καὶ πυθόμενος τὴν Δαιδάλου φυγὴν εἰς Σικελίαν, ἔγνω στρατεύειν ἐπ’
αὐτήν ... ὁ δὲ Κώκαλος, εἰς σύλλογον προσκαλεσάμενος καὶ πάντα ποιήσειν
ἐπαγγειλάμενος, ἐπὶ τὰ ξένια παρέλαβε τὸν Μίνω. λουομένου δ’ αὐτοῦ,
Κώκαλος μὲν παρακατασχὼν πλείονα χρόνον ἐν τῷ θερμῷ τὸν Μίνωα διέφθειρε,
καὶ τὸ σῶμα ἀπέδωκε τοῖς Κρησί, πρόφασιν ἐνεγκὼν τοῦ θανάτου διότι κατὰ
τὸν λουτρῶνα ὠλίσθηκε καὶ πεσὼν εἰς τὸ θερμὸν ὕδωρ ἐτελεύτησε. (Diodorus,
iv. 79.)
The story is told somewhat differently in Zenobius iv. 92. There Minos,
in order to discover Daedalus, goes about the world offering large
rewards to anyone who can run a linen thread through a spiral shell,
being convinced that no one but Daedalus would be able to do such a
thing. When he comes to Sicily, Cocalus, in order to gain the reward,
gives the shell to Daedalus, who bores a hole at the end, ties the linen
thread to an ant, and so does what is required. λαβὼν δὲ ὁ Μίνως τὸν
λίνον διειρμένον ᾔσθετο εἶναι παρ’ ἐκείνῳ τὸν Δαίδαλον καὶ εὐθέως ἀπῄτει.
Κώκαλος δὲ, ὑποσχόμενος δώσειν, ἐξένισεν αὐτόν. ὁ δὲ λουόμενος ὑπὸ τῶν
Κωκάλου θυγατέρων ἀνῃρέθη ζέουσαν πίσσαν ἐπιχεαμένων αὐτῷ.—This is the
version of the story followed by Sophocles in the _Camici_. (Cp. _Fr._
301, 302.)
It is worth noticing that Daedalus, according to Diodorus, iv. 78, made
a cave at Selinus, in which patients were treated by being subjected
to a gradually-increasing temperature. (τρίτον δὲ σπήλαιον κατὰ τὴν
Σελινουντίαν χώραν κατεσκεύασεν, ἐν ᾧ τὴν ἀτμίδα τοῦ κατ’ αὐτὴν πυρὸς
οὕτως εὐστόχως ἐξέλαβεν ὥστε διὰ τὴν μαλακότητα τῆς θερμασίας ἐξιδροῦν
λεληθότως, καὶ κατὰ μικρὸν τοὺς ἐνδιατρίβοντας μετὰ τέρψεως θεραπεύειν τὰ
σώματα, μηδὲν παρενοχλουμένους ὑπὸ τῆς θερμότητος.) It is, perhaps, not
impossible that Aristophanes may have described Minos’ death as occurring
in this cave.
[235] By the word “plot” as here used, must of course be understood
merely the erotic incident. That the action was not confined to one
subject of this kind is obvious to every reader of Aristophanes.
Whatever may have been the treatment of the erotic element, there can be
practically no doubt that this element was only one, perhaps not the most
important one, among the many that went to make up the play.
[236] _Fr._ 4 seems to suggest that there may have been a regular trial
instituted, as in the _Vespae_ (cp. _Vesp._ 807 _seqq._ with _Cocal._
_Fr._ 12), at which Daedalus was accused of complicity in the murder,
and his services to Cocalus as a builder (_Fr._ 5; cp. Diodorus, iv. 78)
urged on his behalf. This trial may well have had features in common with
the last scene in Euripides’ _Andromeda_.
[237] The fact that this play led to the abandonment of certain nocturnal
orgies is, of course, no proof that such habits altogether ceased, even
for a time; indeed, it is notorious that they did not.
