University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Paiderastia in Sophocles' "Philoctetes"

(USC Thesis Other)

Paiderastia in Sophocles' "Philoctetes"

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content IIAIAEPAETIA IN SOPHOCLES' PHILOCTETES by Haeshin Chung A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Classics) August 1986 Copyright 1986 Haeshin Chung UMI Number: DP22296 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI DP22296 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, M l 48106-1346 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089 This dissertation, w ritten by ..................... H a e s h in C hung........ under the direction of h .s z . Dissertation Committee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillm ent of re quirements for the degree of D O C TO R OF PH ILOSOPH Y Y U . V , O L H G J/zyAJZ.sji Dean of Graduate Studies D a te. DISSERTATION COMMITTEE . d . . . h t Chairperson ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to express my sincere appreciation to Professor Jeffrey Henderson, the director of my dissertation, whose guidance enabled me to bring this thesis to fruition. I am grateful for his patient direction and scholarly comments which made my efforts worthwhile. I also thank the other members of my committee, Professor Richard Caldwell and Professor George Bauer, for their kind advice and many valuable suggestions. In addition, I would like to express my thanks to my friends and family who rendered help and encouragement during my work on this dissertation. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface...............................................iv Chapter I. Greek Love of Youths....................... ..l Chapter II. Female Homoerotism.............................74 Chapter III. naL6£paarCa in Sophocles' Philoctetes...... .120 Bibliography........... 228 iii PREFACE The norm of sexuality varies from culture to culture. Its regulations, sanctions and inhibitions differ according to the ethical and cultural attitudes of each society. A certain activity which is quite acceptable in one culture may not be condoned in another culture. Therefore it is not only dangerous but also improper to judge the sexuality of one society by the standards of another society. There is, however, a tendency in modern culture to regard heterosexuality as normal and natural and homosexuality as the opposite,. But one must acknowledge a distinction made by the Greeks between noble love and base love or rather, between what is love and what is not in homosexuality as well as heterosexuality. The ancient Greeks did not regard a homoerotic relationship as harmful to the individual or society as long as its partners properly conducted it with due respect for each other. They did not distinguish in terms of normality and abnormality between a heterosexual object and a homosexual object; they rather thought it a natural instinct to cherish and love whatever is beautiful and attractive. The ancient Greeks therefore accepted an attraction felt towards the same sex as a genuine and natural human emotion. Greek religion did not have a prejudice against homoerotism either? its attitude was quite different from that of modern religion. Dramas which dealt with homosexual love were performed freely in the festivals in honor of the gods. Furthermore, the Greek gods and heroes themselves were represented as homosexually inclined. Society then must have provided positive reinforcement for this distinctly Greek type of love. Classicists have for the most part ignored the topic of homoerotism in ancient Greece because of strong prejudice against homosexuality in modern society. But there is no other topic in Classics which is as important for a balanced understanding of Greek culture and which has been so neglected. K. J. Dover has recently endeavored to explore the phenomena of homosexual behavior and sentiment in ancient Greece in his Greek Homosexualitv. He provides the most complete evidence for Greek homosexuality extant from visual arts and literary works between the eighth and second centuries B.C. His aim, a modest one, was to depict what actually happened in ancient Greek society and thus offer a basis for a more specialized study on this topic. He neither speculates on the causes or motives which led Greeks to v engage in homoerotic relationships nor explores the functions which Greek homosexuality accomplished for the culture and civilization of ancient Greece. G. Devereux, as indicated in the title of his article, "Greek Pseudo-homosexuality and the 'Greek Miracle,'" regards Greek homosexuality as "pseudo-homosexuality" on the grounds that Greek men were not life-long homosexuals but eventually became heterosexual adults. In fact, Greek society viewed homosexuality in adolescence as one stage in the development towards masculinity. Anthropological research shows that in many other cultures homosexual activities are encouraged by society