cannot be denied that this was the Greek view of the relation between
Achilles and Patroclus from a very early period. This is clearly shown
by the fact that Aeschylus of all people treated it in this way in his
_Myrmidones_. That the attachment was further regarded as a perfectly
pure one might be equally proved from the fragments of that tragedy, if
indeed proof were necessary. Insinuations like those elaborated at the
end of Lucian’s _Amores_ are a much later aftergrowth.
[152] Vide _supra_, pp. 21, 22.
[153] Vide _supra_, p. 24.
[154] Theocr. xxix. and xxx.
[155] _E.g._ the image of Time with wings on his shoulders (xxix. 29).
For this reason I have not cared to urge the expression Ἀχιλλέϊοι φίλοι
in xxix. 34, as a proof that Alcaeus took this view of the relation
between Achilles and Patroclus. (Vide _supra_, p. 82.)
[156] Thus Maximus Tyrius (xxiv. 9) compares the love of Sappho to that
of Socrates. ὁ δὲ τῆς Λεσβίας (ἔρως) ... τί ἂν εἴη ἄλλο, ἢ ἡ Σωκράτους
τέχνη ἐρωτική; δοκοῦσι γάρ μοι τὴν κατὰ ταυτὸ ἑκάτερος φιλίαν, ἡ μὲν
γυναικῶν, ὁ δὲ ἀρρένων, ἐπιτηδεῦσαι.
[157] Vide _supra_, p. 35.
[158] Cp. Theocr. xxix. 10,
ἀλλ’ εἴ μοί τι πίθοιο νέος προγενεστέρῳ.
[159] A striking record of temptation resisted is to be found in l. 949
_seqq._, but this is almost certainly by a later hand.
[160] l. 237 _seqq._
[161] For an examination of the Second Book of Theognis, vide Excursus E.
[162] Athen. xv. p. 694 _seqq._ This number excludes the poems of Hybrias
and Aristotle, which are different in character from the rest.
[163] Of the remaining ten, the first four are religious, and only three
contain any mention of women, two of these being coarse.
[164] [p. 31.]
[165] For, as we have seen, one of the first of these canons was that the
public expression of private emotions was an offence against art no less
than against decency, and this would tend to exclude from the stage all
forms of love equally. In the case of woman-love there were, of course,
special objections; that was why the _Myrmidones_ was the first erotic
play of any kind produced; but this is beside the present issue.
[166] For the story in Aelian, _Var. Hist._ ii. 21, as to the relation
between Euripides and Agathon, does not seem to be more than a vague
piece of scandal.
To this must be added the fact that the earlier part of the century was
the time when such a subject would most readily have appealed to the
Athenian imagination. Later on, and especially from the fourth century
onwards, the changed position of women was beginning to make itself felt
in the way we have seen.
[167] Athen. xiii. 601 A, where it is further noted that these plays were
received with applause.
[168] According to Schol. _Ar. Ran._ 911, first of all, μέχρι τριῶν
ἡμερῶν οὐδὲν φθέγγεται.
[169] The reader must be careful here to give the proper sense to
σέβας ἁγνόν, translating “ne sancta quidem reverentia qua casta
atque intemerata tua femora servavi, te movit, ingrate, etc.” _Fr._
136, whether genuine or not—it reads very like a misquotation of its
predecessor—must obviously mean the same, in spite of Theomnestus and
Lucian.
[170] Athen. xiii. 601 B.
[171] Startling as it appears at first sight, this is probably the
simplest way of understanding Athenaeus’ τὸν τῶν παίδων (_sc._ ἔρωτα).
Those who have properly appreciated what such ἔρως meant to the early
Greeks, will not be surprised to find the term applied to the affection
of an elder for a younger brother.
[172] Plut. _Amor._ 17, p. 760 D, τῶν μὲν γὰρ τοῦ Σοφοκλέους Νιοβιδῶν
βαλλομένων καὶ θνησκόντων ἀνακαλεῖταί τις οὐδένα βοηθὸν ἄλλον οὐδὲ
σύμμαχον ἢ τὸν ἐραστήν.