[238] Even if it could be proved that the play ended with a wedding—such
endings are, as we have seen, not uncommon in Aristophanes—and that this
is what the grammarian means by his τἄλλα πάντα ἃ ἐζήλωσε Μένανδρος,
this would not, in itself, be enough to make the play a romantic one
after the manner of the later works. The marriage would have to be _an
act of reparation inspired by love_, and it need hardly be remarked how
utterly foreign any such feeling would be to the work of Aristophanes.
Such a difference in spirit and motive, however, important and obvious
as it seems to us, may very well have escaped the ancient critics,
whose criticism of art was well-nigh exclusively concerned with its
external and superficial qualities. Hence, if by any chance Aristophanes’
characters were despatched off the stage to the sounds of a wedding
march, it is easy to see how clear a proof this would have seemed to them
that the _Cocalus_ belonged to the same phase of art as the plays of
Menander, when, in reality, it did nothing of the kind.
[239] Cp. _infra_, p. 189 _seqq._
[240] Thus, to quote one instance among many, the habit, common among the
writers of the Empire, of describing Vergil as not only a supreme, but
also a universal, genius, is sufficiently familiar. (Cp. Mart. viii. 18,
&c.)
[241] τὸν μέντοι Κώκαλον, τὸν ποιηθέντα Ἀραρότι τῷ Ἀριστοφάνονς υἱεῖ,
Φιλήμων ὁ κωμικὸς ὑπαλλάξας ἐν Ὑποβολιμαίῳ ἐκωμῴδησεν. (Clem. Alex.
_Strom._ vi. p. 267 [628].)
[242] ἐπεπόλαζε γὰρ τότε ταῦτα, Ἡρακλῆς πεινῶν, καὶ Διόνυσος δειλός, καὶ
μοιχὸς Ζεύς. Schol. _ad Aristoph. Pac._ 740. The _Zeus Cac._ of Plato is
said to have borne a close resemblance to the _Daedalus_ of Aristophanes,
which certainly contained matter of this kind. Cp. Aristoph. _Daed._
_Fr._ 3.
[243] It is interesting to observe the absence, as far as one can judge,
of any reference to Sappho, the favourite butt of a somewhat later school
of comedians. Could the fact of this absence be conclusively proved, it
would afford valuable evidence for determining the date of the origin
of the Phaon and Sappho legend. The earliest reference to it at present
known is, perhaps, that in the _Leucadia_ of Menander.
[244] We may further observe the mention of Lais in _Fr._ 10 of this play.
[245] Cp. Ovid, _Met._ X. 686 _seqq._ The incident might be utilised in
various ways.
[246] Cp. Alciphron i. 39, 7. καταπαννυχίσασαι δ’ οὖν καὶ τοὺς ἐραστὰς
κακῶς εἰποῦσαι ... ᾠχόμεθα ἔξοινοι.
[247] _Vide_ Athen. xi. 470 F. σπινθήρ in l. 8 seems not to be the
proper-name of a slave, but may simply be translated “spark.” The
expression is as natural in Greek as in English, even if no other
instance of this exact usage occurs.
[248] The “Hedychares” of the title seems to be Plato, so that it is
rather tempting to imagine a scene something like the following. The
hero, after dilating sufficiently on the virtues of “Platonic” love, is
eventually discovered by one of the other characters, in company with a
woman under circumstances which suggest the propriety of their getting
married immediately—a fact which induces the intruder to exclaim:
φέρε σὺ τὰ καταχύσματα κ.τ.λ. (_Fr._ 3.)
The late date of this play (cp. _Fr._ 4) makes a plot of this kind by no
means impossible, but, of course, _hariolandi est infinita libertas_.