for the boys' growth to full masculinity: some cultures such as the Papua New Guineans studied by the anthropologist Gilbert Herdt in Guardians of the Flutes believe that boys can grow up to mature manhood only through homosexual contacts. But Greek homosexuality had some peculiar aspects which made homoerotism a great asset for social and cultural achievements. Devereux, on the other hand, relates Greek homosexuality to "youth culture"— the wish to prolong the period of adolescence far into adulthood through association with young boys. Greek men could, in fact, enjoy youth indirectly through intimate relationships with boys. But this phenomenon is only one feature of vi the diverse aspects of Greek homosexuality and therefore cannot alone furnish a comprehensive explanation for Greek homoerotism. Devereux, however, denies that homosexuality belonged to the mainstream of Greek culture and that it performed a functionally major role. Quite the contrary, homosexuality was not only encouraged by society but also institutionalized in many states of ancient Greece; it played a great role in the mental development of the younger generation. P. Slater, in Chapter I of the Glorv of Hera. "The Greek Mother-Son Relationship: Origins and Consequences," tries to explain the cause of Greek homosexuality in terms of modern psychological analysis of schizophrenics. He has found some similarity between Greek men and schizophrenics. Slater argues that Greek mothers who could not have fulfilling sexual relationships with their husbands wanted to obtain sexual gratification from their sons. The sons felt impotent and conflicted in the face of their mothers' sexual desire and therefore manifested a sort of schizophrenia and chronic fear of women, especially mature women. Slater's view, however, does not produce any convincing explanation for the cause of Greek homosexuality. He not only treats Greek men as homosexuals but also reduces them to men perverted as a result of their ambivalent relationship with their vii mothers. He is equating a sociological pattern with a specific pathological case. Slater's attempt to explain Greek homosexuality in terms of modern pathology is ultimately futile. Greek men were not, first of all, homosexuals or bisexuals; rather, they were heterosexuals who enjoyed homosexual eros in one stage of their lives. Moreover, his view does not provide any explanation for the general characteristics of Greek pederasty— the culturally established pattern for the upbringing of youths. Boys who had some ambivalent relationships with their parents might have relieved their emotional tension through pederastic relationships, but Slater's view that Greek pederasty arose to dilute the mother-son pathology is not compelling. A. Gouldner, on the other hand, in the Hellenic World. tries to understand Greek homosexuality in relation to the ambivalent feelings Greek men feel towards their friends. He thinks Greek men could not feel the sentiments appropriate to friends who were after all their rivals and competitors in the contest system. This he designates as "an endemic crisis of intimacy." Gouldner considers that homosexuality is reinforced by this crisis of intimacy. Through homosexual relationships, Greek men might have relieved the tension which arises between peers in the contest system. viii Inasmuch as Greek men felt envy, jealousy, distrust towards friends, they needed support and validation of self from other males who were not their peers. Greek men thus could seek a sense of security and trust from younger boys with whom they established intimate relationships. Greek pederasty, therefore, might have served as a way for Greek men to resolve their emotional conflicts with friends, albeit temporarily. But ambivalent feelings towards friends cannot be a direct cause of Greek pederasty. All the above scholars have, in fact, slighted one important aspect of Greek pederasty— its role and function in Greek society. We should remind ourselves of the fact that we are dealing with a period in Greek history when there were no books or school for higher education and the poems or stories about great heroes were transmitted orally to a large extent. The erastes whom a youth took as his guide certainly assumed the role of a private "teacher" and therefore the youth had to choose the right erastes who could be truly worthy of himself. Thus Greek pederasty served as a way not only for emotional gratification between lovers but also for the mental growth of the young. In ancient Greek homoerotism, we do indeed find characteristics which are quite different from those of modern homosexuality. The ix ancient Greeks seldom established life-long relationships; these, in fact, they rather discouraged. Greek homoerotism was actually a premarital phenomenon and therefore was the privilege of the young, although love of youth was implanted in the hearts of the Greeks throughout their lives. They enjoyed homoerotism as one stage of life