eubulus (_Incert._ 3)\n on the inconsistency of women in preferring old wine and young\n men.\n\n 18. The proper food for a lover. (Cp. Pamphile.)\n\n 26. Inviting a woman to drink.\n\n 31. The three pleasures of life.\n\n 34. Marriage worse than disfranchisement.\n\n 35. One\u2019s mother is deserving of the highest respect. (Cp.\n Antiphanes, Philometor.)\n\n 38. Love the best tutor. (Cp. Anaxandr. _Incert._ 10, where,\n however, the image is slightly different.)\n\n 39. Nothing is more shameless than a woman\u2014as I know from\n my own wife.\n\n 40. Nothing is so difficult to guard as a woman.\n\n 53. The word \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1.\n\n\nAMPHIS.\n\nSeveral plays satirising women, such as the _Acco_* (the silly woman),\nthe Gynaecocratia and the Gynaecomania.\n\nThe Scholiast of Germanicus\u2019 _Aratea_ quotes the legends of Zeus and\nCallisto (p. 38), and of the Dog Star and Opora (p. 76) from Amphis;\nthese legends seem to have occurred in plays now lost.[369]\n\nOf the Sappho no important fragment is preserved.\n\n Amphicrates. A confidential slave arguing with his young master\n on the folly of the latter\u2019s attachment to a certain lady.\n\n Athamas. The inevitable superiority of the Hetaera over the\n wife.\n\n Curis 1, 2. An Hetaera who deserves to be rich, more than\n Sinope and the others who are.\n\n Dithyrambus 2. Ridicule of \u201cPlatonic\u201d love.\n\n Gynaecocratia. The liberated husband. (It is easy to imagine\n how the outraged wife breaks in upon this happy party,\n something after the manner of Cynthia in Prop. iv. 8.)\n\n Gynaecomania. Seems to suggest a similar scene, if indeed, the\n two plays be not one and the same.\n\n Ialemus 1. An invective against lettuces.\n\n\nARAROS.\n\nThe Adonis and the Caeneus dealt with erotic legends, as is plain from\nFr. 1 of the former and Fr. 4 of the latter. The same is perhaps true\nof the Panos Gonae (Fr. 2.) The Hymenaeus contained a description of a\nwedding (Fr. 2), and the _Parthenidion_* may also have dealt with erotic\nsubjects.\n\n\nNICOSTRATUS.\n\nThe Pandrosus introduces (Fr. 2, 3) an elderly gentleman supping with a\nlady, among whose acquaintances is numbered Ocimum (Fr. 1).\n\n_Incert._ 9 describes a prude.\n\nBesides these, the titles _Anterosa_, Habra, and the corrupt _Otis_,*\nseem to suggest erotic subjects.\n\n\nPHILETAERUS.\n\nIn the Atalanta, the fragment which it is usual to assign to a parasite\nmight perhaps be assigned to the heroine of the piece, who would thus\nappear in her legendary character of the \u201cadvanced woman,\u201d, something\nlike the lady in Juvenal vi. 246 _seqq._, 425 _seqq._\n\n Corinthiastes. The superiority of Hetaerae to Gametae. (He\n repeats the remark in Cynagis 3.)\n\n Cynagis 1. A list of veteran Hetaerae.\n\n 2. Old age is no excuse for giving up pleasure.\n\nMeleager. A dance not suitable for unmarried ladies.\n\n\nEPHIPPUS.\n\n Empole 1. A pretty picture of a woman (an Hetaera, of course,)\n coaxing away a man\u2019s trouble. Empole 2. The same (?) urging on\n a disorderly member of the party the advantages of harmony.\n\n Ephebi 3. Proceedings commence with the ladies having a drink\n all round.\n\n Philyra (named after the Hetaera) 2. The heroine (?) coaxing an\n elderly gentleman to commit what he considers an extravagance.\n (Fr. 3 seems to suggest that a younger lover appeared on the\n scene and expressed himself as jealous.)\n\n Sappho. How to recognise a \u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n\nANAXILAS.\n\n Neottis 1. A violent invective against the whole race of\n Hetaerae, mentioning various names.\n\n 2. The difference between an Hetaera and a Porne.\n\nIncert. 2. Rebuke of a jealous lover (?).\n\n 3. The sign of an abandoned woman.\n\n 4, 5. Remarks on a woman\u2019s toilet.\n\n 6. A system of coiffure.\n\n\nARISTOPHON.\n\n Callonides. The folly of marrying a second time.\n\n Iatrus 2. An Hetaera\u2019s door is shut to a man without money (l.\n 1, _leg._ \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 pro \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2).\n\n Pythagoristes 2. The gods have driven Love out of heaven, and\n clipped his wings, so that he stays on earth.\n\n\nEPICRATES.\n\n Antilais 2. A savage attack upon Lais.\n\n 3. A list of erotic writers whose poems one learns by\n heart.\n\nChorus. A man cheated by a _lena_.\n\nDyspratus. Women\u2019s stinginess towards slaves (cp. Antiphanes, Dyspratus).\n_O demens, ita servus homo est?_\n\n\nCRATINUS IUNIOR.\n\n Omphale. The heroine (?) appears dilating on the pleasures of a\n life of ease, with a view to seducing Heracles.\n\nThe Titanes also seems to have dealt with erotic subjects.\n\n\nAXIONICUS.\n\n Philinna. One thing, at least, you can trust a woman\u2014that she\n won\u2019t drink water.\n\n\nCALLICRATES.\n\n Moschion. A mention of Sinope.\n\n\nDIODORUS.\n\n Incert. Better a well-educated wife without money than one who\n does not know how to behave with.\n\n\nERIPHUS.\n\n Meliboea 1. A man giving a girl some citrons at dessert. (Cp.\n Antiphanes, Boeotia.) Fr. 2 seems to belong to the same scene.\n\n\nHENIOCHUS.\n\n Incert. The cities of Greece, allegorised as women are\n entertained and made drunk by Abulia, Democratia, and\n Aristocratia.\n\n\nHERACLITUS.\n\n Xenizon. Mention of a certain gluttonous Helen.\n\n\nPHILISCUS.\n\n Philargyri. A woman\u2019s powers of persuasion.\n\n\nSOPHILUS.\n\nThe Paracatathece and the Syntrechontes both seem to have had erotic\nplots.\n\n\nTIMOTHEUS.\n\n Incert. An elaborate eulogy of Love, which does not read like\n the work of a comic poet.\n\n\nTIMOCLES.\n\n Epistolae 1. A lover\u2019s comic enthusiasm.\n\n Icarii 1, 2. Pythionice and her lovers.\n\n Marathonii. The pleasures of seduction. (Cp. p. 159, note.)\n\n Neaera 1. An unfortunate lover of Phryne.\n\n Orestautocleides 1. Autocleides the paederast appears\n surrounded by Hetaerae, in the character of Orestes and the\n Erinnyes. (Cp. Mein. _Com. Fr._ i. 432.)\n\n Philodicastes. Mention of a new regulation by which the\n \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 had to inspect entertainments, to see that they\n were respectable.\n\n Sappho. An allusion to Misgolas (cp. _supra_, p. 157).\n\n\nXENARCHUS.\n\n Butalion. A childless house.\n\n Hypnus. Happy cicadas, for their females are dumb.\n\n Pentathlus 1. The folly of adultery (cp. Eubulus, Nannion).\n\n 2, 3. Woman\u2019s power of drinking.\n\nPriapus. An earnest drinker.\n\nScythae 1. The effects of a rival (?).\n\n\nTHEOPHILUS.\n\n Neoptolemus 1. A young wife does not suit an old husband.\n\n Philaulus 1. Love for a maiden (a _citharistria_) described\n with considerable enthusiasm. (The first four lines = Antiph.\n _Incert._ 51.)\n\n 2. An anxious father (?) hopes that his son will not\n fall into the hands of the Hetaerae.\n\n\n\n\nEXCURSUS H.\n\n[P. 163.]\n\n_WOMEN IN THE FRAGMENTS OF THE EARLY NEW COMEDY._\n\n\nIn the case of Menander, only the more important allusions are\nchronicled. In the case of the other writers, everything that bears on\nthe subject is mentioned.\n\n\nMENANDER.\n\n Adelphi 1. The happiness of never marrying. (Adapted by Terence\n in his _Adelphi_.)\n\n Andria 1. Love makes blind. (Adapted by Terence in his\n _Andria_.)\n\n Androgynus 2. An allusion to a wedding ceremony.\n\n Anepsii 1. Love is, by nature, deaf to advice.\n\n 2. A daughter is a troublesome thing.\n\nAphrodisia 1. Love makes fools of men.\n\n 2. A girl, while delirious, lets out unfortunate secrets.\n\nArrephorus 1. The dangers of marriage.\n\n 3. A talkative woman.\n\nCarchedonius. (Adapted by Plautus in his _Poenulus_?)\n\nChalceia 3. Youth is the time for love.\n\nColax 4. A list of various well-known Hetaerae. (Adapted by Terence in\nhis _Eunuchus_.)\n\nCybernetae 2. The man who is counted lucky in public, but tyrannised over\nat home.\n\nDactylius 1. The obstinate father who refuses his daughter.\n\n 2. A bridegroom who wants no dowry. (For the plot cp. Ter.\n _Hecyra_.)\n\nDidymae 1. The Cynic Crates\u2019 wife. (Cp. Apul. _Florid._ xiv.)\n\nEmpipramene 1. Invective against marriage.\n\n 4. A father\u2019s joy (at the recognition of his daughter?).\n\nEpitrepontes. (Similar in plot to the _Hecyra_ of Terence.)\n\nEunuchus 7. The violent joy of the successful lover in Ter. _And._ v. 5,\n3, is translated literally from this play. (Adapted by Terence in his\n_Eunuchus_.)\n\nGeorgus 6. The unpractical lover.\n\nHalieis 6. A daughter is an awkward thing.\n\n 10. The flight of the adulterer.\n\nHeauton Timorumenus 3. The respectable girl\u2019s home. (Adapted by Terence\nin his _Heauton Timorumenus_.)\n\nHeros 1. Love is omnipotent.\n\nHiereia 2. A respectable woman should not leave the house. (The plot\ndeals with a married woman who follows the priests of Cybele about the\nstreets.)\n\nHypobolimaeus 4. The husband should rule the wife.\n\n 8. \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae.\n\nLeucadia 1. Sappho\u2019s leap.\n\nMisogynes 1. The advantages of a wife.\n\n2, 3, 4, 5. The expense of keeping a wife.\n\n 4, 5. A woman\u2019s superstitions.\n\n 9. The husband seeks refuge with an Hetaera. (The plot is\n concerned with a man who marries a woman, and then conceives\n a most violent hatred for her.)\n\nMisumenus 3. The slavery of love.\n\n 5. Platonic love.\n\n 6. The lover\u2019s misery.\n\n 7. The lover in his lady\u2019s absence.\n\n 8. An unsympathetic listener.\n\n 10. The lover cannot sleep.\n\n 12. Jealousy.\n\n (The plot deals with a Miles Gloriosus, who is in love\n with a slave girl of his, but will not touch her because\n she does not love him.)\n\nNauclerus 4. A lover is always easily led.\n\nOlynthia 4. Artificial hair.\n\nOrge 5. An adulterer is an expensive luxury.\n\nPaedion 2. A man who goes round offering amulets to men when they get\nmarried.\n\nPericeiromene. (The soldier who, in a fit of jealousy, cuts off the hair\nof his slave girl, and afterwards repents.)\n\nPerinthia. (Adapted by Terence in his _Andria_, especially for the first\nscene.)\n\nPlocion 1. The rich, ugly, and jealous wife.\n\n 2. The disagreeableness of the same.\n\n 3. The results of a \u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03c2.\n\n 4. The trouble that they bring on a house.\n\nSicyonius. (The soldier who buys a girl, and then treats her as if she\nwere a free woman.)\n\nSynaristosae 1, 2. The strange behaviour of some women (Hetaerae?) at\ndinner.\n\n 4. Love makes one perjure oneself.\n\nThais 1. The ideal Hetaera, faithful to none.\n\nThesaurus 1. Love is a severe god, especially to the old.\n\n 2. Music is the food of love.\n\n 3. The lover must be bold.\n\n(In order to estimate at its true value the prominence of misogyny in the\nfollowing passages, it is well to remember that a large proportion of the\n_Fragmenta Incerta_ of Menander are found in Christian collections of\napophthegms.)\n\n Incert. 1. If you have once married, then you must put up with\n it.\n\n 3. A man ought to be allowed the chance of getting to know his\n wife before marriage; for every woman is an evil, but then one\n could choose the least. (Cp. 102.)\n\n 6. Invective against Prometheus for creating women.\n\n 7. The sudden effects of a kiss.\n\n 8. The polygamous habits of the Thracians.\n\n 14. Of the nature of love.\n\n 16. Women are afraid of death, and seek comfort for trouble in\n tears.\n\n 27. Women have no gratitude.\n\n 32. A girl\u2019s wooing. (Transl. in Plaut. _Cist._ i. 1, 91.)\n\n 36. The advantages of a \u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03bd\u03b7 over a respectable woman.\n\n \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6, \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u2019 \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u2019, \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd, \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n 54, 55, 57. One should not marry money.\n\n 58. The man who contemplates marriage must consider whether he\n prefers beauty or worth.\n\n 73. A man stands up for his wife.\n\n 99. Virtue doubles the value of beauty.\n\n 100. A woman must try to lead her husband, not drive him.\n\n 101. None are so closely related as man and wife.\n\n 102. A man who marries, may count it as a great good if his\n wife is only a slight evil.\n\n 103. The troubles of a family man.\n\n 104. Advice against marriage.\n\n 105. Marriage is a necessary evil.\n\n 106. A woman\u2019s fair words are most to be feared. (Cp. 197.)\n\n 107. An Hetaera cannot be expected to be good, for she makes\n her living out of mischief.\n\n 112. A mother loves her children more than a father.\n\n 114. The unmarried daughter in the house.\n\n 117. A lover\u2019s threats are not serious.\n\n 133. A respectable woman does not dye her hair.\n\n 154. Educating a woman is like giving poison to a viper.\n\n 155. The dangers of beauty.\n\n 156. Your wife will be nasty without being taught.\n\n 185. A bit of the marriage ceremony.\n\n 196. Love cannot be controlled by reason.\n\n 198. Women are consistent liars.\n\n 199. Night is the time for love.\n\n 241. An Hetaera\u2019s dress.\n\n 256. One must not trust a woman.\n\n 258. It is safer to stir up a dog than an old woman.\n\n 259. Women are irritable. (Cp. 499.)\n\n 294. The behaviour of a low woman.\n\n 346. Stupid women.\n\n 469. An oath to a woman is not binding.\n\nI have added an analysis of the _Gnomae Monostichi_, for the sake of\ncompleteness. No one will, of course, attach any importance to the views\nexpressed in this nondescript collection. [Cp. Kock, _Com. Att. Fr._ vol.\niii. praef.]\n\n 56. The happiness of being unmarried. (Cp. 78, 437, 468, 595.)\n\n 77. The expensiveness of wives.\n\n 83. Women are the better for being silent.\n\n 84. The ideal woman is the good housekeeper.\n\n 85. A woman may save or ruin a house.\n\n 86. Do not trust a woman. (Cp. 633.)\n\n 87. Women consider nothing but their own wishes.\n\n 90. There is nothing so wretched as an old man in love.\n\n 91. The man who wants to marry changes his mind.\n\n 92. Virtue, not gold, adorns a woman.\n\n 93. A good wife saves a man\u2019s position.\n\n 94. It is not easy to find a good woman.\n\n 95. It is better to bury a woman than to marry her.\n\n 97. A wife is an expensive luxury.\n\n 98. Marry your wife, not her money.\n\n 99. A good wife is the helm of a household.\n\n 100. A woman cannot rule; it is against nature.\n\n 102. Marriage is an evil men bring on themselves.\n\n 103. When about to marry you should consider your neighbours.\n\n 106. Women are bad counsellors.\n\n 109. All women are alike.\n\n 134. Woman is the source of every ill. (Cp. 541, 623.)\n\n 156. Love cannot withstand poverty. (Cp. 159.)\n\n 160. Some women are virtuous.\n\n 161. Women are faithless. (Cp. 560.)\n\n 181. Women are a cause of ruin.\n\n 195. A woman\u2019s jealousy.\n\n 197. A married man is a slave.\n\n 199. Try and get a woman as your ally.\n\n 211. Don\u2019t marry mere money.\n\n 215. A man must rule his wife.\n\n 231. Women are as dangerous as sea and fire.\n\n 233. A bad woman is a treasure-house of evil.\n\n 248. Women are fiercer than beasts.\n\n 260. A woman should stay at home.\n\n 261. A bad woman is like poison.\n\n 264. Woman is like the sea.\n\n 267. Woman is as fierce as a lioness.\n\n 304. Woman is a necessary evil.\n\n 324. A wife is a constant cause of grief.\n\n 327. A woman is worse to live with than a lion.\n\n 333. A woman\u2019s virtue is worth more than her beauty.\n\n 334. A woman is full of evil.\n\n 353. Never abuse or advise a woman.\n\n 355. Never let a woman into your counsels.\n\n 361. Never waste anything good on a woman.\n\n 382. Marriage is slavery.\n\n 410. A lover\u2019s anger is short-lived.\n\n 413. There is nothing worse than a pretty woman.\n\n 426. A harlot\u2019s weeping is like a lawyer\u2019s.\n\n 469. A woman is dirt silvered over.\n\n 493. Woman is a pleasant ill.\n\n 540. A bad woman is like a storm in the house.\n\n 575. A woman is like a fire.\n\n 600. Women flatter with an object.\n\n 634. The value of a good wife. (Cp. 675.)\n\n 684. May my friends never marry.\n\n 700. Women ruin many men.\n\n 734. Pretty women are conceited.\n\n 735. Your wife is worth taking trouble for.\n\n 750. A daughter is hard to dispose of.\n\n 757. A poor man should not marry.\n\n\nPHILEMON.\n\n Adelphi 1. Praise of Solon for having introduced prostitution.\n\n Babylonius. An Hetaera\u2019s prospects.\n\n Pyrphorus. Greater beauty than any painter could depict.\n\n Synephebus. An Hetaera\u2019s dress.\n\n Incert. 31. A lady going out with a pretty servant. (Cp. Plaut.\n _Mercator_, ii. 3, 69.)\n\n 32. The affectations of a \u03bc\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n 35. The man who fell in love with the statue.\n\n 44. A good wife obeys her husband.\n\n 49. The growth of love.\n\n 64. A dutiful son and his mother.\n\n 76. Where women meet, there is sure to be mischief.\n\n 77. Worth is better than beauty.\n\n 78. There is no need to teach a woman mischief.\n\n 85. The folly of taking counsel with a woman.\n\n 95. A conceited woman.\n\n 103. Woman is an immortal necessary evil.\n\n 105, 106. Advice not to marry.\n\n 124. A city of beautiful women.\n\n\nDIPHILUS.\n\n Pallace. A woman\u2019s ornament.\n\n Synoris 1, 2, 3. A parasite and an Hetaera playing dice.\n\n Theseus 2. A Samian lady\u2019s riddle.\n\n Zographus 1. An Hetaera entertains lavishly.\n\n Incert. 2. An outburst against the trade of the \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n 6. An ugly girl, from whom even a dog won\u2019t take a\n piece of bread.\n\n 16. The oath of an Hetaera is not to be believed.\n\n 33. It is hard to find a good woman.\n\n 34. A virgin is a treasure that it is not easy to guard.\n\n 47. A woman described as a carcase.\n\n\nARCHEDICUS.\n\n Dihamartanon. A dishonest Hetaera.\n\nThe fragments of HIPPARCHUS, LYNCEUS, and APOLLODORUS GELOUS contain no\nallusions to women.\n\n\n\n\nEXCURSUS I.\n\n[P. 163.]\n\n_THE QUESTION OF WOMEN\u2019S RIGHTS IN THE MIDDLE COMEDY._\n\n\nIt is usual to assume that there was, during the earlier part of\nthe fourth century, a strong agitation at Athens in favour of\n\u201cwomen\u2019s rights.\u201d The social status of the Theban, as well as of the\nLacedaemonian, women, had been brought, owing to political events,\nunder the notice of even the most consistent Athenian, and advantage\nis supposed to have been taken of this fact by the advocates of female\nliberty at Athens, to endeavour to obtain for the women there some of\nthose privileges which notoriously belonged to their neighbours. This\nbeing so, it will be interesting to consider in how far, if at all, this\nmovement is reflected in the literature of the period.\n\nThe general treatment of women in the Middle Comedy being such as it\nis, there would be every reason to expect to find plays in which these\nefforts of women to obtain more general recognition from men, would be\nmade the subject of more or less contemptuous ridicule. The fashion\nstarted by Aristophanes in the _Ecclesiazusae_ must have been, one would\nhave thought, too fascinating to be abandoned.\n\nThe fact, however, remains that, in such portions of the Middle Comedy\nas still exist, there is practically no trace of anything of the kind.\nThere are, it is true, one or two titles of plays which seem at first\nsight suggestive, but further investigation generally reveals little.\nThus the _Gynaecocratia_ and the _Gynaecomania_ of Amphis both seem\naimed, not at the tyranny of women in general, but at the tyranny of\nwives.[370]\n\nAs for the _Gynaecocratia_ of Alexis, all that can be gathered from the\nfragments is that it seems to have had certain features in common with\nthe _Scenas Catalambanusae_ of Aristophanes; as to its tone or tendency,\nthere is no clue in the two short passages that remain.\n\nThe suggestion made above (p. 228) as to the meaning of the fragment of\nthe _Atalanta_ of Philetaerus is, of course, purely conjectural, and\ncannot, therefore, bear evidence either way.\n\nAnd that is all. This almost entire absence from the Middle Comedy of\nplays dealing with the question of \u201cwomen\u2019s rights,\u201d would seem to\njustify a certain hesitation in accepting the common view that this\nquestion was at the time a burning one. So general a silence on the\npoint, in a literature which deals exhaustively with every other phase of\ncontemporary life, seems not unreasonably to suggest that the extent and\ninfluence of the movement have been exaggerated, and that, as far as it\nexisted at all, it was confined to a small body of enthusiasts, and was\nwell-nigh without effect on the body of the nation at large.