[249] Great care must be taken not to misunderstand the causes of this
prominence of the Hetaera in Middle Comedy. The fall of Athens, and
the events immediately preceding it, resulted in a revolution of the
Athenian social system, which was even more momentous than the political
overthrow. From this time onwards, the individual appears at Athens as
opposed to the state, in a manner that would not have been possible under
the earlier _régime_. Hence in the Middle Comedy, which is perhaps the
earliest individualistic poetry which Athens produced, ordinary habits
and private life come to be treated with an interest and a realism which
had never previously been attempted, and, as a consequence of this, the
Hetaerae come to the fore in literature. This fact does not, therefore,
imply that the position of these women in the thoughts of men was any
higher than had previously been the case, or that there was a growing
idea among the people that love for women was a worthy subject for
artistic study and representation. It simply means, as will be abundantly
clear later on, that the Hetaera was an important feature in private
life, and that, therefore, when private life came to be represented on
the stage, she was bound to appear there also, just in the same way and
for the same reasons as the cook and the fishmonger, who are also such
features of this literature.
[250] With the other distinctive features of Middle Comedy, though
occasional reference may be made to them, we have less to do. It may
not however be amiss, in passing, just to notice the spirit of the age,
which, while it required personal attacks on men to be more or less
veiled, allowed personal attacks of the fiercest description to be made
on women openly by name. A remarkable instance of this is the _Antilais_
of Epicrates, but it is far from being the only one. As for those Middle
Comedies which are called after public men (_e.g._ the _Theramenes_ of
Cratinus junior), it would be easy to believe that these were all, as
some of them certainly were, composed after the deaths of the persons
whose names they bear, and that these names were simply used as types, in
the way that Juvenal speaks of Tigellinus, &c.
[251] With regard to what we have described as the second feature of
Middle Comedy, it may perhaps just be remarked that this constant habit
of parodying and ridiculing love-stories would inevitably tend, in
some sort, to bring the whole matter of love into contempt. And that
the feelings of contempt so produced, and the similar feelings which
originated them, would act and react on one another till both became even
more accentuated, was equally inevitable. Nor must it be forgotten that
the influence of tragedy, which might otherwise have served to counteract
this tendency, was much less than it had been at an earlier period, for
the revivals and imitations of Euripides, which held the tragic stage
throughout the century, popular though some of them may have been,
belonged in spirit to the previous generation, and were thus to a certain
extent out of touch with contemporary feeling.
[252] Many plays of this class are called after real or imaginary
Hetaerae, such as the _Chrysis_ of Antiphanes, &c., &c., but these are,
of course, not the only ones that deal with the subject.
[253] Ἀντιφάνης ὁ κωμῳδοποιὸς ὡς ἀνεγίνωσκέ τινα τῷ βασιλεῖ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ τῶν
ἑαυτοῦ κωμῳδιῶν, ὁ δὲ δῆλος ἦν οὐ πάνυ τι ἀποδεχόμενος· δεῖ γάρ, ἔφησεν,
ὦ βασιλεῦ, τὸν ταῦτα ἀποδεχόμενον ἀπὸ συμβόλων τε πολλάκις δεδειπνηκέναι
καὶ περὶ ἑταίρας πλεονάκις καὶ εἰληφέναι καὶ δεδωκέναι πληγάς. (Athen.
xiii. 555A.)
[254] [_Supra_, p. 128.]
[255] No one who is familiar with the Middle Comedy is likely to wish
to maintain that the words παρθένων φθοράς imply that the plays of
Anaxandrides were similar in character to such plays as the _Andria_ or
the _Adelphi_ of Menander. The exact nature of the παρθένων ἔρωτες of the
Middle Comedy, which form, in fact, an infinitesimal part of the erotic
element in that literature, will be fully discussed lower down. [pp. 159,
213.]
[256] Curious in this connection is the fact that, while the _Captivi_ of
Plautus is the only extant play derived from Anaxandrides, it is, at the
same time, the only extant play of Latin Comedy which is not concerned
with erotic subjects.
[257] That τραγήματα was merely a polite word for drinking, seems clear
from Alexis, _Polycleia_:—
ὁ πρῶτος εὑρὼν κομψὸς ἦν τραγήματα·
τοῦ συμποσίου γὰρ διατριβὴν ἔξευρέ πως
κἀργοὺς ἔχειν μηδέποτε τὰς σιαγόνας.