in the path towards their full maturity as heterosexual men. Furthermore, it was an aristocratic concept of love which served to hand down the ideals of its own sex from generation to generation through passion and admiration. The topic of Greek homoerotism, however, has never been employed for our understanding of Greek tragedy. This causes a serious misunderstanding of the Greek tragedies which deal with the theme of homosexual eros. The aim of this dissertation is to bring to light an important aspect of Sophocles' Philoctetes. a play which has received much attention because of E. Wilson's treatment in the Wound and the Bow. Wilson, however, did not succeed in exploring the full nature of this play, which deals with the theme of a spiritually ennobling homoerotic relationship between men. Chapter I attempts to illustrate the general characteristics, positive motives and values of male pederastic relationships in ancient Greece. This x provides us with the necessary background to understand the Philoctetes of Sophocles. The major sources for our knowledge about male homoerotism in ancient Greece are archaic and early classical poetry, tragedy, old comedy, the writings of Plato and Xenophon, Attic oratory and Hellenistic poetry and epigrams. We also have some documents which report homosexual customs, rituals and some historic events caused by homoerotic affairs. Chapter II deals with female homoerotism in ancient Greece, which is a counterpart to the male pederastic relationship. Female homoerotism shares with male pederasty many of its general characteristics and its essence as a spiritually ennobling relationship. The nature of female homoerotism, although somewhat different from that of male homoerotic relationship does enable us to understand Greek pederasty more clearly. The main source for female homoerotism is the poems of Lesbian Sappho which were preserved only fragmentarily. Chapter III, the main part of this thesis, is an analysis of Sophocles' Philoctetes which incorporates the homoerotic dimension, of the play and thus fills the critical gap that has hitherto led to serious misinterpretation. Because of strong prejudice against homosexuality in modern times, scholars have not understood or have avoided the element of homosexual love xi in this play. But it is of the utmost importance for understanding not only this play but also fifth century Greek culture and morality. The main focus of the discussion, therefore, is on the importance of the role of the erastes for the development of the character of the younger eromenos and the effect the erastes receives from his beloved: in other words, what mutual effect do the partners exert in a desirable homoerotic relationship. In this play Sophocles is dealing with the issues involved in pederastic relationships through the conflicts a youth faces when he has to choose the right erastes, namely, who could be the true erastes for the noble youth and what qualities a man should have to become a good erastes. Sophocles undoubtedly reflects the social phenomena of his own time through his version of a legendary story. My intention, therefore, is to observe the development of this play from scene to scene * as the drama would unfold before the audience rather than as is usual as a text for readers and scholars. I am using the Oxford Classical Text for the Philoctetes of Sophocles; the editions of D. L. Page for Lesbian poems (PLF), lyric poems (PMG) and epigrams (Eoigr. Gr.); the edition of M. L. West for iambic and elegiac poems; the edition of B. Snell/H. Maehler for the fragment of Pindar; the edition of H. Mette for the xii fragments of Aeschylus; and the edition of A. Adler for Suda. xiii CHAPTER 1. GREEK LOVE OF YOUTHS The ancient Greeks cherished itabSepaaxCa as one form of honorable human relationship. They found charm and value in this love affair between members of the same sex. They even thought that the homoerotic relationship, which had its focus more on the spiritual relationship between lovers, was more rewarding and pleasurable than heterosexual love. Male writers therefore endeavored to describe in great detail the intimate relationships among themselves and they eulogized homosexual eros. The uninhibited treatment of homoerotic themes on vase paintings indeed shows its acceptance and integration into society. Furthermore, the love relationship between men served as a driving force to maintain and uphold the moral ideals which underlay the whole Greek society. Without a knowledge of Greek pederasty, therefore, we cannot fully understand ancient Greek society and its culture. The word uauSepaaxCa is the abstract noun of TtapSepaaxiis , an older male lover of a younger boy, and indicates his affectionate love for a youth. The ancient Greeks felt a strong attraction for the appearance and 1 behavior of a beautiful adolescent. Older men sought sensory pleasure through contact with younger boys who embodied the features of youth. The man walked with