\n\n\n\n\nEXCURSUS K.\n\n[P. 187.]\n\n_SOME FURTHER NOTES ON FAMILY RELATIONS AS TREATED IN MIDDLE AND NEW\nCOMEDY._\n\n\nThough it has nothing to do with our immediate subject, it may be\ninteresting to notice briefly the attitude of the New Comedy towards\nthat description of family problems which the _Canace_ of Euripides and\nsimilar works had made popular among certain classes of art-lovers. That\nsuch works had ever any great hold over the public at large is neither\nproved nor probable.\n\nIn the first place, we may notice the unpleasant accident by which, in\nthe _Curculio_, the soldier is made unconsciously to buy his sister\nas his mistress. Here, however (Plaut. _Curc._ v. 2, 55 _seqq._), as\nsoon as the recognition takes place, Planesium is at once given in\nmarriage by her brother to her lover\u2014as soon, that is to say, as her\nconsent has been obtained to this course (_ibid._ 73). In the Middle\nComedy _Epidicus_, where a similar incident occurs, the behaviour of\nStratippocles is somewhat less correct (Plaut. _Epid._ v. 1, 42 _seqq._),\nthough here, too, the side of propriety is at once championed by the\nslave, and prevails without any real delay. That incidents of this kind\nwere not uncommon in New Comedy seems probable from the nature of that\nclass of drama, but there is no reason to suppose that they ever had\nany other conclusion than that which occurs in the cases quoted above.\nCases of rivalry between father and son, such as occur in the _Casina_\nand the _Mercator_, belong to a class of drama which has nothing to do\nwith romantic New Comedy. The _d\u00e9nouements_ of the _Asinaria_ and the\n_Bacchides_, which are so little sympathetic to modern ideas, are both to\nsome extent apologised for by their authors,[371] and also, as will be\nobserved, occur in plays which have Hetaerae for their heroines.\n\nA certain lack of regard for decency on the part of the father in the\nson\u2019s presence, and _vice vers\u00e2_, (which is rather startling to the\nmodern reader in such passages as Plaut. _Asin._ v. 2, 30 _seqq._, Ter.\n_Heaut. Timor._ iii. 3, 1, and elsewhere,) is probably most simply\nexplained by _autres temps autres moeurs_. Altogether, it would seem that\nthe privacy which is to modern ideas somewhat of an essential in these\nmatters, was at a considerable discount at this period of society. Cp.\nPlaut. _Bacch._ iii. 3, 73 _seqq._, _Curc._ i. 3, 16 _seqq._, etc.\n\nLastly, attention may be called to Hanno\u2019s rather remarkable method of\nsearching for his lost daughters. (Plaut. _Poen._ prolog. 106 _seqq._).\nWhether this is intended for a realistic study of Semitic habits, can be\nleft to others to decide.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1] The expression is, of course, an awkward one, for the word \u201cromance,\u201d\nlike \u201cchivalry,\u201d embodies the old superstition that such feelings were a\nproduct of the Christian Middle Ages; but this and similar expressions\nare so generally used in this connection, that there is little real risk\nof misunderstanding, and I cannot think of anything better.\n\n[2] Among the many arguments in favour of the social emancipation of\nwomen at the present day, I have never heard it suggested that such an\nemancipation would inevitably lead to an increase of chivalrous feelings\non the part of men; the general view seems to be that it would have just\nthe contrary effect.\n\n[3] Very noticeable is the preponderance of goddesses in the Greek\nPantheon. The powers of nature, whether of sea, mountain, river, or\nforest, were almost invariably incarnated in the form of women.\n\n[4] This change, retrograde or not, according to taste, may be exactly\nparalleled from the social history of the Arabs.\n\n[5] It is both instructive and amusing to compare this primitive ideal\nwoman with the contemporary Greek woman, as Hesiod himself knew and\ndescribed her. A striking passage is _Op._ 693 _seqq._, and others will\nbe mentioned in the next few pages.\n\n[6] That this was the general character of the erotic legends introduced\ninto the celebrated \u201cCatalogus\u201d ascribed to Hesiod, seems shown by the\nremark in Serv. _ad. Aen._ vii. 268: \u201cHesiodus etiam \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd\ninducit multas heroidas optasse nuptias virorum fortium\u201d; cp. the whole\nnote.\n\n[7] The parallel view, that if a man wished to really love anyone, the\nonly worthy object he could find would be another man, was doubtless, in\npart, the result of a similar line of argument, though its true origin\nmust of course be sought in something more inspiring than mere contempt\nfor women. A further examination of this side of the question will be\nmade later on.\n\n[8] Zeus pays \u1f04\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 to Tros for his son (cp. _Hymn. Hom._ iv. 210); that\nthe golden shower in which he visited Danae means as much, is hardly a\nprimitive notion. The argument in Ach. Tat. ii. 37 is ingenious, but\nscarcely convincing.\n\n[9] This version of the relations between Zeus and Minos is at least as\nold as the _Odyssey_. Cp. _Odyss._ xix. 179; Athen. xiii. 601E.\n\n[10] _Hymn. Hom._ iv. 247 _seqq._\n\n[11] The general view that the erotic version of this story is not the\noriginal seems to rest on the sole authority of Aesch. _Cho._ 613 _seqq._\nProbably one version is as old as the other, the one being perhaps\nDorian, the other Ionian. Aeschylus\u2019 treatment of Dorian erotic legends\nwill be touched upon later. (_Infra_, p. 42.)\n\n[12] A man may sometimes commit suicide after the death of his lady; but\nthat is a very different thing to dying because she declines to have\nanything more to do with him. Stories like that of Iphis and Anaxarete\nonly appear at a very late period.\n\n[13] Athen. xiv. 619C.\n\n[14] Hermes. _Leont._ i. _Fr._ 3. (Ed. Bach.)\n\n[15] Theocr. i. 82 _seqq._ Cp. Reitzenstein, _Epigramm und Skolion_, p.\n212 _seqq._\n\n[16] Serv. _ad Ecl._ viii. 68.\n\n[17] Theocr. vii. 72.\n\n[18] The only real exceptions to this rule are, perhaps, Sappho and her\nfollowers!\n\n[19] Theognis, 183; cp. Pseudo-Phocylides, 189. Very similar in spirit is\nHesiod\u2019s advice to the farmer to get\n\n \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1. _Op._ 403.\n\n[20] That is to say, these feelings by themselves. As regards the\nfirst, no one, of course, would wish to deny that the sexual instinct,\nin its most sensual form, has often played a prominent part in what is\nunquestionably love-poetry; but the sexual instinct can never of itself\nsupply the fundamental basis of the feeling necessary for the production\nof such poetry. Woman, regarded _merely_ as a source of pleasure or\nconvenience, can no more be an object of love than a bottle of brandy or\na railway train.\n\n[21] Cf. Hes. _Op._ 700, _seqq._ A comparison of that passage with the\ntypes mentioned in Simonides, _i.e._ the \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u1f74 \u03b3\u03b7\u0390\u03bd\u03b7 and the \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u1f74 \u1f10\u03be \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5,\nwould seem to show that the sense of \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 is not so much \u2018fishing\nfor invitations to dinner,\u2019 _i.e._ fond of going out (so L. and S.),\nas \u2018waylaying dinners,\u2019 _i.e._ making havoc of the food, like Plautus\u2019\n\u2018pernae pestis.\u2019 Wastefulness in household matters was much more likely\nto \u2018burn up\u2019 a Greek husband, and bring him to a \u2018cruel old age,\u2019 than\nany amount of frivolity or flirtation. For the idea cp. Aristoph. _Eccl._\n226.\n\n[22]\n\n \u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2\n \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7\n \u1f27\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f54\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u2019 \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b5, \u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f31\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.\n\n [Phoc. _Fr._ 3.]\n\n\u1f31\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 sounds to a modern ear almost like bitter irony.\n\n[23] Nor, for that matter, is the Hetaera, whom later writers manage so\nto idealise, treated with any more respect or courtesy than the wife. Cp.\nArchil. _Fr._ 142, 184; Hippon. _Fr._ 110, 111. In curious contrast to\nwhat may be called the \u2018wife-poetry\u2019 of the early Greeks is the pretty\npicture in Hesiod (_Op._ 517, _seqq._) of the unmarried girl, sitting at\nhome, in every sense of the words \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. But strangest of all is\nthe touch where, falling unconsciously into a manner of speech that dated\nfrom a very different social state, he calls her\n\n \u03bf\u1f54\u03c0\u03c9 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03c5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 (!) \u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n[24] \u201cBut even these are as nothing compared to the real gush of feeling\nwhen he describes his youthful passions, his love for Neobule, passing\nthe Homeric love of women. Here he has anticipated Sappho and Alcaeus,\n&c.\u201d\u2014Mahaffy, _Class. Gr. Lit._ i. p. 160.\n\n[25] Perhaps Glaucus, for there is at least as much reason for supposing\nthat Glaucus was the object of Archilochus\u2019 affection as that he was\nthe object of his scorn. To see in him a prototype of the Egnatius of\nCatullus, as, for instance, Lafaye does (_Catulle et ses Mod\u00e8les_, p.\n29), is quite unwarranted by any evidence; for the epithet \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 of\n_Fr._ 57 is not necessarily derogatory, while the tone of such passages\nas _Fr._ 54, 70, is certainly not that of invective.\n\n[26] _Fr._ 100-3, 106-7, 109-10, 116.\n\n[27] It may further be observed that the passage is to all appearances\ndescriptive of the emotions of some person other than the writer himself,\nand there is certainly no reason to suppose that it was addressed to the\nwoman in question. The difference between describing such an emotion\ngenerally, and describing it as one\u2019s own, to the person who causes it,\nneed hardly be dwelt upon.\n\n[28] Cp. _Fr._ 71, 72.\n\n[29] To endeavour, as some have done, to reconstruct the satires of\nArchilochus from those of Catullus, is simply labour thrown away, because\nbetween the periods in which the two poets lived, the whole way of\nregarding women had been revolutionised, and ideas which seemed obvious\nto the Latin writer would have been unintelligible to the Greek. To\nCatullus thwarted love was an agony; to Archilochus it was an insult,\nand no man of his time would, or could, have regarded it otherwise.\nThus, to suppose, as Lafaye (_op. cit._ l.c.) does, that the satires of\nArchilochus were interspersed with erotic passages, like Catull. xxxix.\n(a poem he considers to be imitated from Archilochus), is to suppose an\nanachronism.\n\n[30] His date, and the general character of his poems, make it more\nconvenient to consider him here, than among the other choral lyric\nwriters, of whom we shall speak later.\n\n[31] \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u1f01\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f65\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03a7\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f08\u03bb\u03ba\u03bc\u1fb6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, (\u1f00\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd)\n\u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd) \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03c2.\n Athen. xiii. 600 F.\n\n(The reading is uncertain.)\n\n[32] It is noteworthy that Archytas (_ap._ Athen. _l.c._), when wishing\nto illustrate Alcman\u2019s love for this lady, can quote nothing more pointed\nthan the lines\n\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03b8\u2019 \u1f01\u03b4\u03b5\u1fb6\u03bd \u039c\u03c9\u03c3\u1fb6\u03bd \u1f14\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03be\u03b5\u03bd\n \u03b4\u1ff6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03ac\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f01 \u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u1f70 \u039c\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1.\n\n [_Fr._ 37.]\n\n[33] The fragments which may with some confidence be assigned to these,\nprobably early, poems, are 29 and 94. Besides this, the mention of\nTantalus (87, to which belongs 100) may well have been introduced by the\nstory of Ganymede; that of Niobe\u2019s children (109) by the story of those\nloves of theirs of which Sophocles afterwards wrote. The expression \u1f10\u03bd\n\u0398\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 (85) might well in such a poem have had reference to\nApollo and Admetus, whose love is held up as a model, like that of the\nlovers in Theocritus xii. But most striking of all, perhaps, to the\nmodern reader, is the feeling that prompts Alcman to speak of the Spartan\ngirls as his \u201cfemale boy-friends.\u201d (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03bb\u03ba\u03bc\u1f70\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u0390\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9. Hypoth. _ad Theocr._ xii.)\n\n[34] Aristides ii. p. 40, Dind.\n\n[35] Cp. _Fr._ 26.\n\n[36] Alcman seems somehow to speak of girls like an old man. To think\nof him so, renders far more natural the charming gallantry of his lines\non Agido, or the \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 with which his maidens speak, or his\nconfessions of how he likes his dinner served. One can think of those\nSpartan girls laughing at their old Lydian dancing-master, as they ran\naway down to the \u201cbaths of Eurotas,\u201d while he went slowly home and made\nthem immortal.\n\n[37] Anyhow, not in primitive times. One must go a long way down the\nhistory of erotic poetry to find a \u201clove-poet\u201d who praises two ladies\nwith such impartiality as Alcman does Agido and Agesichora.\n\n[38] Cp. Reitzenstein, _Epigramm und Skolion_, p. 47 _seqq._\n\n[39] That the love thus generally recommended was purely sensual, goes\nwithout saying; the first two or three lines of the first fragment are\nproof enough of this.\n\nIn _Fr._ 1, l. 3, \u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03c7\u03b1 \u03b4\u1ff6\u03c1\u03b1 is not very satisfactory, somehow. The\npassage in _Hymn. Hom._ x. 2, where the expression occurs again, is\nnot quite parallel. In a less primitive poet, one would write without\nhesitation \u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03c7\u2019 \u1f04\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1. For this use of \u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03c7\u03b1 cp. Pind. _Olymp._ i.\n49, and for the thought _Anth. Pal._ v. 29, &c., &c. Line 4 again might\nbegin \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03af \u03b3\u2019 \u1f25\u03b2\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n[40] _Leont._ iii. 37, of which passage Poseidippus was doubtless\nthinking in his epigram _Anth. Pal._ xii. 168.\n\n[41] _Leont._ iii. 27 _seqq._ 47 _seqq._ &c.\n\n[42] Suidas, it may be remarked, flatly contradicts one half of this view\nwhen he says of Mimnermus \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac.\n\n[43] It is hardly justifiable to infer from the passage of Alexander\nAetolus _ap._ Athen. xv. 699 C, that Mimnermus addressed love-poems to\nboys.\n\n[44] It is as a philosopher that Horace (_Ep._ i. 6, 65) cites his\nopinion:\n\n si, Mimnermus uti censet, sine amore iocisque\n nil est iucundum;\n\n\u201ccenset,\u201d the regular word for a philosopher. It is further worth\nnoticing that the Roman poets, when they mention Mimnermus, speak of him\nas the inventor of the elegiac metre, not as an erotic poet. Cp. _e.g._\nProp. i. 9, 11.\n\n[45] That the ancients already recognised the importance of this\nparticular feature in Anacreon is shown _inter alia_ by the emphasis laid\nupon it by Critias (_ap._ Athen. xiii. 600 D).\n\n[46] Vide _e.g._ Athen. xii. 540 E.\n\n[47] Striking instances of this are to be found in _Fr._ 13, 76, etc.\n\n[48] That this tone was specially characteristic of the poems addressed\nto women, if not actually confined to these, is shown by the contrast\nwhich the ancient critics made between Anacreon\u2019s two styles of poetry.\nCp. Plut. _Amor._ 4, and _infra_ p. 86.\n\n[49] The arguments of Reitzenstein, _Epig. u. Skol._ p. 81 _seqq._,\nto prove that its date is not later than _circa_ 400, are not very\nconvincing.\n\n[50] Vide Reitzenstein, _op. cit._ p. 52 _seqq._\n\n[51] The exceptions would be the late \u201csophistical\u201d pieces, such as that\nin praise of wealth, 699 _seqq._ etc.\n\n[52] It may be argued that in a work intended \u201cfor the use of schools\u201d\nthe erotic passages would naturally be cut out. But even granted\nthat this collection was made for the use of schools, the system of\nexpurgation, which, while striking out the passages dealing with women,\nhas left what would nowadays be considered so much more objectionable, is\nin itself sufficiently noteworthy. The next schoolmaster who undertakes a\nschool edition of Theocritus may lay this to heart.\n\n[53] How different is the treatment of boy-love both in Book I. and also\nin Book II., which is specially devoted to it, will be dwelt upon later.\n[p. 88.]\n\n[54] Vide Excursus A.\n\n[55] Cp. Aristoph. _Vesp._ 1217 _seqq._\n\n[56] The only exception, rather an interesting one, is _Scol._ 20, which,\nevidently modelled on the one that precedes it, is the answer of a\nwoman-lover. But here again the vagueness (merely \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae, anyone will\ndo) shows what the singer means.\n\n[57] Perhaps, too, those of Althaea (in the _Syotherae_) and Medea (_Fr._\n54).\n\n[58] _Fr._ 68; to the same poem evidently belongs _Fr._ 85.\n\n[59] There is really no adequate reason for disbelieving the story in\nPtol. Hephaest. iv. (Gale, _Hist. poet. script. ant._ p. 320; cf. Bergk.\n_ad Stesich._ _Fr._ 26.) What that story seems to imply is that Helen\nof Himera deserted the poet, who was thereby induced to moralise on the\ninnate faithlessness of Helens in general. A subsequent reconciliation\nwith the lady in question then led to the celebrated apology. The greater\ninfluence which women seem to have had over old men than over young,\nwill already have been noticed in the cases of Alcman and Anacreon. The\nphenomenon could easily be explained, if it were necessary to explain\nit.\u2014Vide _e.g._ Eur. _Suppl._ 1098 _seqq._\n\n[60] That in the original form of the legend Daphnis refuses to yield to\nlove, and dies sooner than submit, has been shown by Reitzenstein, _Epig.\nu. Skol._ p. 193 _seqq._\n\nBut the passage from Aelian (_Var. Hist._ x. 18) never says that\nStesichorus told the story of Daphnis. It says he wrote bucolic poetry,\nwhich is not necessarily the same thing. If only Theocritus, who wrote\nbucolic poetry, had told some more of the story of Daphnis, the necessity\nof reading a great quantity of literature on the subject would have been\nspared us.\n\n[61] It is rather tempting to think of this story as a Greek version of\nTristan and Isolde. Rhadina is going from Samos to be married to the\nKing of Corinth, and travels out with her cousin Leontichus on the same\nship. There the fatal mischief is done; they separate for a while, but\nthe charm is irresistible, and her lover hurries from Delphi to meet his\ndeath at the hands of the Corinthian \u201cKing Marc.\u201d\n\n[62] The name of Cycnus seems at first sight suggestive, but the story as\nrelated in the Scholiast on Pindar unfortunately proves nothing.\n\n[63] He seems to have discussed or commented on the habits of the Spartan\nladies (_Fr._ 61), but whether to praise or blame we do not know.\n\n[64] _e.g._ _Fr._ 37, where he makes Achilles marry Medea; or _Fr._ 38,\nwhere Hermione becomes the wife of Diomed.\n\n[65] _Fr._ 13, _ad fin._ The \u1f18\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac of Bacchylides are not very elevated\nin character, but they are interesting as furnishing what is, perhaps,\nthe first complimentary notice of the \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b1 in literature. (_Fr._ 24.)