[173] Cp. Aristoph. _Vesp._ 579.
[174] The marked differences in the versions of the legend, and the fact
that it appeared in the _Theogamia_ of the pseudo-Peisander—a writer who
seems to have drawn his materials in most cases from early sources—seem
to show that it must have been of a certain antiquity, and anyhow was
not a pure invention on the part of Euripides. The evidence of Aelian
(_N. H._ vi. 15), though of little value, is to the same effect: Λάϊος δὲ
ἐπὶ Χρυσίππῳ, ὦ καλὲ Εὐριπίδη, τοῦτο οὐκ ἔδρασεν, καίτοι τοῦ τῶν ἀρρένων
ἔρωτος, ὡς λέγεις αὐτός, καὶ ἡ φήμη διδάσκει, Ἑλλήνων πρώτιστος ἄρξας.
[175] The remark of the Scholiast that the behaviour of Laius to
Chrysippus was parallel to that of Zeus to Ganymede, like the similar
remark in Cicero (_loc. cit._), belongs of course to an age when the
primitive meanings of the legends had long been forgotten. The allusion
to the legend in Aristoph. _Pelargi_, _Fr._ 1 is too general to give
evidence either way. See Meineke, _Com. Fr._ ii. p. 1126 _seq._
[176] That this is the relation between Ajax and Teucer in Homer already,
is pretty clear. Vide _e.g._ _Il._ ix. 266 _seqq._; cp. Schol. _Theocr._
xii. 29. This, no doubt, accounts for the frequent mention of Ajax in the
_Scolia_ (cp. p. 90).
[177] Supposing Tecmessa appeared as champion for the dead Ajax, everyone
would acknowledge this, and no one would find the situation dull: only
people will not understand that Teucer meant as much, and more, to the
Greeks, than Tecmessa would to us.
[178] The position of Alcestis has already been partly discussed on p. 57.
[179] Vide Call. _Hymn. in Apoll._ 49; Panyasis, _Fr._ 15 (Dübner);
Schol. _ad Eur. Alc._ 2; Lact. i. 10, 3.
[180] Cp. _supra_, pp. 24, 31.
[181] When the Scholiast (_ad Eur. Alc._ 1) says that the version of the
story of Apollo’s servitude given in the Prologue is the usual one (ἡ διὰ
στόματος καὶ δημώδης), he need mean no more by this than the fact that
this was the case at the time of writing, when the influence of Euripides
had naturally superseded all others. The Scholiast cannot be taken as
throwing light on the state of feeling in Athens at the time when the
_Alcestis_ was produced.
[182] I am not concerned here to write an apology for Admetus, or I might
add much that would militate against the ordinary, somewhat flippant,
view taken of his character. One point, however: many readers do not
seem to notice that the original question of dying or not is never in
the play left to Admetus at all, but is settled by Apollo on his own
responsibility. Cp. Eur. _Alc._ 11 _seqq._, 32 _seqq._
[183] Cp. Eur. _Alc._ 10, etc.
[184] Cp. the lengthy comments on the play in Lucian, _Amores_ 47, vol.
ii. p. 450.
[185] On this point cp. above, p. 48.
[186] An exception to this general rule is, perhaps, Theocritus; whether,
or how far, this was due to the influence of Aratus is an interesting
question, but one for the discussion of which the evidence has yet to be
collected.
[187] _Fr._ 125.
[188] And the interval is in reality even longer, for but little of the
later work of Aristophanes has survived.
[189] For an examination of the fragments of the Middle Comedy, _vide_
Excursus F.