a boy arm-in-arm and caressed the body of his younger partner and spent the daytime lying together in conversation. In ancient Greece no shame was attached to this affection for a younger boy. The Greeks rather cherished such a feeling as a fine and all too natural human emotion. Xenophon (Hierq, I 33) depicts the Syracusan tyrant Hiero declaring that his love for Dailochus is what human nature compels him to want from the beautiful: ' «7 < » ytip Si) ipS» p.kv & aI\oxou uivrrep itrtot dvayicd£et t) < f> 6< w dvdpayrrov Seiadai irapii t&v Ka\o>v, tovtwv 8k tav epa> rvxeiv, perti pev < pL\la< : /cal trapit ffoi>\optevov ttuvv MFXypidS itridup.St /S ta Sk Xapffdveiv Trap’ avrov fprrov av poi Soxat fTTtdvfUilv r) epavrov ko.kov ti ttoigIv. Hiero considers it a natural human instinct to desire and love what is beautiful. But he wants to obtain his love- object with the youth's consent, not by force. Hiero believes that this kind of love relationship requires respect for his junior partner, though he is much younger in age and inferior in social status. Aeschines in his Speech Against Timarchus (137) also proclaims that love for beautiful and chaste boys is a natural human impulse for the sensitive and prudent mind: 2 'O p ita p a t S' elvai t o pkv ip a v tw i» KaXtov kcu tT u > < f> p o v<0» <ptXav0pa>nov n u dos teal evyvcipovos rfrux^ , t o oe daeX yaiveiv a p yvp io v r iv d p ta d o v- pevov vffpiaroO ical d n a iS evro v avSpos ip y o v Aeschines attests that to be in love with beautiful and prudent youths is the emotional experience of a good-hearted person. He thinks that homosexual relationships are not wicked per se but that good and bad types of this relationship should be distinguished. Thus, the Greeks regarded homoerotism as a natural phenomenon in human life. They took it for granted that a man felt attraction to a handsome and admirable boy and that often an intense eros towards a homosexual object rather than a heterosexual one arose. We do not know when the love of boys became so pervasive in the life of the Greeks. But homoerotic relationships seem to have been well-known by the early part of the 6th century B.C. Solon, an Athenian lawgiver and an upright moralist, chief archon in 594 B.C., sang a couplet with homoerotic flavor (fr. 25): ta d ' rjpTjs eparrotaiv in ' avdeai naiSotfiiX'^arji, prjpwv ipeipw v Kai yX vK tpov a ro p a ro s. The fact that Solon, a revered statesman, viewed homoerotic relationships favorably indicates how firmly implanted this type of love was in Greek society. The Greeks, in fact, regarded homoerotic courtship as their own tradition held in honor and esteem. They even 3 thought other nations learned TiauSepctaxua from the Greeks.1 But we do not know how widespread this homoerotism was throughout Greece. It seems to have originated primarily as an aristocratic love affair and was prevalent among the aristocrats in the archaic period, though in classical Athens all the citizens had freedom to pursue younger boys. The requirements for courtship— leisure to pursue his beloved many days with patience, conversation about art, life and the many wonderful things with which the erastes wished to woo the eromenos, and also the giving of precious gifts— indeed belonged to the leisured upper class. Besides, this type of love relationship required nobility of mind and character. The boy who was commonly called eromenos (beloved) was one who had reached the age of puberty, usually between twelve and twenty. A Greek epigram (The Greek Anthology XII; Stratos's Musa Puerilis. 4) sings thus: 'A Kfij) SmSexerovs iiriTeptrofiat' etrri S i to v to v TpiaKcuSeieeTTjs tto v \u rrodetvorepo?• yd> ret Si9 e n rd vejuav, y\vxepd>repov civ8o < ; ’Epmrar repirvorepot S’ o t/jittj? irevruSot dpxopevov e^eirixatSexarov Si dedtv Itos* eftSop-aTOv Si xa i Sexarov ^rjretv oiix ipov, d W a £uo<r. el 8’ iirl irpctrfivrepovs rt<? e^et -rroOov, o vx en ira tfa dXX’ rjSnj f»?Te» " to p S' dirafutftofiepos.'’ A noiCs, the love-object, was never a child who was not yet sexually mature, but one who had reached puberty. And as soon as the beard sprouted on the boy's chin, he 4 was expected to cease being the eromenos. Thus the Greeks loved boys who were not yet fully grown to mature manhood, but on the way both mentally and physically to their full maturity. We often encounter the expression xa TtauSuxa, referring to the characteristics of youths. A man loved in his object of love the characteristics of boyhood which distinguished the boy (wts ) from a girl (itaCs) or a slave (note.sj . Thus, in male homosexual eros masculinity was always emphasized as we can see on the vase-paintings of the late archaic and early classical periods.2 There was, however, a tendency to depict the boy as an effeminate youth in the later Hellenistic period. This was due mainly to a change in the life style of the Greeks from that of a warlike people to civilized men. And if they described the youth as effeminate like a slender