\n\n[66] The Sicilian Telestes makes rather an interesting remark about\nAthene when she throws away the flute because it spoils her looks:\n\n \u03c4\u03af \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03bd\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b7\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2\n \u1f40\u03be\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd,\n \u1f87 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f04\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5 \u039a\u03bb\u03c9\u03b8\u03ce;\n\nBut, as we have already seen, men took more interest in women in Magna\nGraecia than in Greece itself.\n\n[67] The _Phaedra_, _Oenomaus_, and perhaps the _Colchides_.\n\n[68] Among the extant plays there is only the _Hippolytus_, and even in\nthis, probably to the Greek mind a great part of the interest centred\nin the relations between Hippolytus and Theseus, and in their argument,\nwhere both start from the assumption that it would be absurd to suppose\nthat the former could possibly have been in love with Phaedra. Of the\nlost plays it is hard to speak with confidence, but certainly the\n_Andromeda_, _Phoenix_, and _Aeolus_, seem to have been the only three in\nwhich the love element was at all the leading motive. The heroine of the\n_Meleager_ was probably Althaea, not Atalanta. The _Stheneboea_ merely\ndescribes the vengeance of Bellerophon for the treachery of his hosts.\nIn the _Antigone_ the \u201clove-story\u201d has all taken place before the action\nbegins. Of the _Alcestis_ and the _Protesilaus_ we shall speak elsewhere,\npp. 57, 99.\n\n[69] That is to say, two only in which it furnished the main interest.\nThat it lent a peculiar character to various other tragedies will be\nshown further on.\n\n[70] Cp. what has been said above (p. 35) in the case of Ibycus; the\nparallel is a remarkable and important one.\n\n[71] The statement to this effect in Aristoph. _Ran._ 1044, is so\ndefinite that it seems necessary to infer from it that, in spite of the\nwords in Schol. _ad Apoll. Rhod._ i. 773, the erotic incident in the\n_Hypsipyle_ was very little emphasised.\n\n[72] _Suppl._ 996 _seqq._\n\n[73] _Theb._ 182 _seqq._\n\n[74]\n\n \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b3\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd,\n \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f55\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u2019 \u03b1\u1f31\u03bc\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ad\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd;\n\n _Suppl._ 476.\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f55\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\n \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03b8\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n _Agam._ 823.\n\n[75]\n\n \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9 \u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\n \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n _Eum._ 739.\n\nTo his views as to the physical unimportance of the mother, as compared\nwith the father (_e.g._ _Eum._ 657 _seqq._), I shall have occasion to\nrefer later. See Excursus. [This Excursus does not seem to have been\nwritten.]\n\n[76] How far Aeschylus has followed the _Oresteia_ of Stesichorus, and\nhow far he has modified it, cannot now be known; but it seems reasonable\nto suppose that, in all probability, the Clytemnestra of the latter poet\nwas a good deal more in love with Aegisthus than is the Clytemnestra\nof the former. This would explain some incongruities in the Aeschylean\ncharacter, such as her sudden protestations of affection for Aegisthus\nwhen dead, after her apparent indifference to him when living. (_Cho._\n893, etc.) That she should kill Agamemnon out of revenge for the death\nof Iphigeneia and through jealousy of Cassandra, are perhaps additions\nof Aeschylus, to whose Athenian mind it seemed impossible that a woman\nshould murder her husband merely because she was fond of another man.\n\n[77] One may say, of course, if one likes, that this is all ironical,\nthat she does not mean it, and that in reality she is as jealous as\nanyone else could be, as her subsequent actions show. Personally, I do\nnot believe that the passage is meant to be in the least ironical; the\nabsence of jealousy is always a feature of the model wife (_cp._ Eur.\n_And._ 222, and numerous similar passages); but even if this be granted,\nit makes no difference to the point at all. Whatever the audience are to\nthink, the characters on the stage are supposed to take her seriously;\nand this fact throws a sufficient light on what was then thought to be\nthe duty of a loving wife.\n\nIt is satisfactory to notice that neither does Heracles attach any\nundue importance to Iole. In his last words to Hyllus, after elaborate\ninstructions as to how his funeral-pyre is to be built, he adds casually\u2014\n\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03ba\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\u00b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03ad \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\n \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2.\n\n\u201cJust marry Iole for me, will you?\u201d (l. 1216.)\n\n[78] In this same play, the reader must be careful not to misunderstand\nthe motives of Haemon\u2019s suicide. He does not kill himself out of grief\nfor Antigone, but out of shame (\u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2) at having attacked his\nfather. That love for a woman should have made him so far forget himself\nwas a disgrace not to be borne.\n\n[79] The words of l. 144 _seqq._ at once suggest Catullus lxii. esp. 39\n_seqq._ But this poem of Catullus is generally admitted to be, if not an\nactual translation, at least a paraphrase of Sappho; hence it is far more\nprobable that Sophocles copied Sappho here, than that Catullus copied\nSophocles there.\n\nAnother instance in which a tragedian copied an _Epithalamium_ of Sappho\nis furnished by Aesch. _Suppl._ 998. _Cp._ Sappho _Fr._ 91, Longus\n_Past._ 3, 33, and my _Apospasmata Critica_ (Oxford, Blackwell, 1892), p.\n5.\n\n[80] A great deal of light would be thrown on all this intricate subject\nif only one could find out how far, if at all, Sophocles was influenced\nby Euripides. Euripides, as we shall see later, was always ready to\nsympathise with women who suffered from the unreasonable treatment of the\ntime, but it does not seem _prima facie_ probable that this particular\ntrait should have had influence on anyone so Athenian as Sophocles.\nAnyhow, these two passages prove nothing.\n\n[81] This is exactly the idea of the well-known \u1f1c\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2 chorus in the\n_Antigone_. (l. 781). There, too, love is unavoidable (\u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03c3\u2019 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u2019\n\u1f00\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03cd\u03be\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f54\u03b8\u2019 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03ad \u03b3\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd), it results in\nmadness (\u1f41 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd, \u201cthe stricken one is mad,\u201d as the Romans said\n\u201chabet\u201d of their gladiators), and the chief damage it does is to property\n(\u1f43\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9, \u03c0\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2). Like Eresichthon\u2019s father, what the Chorus most\nobject to is the expense.\n\n[82] [p. 38.]\n\n[83] Vide Excursus B.\n\n[84] This feature is of course by no means peculiar to Sophocles; it is\nprominent both in Aeschylus and Euripides (_e.g._ the pathetic passage in\n_Orest._ 1041 _seqq._), and doubtless for the same reason. In Sophocles,\nhowever, perhaps owing merely to the chance which has preserved certain\nplays while others have been lost, it plays a particularly important\npart. Not only are the _Antigone_ and the _Electra_ almost entirely\ndevoted to it, but the one ray of light in the 1800 lines of the _Oedipus\nColoneus_ is the farewell of Polynices to his sister. (l. 1414 _seqq._)\n\n[85] Soph. _Ant._ 909 _seqq._ This seems the natural and obvious way of\ntaking these words, but whichever way one takes them they do not imply\nany very great respect for matrimony.\n\nWhether the lines are Sophocles\u2019 or not is of course indifferent in this\nconnection, as everyone is agreed that, if an interpolation, they are a\nvery early one.\n\n[86] This is not, I think, saying too much. A story like that of Canace,\nhowever powerfully it might affect its audience, was, after all, even in\nlater times, looked upon as something quite exceptional in Greece. (Cp.\nthe later Athenian view on the subject as illustrated by Plaut. _Epid._\nv. i. 45, _seqq._)\n\n[87] It is worth while, however, to notice that even the women themselves\nin Aristophanes are made to confess that this so-called misogyny is, in\ntruth, merely realism. Cp. _e.g._ Aristoph. _Thesm._ 389 _seqq._, _Eccl._\n214 _seqq._\n\n[88] _e.g._ _Fr._ 822, etc.\n\n[89] _Fr._ 321.\n\n[90] _Hipp._ 373 _seqq._ Tempting as it is to take this passage as\nironical, it would almost certainly be wrong to do so.\n\n[91] _Hec._ 342 _seqq._\n\n[92] See Excursus C. It is true that in the intrigue of Macareus and\nCanace there is some reason to believe that the former was, contrary to\nthe usual habit of these legends, the leading spirit; but in the _Aeolus_\nof Euripides this beginning of the story seems to have only been alluded\nto in the prologue, and not to have formed part of the action.\u2014Cp.\nAntiphanes, _Aeol. Fr._ 1.\n\n[93] The most striking example is perhaps the _Iphigeneia in Aulis_, but\nthere are plenty of others.\n\nInstances in which women are represented as in love with men are somewhat\ncommoner, as they were commoner in the legends; but the part they play in\nEuripides, as a whole, has been greatly exaggerated. Cp. p. 38.\n\n[94] \u1f24\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03c1\u2019 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2.\u2014_Fr._ 161 (_Antigone_).\nCp. _Hipp._ 443 _seqq._\n\n[95] Suidas (s.v. \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u1f72 (\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6) \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03ba\u03bf\u03c8\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f04\u03bb\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7\n\u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c5\u1f31\u1ff7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03ae\u03bd ... \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u1ff3\u03b4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0395\u1f50\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1. Cp. id. s.v.\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. Vide Nauck, _Trag. Graec. Frag._ p. 621.\n\n[96] The difference is described with wonderful force by Maximus Tyrius\n(xxv. 4): \u1f41 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03c6\u2019 \u1f21\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6, \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u1fb6\u00b7 \u1f41 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f04\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6, \u1f41\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f11\u03ba\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u1fb7\u00b7 \u1f41 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03c1\u1fb7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f40\u03bb\u03ad\u03b8\u03c1\u1ff3 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bd.\u2014I\nhave spoken here merely of women because we have so little absolute\nevidence as to men, but what little we have all goes to prove that\ntheir view of \u201clove\u201d was at least as sensual as that of the women, and\nif anything even more brutal; and, anyhow, there is no evidence of the\ncontrary. It is very hard satisfactorily to compare Euripides with people\nlike Asclepiades, who are the earliest representatives we know of the\nmodern spirit, for this very reason, that while the former nearly always\ndiscusses the matter from the point of view of the woman, the latter do\nso with almost equal regularity, as far as we can now judge, from the\npoint of view of the man. One thing, however, is clear enough at the\nvery outset. While Euripides regards the relation between man and woman\nas entirely based on the sexual instinct, the Alexandrians have from the\nfirst imported into it that further feeling of comradeship and mutual\nself-sacrifice which had before been peculiar to the relation between man\nand man. For obvious reasons this great change first became noticeable on\nthe side of the man (for the influence of Sappho\u2019s school had probably by\nthis time become inappreciable), but its effects are evident enough as\nsoon as the Alexandrians begin to talk of a woman\u2019s love. The difference\nbetween, say, the Medea of Apollonius and the most refined heroine of the\nAttic drama is one, not of degree, but of kind.\n\n[97] _Andr._ 205 _seqq._\n\n[98] The early Greek view of \u201clove\u201d is put here with almost revolting\ncrudeness. Hermione\u2019s devotion to her husband and Helen\u2019s desertion of\nhers, are due to one and the same cause\u2014sensual passion.\n\n[99]\n\n \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c7\u03c1\u1f74 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9,\n \u1f25\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n (_Elect._ 1052.)\n\n[100]\n\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f25\u03ba\u03b5\u03b8\u2019 \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u2019 \u1f40\u03c1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2\n \u03b5\u1f50\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5,\n \u1f22\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f56 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03be\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n (_Med._ 569.)\n\n \u0399\u0391. \u03bb\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c6\u03b5 \u03ba\u1f20\u03be\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f55\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd;\n\n \u039c\u0397. \u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2;\n\n \u0399\u0391. \u1f25\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5 \u03c3\u03ce\u03c6\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n (_ibid._ 1367.)\n\n[101] \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c6\u03c5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f21 \u03c3\u03ce\u03c6\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae.\u2014_Fr._ 545 (_Oedipus_).\n\n[102] Cp. Andromache in _Tro._ 642 _seqq._ Other instances are numerous.\nThis view and that as to jealousy evidently hang together, for it must\nbe admitted that if a wife considers it her duty to become so supremely\nuninteresting and stupid as such a method of life must inevitably make\nher, it is also her duty to be lenient to her husband if he occasionally\nseeks for entertainment outside the domestic circle.\n\n[103]\n\n \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f76 \u03c7\u03c1\u1f74\n \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2.\n\n _Fr._ 463 (_Cressae_); cp. _Fr._ 464.\n\n[104] _Tro._ 1012 _seqq._; cp. _Hipp._ 419 _seqq._\n\n[105] _i.e._ her means of livelihood.\n\n \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u2019 \u1f02\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u00b7\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u2019 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n (_Andr._ 372; cp. _ibid._ 904.)\n\n[106] _Fr._ 402 (_Ino_).\n\n[107] Cp. _Andr._ 1279 _seqq._; _Fr._ 215 (_Antiope_), &c.\n\n[108]\n\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u1f76 \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2,\n \u1f22 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03c5\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9,\n \u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f43\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u1ff3\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c9,\n \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f44\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f55\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u2019 \u1f21\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd.\n\n (_Heracl._ 297.)\n\n[109] To what extent it also figured in that strange play, the\n_Protesilaus_, cannot now be known, but it is only probable that it was\nprominent there also.\n\n[110] Here again one almost marvels at the way in which Euripides misses\nan opportunity. The contrast between the joy of Alcestis at saving\nAdmetus\u2019 life, and her grief for her ruined ideal, would have furnished\nas splendid a conflict of emotions as any dramatist could desire.\nAthenian taste, however, preferred that she should die congratulating him\non having had such a wife, while he stands by expressing his deep regret\nthat he cannot accompany her, as Charon does not issue return tickets.\nFor a further examination of the motives of Admetus, however, see p. 101.\n\n[111] It must be admitted that Jason has a higher opinion of his own\ninfluence (_Med._ 942 _seqq._), if, indeed, this be the right way to take\nthe passage.\n\n[112] This seems to have been still more the case in the first version\nof the play, where Hippolytus appears actually as a \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, or ascetic\nworshipper of Artemis, and where he is promised immortality as the reward\nof his constancy. See Reitzenstein, _Epig. u. Skol._ p. 210 _seqq._ and\nExcursus D.\n\n[113]\n\n o\u1f31 \u03c3\u03ce\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 y\u1f70p \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f11\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f45\u03bc\u03c9\u03c2\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9.\n\n (_Hipp._ 358.)\n\n[114] One may argue, of course, that Hippolytus, as a devotee of Orpheus,\netc., would be naturally more prone to ignore the \u201clove-element\u201d than a\nperson of more human passions, and that this strange disproportion in his\nspeech is a mark of his character. Personally I doubt this, as, firstly,\nthe characters of the Athenian drama, when making their set speeches,\ngenerally quite forget who they are\u2014indeed, the wonder is they don\u2019t\nsometimes slip into an \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u2014and, secondly, if Hippolytus had\nbeen meant to slur over an important part of his subject, his reasons\nfor so doing would have been more definitely explained. The conclusion\nseems to me inevitable, that neither Hippolytus nor Theseus thought the\npossibility of the former\u2019s having been in love with Phaedra worthy of\nserious discussion.\n\n[115] Mahaffy, _Class. Gr. Lit._ vol. i. p. 370.\n\n[116] It is true that, later on, the magnificent heroism of Iphigeneia\nextorts from Achilles what is perhaps one of the earliest declarations of\nlove from a man to a woman that we know:\n\n \u1f08\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6, \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u1f14\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5 \u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03c4\u03cd\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7\n \u03b6\u03b7\u03bb\u1ff6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u2019, \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03ad.\n\n (l. 1405.)\n\nBut this utterance, made under such exceptional circumstances, cannot\ncounteract the effect of what has gone before; and, anyhow, it is a\ncuriously isolated expression, and rather a qualified one.\n\n[117] Worthy of notice is the excellent touch which makes this man,\nthough poor, yet a member of a good family. (l. 37.) As Euripides knew\nwell enough, a son of the soil would have been incapable of even this\nmuch refinement of feeling. We may observe, by the way, that Orestes\nexpresses himself as very sceptical of the whole story\u2014anyhow as far as\nmotives go. (l. 253 _seqq._)\n\n[118] _Hel._ 566 _seqq._ Still more offensive, of course, are the\nsuggestions of Ion to his mother (_Ion_ 1523 _seqq._); but there the\noffence is against decency, not against romance.\n\n[119] Except occasionally, as already noticed, in the case of close\nblood-relations.