[258] σῦκα, are doubtless used here in the same sense as “mariscae” in
Iuv. ii. 13, or “ficus” in Mart. vii. 71.
[259] Or, perhaps, the νεανίσκος tries the effect of the θηρίκλεια on the
girl herself (cp. the epigram of Hedylus, _Anth. Pal._ v. 199); _sed haec
omnia incerta_. In any case, the scene seems somewhat to suggest that in
Petr. 85 _seqq._
[260]
ὅστις λέχη γὰρ σκότια νυμφεύει λάθρᾳ,
πῶς οὐχὶ πάντων ἐστὶν ἀθλιώτατος;
ἐξὸν θεωρήσαντι πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον,
γυμνὰς ἐφεξῆς ἐπὶ κέρως τεταγμένας,
ἐν λεπτοπήνοις ὕφεσιν ἑστώσας, οἵας
Ἠριδανὸς ἁγνοῖς ὕδασι κηπεύει κόρας,
μικροῦ πρίασθαι κέρματος τὴν ἡδονήν,
καὶ μὴ λαθραίαν κύπριν, αἰσχίστην νόσων
πασῶν, διώκειν, ὕβρεος οὐ πόθου χάριν.
[261] The one or two apparent exceptions to this rule, such as those in
the _Marathonii_ of Timocles or the _Philaulus_ of Theophilus, are in
reality no exceptions at all. This will be clear enough if we consider
what is meant in these passages by a κόρη, and do not confuse the
sentiment there expressed with a sentiment which does not occur till a
later period. The κόρη in question (a κιθαρίστρια in the _Philaulus_) is
merely an Hetaera _in posse_ instead of _in esse_, an Hetaera who has not
yet entered into regular business, and herein consists her superiority
from the point of view of those who do not share Diogenes’ view as to the
parallel between women and houses. That her attractions do not differ in
kind from those of the regular Hetaera will be plain enough to anyone who
takes the trouble to turn to the passage in the _Marathonii_, and that
the character of the “love” she inspires is also similar will be equally
apparent from the same lines. That this was the character of the παρθένων
ἔρωτες with which, according to Suidas, Anaxandrides dealt, seems beyond
question.
[262] Alexis himself says this, in almost as many words, in the passage
quoted below, p. 163.
[263] _Supra_, p. 85.
[264] The “Platonic” nature of Theseus’ admiration for the undeveloped
charms of Helen is a well-known feature of the legend. A comparison with
Aristoph. _Thesmoph. B_, _Fr._ 26, seems to suggest a further reason why
Theseus should have been introduced as a mock “Platonic” lover. Cp. Phot.
s.v. κυσολάκων. τὸ δὲ τοῖς παιδικοῖς χρῆσθαι λακωνίζειν ἔλεγον. Ἑλένῃ (so
Ruhnken for Μελαίνῃ) γὰρ Θησεὺς οὕτως ἐχρήσατο.
[265] In this connection we may remark that the tendency of the
mythological stories commonly parodied by Middle Comedy was also almost
entirely in this direction. The Ζεὺς μοιχός with whom the Athenian
audience of the day was so familiar, was hardly the type of character
to inspire respect for married life. How different was the New Comedy
treatment of the adulterer, we shall see further on.
[266] Another phase of the Middle Comedy treatment of women, the
discussion of which here would lead us too far away from our immediate
subject, will be considered in Excursus I.
[267] That the ψενδοκόρη, as the Athenian stage-managers rather quaintly
called her—a class of character sufficiently common, it must be
admitted—differs _toto caelo_ from the regular Hetaera, is almost too
obvious to need mention.
[268] _Supra_, p. 109.
[269] Of the _Casina_, which would appear at first sight to belong to
this class, we shall speak in another place. [The Excursus, dealing with
this subject, seems not to have been written; comp. Excursus K.]