sapling, we should always remember that they were such in comparison to the lovers who were grown to their full masculinity. To the eyes of mature men, the half-manly state of a youth who was rather shy and modest appeared charming. What the Greek man loved was these traits of youth embodied in his eromenos rather than the particular person himself. This was why the Greek man could easily give up his beloved when the beloved becomes mature, i.e., when the beard appeared on the face of his beloved. The lover, who was called erastes, was usually less 5 than forty and not yet settled down to married life. In ancient Greece the homoerotic affair with a boy was the privilege of young men before marriage who were not tied to a family but had freedom for sexual pursuits. The Greek homoerotic relationship, therefore, was not a stable pattern. It was one stage of life through which a man reached maturity. Greek society expected that men should' pass through predominantly homosexual stages of life on their way to full masculinity, marriage, and fatherhood.3 When they were tender boys, they were sought by older men as beloveds. After that period as mature men they themselves pursued younger boys to be their lovers. With marriage, they settled down as husbands and fathers. Thus the stages of their evolution toward heterosexuality, as Deverieux says, were even culturally standardized in the roles of eromenos, erastes, and husband.4 The Greeks seldom established a life-long homosexual relationship between erastes and eromenos.5 The young boy had to outgrow the stage of eromenos as he grew older and was expected to assume a new role as erastes. After marriage, the Greek man became primarily heterosexual as a husband. But homosexual eros was not entirely shut off. The impulse for the love of male beauty and ideals was implanted throughout his whole life. But the occasional act of 6 homosexual gratification was considered a marginal luxury. It was chiefly in the gymnasium that affection between males grew. Adult males sought to linger and watch the exercises of young men whose bodies were entirely naked. Numerous vase paintings represented scenes from gymnasiums which showed the complete nakedness of the male body and no offense was attached to it. The spectators watched with admiration the beauty of youths who practiced all sorts of physical exercises— wrestling, foot-race, leaping, throwing the discus and hurling the javelin, namely, the pantathlon, and also boxing and. the pancration, a mixture of fist-fighting and wrestling. The young men devoted themselves to improve their physique through these exercises. The exercises were not solely for physical strength and prowess but also for the balance and beauty of the body. This gymnasium which was established originally for training the young men for warfare and for physical exercises gave the opportunity for older men to meet young boys and to behold their nude beautiful bodies. The Greeks saw the body of an adolescent boy as the ideal human form. In early Greek art we can see how much more the male body was admired than the female body.6 The lovers of male beauty, philosophers, 7 rhetoricians, and poets customarily met together at the sides of the halls. In these spaces were many works of art, especially statues of Hermes, Eros and Heracles. One could also find the image of Apollo who was famous for his homoerotic affairs. Thus, numerous works of art reinforced the sight of beautiful male bodies. Here people engaged in discussion of art, poems, life, philosophy and whatever other subjects interested them. And their conversation about Eros continued in banquets held in private houses, where many guests contributed their eulogy for love as in Plato's Symposium. Thus the relationships between older men and younger boys were an established, open fact in daily life. Eros designates the passionate desire of the lover for his beloved. Some early poets, however, regarded it as a cosmic force through which the universe came into being. Later Eros was depicted rather as the son of Aphrodite or her attendant who caused someone to fall in love. Aphrodite is commonly represented as the goddess of sexual pleasure and ’ AcppoSuaLa means sexual intercourse. To the Greeks there was no distinction between homosexual love and heterosexual love but only "love" itself. Thus eros indicates "desire" for either the same sex or the opposite sex and Aphrodite governs intercourse both between homosexual lovers and between 8 heterosexual lovers. cptAta , however, is divided into four classes— blood kinship, hospitality, friendship and love.7 cpuAua, therefore, covers almost all the realms of love in human relationships. The adjective cpuAos can be applied to anyone who is dear to one— family members, relatives, friends, guests and beloveds. The poems which sing of homosexual love frequently use the words t ~ » c * ^ icauSocpuAns and. 7tau6o<puAeLV , Since itauoEpaaxns and TcauSepaaxeCv do not fit into the elegiac meter. Thus quite often .