\n\n[120] Such erotic legends as he does introduce are treated with strangely\nlittle sympathy. The best (in the extant odes) is that of Pelops and\nHippodameia (_Olymp._ 1), where the writer has, perhaps, been roused to\na little warmth by the story of Pelops and Poseidon that has immediately\npreceded. The legend of Peleus and Hippolyte (_Nem._ 5) is noticeable as\nbeing, strangely enough, the only one in which the woman is represented\nas taking the initiative; but this is doubtless to be explained by the\nfact that nearly all these stories are descriptive of the amours of\n_gods_. The story of Jason and Medea is utterly spoiled in _Pyth._ 4.\nIn that of Apollo and Coronis (_Pyth._ 3) only the unfaithfulness of\nthe nymph and her punishment are dwelt upon. The other erotic stories\ntold\u2014_i.e._ those of Apollo and Euadne (_Olymp._ 6), Apollo and Cyrene\n(_Pyth._ 9), Zeus and the daughter of Opoeis (_Olymp._ 9), Ixion and Hera\n(_Pyth._ 2), are merely concerned with seductions of the most commonplace\nkind. The story of Rhoecus and the Hamadryad (_Fr._ 165) is the only one\nof importance alluded to in the fragments; but here it is uncertain how\nfar Pindar told the story, and how far he merely alluded to it.\n\n[121] [On the position occupied by women in the Old Comedy compare _Women\nin Greek Comedy_, \u00a7 3, 4.]\n\n[122] Cp. Theocr. vii. 39.\n\n[123] One or two points are perhaps worth noticing in this connection. It\nis usual to assume that the Battis of Philetas was an Hetaera; but the\nevidence seems rather to suggest that she was his wife. The way in which\nshe is spoken of in Ovid, _Trist._ i. 6, 2, _Pont._ iii. 1, 57, (in the\nformer place coupled with the Lyde of Antimachus,) seems to support this\nview; and, at any rate, there does not appear to be any evidence to the\ncontrary. The personal character of Philetas, as we learn it from various\nnotices of him, seems also rather to point in the same direction; though\nthis is not, of course, an argument that can be pressed. (It would be\ninteresting to know whether the fact that Philetas is apparently never\nalluded to under a nickname, like so many others of the Alexandrian\nwriters, was due to this austerity of character.)\n\nWhether these elegies were as sober and as little sensual in tone as\nthose of Antimachus (cp. _infra_, p. 110), it is impossible now to say;\nthough the two passages cited from Ovid both seem indirectly to imply\nthat they were, and there is certainly nothing in the fragments of\nPhiletas which would lead one to infer that they were not. It need hardly\nbe added that the passage in Ovid, _Ars Amat._ iii. 329 _seqq._ proves\nnothing, for the \u201clascivia\u201d there ascribed to Sappho is obviously not\nmeant to apply to all the other poets mentioned in the list, or Vergil\u2019s\nname would hardly appear in it.\n\n[124] In the poems of Theognis, which are practically epigrams, in the\nlater sense of the word. The epigrams of Plato, if genuine, would be\nanother even more striking instance.\n\n[125] Whether the words are to be taken as really seriously meant is, of\ncourse, doubtful, though one\u2019s instinctive distrust of their sincerity is\nperhaps misplaced; for, after all, this is very primitive poetry of its\nkind. That such words should have been written at all is the remarkable\npoint about them.\n\n[126] [Cp. p. 81, n. 1.]\n\n[127] Vide _e.g._ _Anth. Pal._ v. 158.\n\n[128] The reading \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad is certainly happier than \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac. _Cp. Theocr._\nxxix. 39; vide _infra_ p. 84.\n\n[129] xii. 153 is further interesting as one of the very few of the\nearlier epigrams, which profess to describe the woman\u2019s feelings.\n\n[130] In the _Antilais_; vide Meineke, _Com. Fr._ iii. p. 365.\n\n[131] The above instances may serve to give some idea of the prevailing\ncharacter of Asclepiades\u2019 epigrams; on the wonderful grace and charm\nof this new love-poetry, it is needless to dwell. The best and truest\ndescription of Asclepiades and his followers ever given, is that of\nMeleager, when he calls them the wild-flowers in his Garland.\n\n \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a0\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f29\u03b4\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f04\u03b3\u03c1\u03b9\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2,\n \u03a3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03ce \u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03b1 \u03c6\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1.\n\n _Anth. Pal._ iv. 1, 45.\n\n[132] Those who do not care to read the proof of this really self-evident\nfact, can skip the next 28 pages, and pick up the thread again on p. 103.\n\n[133] _Vide_ Rohde, _Der griech. Roman_, p. 42.\n\n[134] His sorrow for Briseis does not, of course, as already observed,\ngo very deep, as is sufficiently shown by the little effect which her\nrestoration has on him; and his indignation at her loss is doubtless due\nto wounded self-love, more than to love of any other description. But,\nnone the less, the introduction of such an incident shows clearly how\nlittle the purely military hero was in sympathy with Greek ideas.\n\n[135] There is an elaborate analysis of this erotic element in Max. Tyr.\nxxiv. 8: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd (\u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1) \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03ba\u03bb\u1ff3, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u1ff3, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bd\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c3\u03c9\u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f41 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f04\u03c7\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f41\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f41 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f84\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9, \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03b7\u03bd, \u03b4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03be\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u00b7 \u1f41\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03c6\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f45\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u1fb7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd\u03cd\u03c0\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f40\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1ff6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7\n\u03b8\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3 \u1f21 \u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7.\n\nIt need hardly be pointed out that this central pair is not an isolated\nphenomenon. Ajax and Teucer (of whom we shall have occasion to speak\nagain, p. 99), Idomeneus and Meriones, Diomed and Sthenelus, are obvious\nexamples of similar relations among the subordinate characters.\n\n[136] Its prevalence among the Lacedaemonians, in spite of the\ninfluential position of women in that state, is vouched for by the\nusage of the word \u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03c9. Vide Meineke, _Com. Fr._ ii. pp. 200, 1088.\n(The derivation mentioned by Photius, Meineke _l.c._, seems due to\nAristophanes, and need not be taken seriously.)\n\n[137] Athen. xiii. 561 E. On this principle, the \u1f39\u03b5p\u1f78\u03c2 \u039b\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 founded\nby Epaminondas was composed entirely of youths and their lovers,\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u1f41\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f15\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u2019 \u1f02\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f22 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. Athen. xiii. 602 A, cp. 561 F; Max. Tyr. xxiv. 2.\n\n[138] Athen. xiii. 561 D. Cp. Paus. ix. 31, p. 771.\n\n[139] Athen. xiii. 609 F.\n\n[140] Schol. _ad Theocr._ xii. 29.\n\n[141] This view was, of course, especially prominent at Athens, where\nHarmodius and Aristogeiton had become well-nigh the \u2018patron saints\u2019 of\nthe democracy. Very interesting in this connection is the remark in Ath.\nxiii. 562 A, that the Peisistratidae, after their expulsion, were the\nfirst persons who ventured to slander this form of intimacy. Cp. too Max.\nTyr. xxiv. 2. The important part that it played in, at any rate, the\nold-fashioned Athenian education is shown by more than one passage in\nAristophanes, of which the most striking is perhaps _Nubes_, 972 _seqq._;\ncp. 1002 _seqq._\n\n[142] Athen. xiii. 602 D. \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n(\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f57\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03b9) \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03ce\u03bb\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n[143] The gymnasium is always a prominent feature in this connection.\nCp. Catull. lxiii. 64; _Anth. Pal._ xii. 123; Ach. Tat. ii. 38, \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f25\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f44\u03b4\u03c9\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f31\u03b4\u03c1\u03ce\u03c2.\n\n[144] Athen. _loc. cit._\n\n[145] Athen. xiii. 561 D. \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f1c\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. Very characteristic in this respect is the story of\nAgesilaus, related in Xen. _Ages._ v. 4, 5; cp. Max. Tyr. xxv. 5, xxvi.\n8. Other noticeable instances will appear in the next few pages.\n\n[146] Demosth. 1401.\n\n[147] Hence it is not without significance that, according to a common\nstory, the originator of this form of intimacy was said to be Orpheus.\nSee Ovid, _Met._ x. 83; Phanocles, _Fr._ 1.\n\n[148] Antimachus already seems to have been inclined to ridicule the\nstory of Heracles and Hylas. (Vide _Fr._ 8.) Plato and \u201cPlatonic\u201d love\nare, of course, stock subjects throughout the Middle Comedy. (Vide _e.g._\nAmphis, _Dithyramb. Fr._ 2; Meineke, _Com. Fr._ iii. p. 307.) The nature\nof this general attack on the philosophers must not be misunderstood. It\nis an error to suppose that the more old-fashioned among the Athenians\ndisapproved, in the first instance, of the philosophers because they were\npaederasts; it would be truer to say that they turned against paederasty\nbecause it was so intimately associated with philosophy.\n\n[149] The poems of Strato form, of course, an exception; but then the\nincidents on which they are based are professedly the product of his\nown, not always very charming, imagination. Cp. _Anth. Pal_. xii. 258. A\nfurther fact worth noticing is that abstract love-poems (_e.g._ xii. 50)\nare regularly placed among the \u03a0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac.\n\n[150] The reader will perhaps be thinking of another love \u201cpassing the\nlove of women.\u201d One might write many pages on the differences between\nthese two similar emotions.\n\n[151] Whatever opinion one may have as to Homer\u2019s own intention, it\ncannot be denied that this was the Greek view of the relation between\nAchilles and Patroclus from a very early period. This is clearly shown\nby the fact that Aeschylus of all people treated it in this way in his\n_Myrmidones_. That the attachment was further regarded as a perfectly\npure one might be equally proved from the fragments of that tragedy, if\nindeed proof were necessary. Insinuations like those elaborated at the\nend of Lucian\u2019s _Amores_ are a much later aftergrowth.\n\n[152] Vide _supra_, pp. 21, 22.\n\n[153] Vide _supra_, p. 24.\n\n[154] Theocr. xxix. and xxx.\n\n[155] _E.g._ the image of Time with wings on his shoulders (xxix. 29).\nFor this reason I have not cared to urge the expression \u1f08\u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03bb\u03ad\u03ca\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\nin xxix. 34, as a proof that Alcaeus took this view of the relation\nbetween Achilles and Patroclus. (Vide _supra_, p. 82.)\n\n[156] Thus Maximus Tyrius (xxiv. 9) compares the love of Sappho to that\nof Socrates. \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u039b\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (\u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2) ... \u03c4\u03af \u1f02\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf, \u1f22 \u1f21 \u03a3\u03c9\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae; \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f21 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n\u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[157] Vide _supra_, p. 35.\n\n[158] Cp. Theocr. xxix. 10,\n\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03b5\u1f34 \u03bc\u03bf\u03af \u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1ff3.\n\n[159] A striking record of temptation resisted is to be found in l. 949\n_seqq._, but this is almost certainly by a later hand.\n\n[160] l. 237 _seqq._\n\n[161] For an examination of the Second Book of Theognis, vide Excursus E.\n\n[162] Athen. xv. p. 694 _seqq._ This number excludes the poems of Hybrias\nand Aristotle, which are different in character from the rest.\n\n[163] Of the remaining ten, the first four are religious, and only three\ncontain any mention of women, two of these being coarse.\n\n[164] [p. 31.]\n\n[165] For, as we have seen, one of the first of these canons was that the\npublic expression of private emotions was an offence against art no less\nthan against decency, and this would tend to exclude from the stage all\nforms of love equally. In the case of woman-love there were, of course,\nspecial objections; that was why the _Myrmidones_ was the first erotic\nplay of any kind produced; but this is beside the present issue.\n\n[166] For the story in Aelian, _Var. Hist._ ii. 21, as to the relation\nbetween Euripides and Agathon, does not seem to be more than a vague\npiece of scandal.\n\nTo this must be added the fact that the earlier part of the century was\nthe time when such a subject would most readily have appealed to the\nAthenian imagination. Later on, and especially from the fourth century\nonwards, the changed position of women was beginning to make itself felt\nin the way we have seen.\n\n[167] Athen. xiii. 601 A, where it is further noted that these plays were\nreceived with applause.\n\n[168] According to Schol. _Ar. Ran._ 911, first of all, \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03c6\u03b8\u03ad\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[169] The reader must be careful here to give the proper sense to\n\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd, translating \u201cne sancta quidem reverentia qua casta\natque intemerata tua femora servavi, te movit, ingrate, etc.\u201d _Fr._\n136, whether genuine or not\u2014it reads very like a misquotation of its\npredecessor\u2014must obviously mean the same, in spite of Theomnestus and\nLucian.\n\n[170] Athen. xiii. 601 B.\n\n[171] Startling as it appears at first sight, this is probably the\nsimplest way of understanding Athenaeus\u2019 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd (_sc._ \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1).\nThose who have properly appreciated what such \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2 meant to the early\nGreeks, will not be surprised to find the term applied to the affection\nof an elder for a younger brother.\n\n[172] Plut. _Amor._ 17, p. 760 D, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u039d\u03b9\u03bf\u03b2\u03b9\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b2\u03bf\u03b7\u03b8\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\n\u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f22 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd.\n\n[173] Cp. Aristoph. _Vesp._ 579.\n\n[174] The marked differences in the versions of the legend, and the fact\nthat it appeared in the _Theogamia_ of the pseudo-Peisander\u2014a writer who\nseems to have drawn his materials in most cases from early sources\u2014seem\nto show that it must have been of a certain antiquity, and anyhow was\nnot a pure invention on the part of Euripides. The evidence of Aelian\n(_N. H._ vi. 15), though of little value, is to the same effect: \u039b\u03ac\u03ca\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03a7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u1ff3, \u1f66 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f72 \u0395\u1f50\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03b7, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\n\u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03c6\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9, \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03be\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n[175] The remark of the Scholiast that the behaviour of Laius to\nChrysippus was parallel to that of Zeus to Ganymede, like the similar\nremark in Cicero (_loc. cit._), belongs of course to an age when the\nprimitive meanings of the legends had long been forgotten. The allusion\nto the legend in Aristoph. _Pelargi_, _Fr._ 1 is too general to give\nevidence either way. See Meineke, _Com. Fr._ ii. p. 1126 _seq._\n\n[176] That this is the relation between Ajax and Teucer in Homer already,\nis pretty clear. Vide _e.g._ _Il._ ix. 266 _seqq._; cp. Schol. _Theocr._\nxii. 29. This, no doubt, accounts for the frequent mention of Ajax in the\n_Scolia_ (cp. p. 90).\n\n[177] Supposing Tecmessa appeared as champion for the dead Ajax, everyone\nwould acknowledge this, and no one would find the situation dull: only\npeople will not understand that Teucer meant as much, and more, to the\nGreeks, than Tecmessa would to us.\n\n[178] The position of Alcestis has already been partly discussed on p. 57.\n\n[179] Vide Call. _Hymn. in Apoll._ 49; Panyasis, _Fr._ 15 (D\u00fcbner);\nSchol. _ad Eur. Alc._ 2; Lact. i. 10, 3.\n\n[180] Cp. _supra_, pp. 24, 31.\n\n[181] When the Scholiast (_ad Eur. Alc._ 1) says that the version of the\nstory of Apollo\u2019s servitude given in the Prologue is the usual one (\u1f21 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03ce\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2), he need mean no more by this than the fact that\nthis was the case at the time of writing, when the influence of Euripides\nhad naturally superseded all others. The Scholiast cannot be taken as\nthrowing light on the state of feeling in Athens at the time when the\n_Alcestis_ was produced.\n\n[182] I am not concerned here to write an apology for Admetus, or I might\nadd much that would militate against the ordinary, somewhat flippant,\nview taken of his character. One point, however: many readers do not\nseem to notice that the original question of dying or not is never in\nthe play left to Admetus at all, but is settled by Apollo on his own\nresponsibility. Cp. Eur. _Alc._ 11 _seqq._, 32 _seqq._\n\n[183] Cp. Eur. _Alc._ 10, etc.\n\n[184] Cp. the lengthy comments on the play in Lucian, _Amores_ 47, vol.\nii. p. 450.\n\n[185] On this point cp. above, p. 48.\n\n[186] An exception to this general rule is, perhaps, Theocritus; whether,\nor how far, this was due to the influence of Aratus is an interesting\nquestion, but one for the discussion of which the evidence has yet to be\ncollected.\n\n[187] _Fr._ 125.\n\n[188] And the interval is in reality even longer, for but little of the\nlater work of Aristophanes has survived.\n\n[189] For an examination of the fragments of the Middle Comedy, _vide_\nExcursus F.\n\n[190] It may not be out of place to emphasise here once more the\ndifference that exists between regarding women as an object of interest\nor importance, and regarding them as an object of love; for the two\nhave been confused by many, not only in estimating the influence of\nEuripides (cp. _supra_, pp. 40, 50), but also in considering the events\nof the earlier part of the fourth century. Thus many have pointed to the\nagitation in favour of \u201cwomen\u2019s rights\u201d satirised in the _Ecclesiazusae_,\nor to the great social importance of the Hetaerae (as illustrated in the\nMiddle Comedy, &c.), or to the generally ameliorated condition of women\nof every class, as proofs of the existence at this period already of the\nromantic feeling. But to those who care to consider the matter clearly,\nit must be apparent that all these things are really beside the question.