[270] It is hard for us, in our generation, to realise what the first
dawn of pure love for women must have meant to the men who saw it. It
needs a conscious effort of will to clean away from one’s eyes and one’s
heart the dust of the centuries, and to look back clearly; but if once
the effort be successfully made, it is no longer hard to understand why,
at the end of the fourth century, the pure girl was a more inspiring
ideal than “the woman with a past,” and why the παρθένος; could stir
depths of passion that the ἑταίρα had left untouched.
[271] These last lines are very suggestive of Theocr. viii. 53. It is
worth noticing that in this play (v. 2, 72) the girl is specially asked
whether she is willing to marry.
[272]
“patrue mi, ita me di amabunt ut, ego si sim Iuppiter,
iam hercle ego illanc uxorem ducam, et Iunonem extrudam foras!” etc.
[273] Probably by Menander. At any rate, _Cistell._ i. 1, 90 _seqq._ is a
translation of Menand. _Incert._ 32.
[274]
“Glycerium vitiat Pamphilus,
_gravidaque facta_ dat fidem, uxorem sibi
fore hanc,” etc.
[275] _e.g._ Ter. _And._ i. 5, 36 _seqq._, iv. 2, 11 _seqq._
[276] In the _Adelphi_ of Menander, this feature was, in all probability,
even more prominent than it is in Terence’s contaminated version.
[277] Ter. _Adelph._ iii. 2, 34 _seqq._; cp. iii. 4, 23 _seqq._
[278] Plaut. _Aulul._ iv. 10.
[279] Cp. Ter. _Eun._ iv. 4, 26.
[280] Ter. _Adelph._ iv. 5, 62 _seqq._
[281] Cp. Plaut. _Aulul._ iv. 7 and 10; the conclusion of the play, in
which the marriage of the hero was finally settled, is lost.
[282] Ter. _And._ iv. 2, 14.
[283] Here, too, there can be little doubt that in the original (the
_Philadelphi_ of Menander), this erotic element was more prominent than
it is in the Latin.
[284] Cp. Plaut. _Trin._ v. 1, 1 _seqq._; 2, 64.
[285] Some further interesting evidence on this subject will be discussed
later. [Cp. p. 189; but the reference seems to be to a part of the work
which was not written.]
[286] In Tragedy, of course, the faithful and loving wife was not so
entirely unknown. The Athenian might accept an Alcestis, who lived in
prehistoric and heroic times, though even here his natural tendency was
to jeer (cp. Aristoph. _Equit._ 1251); but, imagine such a character
in Comedy, which was taken from real contemporary life? The idea was
preposterous.
[287] It is of course obvious that characters such as Clitipho in the
_Heauton Timorumenus_, or Lesbonicus in the _Trinummus_, do not regard
matrimony with much enthusiasm, but, in all these cases, the reasons for
their objection are so apparent that no one would consider them as real
exceptions to the general rule that the _young man_ of the New Comedy
looks on marriage with favour.
[288] And here one may remark at once that the incontinence of women,
which is one of the favourite subjects both of Aristophanes and of
Euripides, is nowhere emphasised in New Comedy.
[289] Cp. _Fr._ 10.
[290] Cp. Ter. _Eun._ v. 4, 21 _seqq._
[291] Ter. _And._ ii. 1, 15 and 25. [The author is assuming that the
words “quam vellem!” in the latter passage, are spoken by Charinus, not
by Pamphilus: the editors differ on this point.] This curious passage
furnishes a further instance, if further instances be needed, of the fact
that what the Greek required of a woman for a love-match was not so much
physical purity as constancy to a particular lover. Hence we find that
by far the greater mass of Greek romantic love-poetry is addressed, not
to virgins, but to women to whom the writer is, in one way or another,
married. Thus, too, in the romance of Xenophon Ephesius, the adventures
of the lovers all take place after marriage (the wedding occurs already
in chapter viii of book I.), and in this the _Ephesiaca_ are at least as
Greek as, if not more so than the _Pastoralia_ of Longus, or the novel
of Eumathius, where the most ridiculous and desperate expedients have to
be resorted to in order that the heroine may preserve her virginity till
the end of the last chapter. But this whole matter will be more fully
discussed when we come to consider the Callimachean ideal of woman. [The
reference is to a part of the work which was not completed.]