[190] It may not be out of place to emphasise here once more the
difference that exists between regarding women as an object of interest
or importance, and regarding them as an object of love; for the two
have been confused by many, not only in estimating the influence of
Euripides (cp. _supra_, pp. 40, 50), but also in considering the events
of the earlier part of the fourth century. Thus many have pointed to the
agitation in favour of “women’s rights” satirised in the _Ecclesiazusae_,
or to the great social importance of the Hetaerae (as illustrated in the
Middle Comedy, &c.), or to the generally ameliorated condition of women
of every class, as proofs of the existence at this period already of the
romantic feeling. But to those who care to consider the matter clearly,
it must be apparent that all these things are really beside the question.
The improved state of women and their increasing power may have helped,
and doubtless did help, to spread the romantic feeling when once it had
originated; but they were in the first instance entirely independent
of it. One does not _ipso facto_ feel a romantic attachment for people
because one is compelled to recognise them socially, while in these
days of extended franchises it is surely not necessary to repeat that
political recognition is not the same as love.
[191] Cp. Quint. x. 1, 53; _Anth. Pal._ vii. 409, &c.; vide Dübner, _Asii
&c. Frag._ p. 28 _seqq._ (at the end of Didot’s _Hesiod_).
If the epigram attributed to Antimachus in _Anth. Pal._ ix. 321, be
really his, he must further be regarded as one of the originators of the
Dedicatory Epigram. Cp. Reitzenstein, _Epig. u. Skol._ p. 131.
[192] For a full account of it, vide Bach, _Philetas, &c._, Epimetrum
iii. (p. 240); Dübner, _op. cit._ p. 40.
[193]
Λύδης δ’ Ἀντίμαχος Λυσηΐδος ἐκ μὲν ἐρωτος
πληγεὶς Πακτωλοῦ ῥεῦμ’ ἐπέβη ποταμοῦ.
Σαρδιανὴν δὲ θανοῦσαν ὑπὸ ξηρὴν θέτο γαῖαν,
Τμώλιον αἴζαον δ’ ἦλθεν ἀποπρολιπὼν
ἄκρην ἐς Κολοφῶνα, γόων δ’ ἐνεπλήσατο βίβλους
ἱράς, ἐκ παντὸς παυσάμενος καμάτου.
(Hermesianax, iii. 41.)
Ἀντίμαχος ὁ ποιητὴς, ἀποθανούσης τῆς γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ Λύδης,
πρὸς ἢν φιλοστόργως εἶχε, παραμύθιον τῆς λύπης αὑτῷ ἐποίησε
τὴν ἐλέγειαν τὴν καλουμένην Λύδην, ἐξαριθμησάμενος τὰς ἡρωϊκὰς
συμφορὰς, τοῖς ἀλλοτρίοις κακοῖς ἐλάττω τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ποιῶν λύπην.
(Plut. _Cons. ad Apoll._ p. 106 B.)
The very important detail that he _married_ her is confirmed by the
passage in Athen. xiii. 597A, where the Lyde of Antimachus is expressly
contrasted with τὴν ὁμώνυμον ταύτης ἑταῖραν Λύδην.
Cp. too Ovid, _Trist._ i. 6, 1:
nec tantum Clario Lyde dilecta poetae,
nec tantum Coo Battis amata suo est,
pectoribus quantum tu nostris, uxor, inhaeres.
[194] This respect for marriage (if one extends the idea of marriage
sufficiently to cover every form of union which is faithfully
observed—whether actually legalised by some particular ceremony or not,
is, in this connection, not very material) will, I think, be found
underlying the whole Greek conception of romance. This is, of course,
diametrically opposed to the view of the mediaeval barbarians, who held
that the one woman in the world one could not love was one’s wife.
Whether Lyde or Isolde be the higher ideal is, perhaps, a matter of
taste; _magno se iudice quaeque tuetur_. That I personally prefer the
Greek to the barbarian is perhaps due to prejudice, but it is prejudice
for which I am very grateful.
A further illustration may be found in the Latin elegiac poets.
