EXCURSUS F.
WOMEN IN THE MIDDLE COMEDY.
[Note.—A considerable part of the contents of this Excursus (originally written for the first of the two Essays in this volume) is repeated in the second Essay. The Excursus is printed here without alteration, but it should be noted that the author did not regard it as having attained its final form.]
The fragments of the Middle Comedy, belonging, as they do, to the earlier and middle part of the fourth century—that is, to the period of transition between the two great epochs of Greek literature—might have been expected to afford very valuable evidence as to the development of the romantic feeling. Unfortunately, however, this is not the case; indeed, the information to be gathered from them is, in this respect, of so little importance, that it is hardly worth considering at all.
Various explanations suggest themselves to account for this somewhat surprising fact. In the first place, the remains of the Middle Comedy are very small compared with the enormous original bulk of this literature, and, besides this, nearly all the more important fragments that we possess are derived from Athenaeus, who generally quotes them with a view to elucidating questions of cookery, or illustrating the habits of fishmongers. But the real cause of the absence from these fragments of all traces of a romantic element is probably a less fortuitous one, and is to be found in the nature of dramatic literature in general, and of comedy in particular. A play, to be successful, must be behind the times; if it treats its subjects in an enlightened manner, it will be above the level of the mass of its audience, and they will declare it dull, or ridiculous, or both.[362] Dramatic authors know this well enough, and, for the most part, carefully refrain from insulting the spectators by telling them anything new. The writers of the Middle Comedy were no exception to this rule; and so, while their plays dealt very extensively with women, and not unfrequently, it would seem, with love-stories of a sort, the treatment of these subjects was, out of deference to their public, far more antiquated and unsympathetic than one would have been inclined to expect from writers who were often well acquainted with the works of the most enlightened thinkers of the time. Thus, therefore, strange as it may at first sight appear, in all probability those fragments which have survived furnish, on the whole, a very good general idea of the relations between men and women, as depicted in the Middle Comedy; and there is in reality little reason to believe that, even if we possessed a far larger quantity of this literature, we should be able to learn much more about this particular subject. The romantic element is absent from these fragments because it was absent from the complete works to which they originally belonged.
The main features of the Middle Comedy treatment of erotic subjects (as illustrated by the fragments) are very plain. There is nowhere any trace of the romantic feeling; where “love” is praised or recommended, as is, of course, not unfrequently the case, what is understood thereby is always merely sensual gratification. Plato and “Platonic” love are stock subjects of ridicule. Marriage is invariably alluded to in terms of contempt and dislike, and the women introduced are almost always Hetaerae; but even these are hardly ever spoken of with any respect or affection, being generally described as vulgar, drunken, and stingy, and in some cases attacked with the most savage brutality. The effort which the women at Athens were making about this time to gain larger liberties, also comes in for its share of ridicule; and altogether, these comedies show a want of sympathy with every honourable ambition of the age, which throws a strange light on that cultured and artistic Athenian audience which one is generally taught to admire.
I have before me an analysis[363] of all the passages in which women are in any way referred to in this literature; but, as I have already remarked, the amount of information to be gained from them is not sufficient to warrant a lengthy discussion. A few specimens from the best-known writers will serve to illustrate what has been said, and will give a sufficiently clear idea of the nature of the rest.
Anaxandrides is described by Suidas as having been the first to introduce ἔρωτας καὶ παρθένων φθοράς,[364] and is therefore important as forming a connecting-link between Old and Middle Comedy; but there is no important example of this peculiar feature in any of the fragments of him that have survived, though passages like that in the Gerontomania (ap. Athen. xiii. 570 D), and titles of plays like Anteron or Kitharistria, serve to give a very fair idea of the nature of the “erotic element” thus introduced.[365]
Antiphanes again, though making frequent mention of women, yet does not tell one anything of importance about them. His opinion as to their untrustworthiness is at least emphatic,
ἐγὼ γυναικὶ δ’ ἕν τι πιστεύω μόνον,
ἐπὰν ἀποθάνῃ μὴ βιώσεσθαι πάλιν,
τὰ δ’ ἄλλ’ ἀπιστῶ πάνθ’ ἕως ἂν ἀποθάνῃ.
(Incert. 54.)
and his invectives against marriage are occasionally humorous—
Α. γεγάμηκε δήπου. Β. τί σὺ λέγεις; ἀληθινῶς
γεγάμηκεν, ὃν ἐγὼ ζῶντα περιπατοῦντά τε
κατέλιπον;
(Philopator.)
but, on the whole, his allusions are not very interesting.
Eubulus was notorious as a special student and parodist of Euripides, a feature apparent in the misogyny, real or affected, in which he indulges. A good specimen of this is the passage quoted in Athen. xiii. 559 B from his Chrysilla. There is, besides, in the Campylion an interesting description of violent love for a certain κοσμία ἑταίρα, one of whose chief charms, however, seems to be that she knows how to eat decently. The same writer, in the Nannion, dwells on the folly of adultery, supporting his view by arguments which hardly appeal to the “romantic” sense.[366]
Amphis grows enthusiastic over the superiority of ἑταῖραι to γαμεταί,
ἡ μὲν νόμῳ γὰρ καταφρονοῦσ’ ἔνδον μένει,
ἡ δ’ οἶδεν ὅτι ἢ τοῖς τρόποις ὠνητέος
ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν ἢ πρὸς ἄλλον ἀπιτέον.