[292] Ter. _Hec._ v. 1, 24 _seqq._; cp. i. 2, 82.
[293] The _Casina_ (of Diphilus) and the _Orge_ of Menander seem equally
emphatic on the point, but as both these plays belong, strictly speaking,
to Middle Comedy, which had other and less romantic reasons for decrying
adultery, they need not be further noticed here.
[294] Cp. Ter. _Heaut. Tim._ ii. 4, 1 _seqq._
edepol te, mea Antiphila, laudo et fortunatam iudico,
id cum studuisti, isti formae ut mores consimiles forent, etc.
words which raise strange memories of a well-known passage in the _Dame
aux Camélias_.
[295] Cp. _inter alia_, v. 1, 30; 3, 35.
[296] ἐμοὶ μὲν οὖν ἄειδε τοιαύτην, θεά, κ.τ.λ.
[297] “haec. (_sc._ Thais Menandri) primum iuvenum lascivos lusit
amores;” where _lusit_ must almost certainly mean “parodied” or
“ridiculed,” and _lascivos amores_ “Hetaera-loves” as opposed to the more
orthodox amours of which the New Comedy proper treats.
[298] In any case, however, it is tempting to read in Prop. ii. 6, 3:
turba Menandreae fuerit nec Thaidos olim
tanta in qua _populum_ lusit _Erichthonium_.
[299] _E.g._ Plaut. _Cist._ i. 1, 66.
SL. at mihi cordolium est.
GY. quid id? unde est tibi cordolium, commemora, obsecro,
quod neque ego habeo neque quisquam alia mulier, ut perhibent viri?
[300] _E.g._ Plaut. _Trin._ ii. 1, 15 _seqq._ etc., etc.
[301]
παιδισκάριόν με καταδεδούλωκ’ εὐτελές,
ὃν οὐδὲ εἷς τῶν πολεμίων οὐπώποτε. (_Fr._ 3.)
Cp. Arrian, _Dissert. Epictet._ iv. 1.
[302] Cp. _Fr._ 10, 11.
[303]
παρ’ ἐμοὶ γάρ ἐστιν ἔνδον, ἔξεστιν δέ μοι
καὶ βούλομαι τοῦτ’, οὐ ποιῶ δέ. (_Fr._ 5.)
[304] _Vide_ Arrian, _loc. cit._ where the whole subject of Thrasonides
is discussed.
[305] This is the view taken of the case by Diogenes Laertius (vii. 130),
when he is discussing the Stoic doctrine of love.
εἶναι δὲ τὸν ἔρωτα ἐπιβολὴν φιλοποιΐας διὰ κάλλος ἐμφαινόμενον· καὶ μὴ
εἶναι συνουσίας, ἀλλὰ φιλίας. τὸν γοῦν Θρασωνίδην, καίπερ ἐν ἐξονσίᾳ
ἔχοντα τὴν ἐρωμένην, διὰ τὸ μισεῖσθαι ἀπέχειν αὐτῆς. εἶναι οὖν τὸν ἔρωτα
φιλίας. κ.τ.λ.
[306] One need merely think of Thais, the ideal Hetaera, μηδενὸς ἐρῶσαν.
[307] That this is no mere coincidence is shown by the characters, of
Stratophanes in Menander’s _Sicyonius_, and others, of whom we shall
speak presently. [p. 182.]
[308] Plut. _de Cupid. Div._ 524 F.