Propertius, the “Roman Callimachus,” who is always calling attention to
the Greek sources of his inspiration, addresses all his love-poems to
the Hetaera Cynthia, to whom he remained faithful to the end. Ovid only
invokes the Greeks (Antimachus in _Trist._ i. 6, 1; Philetas in _Trist._
i. 6, 2, _Pont._ iii. 1, 58) when addressing his wife. Tibullus and
Catullus, the poets of adultery, never acknowledge in their love-poems
their Greek predecessors, and Catullus even goes out of his way to abuse
one of them.
[195] The _Cleitophon and Leucippe_ of Achilles Tatius is, of course,
an exception (the only extant one) to this rule, but then this late and
curious work differs in other respects also from the typical Greek novel.
[196] It is most interesting to note how that, while in the earlier
comedy marriage is the one great subject of ridicule, in the new comedy
marriage is the hero’s one great ambition.
[197]
Ναννοῦς καὶ Λύθης ἐπίχει, δύο καὶ φιλεράστου
Μιμνέρμου καὶ τοῦ σώφρονος Ἀντιμάχου.
_Anth. Pal._ xii. 168.
For φιλεράστου Cod. Vat. gives φερεκάστου, which might also, perhaps, be
retained in this sense.
[198] _De Compos. Verb._ p. 300. He is here, of course, speaking
primarily of the literary style; but literary style is in most cases more
or less a reflection of literary treatment.
The severe style of Antimachus’ _Thebaid_ is well known. (Vide Quint, x.
1, 53; _Anth. Pal._ vii. 409, 4.)
[199] Ἀντιμάχου τοῦ Κολοφωνίου καὶ Νικηράτου τινὸς Ἡρακλεώτου ποιήμασι
Λυσάνδρια διαγωνισαμένων ἐπ’ αὐτῷ (sc. Λυσάνδρῳ) τὸν Νικήρατον
ἐστεφάνωσεν· ὁ δὲ Ἀντίμαχος ἀχθεσθεὶς ἠφάνισε τὸ ποίημα. Πλάτων δὲ νέος
ὢν τότε καὶ θαυμάζων τὸν Ἀντίμαχον ἐπὶ τῇ ποιητικῇ, βαρέως φέροντα τὴν
ἧτταν ἀνελάμβανεν καὶ παρεμυθεῖτο, τοῖς ἀγνοοῦσι κακὸν εἶναι φάμενος τὴν
ἄγνοιαν, ὡς τὴν τυφλότητα τοῖς μὴ βλέπουσιν.—Plut. _Lysand._ 18.
Nec enim posset idem Demosthenes dicere, quod dixisse Antimachum, Clarium
poetam, ferunt; qui cum, convocatis auditoribus, legeret eis magnum
illud quod novistis volumen suum, et eum legentem omnes praeter Platonem
reliquissent, Legam, inquit, nihilominus; Plato enim mihi unus instar est
omnium milium.—Cic. _Brutus_, 51, 191.
Ἡρακλείδης γοῦν ὁ Ποντικός φησιν ὅτι τῶν Χοιρίλου τότε
εὐδοκιμούντων Πλάτων τὰ Ἀντιμάχου προὐτίμησεν, καὶ αὐτὸν ἔπεισε
τὸν Ἡρακλείδην ἐς Κολοφῶνα ἐλθόντα τὰ ποίηματα συλλέξαι τοῦ
ἀνδρός.—Proclus, _Comm. in Plat. Tim._ i. p. 28.
Whether these anecdotes are actually true or not does not much matter.
That the friendship between Antimachus and Plato was a well-known fact
would be sufficiently proved by their invention; but there is nothing
really contradictory or improbable in them, as some have asserted. In the
story from Plutarch there is no need to suppose that Plato was actually
present at Samos; he may very well have met Antimachus afterwards
elsewhere. The evidence of Proclus again merely says that Plato, in
opposition to the prevailing opinion of his time, preferred Antimachus to
Choerilus, and that he sent Heracleides to Colophon to make a collection
of the works of the former, evidently after his death. It is consequently
quite possible to reconcile all three narratives. Antimachus was defeated
by Niceratus at the Lysandria, an event which, owing to his celebrity at
the time (404 B.C.), naturally excited remark. Subsequently he met Plato,
who, when the conversation turned on his defeat, complimented him in the
way described—a compliment which Antimachus returned on another occasion
(that alluded to by Cicero). Lastly, after Antimachus’ death, Plato
caused a collection of his works to be made. Where Plato met Antimachus
is not quite clear, but the ascription to the former of the epigram in
Athen. xiii. 589 C (_Anth. Pal._ vii. 217) would almost seem to imply
that there was, at any rate, a tradition that Plato visited Colophon.