\nThe improved state of women and their increasing power may have helped,\nand doubtless did help, to spread the romantic feeling when once it had\noriginated; but they were in the first instance entirely independent\nof it. One does not _ipso facto_ feel a romantic attachment for people\nbecause one is compelled to recognise them socially, while in these\ndays of extended franchises it is surely not necessary to repeat that\npolitical recognition is not the same as love.\n\n[191] Cp. Quint. x. 1, 53; _Anth. Pal._ vii. 409, &c.; vide D\u00fcbner, _Asii\n&c. Frag._ p. 28 _seqq._ (at the end of Didot\u2019s _Hesiod_).\n\nIf the epigram attributed to Antimachus in _Anth. Pal._ ix. 321, be\nreally his, he must further be regarded as one of the originators of the\nDedicatory Epigram. Cp. Reitzenstein, _Epig. u. Skol._ p. 131.\n\n[192] For a full account of it, vide Bach, _Philetas, &c._, Epimetrum\niii. (p. 240); D\u00fcbner, _op. cit._ p. 40.\n\n[193]\n\n \u039b\u03cd\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u039b\u03c5\u03c3\u03b7\u0390\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03b3\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1fe5\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6.\n \u03a3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u1f74\u03bd \u03b8\u03ad\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd,\n \u03a4\u03bc\u03ce\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f34\u03b6\u03b1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u1f7c\u03bd\n \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2 \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1, \u03b3\u03cc\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n \u1f31\u03c1\u03ac\u03c2, \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n (Hermesianax, iii. 41.)\n\n \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039b\u03cd\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2,\n \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f22\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c7\u03b5, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03cd\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cd\u03c0\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\n \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u039b\u03cd\u03b4\u03b7\u03bd, \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f21\u03c1\u03c9\u03ca\u03ba\u1f70\u03c2\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70\u03c2, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03cd\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd.\n\n (Plut. _Cons. ad Apoll._ p. 106 B.)\n\nThe very important detail that he _married_ her is confirmed by the\npassage in Athen. xiii. 597A, where the Lyde of Antimachus is expressly\ncontrasted with \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u039b\u03cd\u03b4\u03b7\u03bd.\n\nCp. too Ovid, _Trist._ i. 6, 1:\n\n nec tantum Clario Lyde dilecta poetae,\n nec tantum Coo Battis amata suo est,\n pectoribus quantum tu nostris, uxor, inhaeres.\n\n[194] This respect for marriage (if one extends the idea of marriage\nsufficiently to cover every form of union which is faithfully\nobserved\u2014whether actually legalised by some particular ceremony or not,\nis, in this connection, not very material) will, I think, be found\nunderlying the whole Greek conception of romance. This is, of course,\ndiametrically opposed to the view of the mediaeval barbarians, who held\nthat the one woman in the world one could not love was one\u2019s wife.\nWhether Lyde or Isolde be the higher ideal is, perhaps, a matter of\ntaste; _magno se iudice quaeque tuetur_. That I personally prefer the\nGreek to the barbarian is perhaps due to prejudice, but it is prejudice\nfor which I am very grateful.\n\nA further illustration may be found in the Latin elegiac poets.\nPropertius, the \u201cRoman Callimachus,\u201d who is always calling attention to\nthe Greek sources of his inspiration, addresses all his love-poems to\nthe Hetaera Cynthia, to whom he remained faithful to the end. Ovid only\ninvokes the Greeks (Antimachus in _Trist._ i. 6, 1; Philetas in _Trist._\ni. 6, 2, _Pont._ iii. 1, 58) when addressing his wife. Tibullus and\nCatullus, the poets of adultery, never acknowledge in their love-poems\ntheir Greek predecessors, and Catullus even goes out of his way to abuse\none of them.\n\n[195] The _Cleitophon and Leucippe_ of Achilles Tatius is, of course,\nan exception (the only extant one) to this rule, but then this late and\ncurious work differs in other respects also from the typical Greek novel.\n\n[196] It is most interesting to note how that, while in the earlier\ncomedy marriage is the one great subject of ridicule, in the new comedy\nmarriage is the hero\u2019s one great ambition.\n\n[197]\n\n \u039d\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039b\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9, \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\n \u039c\u03b9\u03bc\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n _Anth. Pal._ xii. 168.\n\nFor \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 Cod. Vat. gives \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, which might also, perhaps, be\nretained in this sense.\n\n[198] _De Compos. Verb._ p. 300. He is here, of course, speaking\nprimarily of the literary style; but literary style is in most cases more\nor less a reflection of literary treatment.\n\nThe severe style of Antimachus\u2019 _Thebaid_ is well known. (Vide Quint, x.\n1, 53; _Anth. Pal._ vii. 409, 4.)\n\n[199] \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039d\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ce\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\n\u039b\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 (sc. \u039b\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff3) \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039d\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c7\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f20\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1. \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f62\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc7, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f27\u03c4\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c6\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f04\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03c5\u03c6\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\u2014Plut. _Lysand._ 18.\n\nNec enim posset idem Demosthenes dicere, quod dixisse Antimachum, Clarium\npoetam, ferunt; qui cum, convocatis auditoribus, legeret eis magnum\nillud quod novistis volumen suum, et eum legentem omnes praeter Platonem\nreliquissent, Legam, inquit, nihilominus; Plato enim mihi unus instar est\nomnium milium.\u2014Cic. _Brutus_, 51, 191.\n\n \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f41 \u03a0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a7\u03bf\u03b9\u03c1\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\n \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u1f50\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2 \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2.\u2014Proclus, _Comm. in Plat. Tim._ i. p. 28.\n\nWhether these anecdotes are actually true or not does not much matter.\nThat the friendship between Antimachus and Plato was a well-known fact\nwould be sufficiently proved by their invention; but there is nothing\nreally contradictory or improbable in them, as some have asserted. In the\nstory from Plutarch there is no need to suppose that Plato was actually\npresent at Samos; he may very well have met Antimachus afterwards\nelsewhere. The evidence of Proclus again merely says that Plato, in\nopposition to the prevailing opinion of his time, preferred Antimachus to\nChoerilus, and that he sent Heracleides to Colophon to make a collection\nof the works of the former, evidently after his death. It is consequently\nquite possible to reconcile all three narratives. Antimachus was defeated\nby Niceratus at the Lysandria, an event which, owing to his celebrity at\nthe time (404 B.C.), naturally excited remark. Subsequently he met Plato,\nwho, when the conversation turned on his defeat, complimented him in the\nway described\u2014a compliment which Antimachus returned on another occasion\n(that alluded to by Cicero). Lastly, after Antimachus\u2019 death, Plato\ncaused a collection of his works to be made. Where Plato met Antimachus\nis not quite clear, but the ascription to the former of the epigram in\nAthen. xiii. 589 C (_Anth. Pal._ vii. 217) would almost seem to imply\nthat there was, at any rate, a tradition that Plato visited Colophon.\nIf that was actually the case, he would naturally have come across\nAntimachus there.\n\n[200] _Anth. Pal._ xii. 168.\n\n[201] Cp. p. 70.\n\n[202] _I.e._ Peloponnesian War, 431-403; Lacedaemonian and Theban\nSupremacy, 405-336; Macedonian Age, 336 onwards.\n\n[203] Of the sense in which the unfortunate word \u201cromantic\u201d has to be\nunderstood we have already spoken elsewhere. [p. 2.]\n\n[204] It may be remarked in passing that this ideal character of the\n\u201cNew\u201d Comedy is not, as a rule, sufficiently recognised. People speak as\nif they thought that the stories in Menander, for instance, represented\nthe ordinary events of life at Athens at the end of the fourth century.\nIt need hardly, perhaps, be remarked that it would be about as reasonable\nto endeavour to get an idea of the ordinary life of English people at the\npresent day by studying an Adelphi melodrama. As long as comedy at Athens\nconfined itself to social satire, it is obvious that the social scenes\nit depicted must have been, even if somewhat burlesqued, yet, on the\nwhole, true to life. When once it had abandoned this object, and began\nto aim at telling an exciting story, calculated to interest its audience\nin proportion to the strangeness and novelty of its _d\u00e9nouement_, it is\nequally obvious that it must very soon have been compelled to abandon the\nordinary affairs of everyday life. In taking over the business of the\nEpic, Comedy took with it the license of that form of composition and of\nits offspring, Tragedy. While no one will deny that incidents like those\ndescribed by Menander may have occasionally taken place at Athens in the\nfourth century, just as some of them might conceivably take place in\nEngland at the present day, there can be hardly any real doubt that the\nstories of romantic comedy were as little true to the ordinary life of\nthe time they professed to depict, as, say, the novel of Xenophon was to\nthe ordinary life of the Roman provinces under the Antonines.\n\n[205] It is true, of course, that the \u201cNew\u201d Comedy took over from its\npredecessor certain characters (_e.g._ the parasite or the cook) and\ncertain other features, practically unchanged; but all this was confined\nto minor points of detail, and any similarity between the two forms\nof art which such transference of ready-made _specialit\u00e9s_ may cause\nis a purely superficial one. The main subject of romantic comedy, and\nthe treatment there of that main subject, are entirely distinct from\neverything that had gone before.\n\n[206] Thus the Megarian Comedy dates from the expulsion of Theagenes\n(Arist. _Poet._ iii. 5), while the Athenian reappears, after a silence of\nsome 70 years, on the expulsion of Hippias.\n\n[207] The titles of the plays attributed to Chionides do not in\nthemselves contradict this view. The _Heroes_ describes life as it would\nbe in a state engaged in war, but there is no reason to believe that the\nplay discussed any real phase of any contemporary war. The _Persae_,\ntoo, to judge by its second title of _Assyrii_, was devoted rather to\nridiculing Persian customs than to dealing with the Persian War. In like\nmanner the _Lydi_ of Magnes introduced the Lydian dances to Athens (cp.\nHesych. \u03bb\u03c5\u03b4\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u0391\u03c5\u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 _sc._ \u039c\u03ac\u03b3\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2), while the\n_Barbatistae_ appears to have been equally aimed at the aesthetic tastes\nof some part of the community. Titles again, like _Ornithes_, _Batrachi_,\nand _Psenes_, give no suggestion of political motives, any more than does\nthe _Satyri_ of Ecphantides.\n\n[208] \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u1ff3\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f60\u03c6\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3 \u03bc\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u1ff3\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd (Anon.\n_de Com._ p. 32). \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f41 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f72\u03bd \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03ce\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6 ... \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f01\u03c0\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bd\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\n\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (Platon. _de Com._ p. 27).\n\n[209] \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f41 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u1ff3\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f37\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd ... \u03bf\u1f31\n\u1f48\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u039a\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 (Platon. _de Com._ p. 34). \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f48\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u039a\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c5\u03c1\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f48\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f49\u03bc\u03ae\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 (_ibid._ p.\n35).\n\nThe elaborate details as to cookery in the fragments of this play are\nalso very suggestive of one of the features of \u201cMiddle\u201d Comedy.\n\n[210] It is further to be observed that, though Cratinus nearly always\nindulges in personal abuse, this abuse is by no means necessarily\ndirected against _political_ characters. Any person, whatever his\ncapacity, who was sufficiently well known to be recognised by the\nAthenian audience, was liable to be the butt of his scurrility.\n\n[211] Arist. _Poet._ v. 5. As Meineke (_Com. Fr._ i. 59) well expresses\nit: \u201cCratetem primum apud Athenienses exstitisse qui Epicharmi exemplo\ncomicae poeseos materiam a singulorum hominum irrisione ad generales\nmorum notationes rerumque descriptiones traduceret.\u201d Crates thus differs\nfrom Cratinus in that his plays were not political, while he differs\nfrom the earlier comedians in that he avoided personalities and treated\nof general subjects, and this is the meaning of the word \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 in\nAristotle, _l.c._\n\n[212] \u1f10\u03b6\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5 \u039a\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1. Anon. _de Com._ p. 29.\n\n[213] The law of Morychis, during the operation of which this play, like\nthe _Odysses_ of Cratinus and various others, seems to have been brought\nout, is interesting as an early instance of the influence of political\nevents upon the development of early Athenian comedy, an influence\nentirely absent in the case of the romantic comedy.\n\n[214] Thus the final disappearance of the _parabasis_, though an\nimportant enough event for the history of the form of Comedy, is but an\nincident in the real development of the art. This is shown by the fact\nthat, when, under the law of Morychis, the _parabasis_ was temporarily\nsuspended, the result was the immediate appearance, at this date already,\nof plays which belong, in spirit, entirely to \u201cMiddle\u201d Comedy.\n\n[215] This means the school of Cratinus, when unrestricted by\nlegislation, and allowed to take its own course. Prohibitive legislation\nnaturally tended to put the two schools of comedy on much the same\nfooting.\n\n[216] The few exceptions will be considered presently. [p. 127.]\n\n[217] [The author contemplated, but does not seem to have written, an\nExcursus on \u201cPericles and Aspasia.\u201d]\n\n[218] In neither of these must it, of course, be supposed that the erotic\nelement was at all the leading motive. Most of the fragments of the\n_Nemesis_ seem to refer to events which must be supposed to have taken\nplace some time after the erotic incident had been closed, while in the\n_Seriphii_ the description of Andromeda as \u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 (_Fr._ 12) is the\nonly allusion to her preserved. Indeed, it is vain in Cratinus to look\nfor any leading motive at all, for, as Platonius says of him (_de Com._\np. 27), \u03b5\u1f54\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f62\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f36\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ca\u1f7c\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03b8\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1.\n\n[219] The apparent allusion to the Hetaera Myrrhina in Eupolis,\n_Autolycus_, _Fr._ 10, is too uncertain to be of any value.\n\n[220] The _Tyrannis_ (another suggestive title) also satirised the\ndrunkenness of women (cp. the fragment _ap._ Athen. xi. 481 B). It may be\nremembered in this connection, that the introduction of drunken persons\non the stage was an invention of his master Crates.\n\n[221]\n\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03b3\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nThe tone of address will surprise no one who remembers the scene between\nDiphilus and Gnathaena (_ap._ Athen. xiii. 583 F), and others like it.\n[This subject was to have been dealt with further in an Excursus.]\n\n[222]\n\n \u03ba\u1f02\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03c0\u1ff6, \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bd\u03af\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9, \u03c4\u03af \u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03c0\u1fb7\u03c2; \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u1ff6,\n \u03bf\u1f34\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bd, \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd.\n\n[223] The precise nature of the differences between these early\n\u201cHetaera-plays\u201d and those generally in vogue at a later date, will be\nexamined when we come to consider the latter class of composition. [p.\n153.]\n\n[224] One can at least gather from _Fr._ 1, 2, 3, that the coming\ntogether of the women was made the occasion of a series of jokes at\ntheir expense, something after the manner of Mnesilochus and the baby in\nThesmoph. 689 _seqq._\n\n[225] This seems to have been one of the main motives of the _Lemniae_;\nat any rate, the nature of Aeschylus\u2019 play on the same subject would\nhave afforded an excellent opportunity of the kind\u2014\u0391\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u1f59\u03c8\u03b9\u03c0\u03cd\u03bb\u1fc3 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f45\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 [\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u039b\u03b7\u03bc\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2] \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n[\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2] \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f45\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03bc\u03b9\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2. Schol. _ad Apoll. Rhod._ I. 773.\n\n[226]\n\n \u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u03cd, \u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bc\u03b9 \u03c4\u03ae\u03bd\u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03ac \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9\n \u03a6\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 \u1f14\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u2019 \u1f25\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f04\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n (_Polyid._ _Fr._ 2.)\n\n[227] Cp. _Geras_, _Fr._ 5, 6, 7.