[καίτοι πῶς οὐ μανικὸν οὐδὲ οἰκτρὸν τὸ πάθος, εἴ τις ἱματίῳ μὴ χρῆται διὰ
τὸ ῥιγοῦν, μηδὲ ἄρτῳ διὰ τὸ πεινῇν, μηδὲ πλούτῳ διὰ τὸ φιλοπλουτεῖν; ἀλλ’
ἐν τοῖς Θρασωνίδου κακοῖς ἐστίν·
παρ’ ἐμοὶ γάρ ἐστιν ἔνδον, ἔξεστιν δέ μοι,
καὶ βούλομαι τοῦτ’ ...
ὡς οἱ ἐμμανέστατα ἐρῶντες,
... οὐ ποιῶ δε.... κ.τ.λ.]
[309] _Misumenus_, _Fr._ 6.
[310] Cp. Athen. xiii. 603 C, where not only is his continence
emphasised, but also his treatment of his captives as if they were free.
Cp. Menand. _Sicyon._ _Fr._ 3.
[311] Mimnermus, Anacreon, and Antimachus were all, of course, natives of
Greek Asia, where the cult of women seems always, from the earliest times
onwards, to have been more developed than in Greece itself. There is a
certain grim irony in the tradition that would make Anaxandrides, too, a
native of Colophon.
[312] _Vide_ _Fr._ 3.
[313] Plaut. _Epid._ i. 2, 7.
[314] Cp. v. 1, 45, where the lover’s regrets are promptly answered by
the assertion that there is another woman ready who will do just as well
or better:
stultus, tace!
tibi quidem quod ames domi praesto.
[315] That the character of the soldier belonged essentially to _erotic_
comedy is further shown by Plaut. _Capt._ prolog. 57:
hic neque periurus leno nec meretrix mala
neque miles gloriosus.
[316] This doubtless refers to some lines, now lost, which preceded the
passage subsequently quoted.
[317] This is, of course, nothing but a versified version of the doctrine
of the Stoic, Euclides. Cp. Diog. Laert. ii. 108.
[318] MI. etiamne (a me didicisti) ut ames eam, quam nusquam tetigeris?
nihil illuc quidem est.
AG. deos quoque edepol et amo et metuo, quibus tamen abstineo manus. (i.
2, 69.) A remark in v. 4, 49, is similar in spirit.
[319] Plaut. _Curc._ i. 1, 50 _seqq._ Further moralisings on the power
of a kiss (which almost suggest Daphnis in Longus’ _Pastoralia_, i. 18)
occur in Menand. _Incert._ 7.
[320] Ter. _Hec._ i. 2, 60 _seqq._; 85 _seqq._
[321] _e.g._ the “Geta” in Menander’s _Misumenus_, Milphio in the
_Poenulus_ of Plautus, &c.
[322] Such a passage as Alexis, _Incert._ 35, would belong to this
date. It is very different to the ribald remarks in the _Philometor_ of
Antiphanes.
[323] Cp. _supra_, p. 173.
[324] _Ibid._ p. 171.
[325] The “mater indulgens” is mentioned in Apuleius, _Florid._ 16, as
one of the stock characters in Philemon.
[326] Menand. _Incert._ 109, 114, 115, are all equally to the point.
[327] _Vide_ Ter. _Hec._ iv. 2, 1 _seqq._, a passage of great interest.
[328] Some further remarks on the family relations in New Comedy will be
found in Excursus K.
[Frequent reference is made in these pages to Plautus and Terence, as
illustrating the New Comedy. The justification of such reference was to
have been dealt with in an Excursus. The author was of opinion that the
Latin comedians might be cited to illustrate plot and subject, though we
could not be certain that the actual words or expressions in any given
passage were due to Greek originals.]
[329] That there was no romantic element in Greek tragedy has already
been shown at length. [See above, pp. 37-67.]
[330] The claims of Diphilus need not be considered. His leanings towards
Middle Comedy are generally admitted; in his fragments there is no
suggestion of any romantic treatment of women. In fact, the only real
reason for assigning him to New Comedy at all is, perhaps, the story of
the _Rudens_, which, Arcturus states in the Prologue, is derived from
this writer. Of the _Casina_ we shall speak elsewhere. [See page 165,
note 2.]