If that was actually the case, he would naturally have come across
Antimachus there.
[200] _Anth. Pal._ xii. 168.
[201] Cp. p. 70.
[202] _I.e._ Peloponnesian War, 431-403; Lacedaemonian and Theban
Supremacy, 405-336; Macedonian Age, 336 onwards.
[203] Of the sense in which the unfortunate word “romantic” has to be
understood we have already spoken elsewhere. [p. 2.]
[204] It may be remarked in passing that this ideal character of the
“New” Comedy is not, as a rule, sufficiently recognised. People speak as
if they thought that the stories in Menander, for instance, represented
the ordinary events of life at Athens at the end of the fourth century.
It need hardly, perhaps, be remarked that it would be about as reasonable
to endeavour to get an idea of the ordinary life of English people at the
present day by studying an Adelphi melodrama. As long as comedy at Athens
confined itself to social satire, it is obvious that the social scenes
it depicted must have been, even if somewhat burlesqued, yet, on the
whole, true to life. When once it had abandoned this object, and began
to aim at telling an exciting story, calculated to interest its audience
in proportion to the strangeness and novelty of its _dénouement_, it is
equally obvious that it must very soon have been compelled to abandon the
ordinary affairs of everyday life. In taking over the business of the
Epic, Comedy took with it the license of that form of composition and of
its offspring, Tragedy. While no one will deny that incidents like those
described by Menander may have occasionally taken place at Athens in the
fourth century, just as some of them might conceivably take place in
England at the present day, there can be hardly any real doubt that the
stories of romantic comedy were as little true to the ordinary life of
the time they professed to depict, as, say, the novel of Xenophon was to
the ordinary life of the Roman provinces under the Antonines.
[205] It is true, of course, that the “New” Comedy took over from its
predecessor certain characters (_e.g._ the parasite or the cook) and
certain other features, practically unchanged; but all this was confined
to minor points of detail, and any similarity between the two forms
of art which such transference of ready-made _specialités_ may cause
is a purely superficial one. The main subject of romantic comedy, and
the treatment there of that main subject, are entirely distinct from
everything that had gone before.
[206] Thus the Megarian Comedy dates from the expulsion of Theagenes
(Arist. _Poet._ iii. 5), while the Athenian reappears, after a silence of
some 70 years, on the expulsion of Hippias.
[207] The titles of the plays attributed to Chionides do not in
themselves contradict this view. The _Heroes_ describes life as it would
be in a state engaged in war, but there is no reason to believe that the
play discussed any real phase of any contemporary war. The _Persae_,
too, to judge by its second title of _Assyrii_, was devoted rather to
ridiculing Persian customs than to dealing with the Persian War. In like
manner the _Lydi_ of Magnes introduced the Lydian dances to Athens (cp.
Hesych. λυδίζων, χορεύων, διὰ τοὺς Αυδούς _sc._ Μάγνητος), while the
_Barbatistae_ appears to have been equally aimed at the aesthetic tastes
of some part of the community. Titles again, like _Ornithes_, _Batrachi_,
and _Psenes_, give no suggestion of political motives, any more than does
the _Satyri_ of Ecphantides.
[208] τῷ χαρίεντι τῆς κωμῳδίας τὸ ὠφέλιμον προσέθηκε τοὺς κακῶς
πράττοντας διαβάλλων καὶ ὥσπερ δημοσίᾳ μάστιγι τῇ κωμῳδίᾳ μαστίζων (Anon.