\n\n[228] Cp. _e.g._ the remarks of Phocion to his son: \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd, \u1f66 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03c3\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u1f41 \u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f94\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf. Plutarch. _Phoc._ 30.\n\n[229] _Vide e.g._ _Nubes_, 973 _seqq._, 1002 _seqq._\n\n[230] Cp. the speech of Mnesilochus, _Thesmoph._ 466 _seqq._, the spirit\nof which, all allowance for comic exaggeration being made, cannot be\nmistaken.\n\n[231] _Vide_ _Thesmoph._ 383 _seqq._ The subject and style of the\n_Daedalus_ were equally uncomplimentary. Cp. _Fr._ 3.\n\n[232] \u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u1ff3\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 (\u1f40 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2) \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0395\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03be\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd \u1f04\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1, \u0395\u1f54\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u0391\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03ba\u1ff3, \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u039d\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2. Schol. _Plat. Apol._ p.\n331.\n\n[233] It is worth noticing that, while a man who seduced an Athenian\ncitizen seems to have been legally bound to marry her, and therefore, to\na certain extent, there was no great virtue in his action if he did so,\nat the same time this legal necessity was never, so far as we know, in\nany way urged in any play of the New Comedy. The point will be more fully\ndiscussed when we come to this part of our subject. [See p. 169.]\n\n[234] Minos, quod Daedali opera multa sibi incommoda acciderunt, in\nSiciliam est eum persecutus petiitque a rege Cocalo ut sibi redderetur.\ncui cum Cocalus promisisset et Daedalus rescisset, ab regis filiabus\nauxilium petiit. illae Minoem occiderunt. Hygin. _Fab._ 44.\n\n\u039c\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72, \u1f41 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u039a\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c5\u03b8\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u0394\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03c5\u03b3\u1f74\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03a3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f14\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u2019\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd ... \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039a\u03ce\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03be\u03ad\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039c\u03af\u03bd\u03c9. \u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6,\n\u039a\u03ce\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039c\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03c6\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u039a\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03af, \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f60\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5. (Diodorus,\niv. 79.)\n\nThe story is told somewhat differently in Zenobius iv. 92. There Minos,\nin order to discover Daedalus, goes about the world offering large\nrewards to anyone who can run a linen thread through a spiral shell,\nbeing convinced that no one but Daedalus would be able to do such a\nthing. When he comes to Sicily, Cocalus, in order to gain the reward,\ngives the shell to Daedalus, who bores a hole at the end, ties the linen\nthread to an ant, and so does what is required. \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u039c\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f94\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0394\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1fc4\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9.\n\u039a\u03ce\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72, \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u039a\u03c9\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u1fc3\u03c1\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b6\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7.\u2014This is the\nversion of the story followed by Sophocles in the _Camici_. (Cp. _Fr._\n301, 302.)\n\nIt is worth noticing that Daedalus, according to Diodorus, iv. 78, made\na cave at Selinus, in which patients were treated by being subjected\nto a gradually-increasing temperature. (\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03c0\u03ae\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03a3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03cd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c4\u03bc\u03af\u03b4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c7\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03bd \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03b9\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\n\u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03cc\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\n\u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.) It is, perhaps, not\nimpossible that Aristophanes may have described Minos\u2019 death as occurring\nin this cave.\n\n[235] By the word \u201cplot\u201d as here used, must of course be understood\nmerely the erotic incident. That the action was not confined to one\nsubject of this kind is obvious to every reader of Aristophanes.\nWhatever may have been the treatment of the erotic element, there can be\npractically no doubt that this element was only one, perhaps not the most\nimportant one, among the many that went to make up the play.\n\n[236] _Fr._ 4 seems to suggest that there may have been a regular trial\ninstituted, as in the _Vespae_ (cp. _Vesp._ 807 _seqq._ with _Cocal._\n_Fr._ 12), at which Daedalus was accused of complicity in the murder,\nand his services to Cocalus as a builder (_Fr._ 5; cp. Diodorus, iv. 78)\nurged on his behalf. This trial may well have had features in common with\nthe last scene in Euripides\u2019 _Andromeda_.\n\n[237] The fact that this play led to the abandonment of certain nocturnal\norgies is, of course, no proof that such habits altogether ceased, even\nfor a time; indeed, it is notorious that they did not.\n\n[238] Even if it could be proved that the play ended with a wedding\u2014such\nendings are, as we have seen, not uncommon in Aristophanes\u2014and that this\nis what the grammarian means by his \u03c4\u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f03 \u1f10\u03b6\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5 \u039c\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2,\nthis would not, in itself, be enough to make the play a romantic one\nafter the manner of the later works. The marriage would have to be _an\nact of reparation inspired by love_, and it need hardly be remarked how\nutterly foreign any such feeling would be to the work of Aristophanes.\nSuch a difference in spirit and motive, however, important and obvious\nas it seems to us, may very well have escaped the ancient critics,\nwhose criticism of art was well-nigh exclusively concerned with its\nexternal and superficial qualities. Hence, if by any chance Aristophanes\u2019\ncharacters were despatched off the stage to the sounds of a wedding\nmarch, it is easy to see how clear a proof this would have seemed to them\nthat the _Cocalus_ belonged to the same phase of art as the plays of\nMenander, when, in reality, it did nothing of the kind.\n\n[239] Cp. _infra_, p. 189 _seqq._\n\n[240] Thus, to quote one instance among many, the habit, common among the\nwriters of the Empire, of describing Vergil as not only a supreme, but\nalso a universal, genius, is sufficiently familiar. (Cp. Mart. viii. 18,\n&c.)\n\n[241] \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u039a\u03ce\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u03b5\u1fd6,\n\u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f59\u03c0\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u1ff3 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u1ff4\u03b4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd. (Clem. Alex.\n_Strom._ vi. p. 267 [628].)\n\n[242] \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03b6\u03b5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u1f78\u03c2 \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2. Schol. _ad Aristoph. Pac._ 740. The _Zeus Cac._ of Plato is\nsaid to have borne a close resemblance to the _Daedalus_ of Aristophanes,\nwhich certainly contained matter of this kind. Cp. Aristoph. _Daed._\n_Fr._ 3.\n\n[243] It is interesting to observe the absence, as far as one can judge,\nof any reference to Sappho, the favourite butt of a somewhat later school\nof comedians. Could the fact of this absence be conclusively proved, it\nwould afford valuable evidence for determining the date of the origin\nof the Phaon and Sappho legend. The earliest reference to it at present\nknown is, perhaps, that in the _Leucadia_ of Menander.\n\n[244] We may further observe the mention of Lais in _Fr._ 10 of this play.\n\n[245] Cp. Ovid, _Met._ X. 686 _seqq._ The incident might be utilised in\nvarious ways.\n\n[246] Cp. Alciphron i. 39, 7. \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 ... \u1fa0\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u1f14\u03be\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9.\n\n[247] _Vide_ Athen. xi. 470 F. \u03c3\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03b8\u03ae\u03c1 in l. 8 seems not to be the\nproper-name of a slave, but may simply be translated \u201cspark.\u201d The\nexpression is as natural in Greek as in English, even if no other\ninstance of this exact usage occurs.\n\n[248] The \u201cHedychares\u201d of the title seems to be Plato, so that it is\nrather tempting to imagine a scene something like the following. The\nhero, after dilating sufficiently on the virtues of \u201cPlatonic\u201d love, is\neventually discovered by one of the other characters, in company with a\nwoman under circumstances which suggest the propriety of their getting\nmarried immediately\u2014a fact which induces the intruder to exclaim:\n\n \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5 \u03c3\u1f7a \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03cd\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. (_Fr._ 3.)\n\nThe late date of this play (cp. _Fr._ 4) makes a plot of this kind by no\nmeans impossible, but, of course, _hariolandi est infinita libertas_.\n\n[249] Great care must be taken not to misunderstand the causes of this\nprominence of the Hetaera in Middle Comedy. The fall of Athens, and\nthe events immediately preceding it, resulted in a revolution of the\nAthenian social system, which was even more momentous than the political\noverthrow. From this time onwards, the individual appears at Athens as\nopposed to the state, in a manner that would not have been possible under\nthe earlier _r\u00e9gime_. Hence in the Middle Comedy, which is perhaps the\nearliest individualistic poetry which Athens produced, ordinary habits\nand private life come to be treated with an interest and a realism which\nhad never previously been attempted, and, as a consequence of this, the\nHetaerae come to the fore in literature. This fact does not, therefore,\nimply that the position of these women in the thoughts of men was any\nhigher than had previously been the case, or that there was a growing\nidea among the people that love for women was a worthy subject for\nartistic study and representation. It simply means, as will be abundantly\nclear later on, that the Hetaera was an important feature in private\nlife, and that, therefore, when private life came to be represented on\nthe stage, she was bound to appear there also, just in the same way and\nfor the same reasons as the cook and the fishmonger, who are also such\nfeatures of this literature.\n\n[250] With the other distinctive features of Middle Comedy, though\noccasional reference may be made to them, we have less to do. It may\nnot however be amiss, in passing, just to notice the spirit of the age,\nwhich, while it required personal attacks on men to be more or less\nveiled, allowed personal attacks of the fiercest description to be made\non women openly by name. A remarkable instance of this is the _Antilais_\nof Epicrates, but it is far from being the only one. As for those Middle\nComedies which are called after public men (_e.g._ the _Theramenes_ of\nCratinus junior), it would be easy to believe that these were all, as\nsome of them certainly were, composed after the deaths of the persons\nwhose names they bear, and that these names were simply used as types, in\nthe way that Juvenal speaks of Tigellinus, &c.\n\n[251] With regard to what we have described as the second feature of\nMiddle Comedy, it may perhaps just be remarked that this constant habit\nof parodying and ridiculing love-stories would inevitably tend, in\nsome sort, to bring the whole matter of love into contempt. And that\nthe feelings of contempt so produced, and the similar feelings which\noriginated them, would act and react on one another till both became even\nmore accentuated, was equally inevitable. Nor must it be forgotten that\nthe influence of tragedy, which might otherwise have served to counteract\nthis tendency, was much less than it had been at an earlier period, for\nthe revivals and imitations of Euripides, which held the tragic stage\nthroughout the century, popular though some of them may have been,\nbelonged in spirit to the previous generation, and were thus to a certain\nextent out of touch with contemporary feeling.\n\n[252] Many plays of this class are called after real or imaginary\nHetaerae, such as the _Chrysis_ of Antiphanes, &c., &c., but these are,\nof course, not the only ones that deal with the subject.\n\n[253] \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u1ff3\u03b4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03ba\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f08\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u1ff3\u03b4\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u1fc6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1, \u1f14\u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd,\n\u1f66 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fe6, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03b3\u03ac\u03c2. (Athen.\nxiii. 555A.)\n\n[254] [_Supra_, p. 128.]\n\n[255] No one who is familiar with the Middle Comedy is likely to wish\nto maintain that the words \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c2 imply that the plays of\nAnaxandrides were similar in character to such plays as the _Andria_ or\nthe _Adelphi_ of Menander. The exact nature of the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 of the\nMiddle Comedy, which form, in fact, an infinitesimal part of the erotic\nelement in that literature, will be fully discussed lower down. [pp. 159,\n213.]\n\n[256] Curious in this connection is the fact that, while the _Captivi_ of\nPlautus is the only extant play derived from Anaxandrides, it is, at the\nsame time, the only extant play of Latin Comedy which is not concerned\nwith erotic subjects.\n\n[257] That \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 was merely a polite word for drinking, seems clear\nfrom Alexis, _Polycleia_:\u2014\n\n \u1f41 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u1f7c\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03c8\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u00b7\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1f74\u03bd \u1f14\u03be\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u03ad \u03c0\u03c9\u03c2\n \u03ba\u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n[258] \u03c3\u1fe6\u03ba\u03b1, are doubtless used here in the same sense as \u201cmariscae\u201d in\nIuv. ii. 13, or \u201cficus\u201d in Mart. vii. 71.\n\n[259] Or, perhaps, the \u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 tries the effect of the \u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 on the\ngirl herself (cp. the epigram of Hedylus, _Anth. Pal._ v. 199); _sed haec\nomnia incerta_. In any case, the scene seems somewhat to suggest that in\nPetr. 85 _seqq._\n\n[260]\n\n \u1f45\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03c7\u03b7 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03c1\u1fb3,\n \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f00\u03b8\u03bb\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2;\n \u1f10\u03be\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd,\n \u03b3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b5\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2,\n \u1f10\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f55\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f11\u03c3\u03c4\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f35\u03b1\u03c2\n \u1f28\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c0\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2,\n \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f21\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae\u03bd,\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03cd\u03c0\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03b4\u03b9\u03ce\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f55\u03b2\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n[261] The one or two apparent exceptions to this rule, such as those in\nthe _Marathonii_ of Timocles or the _Philaulus_ of Theophilus, are in\nreality no exceptions at all. This will be clear enough if we consider\nwhat is meant in these passages by a \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7, and do not confuse the\nsentiment there expressed with a sentiment which does not occur till a\nlater period. The \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7 in question (a \u03ba\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 in the _Philaulus_) is\nmerely an Hetaera _in posse_ instead of _in esse_, an Hetaera who has not\nyet entered into regular business, and herein consists her superiority\nfrom the point of view of those who do not share Diogenes\u2019 view as to the\nparallel between women and houses. That her attractions do not differ in\nkind from those of the regular Hetaera will be plain enough to anyone who\ntakes the trouble to turn to the passage in the _Marathonii_, and that\nthe character of the \u201clove\u201d she inspires is also similar will be equally\napparent from the same lines. That this was the character of the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\n\u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 with which, according to Suidas, Anaxandrides dealt, seems beyond\nquestion.\n\n[262] Alexis himself says this, in almost as many words, in the passage\nquoted below, p. 163.\n\n[263] _Supra_, p. 85.\n\n[264] The \u201cPlatonic\u201d nature of Theseus\u2019 admiration for the undeveloped\ncharms of Helen is a well-known feature of the legend. A comparison with\nAristoph. _Thesmoph. B_, _Fr._ 26, seems to suggest a further reason why\nTheseus should have been introduced as a mock \u201cPlatonic\u201d lover. Cp. Phot.\ns.v. \u03ba\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd. \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd. \u1f19\u03bb\u03ad\u03bd\u1fc3 (so\nRuhnken for \u039c\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u1fc3) \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u0398\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf.\n\n[265] In this connection we may remark that the tendency of the\nmythological stories commonly parodied by Middle Comedy was also almost\nentirely in this direction. The \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03cc\u03c2 with whom the Athenian\naudience of the day was so familiar, was hardly the type of character\nto inspire respect for married life. How different was the New Comedy\ntreatment of the adulterer, we shall see further on.\n\n[266] Another phase of the Middle Comedy treatment of women, the\ndiscussion of which here would lead us too far away from our immediate\nsubject, will be considered in Excursus I.\n\n[267] That the \u03c8\u03b5\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7, as the Athenian stage-managers rather quaintly\ncalled her\u2014a class of character sufficiently common, it must be\nadmitted\u2014differs _toto caelo_ from the regular Hetaera, is almost too\nobvious to need mention.\n\n[268] _Supra_, p. 109.