(Athamas.)
and in the Dithyrambus makes a contemptuous allusion to “Platonic” love:
τί φῄς; σὺ ταυτὶ προσδοκᾷς πείσειν ἐμέ,
ὡς ἔστ’ ἐραστὴς ὅστις, ὡραῖον φιλῶν,
τρόπων ἐραστής ἐστι, τὴν ὄψιν παρείς;
ἄφρων γ’ ἀληθῶς. οὔτε τοῦτο πείθομαι,
οὔθ’ ὡς πένης ἄνθρωπος ἐνοχλῶν πολλάκις
τοῖς εὐποροῦσιν οὐ λαβεῖν τι βούλεται.
(Dithyrambus. 2.)
Ephippus gives us a pretty picture of a woman (an Hetaera, of course) coaxing away a man’s trouble:
ἔπειτά γ’ εἰσιόντ’, ἐὰν λυπούμενος
τύχῃ τις ἡμῶν, ἐκολάκευσεν ἡδέως,
ἐφίλησεν, οὐχὶ συμπιέσασα τὸ στόμα,
ὥσπερ πολέμιον, ἀλλὰ τοῖσι στρουθίοις
χναύουσ’ ὁμοίως ἧσε, παρεμυθήσατο,
ἐποίησέ θ’ ἱλαρὸν εὐθέως τ’ ἀφεῖλε πᾶν
αὐτοῦ τὸ λυποῦν κἀπέδειξεν ἵλεων.
(Empole. 1.)
Epicrates is chiefly noticeable for the brutality of his Antilais, a considerable fragment of which is preserved in Athen. xiii. 570 B.
Xenarchus’ best contribution to literature is, perhaps, his famous
ὅρκους ἐγὼ γυναικὸς εἰς οἶνον γράφω.
(Pentathl. 3.)
Lastly, there is Alexis, who, though he extends from the Middle well into the New Comedy (388-284 are the dates—rather trying to the credulity—given for his life), yet belongs very distinctly to the former, and shows no signs of a newer spirit, unless it be in the revolt against the artificiality of the Hetaerae, of which there is a specimen in his Isostasium. He makes, however, a favourable allusion to “Platonic” love (Helene), though he does not suggest the possibility of its application to women. For the rest, he confines himself to the ordinary topics, and his complaints against wives are, here and there, amusing, as when he argues that marriage is worse than disfranchisement:—
τοὺς μὲν γοῦν ἀτίμους οὐκ ἐᾷ
ἀρχὴν λαχόντας ὁ νόμος ἄρχειν τῶν πέλας·
ἐπὰν δὲ γήμῃς, οὐδὲ σαυτοῦ κύριον
ἔξεστιν εἶναι· τὰς γὰρ εὐθύνας μόνον
ἐφημερινὰς τὰς τοῦ βίου κεκτήμεθα.
(Incert. 34.)
The examination of these fragments has been very barren of any but negative results, but this very barrenness is not perhaps without a certain significance. The Middle and the New Comedy kept the stage at Athens (to the exclusion, in great part, of original tragedy) without a check during the fourth century; but at the same time, the continuity of the dramatic tradition that pervades them is by no means unbroken, and the differences between the two styles of art are very marked. Of all these differences, there is none more striking than that in the treatment of the erotic element. This, which, though introduced early enough into the Middle Comedy, yet never attained to any real development there, appears suddenly in the New Comedy as a feature of overwhelming importance. Nor is this all. The erotic element, which, from henceforward, occupies so prominent a place in comedy, differs in character toto caelo from that which occurs in the earlier dramas. Instead of the ἑταίρα, the New Comedy introduces us to the παρθένος; instead of marriage being the stock subject of ridicule, it becomes the hero’s ideal.[367]
This change of attitude is so marked, that it seems impossible to regard the later feeling as a development of the earlier; the revolution is so violent, that it seems inevitable to admit that it came in some manner from without. And, as a matter of fact, if we consider the period from which the New Comedy dates, it is by no means difficult to conjecture what the source of this external influence may have been.
Menander brought out his first play, at a very early age, in 322; about this time, Asclepiades and Philetas were already coming into prominence; those influences which induced the Coan school to speak of women in a manner so different from that of previous writers, may well have impressed the Athenian also, and produced a body of poets who, though differing in certain important points from the “Alexandrians,” were yet distinctly romantic.
To this subject of the romantic element in the New Comedy, I hope at some future time to be able to return,[368] so that I will not speak of it further here, except so far as to point out that, firstly (an obvious fact, but one that seems sometimes strangely ignored), the New Comedy is distinctly later in date than the Coan school of poets, and cannot therefore, under any circumstances, claim priority for the introduction of the romantic element into literature; while secondly, if the introduction of this element was really due, as is commonly asserted, to the influence of Euripides, it seems strange that, while so many of his views were common property at Athens from the very beginning of the fourth century, not one of the Athenian playwrights, some of whom studied him so thoroughly, should have felt this particular influence till nearly a century after his death.