_de Com._ p. 32). οὐ γὰρ ὥσπερ ὁ Ἀριστοφάνης ἐπιτρέχειν τὲν χάριν τοῖς
σκώμμασι ποιεῖ ... ἀλλ’ ἁπλῶς καὶ κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν γυμνῇ κεφαλῇ τίθησι
τὰς βλασφημίας κατὰ τῶν ἁμαρτανόντων (Platon. _de Com._ p. 27).
[209] τοιοῦτος οὖν ἐστὶν ὁ τῆς μέσης κωμῳδίας τύπος, οἷός ἐστιν ... οἱ
Ὀδυσσεῖς Κρατίνου (Platon. _de Com._ p. 34). οἱ γοῦν Ὀδυσσεῖς Κρατίνου
οὐδενὸς ἐπιτίμησιν ἔχουσι, διασυρμὸν δὲ τῆς Ὀδυσσείας Ὁμήρου (_ibid._ p.
35).
The elaborate details as to cookery in the fragments of this play are
also very suggestive of one of the features of “Middle” Comedy.
[210] It is further to be observed that, though Cratinus nearly always
indulges in personal abuse, this abuse is by no means necessarily
directed against _political_ characters. Any person, whatever his
capacity, who was sufficiently well known to be recognised by the
Athenian audience, was liable to be the butt of his scurrility.
[211] Arist. _Poet._ v. 5. As Meineke (_Com. Fr._ i. 59) well expresses
it: “Cratetem primum apud Athenienses exstitisse qui Epicharmi exemplo
comicae poeseos materiam a singulorum hominum irrisione ad generales
morum notationes rerumque descriptiones traduceret.” Crates thus differs
from Cratinus in that his plays were not political, while he differs
from the earlier comedians in that he avoided personalities and treated
of general subjects, and this is the meaning of the word πρῶτος in
Aristotle, _l.c._
[212] ἐζήλωκε Κράτητα. Anon. _de Com._ p. 29.
[213] The law of Morychis, during the operation of which this play, like
the _Odysses_ of Cratinus and various others, seems to have been brought
out, is interesting as an early instance of the influence of political
events upon the development of early Athenian comedy, an influence
entirely absent in the case of the romantic comedy.
[214] Thus the final disappearance of the _parabasis_, though an
important enough event for the history of the form of Comedy, is but an
incident in the real development of the art. This is shown by the fact
that, when, under the law of Morychis, the _parabasis_ was temporarily
suspended, the result was the immediate appearance, at this date already,
of plays which belong, in spirit, entirely to “Middle” Comedy.
[215] This means the school of Cratinus, when unrestricted by
legislation, and allowed to take its own course. Prohibitive legislation
naturally tended to put the two schools of comedy on much the same
footing.
[216] The few exceptions will be considered presently. [p. 127.]
[217] [The author contemplated, but does not seem to have written, an
Excursus on “Pericles and Aspasia.”]
[218] In neither of these must it, of course, be supposed that the erotic
element was at all the leading motive. Most of the fragments of the
_Nemesis_ seem to refer to events which must be supposed to have taken
place some time after the erotic incident had been closed, while in the
_Seriphii_ the description of Andromeda as δελέαστρα (_Fr._ 12) is the
only allusion to her preserved. Indeed, it is vain in Cratinus to look
for any leading motive at all, for, as Platonius says of him (_de Com._
p. 27), εὔστοχος ὢν ἐν ταῖς ἐπιβολαῖς τῶν δραμάτων καὶ διασκευαῖς, εἶτα
προϊὼν καὶ διασπῶν τὰς ὑποθέσεις οὐκ ἀκολούθως πληροῖ τὰ δράματα.
[219] The apparent allusion to the Hetaera Myrrhina in Eupolis,
_Autolycus_, _Fr._ 10, is too uncertain to be of any value.