\n\n[269] Of the _Casina_, which would appear at first sight to belong to\nthis class, we shall speak in another place. [The Excursus, dealing with\nthis subject, seems not to have been written; comp. Excursus K.]\n\n[270] It is hard for us, in our generation, to realise what the first\ndawn of pure love for women must have meant to the men who saw it. It\nneeds a conscious effort of will to clean away from one\u2019s eyes and one\u2019s\nheart the dust of the centuries, and to look back clearly; but if once\nthe effort be successfully made, it is no longer hard to understand why,\nat the end of the fourth century, the pure girl was a more inspiring\nideal than \u201cthe woman with a past,\u201d and why the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2; could stir\ndepths of passion that the \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b1 had left untouched.\n\n[271] These last lines are very suggestive of Theocr. viii. 53. It is\nworth noticing that in this play (v. 2, 72) the girl is specially asked\nwhether she is willing to marry.\n\n[272]\n\n \u201cpatrue mi, ita me di amabunt ut, ego si sim Iuppiter,\n iam hercle ego illanc uxorem ducam, et Iunonem extrudam foras!\u201d etc.\n\n[273] Probably by Menander. At any rate, _Cistell._ i. 1, 90 _seqq._ is a\ntranslation of Menand. _Incert._ 32.\n\n[274]\n\n \u201cGlycerium vitiat Pamphilus,\n _gravidaque facta_ dat fidem, uxorem sibi\n fore hanc,\u201d etc.\n\n[275] _e.g._ Ter. _And._ i. 5, 36 _seqq._, iv. 2, 11 _seqq._\n\n[276] In the _Adelphi_ of Menander, this feature was, in all probability,\neven more prominent than it is in Terence\u2019s contaminated version.\n\n[277] Ter. _Adelph._ iii. 2, 34 _seqq._; cp. iii. 4, 23 _seqq._\n\n[278] Plaut. _Aulul._ iv. 10.\n\n[279] Cp. Ter. _Eun._ iv. 4, 26.\n\n[280] Ter. _Adelph._ iv. 5, 62 _seqq._\n\n[281] Cp. Plaut. _Aulul._ iv. 7 and 10; the conclusion of the play, in\nwhich the marriage of the hero was finally settled, is lost.\n\n[282] Ter. _And._ iv. 2, 14.\n\n[283] Here, too, there can be little doubt that in the original (the\n_Philadelphi_ of Menander), this erotic element was more prominent than\nit is in the Latin.\n\n[284] Cp. Plaut. _Trin._ v. 1, 1 _seqq._; 2, 64.\n\n[285] Some further interesting evidence on this subject will be discussed\nlater. [Cp. p. 189; but the reference seems to be to a part of the work\nwhich was not written.]\n\n[286] In Tragedy, of course, the faithful and loving wife was not so\nentirely unknown. The Athenian might accept an Alcestis, who lived in\nprehistoric and heroic times, though even here his natural tendency was\nto jeer (cp. Aristoph. _Equit._ 1251); but, imagine such a character\nin Comedy, which was taken from real contemporary life? The idea was\npreposterous.\n\n[287] It is of course obvious that characters such as Clitipho in the\n_Heauton Timorumenus_, or Lesbonicus in the _Trinummus_, do not regard\nmatrimony with much enthusiasm, but, in all these cases, the reasons for\ntheir objection are so apparent that no one would consider them as real\nexceptions to the general rule that the _young man_ of the New Comedy\nlooks on marriage with favour.\n\n[288] And here one may remark at once that the incontinence of women,\nwhich is one of the favourite subjects both of Aristophanes and of\nEuripides, is nowhere emphasised in New Comedy.\n\n[289] Cp. _Fr._ 10.\n\n[290] Cp. Ter. _Eun._ v. 4, 21 _seqq._\n\n[291] Ter. _And._ ii. 1, 15 and 25. [The author is assuming that the\nwords \u201cquam vellem!\u201d in the latter passage, are spoken by Charinus, not\nby Pamphilus: the editors differ on this point.] This curious passage\nfurnishes a further instance, if further instances be needed, of the fact\nthat what the Greek required of a woman for a love-match was not so much\nphysical purity as constancy to a particular lover. Hence we find that\nby far the greater mass of Greek romantic love-poetry is addressed, not\nto virgins, but to women to whom the writer is, in one way or another,\nmarried. Thus, too, in the romance of Xenophon Ephesius, the adventures\nof the lovers all take place after marriage (the wedding occurs already\nin chapter viii of book I.), and in this the _Ephesiaca_ are at least as\nGreek as, if not more so than the _Pastoralia_ of Longus, or the novel\nof Eumathius, where the most ridiculous and desperate expedients have to\nbe resorted to in order that the heroine may preserve her virginity till\nthe end of the last chapter. But this whole matter will be more fully\ndiscussed when we come to consider the Callimachean ideal of woman. [The\nreference is to a part of the work which was not completed.]\n\n[292] Ter. _Hec._ v. 1, 24 _seqq._; cp. i. 2, 82.\n\n[293] The _Casina_ (of Diphilus) and the _Orge_ of Menander seem equally\nemphatic on the point, but as both these plays belong, strictly speaking,\nto Middle Comedy, which had other and less romantic reasons for decrying\nadultery, they need not be further noticed here.\n\n[294] Cp. Ter. _Heaut. Tim._ ii. 4, 1 _seqq._\n\n edepol te, mea Antiphila, laudo et fortunatam iudico,\n id cum studuisti, isti formae ut mores consimiles forent, etc.\n\nwords which raise strange memories of a well-known passage in the _Dame\naux Cam\u00e9lias_.\n\n[295] Cp. _inter alia_, v. 1, 30; 3, 35.\n\n[296] \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f04\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd, \u03b8\u03b5\u03ac, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n[297] \u201chaec. (_sc._ Thais Menandri) primum iuvenum lascivos lusit\namores;\u201d where _lusit_ must almost certainly mean \u201cparodied\u201d or\n\u201cridiculed,\u201d and _lascivos amores_ \u201cHetaera-loves\u201d as opposed to the more\northodox amours of which the New Comedy proper treats.\n\n[298] In any case, however, it is tempting to read in Prop. ii. 6, 3:\n\n turba Menandreae fuerit nec Thaidos olim\n tanta in qua _populum_ lusit _Erichthonium_.\n\n[299] _E.g._ Plaut. _Cist._ i. 1, 66.\n\n SL. at mihi cordolium est.\n\n GY. quid id? unde est tibi cordolium, commemora, obsecro,\n quod neque ego habeo neque quisquam alia mulier, ut perhibent viri?\n\n[300] _E.g._ Plaut. _Trin._ ii. 1, 15 _seqq._ etc., etc.\n\n[301]\n\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03c9\u03ba\u2019 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c2,\n \u1f43\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c0\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5. (_Fr._ 3.)\n\nCp. Arrian, _Dissert. Epictet._ iv. 1.\n\n[302] Cp. _Fr._ 10, 11.\n\n[303]\n\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f14\u03be\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u2019, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1ff6 \u03b4\u03ad. (_Fr._ 5.)\n\n[304] _Vide_ Arrian, _loc. cit._ where the whole subject of Thrasonides\nis discussed.\n\n[305] This is the view taken of the case by Diogenes Laertius (vii. 130),\nwhen he is discussing the Stoic doctrine of love.\n\n\u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u0390\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f74\n\u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u0398\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03bd\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3\n\u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2. \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n[306] One need merely think of Thais, the ideal Hetaera, \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n[307] That this is no mere coincidence is shown by the characters, of\nStratophanes in Menander\u2019s _Sicyonius_, and others, of whom we shall\nspeak presently. [p. 182.]\n\n[308] Plut. _de Cupid. Div._ 524 F.\n\n[\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f34 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u1ff3 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u1fe5\u03b9\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1fc7\u03bd, \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd; \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u0398\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u00b7\n\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f14\u03be\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9,\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u2019 ...\n\n\u1f61\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2,\n\n ... \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1ff6 \u03b4\u03b5.... \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.]\n\n[309] _Misumenus_, _Fr._ 6.\n\n[310] Cp. Athen. xiii. 603 C, where not only is his continence\nemphasised, but also his treatment of his captives as if they were free.\nCp. Menand. _Sicyon._ _Fr._ 3.\n\n[311] Mimnermus, Anacreon, and Antimachus were all, of course, natives of\nGreek Asia, where the cult of women seems always, from the earliest times\nonwards, to have been more developed than in Greece itself. There is a\ncertain grim irony in the tradition that would make Anaxandrides, too, a\nnative of Colophon.\n\n[312] _Vide_ _Fr._ 3.\n\n[313] Plaut. _Epid._ i. 2, 7.\n\n[314] Cp. v. 1, 45, where the lover\u2019s regrets are promptly answered by\nthe assertion that there is another woman ready who will do just as well\nor better:\n\n stultus, tace!\n tibi quidem quod ames domi praesto.\n\n[315] That the character of the soldier belonged essentially to _erotic_\ncomedy is further shown by Plaut. _Capt._ prolog. 57:\n\n hic neque periurus leno nec meretrix mala\n neque miles gloriosus.\n\n[316] This doubtless refers to some lines, now lost, which preceded the\npassage subsequently quoted.\n\n[317] This is, of course, nothing but a versified version of the doctrine\nof the Stoic, Euclides. Cp. Diog. Laert. ii. 108.\n\n[318] MI. etiamne (a me didicisti) ut ames eam, quam nusquam tetigeris?\nnihil illuc quidem est.\n\nAG. deos quoque edepol et amo et metuo, quibus tamen abstineo manus. (i.\n2, 69.) A remark in v. 4, 49, is similar in spirit.\n\n[319] Plaut. _Curc._ i. 1, 50 _seqq._ Further moralisings on the power\nof a kiss (which almost suggest Daphnis in Longus\u2019 _Pastoralia_, i. 18)\noccur in Menand. _Incert._ 7.\n\n[320] Ter. _Hec._ i. 2, 60 _seqq._; 85 _seqq._\n\n[321] _e.g._ the \u201cGeta\u201d in Menander\u2019s _Misumenus_, Milphio in the\n_Poenulus_ of Plautus, &c.\n\n[322] Such a passage as Alexis, _Incert._ 35, would belong to this\ndate. It is very different to the ribald remarks in the _Philometor_ of\nAntiphanes.\n\n[323] Cp. _supra_, p. 173.\n\n[324] _Ibid._ p. 171.\n\n[325] The \u201cmater indulgens\u201d is mentioned in Apuleius, _Florid._ 16, as\none of the stock characters in Philemon.\n\n[326] Menand. _Incert._ 109, 114, 115, are all equally to the point.\n\n[327] _Vide_ Ter. _Hec._ iv. 2, 1 _seqq._, a passage of great interest.\n\n[328] Some further remarks on the family relations in New Comedy will be\nfound in Excursus K.\n\n[Frequent reference is made in these pages to Plautus and Terence, as\nillustrating the New Comedy. The justification of such reference was to\nhave been dealt with in an Excursus. The author was of opinion that the\nLatin comedians might be cited to illustrate plot and subject, though we\ncould not be certain that the actual words or expressions in any given\npassage were due to Greek originals.]\n\n[329] That there was no romantic element in Greek tragedy has already\nbeen shown at length. [See above, pp. 37-67.]\n\n[330] The claims of Diphilus need not be considered. His leanings towards\nMiddle Comedy are generally admitted; in his fragments there is no\nsuggestion of any romantic treatment of women. In fact, the only real\nreason for assigning him to New Comedy at all is, perhaps, the story of\nthe _Rudens_, which, Arcturus states in the Prologue, is derived from\nthis writer. Of the _Casina_ we shall speak elsewhere. [See page 165,\nnote 2.]\n\n[331] Poeta fuit hic Philemon, _mediae comoediae scriptor_; fabulas cum\nMenandro in scenam dictavit, certavitque cum eo, fortasse impar, certe\naemulus. namque eum etiam vicisse saepenumero, pudet dicere. reperias\ntamen apud ipsum multos sales, argumenta lepide inflexa, agnatos lucide\nexplicatos, personas rebus competentes, sententias vitae congruentes,\nioca non infra soccum, seria non usque ad cothurnum. _rarae apud illum\ncorruptelae_, et, uti errores, concessi amores. nec eo minus et leno\nperiurus et amator fervidus et servulus callidus et amica illudens\net uxor inhibens et mater indulgens et patruus obiurgator et sodalis\nopitulator et miles proeliator; sed et parasiti edaces et parentes\ntenaces et meretrices procaces. Apul. _Flor._ 16.\n\n[332] A curious instance of this feeling is his often-expressed opinion\nthat animals are happier than men. Cp. _Incert._ 3, 4, 8, etc.\n\n[333] Cp. _inter alia_ Apul. _Flor._ 16.\n\n[334] Among many expressions to this effect, we need only mention that\nof Quintilian: atque ille quidem (_sc._ Menander) omnibus eiusdem operis\nauctoribus abstulit nomen et fulgore quodam suae claritatis tenebras\nobduxit. _Inst._ x. 1, 72.\n\n[335] To take an instance from modern times. M. Daudet is said to have\nwritten his _Sappho_ with the expressed object of showing that he, too,\ncould produce a work which could not be left lying about. Similarly,\nM. Zola may be imagined to have produced _La R\u00eave_, in order to prove\nthat even he could be decent if he tried. But any attempt to judge of\nthe general character of these authors by the two books mentioned would\nbe obviously futile. In like manner, in the case of Philemon, one has\nto consider how much of the romantic element in his comedies is due to\nconviction, and how much to a desire to show that romantic love-stories\nwere a game two could play at.\n\n[336] Platon. _de Com._ p. 30. _ad fin._ The passage distinctly suggests\nthat these ninety-seven plays were not all that Philemon actually wrote.\n\u03c3\u03ce\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (\u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2) \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1. \u039c\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 ...\n\u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c1\u03b7\u0384.\n\nThe view that the total number of his plays was greater than ninety-seven\nseems to acquire further probability from the fact that he lived\nwell-nigh twice as long as Menander, and continued to write up to the day\nof his death. Cp. Apul. _Flor._ 16.\u2014It need hardly be remarked that if\nplays of Philemon were already lost in the time of Platonius, such plays\nwere, in all probability, Middle rather than New Comedies.\n\n[337] I have reserved the detailed proof of this fact, and the similar\none concerning Menander, for another place, in order that the sequence of\nthe argument may not be disturbed. _Vide_ Excursus. [This Excursus does\nnot appear to have been written.]\n\n[338] It is hard to speak so positively of Philemon if, as is probable,\nhe was merely the imitator and rival of Menander in this respect; but,\nof course, if it be granted that his romantic plays are subsequent to\nMenander\u2019s introduction of the subject, it is a matter of indifference\nfor the present argument whether he afterwards reverted to the older\nstyle or not.\n\n[339] [_Supra_, p. 107 _seqq._]\n\n[340] The Scholiast here, and others, go so far as to assert that\nTheocritus was a pupil of Asclepiades as well as of Philetas.\n\n[341] \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u1fb6\u03c2 ... \u1f62\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5. Suidas _s.v._\n\n[342] Cp. _Anth. Pal._ xii. 46.\u2014The fact that Asclepiades was tired of\nlife at twenty-one is, of course, no proof that he died early. Many\npeople, especially poets, who were very anxious for death in their youth,\nhave developed a wonderfully tenacious hold upon life as they grew older.\n\n[343] Cp. _Anth. Pal._ ix. 63; _supra_, p. 113.\n\n[344] The fact that Menander called one of his plays _Samia_, a title\nwhich had not been used since the time of Anaxandrides, is one of those\ninteresting coincidences that prove nothing at all.\n\n[345] \u1f59\u03c3\u03bc\u03af\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76 \u03a3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03b6\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u03c7\u03b9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1, \u1f10\u03b3\u03cd\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f7c \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b5 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. Eumath. i.\n8.\n\n[346] \u1f14\u03c0\u03b9\u03b5 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f41 \u03a3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd. \u03b5\u1f36\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f21 \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03af\u03b1 (\u1f21 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f59\u03c3\u03bc\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1) \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c0\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f10\u03bc\u1f72 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03c7\u03b5\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. id.\n_ibid._\n\n[347] \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1 \u03b8\u03bb\u03af\u03b2\u03c9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2, \u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03c3\u03b9\u03b3\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u03bb\u03ce\u03c4\u03c4\u1fc3, \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03c7\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b9\u03b3\u1fb7 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. id. iv. 1.\n\n[348] \u201cUnd wie er (Euripides) in diesen alten Heroensagen die Liebe stark\nin den Vordergrund ger\u00fcckt hatte, so wurde namentlich das alte M\u00e4rchen\nvon Perseus und Andromeda unter seinen H\u00e4nden zu einem der gl\u00e4nzendsten\nBeispiele ritterlicher Liebe, &c.\u201d Rohde, _Der griechische Roman_, p. 33.\n\n[349] The dirtiness of his clothes, &c., is made a great point of.\nCp. Hesych. \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u03ad\u03b1 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c7\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c6\u03b8\u03b9\u03c3\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd. This too lends force to Lucian\u2019s \u1f60\u03c7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u1ff3\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd. (_De Conscr. Hist._ 1, vol. 2, p. 2.\n_Vide_ Nauck, _Trag. Frag._ pp. 392-3.)\n\n[350]\n\n \u1f1c\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u1f00\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c6\u03c5;\n \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2 \u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1,\n \u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03cc\u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. \u1f13\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03bc\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd;\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f20\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd,\n \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21\u03b2\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c6\u03c5\u03c7\u2019 \u1f45\u03b4\u03b5.\n\n Eur. _Fr._ 322 (_Danae_).\n\nCp. Athen. vi. 270 C. Similar passages are very common\u2014in fact, the view\nmay be said to be a universal one; it arises, of course, from that purely\nsensual manner of regarding love, on which so much has already been\nsaid. Indeed, those who have read the early Greek literature with any\nattention, need perhaps hardly be reminded of how utterly foreign to the\nGreek of Euripides\u2019 day is the conception of the \u201cgalante Ritter\u201d setting\nout in search of ladies that want rescuing.\n\nAt the same time, it may not be amiss to emphasise a fact which, though\nsufficiently obvious, is yet often ignored. The fact that the _Andromeda_\nwas looked upon as a romantic play some centuries later, even if it can\nbe proved, is no proof that it was intended as such by its author, or\nso understood by its original audience. If Hermesianax could infer from\nthe _Odyssey_ that Homer was in love with Penelope, one may excuse the\ncontemporaries of Lucian if they inferred from Euripides that Perseus\nwas in love with Andromeda, but one need not necessarily regard their\ninference as a true one.\n\n[351] One naturally thinks of Odysseus and Nausicaa, of Menelaus in the\n_Helena_ (427 _seqq._), &c.