[220] The _Tyrannis_ (another suggestive title) also satirised the
drunkenness of women (cp. the fragment _ap._ Athen. xi. 481 B). It may be
remembered in this connection, that the introduction of drunken persons
on the stage was an invention of his master Crates.
[221]
τὸν ἰδρῶτα καὶ τὴν ἄρδαν ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ σπόγγισον.
The tone of address will surprise no one who remembers the scene between
Diphilus and Gnathaena (_ap._ Athen. xiii. 583 F), and others like it.
[This subject was to have been dealt with further in an Excursus.]
[222]
κἂν μὲν σιωπῶ, δυσφορεῖ καὶ πνίγεται,
καὶ φησι, τί σιωπᾷς; ἐὰν δ’ ἀποκριθῶ,
οἴμοι τάλας, φησίν, χαράδρα κατελήλυθεν.
[223] The precise nature of the differences between these early
“Hetaera-plays” and those generally in vogue at a later date, will be
examined when we come to consider the latter class of composition. [p.
153.]
[224] One can at least gather from _Fr._ 1, 2, 3, that the coming
together of the women was made the occasion of a series of jokes at
their expense, something after the manner of Mnesilochus and the baby in
Thesmoph. 689 _seqq._
[225] This seems to have been one of the main motives of the _Lemniae_;
at any rate, the nature of Aeschylus’ play on the same subject would
have afforded an excellent opportunity of the kind—Αἰσχύλος δ’ ἐν
Ὑψιπύλῃ ἐν ὅπλοις φησὶν αὐτὰς [τὰς Λημνίας] ἐπελθούσας χειμαζομένοις
[τοῖς Ἀργοναύταις] ἀπείργειν, μέχρι λαβεῖν ὅρκον παρ’ αὐτῶν ἀποβάντας
μιγήσεσθαι αὐταῖς. Schol. _ad Apoll. Rhod._ I. 773.
[226]
ἰδού, δίδωμι τήνδ’ ἐγὼ γυναῖκά σοι
Φαίδραν· ἐπὶ πῦρ δὲ πῦρ ἔοιχ’ ἥξειν ἄγων.
(_Polyid._ _Fr._ 2.)
[227] Cp. _Geras_, _Fr._ 5, 6, 7.
[228] Cp. _e.g._ the remarks of Phocion to his son: ἐμοῦ μέν, ὦ παῖ, τὴν
σὴν μητέρα γαμοῦντος οὐδ’ ὁ γείτων ᾔσθετο. Plutarch. _Phoc._ 30.
[229] _Vide e.g._ _Nubes_, 973 _seqq._, 1002 _seqq._
[230] Cp. the speech of Mnesilochus, _Thesmoph._ 466 _seqq._, the spirit
of which, all allowance for comic exaggeration being made, cannot be
mistaken.
[231] _Vide_ _Thesmoph._ 383 _seqq._ The subject and style of the
_Daedalus_ were equally uncomplimentary. Cp. _Fr._ 3.
[232] κωμῳδεῖται δὲ (ὀ Ἀριστοφάνης) ὅτι καὶ τὸ τῆς Εἰρήνης κολοσσικὸν
ἐξῆρεν ἄγαλμα, Εὔπολις Αὐτολύκῳ, Πλάτων Νίκαις. Schol. _Plat. Apol._ p.
331.
[233] It is worth noticing that, while a man who seduced an Athenian
citizen seems to have been legally bound to marry her, and therefore, to
a certain extent, there was no great virtue in his action if he did so,
at the same time this legal necessity was never, so far as we know, in
any way urged in any play of the New Comedy. The point will be more fully
discussed when we come to this part of our subject. [See p. 169.]
[234] Minos, quod Daedali opera multa sibi incommoda acciderunt, in
Siciliam est eum persecutus petiitque a rege Cocalo ut sibi redderetur.
cui cum Cocalus promisisset et Daedalus rescisset, ab regis filiabus
auxilium petiit. illae Minoem occiderunt. Hygin. _Fab._ 44.