\n\n[352] _Fr._ 129. The fact that this line was afterwards quoted \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2\n(vide Nauck, _ad loc._), is no proof that it had any such meaning in its\noriginal context.\n\n[353] _Fr._ 132. There is no real objection to putting this fragment\n_after_ his encounter with the monster, as the words \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 (_vide_\n_Fr._ 129 Nauck) do not necessarily mean that it followed immediately\nafter _Fr._ 129.\n\n[354] _i.e._ \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f4c\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, a very natural remark when one considers the\nmanner of Perseus\u2019 first arrival.\n\n[355] _Fr._ 133. \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f21\u03b4\u03cd \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n[356] A very interesting parallel to this scene is furnished by the dream\nof Medea (Apoll. Rhod. iii. 625 _seqq._); the resemblance is almost too\ngreat to be merely accidental. There too, of course, it need hardly be\nremarked, the initiative is on the side of the woman.\n\n[357] [The reading \u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 has considerable MS. authority, and is adopted\nby the majority of editors; the author is contrasting it with \u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2,\nthe text of Dindorf, Nauck, and some others.]\n\n[358] The MS. gives \u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd (Bergk). Various readings of this\nhave been given. The present one is mine.\n\n[359] \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u1f7c\u03bd rather than \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u1f7c\u03bd. Cp. Prop. iii. 25, 7: flebo ego discedens.\n\n[360] Altogether the resemblance between these poems and the \u03a0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\nof Theocritus is very marked. Even in the interesting passage (1367\n_seqq._), where the love of a boy is actually contrasted with that of a\nwoman, the great charm of the former is said to lie not in \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, but\nin \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2, just as in Theocr. xxx. 4. Whether this resemblance is due to\nanything more than the similarity of subject is a difficult question,\nwhich need not be discussed here.\n\n[361] Similarly, I may add, if anyone cares to regard the epigrams\nascribed to Plato as genuine, he will find nothing in them but\nconfirmation of what has already been gathered from works of less\nquestionable authenticity.\n\n[362] With comedy this is, of course, especially the case, for comedy\nappeals, in the main, to a lower intellectual class than tragedy, and is\ntherefore compelled to be even more conservative.\n\n[363] [Excursus G.: page 219.]\n\n[364] Is it merely a coincidence that this pioneer of a love-element, of\na sort, in comedy, was a native of Colophon?\n\n[365] The view that this erotic element was in no respect romantic, but\ndealt purely with the sensual side of the matter, is supported by (1) its\ninherent probability; (2) the absence of any evidence to the contrary,\nnot only in the fragments of this writer, but also in those of Antiphanes\nand Alexis, who are known to have imitated him; (3) the epithet \u03c0\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\napplied to Anaxandrides. (_Vide_ Meineke, _Com. Fr._ i. p. 369.) Though\nthe general sense of Suidas\u2019 words seems plain, their exact meaning is\nnot so clear. Probably \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 refers to the introduction of \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 and\ntheir admirers, whose mutual struggles _de nocte locanda_ would then\nprovide the action of the play. The sense of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c2 is even\nless evident; but the fact that it is mentioned specially, and after the\nword \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, certainly seems to imply that the \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac formed the climax\nof the action. In other words, the motive of the plot was the same as\nin the previous case, with the exception that the woman in question was\na \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 instead of an \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b1. If this were so, then these stories\nwould, of course, differ _toto caelo_ from those of the New Comedy,\nwhere the \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac is an act of unpremeditated indiscretion which has taken\nplace before the play begins, and is atoned for by the hero\u2019s subsequent\nbehaviour.\n\n[366] Cp. Xenarchus, _Pentathl._ 1, where the same idea is developed.\nWhen one reads such lines as these, one is tempted to agree with\nAristophon, that \u201clove had been exiled from heaven.\u201d (_Pythag._ _Fr._ 2.)\n\n[367] There is, of course, plenty of grumbling at marriage in the New\nComedy, but there the characters who give vent to it are the old men, who\nbelong to the previous generation, and whose relations with their wives\nhad consequently not come under the influence of romance.\n\n[368] [This Excursus was originally written for the first Essay; the New\nComedy is discussed in the second Essay. See above p. 163.]\n\n[369] [The author is following Meineke i. 404: the name \u201cAmphis\u201d is a\nconjectural emendation in the latter passage.]\n\n[370] Cp. _supra_, p. 227. This feeling is, of course, common enough; cp.\nAlexis, _Manteis_, \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03be\u1f76 \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n[371] Plaut. Asin. i. 1, 53 _seqq._ (patres ut consueverunt, ego mitto\nomnia haec, l. 64); _Bacch._ v. 2, 89 _seqq._ (hi senes, nisi fuissent\nnihil iam inde a adulescentia, non hodie hoc _tantum flagitium_ facerent\ncanis capitibus, etc.) Of course, if anyone prefers to believe that these\napologies are due to the _Latin_ author, no one can very well contradict\nhim.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\nA. OF AUTHORS AND SUBJECTS REFERRED TO.\n\n[The references are to pages throughout. Where the discussion of a\nsubject is continued over several pages, only the first page is here\ngiven. Plays are usually cited under their authors\u2019 names.]\n\n\n =Achilles=, and Briseis, 9;\n and Patroclus, 40, 76;\n and Iphigeneia, 63.\n\n =Achilles Tatius=, 13, 78, 109.\n\n =Actaeon=, 33.\n\n =Admetus=, and Apollo, 13, 31, 90, 99.\n\n =Aeschylus=, 41;\n and Stesichorus, 42;\n _Myrmidones_ of, 40, 82, 92.\n\n =Ajax=, and Teucer, 76, 90, 99;\n of Sophocles, compared to the _Antigone_, 99.\n\n =Alcaeus=, the comic poet, 149.\n\n =Alcaeus=, the lyric poet, 83.\n\n =Alcestis=, 57, 99.\n\n =Alciphron=, 146, 148.\n\n =Alcman=, 22;\n and Megalostrate, 23;\n love-poems to boys, 24;\n Parthenia, 24.\n\n =Alexander= and the wife of Darius, 181.\n\n =Alexandrian poetry=, distinctive feature of, 1, 69.\n\n =Alexis=, _Agonis_ of, 156;\n _Helene_ of, 161;\n on marriage, 162;\n on women, 224.\n\n =Ameipsias=, 147.\n\n =Amphis= on women, 227.\n\n =Anacreon=, 26, 27, 86;\n love-poems to women, 27;\n importance for history of the romantic element, 28;\n character of poems to boys, 86.\n\n =Anaxandrides=, 154, 162;\n on women, 213, 222.\n\n =Andromache=, in the Iliad, 10;\n as the ideal wife, 55, 64.\n\n =Antiphanes= on women, 213, 219;\n retort to Alexander, 152.\n\n =Antimachus= 5, 107;\n and Plato, 111;\n and Catullus, 111;\n influence on Asclepiades, 113, 197;\n influence on Philetas, 113\n (_vide s.v._ LYDE).\n\n =Aphrodite=, and Anchises, 202;\n as the rival of Artemis, 59;\n treatment of Phaedra, 47.\n\n =Apuleius=, 189.\n\n =Archilochus=, 19, 82;\n true motive of his satires, 21;\n and Catullus, 22.\n\n =Archippus=, _Ichthys_ of, 147.\n\n =Ariadne=, 12, 14.\n\n =Aristophanes=, 129;\n weddings in, 132;\n views on women, 134;\n _Cocalus_ of, 135;\n _Aeolosicon_ of, 143.\n\n =Asclepiades=, 69;\n Meleager\u2019s criticism on, 73;\n eulogy of Antimachus, 113;\n probable influence on Menander, 196.\n\n =Aspasia=, 127.\n\n\n =Bacchylides=, 36.\n\n =Battis=, 70.\n\n =Boy-love=, in classical Greek literature, 74;\n as an element of classical Greek society, 77;\n as a military institution, 77;\n as an emblem of liberty, 77;\n purity of, 78;\n development of, 79;\n decay of, 79, 102;\n permanent influence on literature, 80;\n in the Anthology, 81;\n in Archilochus, 82;\n in Alcman, 24;\n in Alcaeus, 83;\n illustrated by Sappho, 85;\n in Anacreon, 86;\n in Theognis, 87, 207;\n in the _Scolia_, 89;\n in Attic tragedy, 91;\n in Alexandrian poetry, 102;\n in Meleager, 103.\n\n =Brother= and sister, in Attic tragedy, 48, 101;\n in the New Comedy, 245.\n\n\n =Callias=, 147.\n\n =Catullus=, 81.\n\n =Chionides=, 122.\n\n =Clytemnestra=, 42.\n\n =Corinna=, 36.\n\n =Crates=, 126, 128.\n\n =Cratinus=, 126.\n\n =Cratinus= junior, _Theramenes_ of, 151.\n\n\n =Daphnis=, 14, 34.\n\n =Deianira=, 43.\n\n =Diphilus= on women, 241;\n belongs really to Middle Comedy, 188.\n\n =Diphilus= and Gnathaena, 128.\n\n\n =Epicharmus=, 122.\n\n =Epicrates=, _Antilais_ of, 73, 151.\n\n =Eubulus=, on women, 214, 222;\n _Campylion_ of, 155;\n _Nannion_ of, 158.\n\n =Eumathius=, 199.\n\n =Euripides=, services to art, 50;\n female characters, 50;\n admiration for women, 51;\n view of love, 52;\n striking absence of love-element in, 52, 62, 63, 66;\n why E. was not a \u201cromantic\u201d writer, 66;\n E. and the Alexandrians, 53;\n his misogyny, 51;\n _Aeolus_ of, 38, 52;\n _Andromeda_ of, 140, 203;\n _Antigone_ of, 38;\n _Chrysippus_ of, 93;\n _Electra_ of, 65;\n _Iphigeneia_ of, 63;\n _Medea_ of, 66;\n _Meleager_ of, 38;\n _Phoenix_ of, 38;\n _Protesilaus_ of, 57;\n _Stheneboea_ of, 38.\n\n\n =Ganymede=, 13.\n\n =Goddesses=, preponderance of, in Greek Pantheon, 7;\n in love with mortals, 13.\n\n\n =Haemon=, motives for suicide, 44.\n\n =Helen of Himera=, 33.\n\n =Helen of Troy=, in the _Iliad_, 10;\n in Stesichorus, 33;\n and Theseus, 161.\n\n =Hermesianax=, 14, 26, 110.\n\n =Hesiod=, women in, 8;\n Catalogus of, 12.\n\n =Hetaera=, in early times, 19;\n in Bacchylides, 36;\n in Early Comedy, 128, 147, 148;\n in Middle Comedy, 151, 215, 219;\n treated as superior to a wife, 158;\n in New Comedy, 175.\n\n =Hippolytus=, defence of, 61.\n\n\n =Ibycus=, 35.\n\n =Iphigeneia=, 63.\n\n\n =Jealousy=, Attic view as to, 43, 55.\n\n\n =Lafaye=, _Catulle et ses mod\u00e8les_, 20, 22.\n\n =Lesbian Poets=, 83.\n\n =Licymnius=, 36.\n\n =Love=, early Greek views as to, 12, 17, 55, 64;\n in Middle Comedy, 160;\n in New Comedy, 169, 185;\n in Menander, 184;\n in Sophocles, 46;\n in Euripides, 52.\n\n =Love-element=, in the _Iliad_, 75;\n in _Hymn. Hom._ iv., 201;\n in Sappho, 85;\n in choral poetry, 35;\n in Attic Tragedy, 38, 91;\n in Sophocles, 46;\n in Euripides, 50;\n in Eur. _Andromeda_, 203;\n in classical Greek poetry in general, 67;\n in Middle Comedy, 150;\n in New Comedy, 163;\n in Asclepiades, 70.\n\n =Lyde of Antimachus=, 107;\n importance of, 108;\n characteristic tone of, 110.\n\n =Lyric poetry=, subjective, 17;\n choral, 31.\n\n\n =Magnes=, 122.\n\n =Mahaffy=, _Classical Greek Literature_, 20, 63.\n\n =Marriage=, in Comedy, 109, 212, 216 (_vide s.v._ =Middle Comedy=,\n =New Comedy=);\n Sophocles\u2019 view of, 43;\n in Greek romance, 109;\n in Menander, 170.\n\n =Maximus Tyrius=, distinction between ancient and modern love, 54;\n on Achilles and Patroclus, 76;\n on Sappho and Socrates, 85;\n on Anacreon, 87.\n\n =Medea=, 12, 14, 66.\n\n =Meleager=, criticism of Asclepiades, 73;\n poem to Charidemus, 103.\n\n =Menalcas=, 14.\n\n =Menander=, 2;\n great merit of, 164;\n wrote plays belonging to Middle Comedy, 193;\n introduced the romantic element into comedy, 188;\n marriage characteristic of, 170;\n view of love, 184;\n father and children in, 185;\n why elderly married men are treated by M. as unhappy, 173;\n on women, 233;\n _Leucadia_ of, 146;\n _Misogynes_ of, 174;\n _Misumenus_ of, 178;\n _Sicyonius_ of, 180;\n _Thais_ of, 177.\n\n =Middle Comedy=, main features of, 150;\n difference from Old Comedy, 125;\n difference from New Comedy, 163;\n women in, 210, 219;\n women\u2019s rights in, 243;\n dislike of marriage, 158;\n ridicules Platonic love, 160;\n ridicules family life, 161;\n parodies mythological erotic stories, 161.\n\n =Miles Gloriosus= as the chivalrous lover, 180.\n\n =Mimnermus=, 25;\n and Nanno, 26;\n mentioned by Roman poets, 27.\n\n =Minos= and Zeus, 13.\n\n =Morychis=, law of, 125.\n\n =Myrtis=, 36.\n\n\n =Nanno=, 26.\n\n =Nausicaa=, 10.\n\n =New Comedy=, 109;\n ideal character of, 119;\n difference from Middle Comedy, 163;\n two common types of plot in, 165;\n the married state described as a happy one, 171;\n condemns adultery, 174;\n only slaves ridicule Platonic love in, 185;\n legal obligation to marry not urged in, 137;\n women in, 233.\n\n\n =Orestes and Pylades=, 101.\n\n =Ovid=, 109.\n\n\n =Pandora=, legend of, 8.\n\n =Parthenius=, 15.\n\n =Penelope=, 8;\n and Odysseus, 10.\n\n =Phaedra=, of Sophocles, 46;\n illustrated from the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite, 201;\n of Euripides, 59.\n\n =Pherecrates=, 125, 128.\n\n =Philemon=, 142;\n wrote plays belonging to Middle Comedy, 193;\n more old-fashioned than Menander, 189;\n on women, 240;\n _Hypobolimaeus_ of, 144.\n\n =Philetas=, 69;\n influenced by Antimachus, 113.\n\n =Philoxenus=, 36.\n\n =Phocion= on marriage, 133.\n\n =Phocylides=, 19.\n\n =Pindar=, erotic legends in, 67.\n\n =Plato=, 6;\n in the _Hedychares_ of Theopompus, 149.\n\n =Plato comicus=, 145.\n\n =Plautus=, as imitating Middle Comedy, 157;\n as illustrating New Comedy, 187;\n and Menander, 234, 236;\n _Captivi_ of, 155;\n _Epidicus_ of, 183;\n _Poenulus_ of, 185;\n _Stichus_ of, 187.\n\n =Poseidippus=, 26, 110.\n\n\n =Reitzenstein=, _Epigramm und Skolion_, 25, 29, 34, 59.\n\n =Rhadina=, 34.\n\n =Rhianus=, poem to Dexionicus, 103.\n\n =Rohde=, _der griechische Roman_, 75, 203.\n\n =Romantic Element=, characteristic feature of, 4;\n mistaken ideas as to, 2, 40, 106;\n sudden appearance in literature, 69;\n ditto, explained, 104;\n origin among the Greeks, 105;\n nature of in Greece, 108;\n ditto, contrasted with mediaeval romance, 109;\n in the Latin elegiac poets, 109.\n\n\n =Sacred Band= of Epaminondas, 77.\n\n =Sappho=, 85, 160;\n and Phaon, 146;\n and Sophocles, 45;\n and Aeschylus, 45;\n and Socrates, 85.\n\n =Scolia=, 31, 89.\n\n =Scylla=, legend of, 14.\n\n =Simonides Amorginus=, 18;\n and Hesiod, 18.\n\n =Sophocles=, 43;\n and Sappho, 45;\n views on marriage, 45;\n view of love, 46;\n _Antigone_ of, 47;\n _Colchides_ of, 38;\n _Niobe_ of, 93;\n _Oenomaus_ of, 38;\n _Phaedra_ of, 38.\n\n =Sparta=, 6, 24, 77.\n\n =Stesichorus=, 33;\n and Aeschylus, 42.\n\n =Strato=, 81.\n\n =Strattis=, 147.\n\n =Susario=, 68.\n\n =Telestes=, 37.\n\n =Terence=, as illustrating New Comedy, 187;\n and Menander, 233;\n _Hecyra_ of, 170, 175.\n\n =Theocritus=, poems to boys, 81, 83;\n illustrative of Alcaeus, 83;\n and Theognis, 208.\n\n =Theognis=, 29, 87;\n Book II., 207;\n and Theocritus, 208.\n\n =Theopompus=, 148;\n _Hedychares_ of, 149.\n\n =Theseus=, and Helen, 161.\n\n\n =Wife=, Sophoclean ideal, 44;\n Euripidean ideal, 55;\n compared with Hetaera in Middle Comedy, 158;\n ditto in New Comedy, 176;\n tyranny of wives in Middle Comedy, 244.\n\n =Women=, primitive position of, 7;\n in the Homeric poems, 8;\n in Hesiod, 8;\n in the early legends, 11;\n in the stories of Parthenius, 15;\n early literary ideal of, 17;\n in Simonides, 18;\n in Phocylides, 19;\n in Theognis, 29, 199;\n in the _Scolia_, 31;\n in Stesichorus, 33;\n in Ibycus, 35;\n in the later choral poets, 36;\n in Attic tragedy, 40;\n in Aeschylus, 41;\n in Sophocles, 43;\n in Euripides, 50;\n in the early Alexandrians, 69;\n in Asclepiades, 71;\n in Greek comedy, 118;\n in the Middle Comedy, 219;\n in early New Comedy, 233;\n better position in Asia, 182;\n freemasonry among in Euripides, 58;\n might be attacked openly by name, 151;\n women\u2019s rights in the Middle Comedy, 243.\n\n\n\nB. OF PASSAGES EMENDED OR DISCUSSED.\n\n\n Aeschylus, _Fr._ 135, 136 (92).\n\n Alexis, _Graphe_ (225).\n\n _Anth. Pal._ V. 164, 4 (73).\n\n Antiphanes, _Acestria_, 3 (220).\n\n Archilochus, _Fr._ 100 _seqq._ (20).\n\n Aristophon, _Iatrus_, _Fr._ 2 (229).\n\n\n Eubulus, _Campylion_ (155).\n\n Euripides, _Hippol._ 1415, 1440 (206), _Fr._ 132 (205).\n\n\n Hesiod, _Op._ 702 (19).\n\n\n Martial XIV. 187 (177).\n\n Mimnermus, _Fr._ 1 (25).\n\n\n Philetaerus, _Atalanta_ (228).\n\n Propertius II. 6, 3 (177).\n\n\n Sophocles, _Ant._ 781 (46), 909 (49), _Fr._ 855, 13 (201).\n\n\n Theognis, 261 _seqq._ (199), 1282, 1363 (208).\n\n Theopompus, _Nemea_ 8 (148).\n\n\n\n\n\nTABLE OF COMIC FRAGMENTS\n\n\nIn the text the fragments of the comedians are cited from Meineke\u2019s\n_Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum_ (5 vols., 1839-57). In the following\ntable the corresponding numbers are given from Kock\u2019s _Comicorum\nAtticorum Fragmenta_ (3 vols., 1880-88). The fragments referred to which\ndo not appear in the table, can be found without difficulty in Kock\u2019s\nedition from Meineke\u2019s numbers.\n\n Author. Meineke. Kock.\n =Alexis.= _Agonis_ 1 3\n 2 2\n 3 4\n 4 5\n _Incert._ 14 282\n 18 279\n 26 293\n 31 271\n 34 262\n 35 267\n 38 289\n 39 302\n 40 339\n 53 314\n _Isostas._ 1 98\n _Mandragor._ 2 142\n 5 144\n _Olynthia_ 1 162\n 2 159\n _Tarantini_ 5 223\n _Traumatias_ 2 234\n =Amphis.= _Dithyramb._ 2 15\n =Anaxandrides.= _Incert._ 1 52\n 5 56\n 9 60\n 10 61\n 13 78\n 17 68\n _Odysseus_ 1 33\n _Tereus_ 2 47\n 3 46\n =Anaxilas.= _Incert._ 2 34\n 3 36\n 4 35\n 5 37\n 6 38\n _Neottis_ 1 22\n 2 21\n =Antiphanes.= _Acestria_ 1 20\n _Aeolus_ 1 18\n _Agroecus_ 2 2\n _Arcas_ 2 41\n _Dyspratus_ 1 89\n _Incert._ 12 235\n 13 300\n 51 324\n 52 292\n 53 329\n 54 251\n 55 252\n 57 253\n 71 239\n 95 320\n _Mystis_ 3 165\n _Neanisci_ 2 167\n _Neottis_ 3 170\n _Omphale_ 3 178\n =Araros.= _Caeneus_ 4 5\n =Aristophanes.= _Cocal._ 2 347\n 3 346\n 4 348\n 5 349\n 6 351\n 7 350\n 10 354\n 12 355\n _Daed._ 3 187\n _Geras_ 5 141\n 6 140\n 7 142\n _Pelargi_ 1 438\n _Polyid._ 2 453\n _Scen. Cat._ 1 472\n 2 864\n 3 862\n _Thesmoph. B._ 26 { 338\n { 907\n =Aristophon.= _Iatrus_ 2 3\n _Pythagor._ 2 11\n =Crates.= _Incert._ 3 _Cratinus_ 302\n 4 40\n =Cratinus.= _Seriph._ 12 216\n =Diphilus.= _Incert._ 2 87\n 6 91\n 16 101\n 33 115\n 34 136\n 47 129\n _Zographus_ 1 44\n =Ephippus.= _Philyra_ 2 21\n 3 23\n =Eriphus.= _Meliboea_ 1 2\n 2 7\n =Eubulus.= _Cercopes_ 1 54\n _Campyl._ 1 44\n 2 43\n 3 41\n 4 42\n 5 45\n 6 46\n _Incert._ 3 125\n 9 127\n 20 133\n 25 148\n _Sphingocar._ 2 108\n 3 106\n _Stephanopol._ 1 98\n 2 104\n 3 105\n 4 99\n =Eupolis.= _Autolycus_ 10 44\n =Menander.= _Andria_ 1 48\n _Androgynus_ 2 57\n _Arrephorus_ 3 66\n _Chalceia_ 3 509\n _Eunuchus_ 7 190\n _Georgus_ 6 100\n _Halieis_ 6 18\n 10 16\n _Hiereia_ 2 546\n _Incert._ 1 654\n 3 532\n 6 535\n 7 536\n 8 547-8\n 14 541\n 16 599\n 27 564-5\n 32 558\n 36 566\n 54 582\n 55 585\n 57 583\n 58 584\n 59 586\n 73 608\n 99 645\n 100 646\n 101 647\n 102 648\n 103 649\n 104 650\n 105 651\n 106 652\n 107 653\n 108 662\n 109 603\n 112 657\n 113 659\n 114 658\n 115 660\n 117 661\n 133 610\n 154 702\n 155 703\n 156 704\n 185 720\n 196 798\n 197 745\n 198 746\n 199 739\n 241 727\n 256 800\n 258 802\n 259 803\n 294 879\n 346 955\n 469 687\n 499 754\n _Leucadia_ 1 312\n _Misogynes_ 1 325\n 2 332\n 3 333\n 4 601\n 5 326\n 9 329\n _Misumenus_ 3 338\n 5 336\n 6 337\n 7 335\n 8 345\n 10 341\n 11 342\n 12 343\n _Nauclerus_ 4 352\n _Orge_ 5 366\n _Plocion_ 1 402\n 2 403\n 3 } 404\n 4 }\n _Sicyonius_ 3 438\n _Synaristosae_ 1 450\n 2 451\n 4 449\n _Thesaurus_ 1 235\n 2 237\n 3 236\n =Nicostratus.= _Pandrosus_ 1 21\n 2 19\n 3 20\n =Pherecrates.= _Thalatta_ 2 56\n 3 52\n 4 51\n 5 54\n 7 53\n =Philemon.= _Incert._ 3 89\n 4 88\n 8 93\n 31 124\n 32 126\n 35 139\n 44 132\n 49 138\n 64 156\n 76 169\n 77 170\n 78 171\n 85 177\n 95 190\n 103 196\n 105 198\n 106 239\n 124 218\n =Philetaerus.= _Cynagis_ 1 9\n 2 6, 7\n 3 8\n =Plato.= _Phaon_ 2 174\n 3 175\n 4 178\n 10 179\n =Strattis.= _Maced._ 5 26\n =Theophilus.= _Philaul._ 1 12\n 2 11\n =Theopompus.= _Capelid._ 3 26\n 4 28\n 5 27\n _Hedychares_ 3 14\n 4 16\n _Odysseus_ 1 35\n _Medus_ 2 29\n =Timocles.= _Epist._ 1 10\n _Icarii_ 1 17\n 2 14\n =Xenarchus.= _Scythae_ 1 12","title":"Antimachus of Colophon and the Position of Women in Greek Poetry: A fragment printed for the use of scholars","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":70248}