<puAta substitutes for epms . But strictly speaking, there is a slight difference between epo)s and cpuAua . Eros is "desire" felt on the part of erastes for his beloved, while tpUoa designates "love" felt in the hearts of both the lover and the beloved. The word avxepav, therefore, can never be used on the part of eromenos but applies to the female reciprocation of epus or to the love of dvxepaoins which means "rival erastes." On the other hand dvxupuAsCv , cpuAepaaxns describe the reciprocal love of eromenos shown towards his erastes. It is mainly through the admiration for the virtue and value of the erastes that the boy feels cpuACa towards the older man. The erastes should win this cpLACa from the eromenos so that he would love in return (dvTnptAeuv). On the part of the erastes, it is through love ( ( p u A C a) that he guides and instructs his younger 9 partner to be a fine man. Thus cpuXta is an affection which is felt on both sides towards each partner and provides a bridge for two partners to develop an intimate relationship. A desirable homosexual relationship requires this cptXCa from both sides, so that they can establish a voluntary relationship with mutual affection. The relationship between an erastes and an eromenos is transitory because of the brevity of the blooming youth of the eromenos. The erastes who catches sight of an attractive youth is fierce in pursuing his love-object, since he knows the charms which his beloved possesses now will remain but for a short period. It is indeed a difficult task to win over the love of a youth who cannot have as much sensual pleasure as his erastes does.8 The erastes quite often laments the unrequited love and expresses his grudge against the youth who rejects his love. Theognis of Megara, an eligiac poet in 6th century B.C, sings (1299-1304): (3 trat, fj.e%pi rivos p.€ irpotjtevgeat; cu? <rc 8uuKtuv 1300 aAAa r l p.01 reppa yevoiro Kiyetv f crqaovyr;• crv 8e papryov Z yiov /cat a yrjvopa Bvpuov rf>evyeis Ik t L vov cr^irX io v rjffos e^cuv. aAA’ e m fie iv o v , ip x ti 8e S iSou x< xpw o v k s t i Brjpov Kvnpoyevovs 8< ± > p o v loare<fjdvov.. Theognis resents the haughtiness of the youth who does 10 not: show any favorable response towards his love. The youth who is indifferent to his heartfelt love seems even cruel to him. The boy's outward form is lovely but his attitude is hateful. Nevertheless, the erastes tries to woo the boy by reminding him of the briefness of his youth. Theognis knows well that the youth who rejects his love will himself someday become an erastes and pursue a younger boy to ask his favor. What the erastes seeks from his beloved, however, varies according to his personality and the intensity of his love. Some might be satisfied just with being together with their beloved enjoying their beauty and conversation. Some lovers might want to embrace and caress the body of their beloveds. Some lovers, possessed by intense passion, on the other hand, might want to satisfy their sexual desire. In any case it is the wish of the erastes to monopolize his beloved so that no other man could have a more intimate relationship with the youth. But Greek love of boys, in its true sense, did not remain in the sensual realm, but was always accompanied by the mental association between lovers. Many reasons have been given for the cause of this passionate love between men, more precisely between an older man and a younger boy. But no single factor can provide a comprehensive explanation, since every human 11 phenomenon is complicated by the personal motivations, social circumstances and moral values of that time. Because Greek homosexuality was closely associated with the mode of living, culture and the ideals of Greek society, it is appropriate to analyze some of the most important factors which fortified and honored homoerotism in ancient Greece. Some scholars try to relate the prevalence of pederasty to the concept of misogyny and the segregation of sexes. 'In ancient times, physical strength was highly valued because people had to fight continuously with other countries for their own safety and also had to struggle against nature to raise crops. Thus man was valued primarily for his prowess, and apexn originally meant physical strength though it later developed into a general term which covered all sorts of human excellence, including the mental. Women's ill capacity as a fighter or worker to produce crops might have been one cause for their disparagement. Women were not only looked down upon but also hated and feared as -necessary evil. This misogyny ran throughout the whole history of ancient Greece. Men did not allow women any share of their world, and they hardly found it pleasurable to discuss their interests and activities with women. The downgrading of women, however, would not have been a 12 direct cause for the prevalence of homoerotic affairs between men, since in other misogynistic cultures we do not find the same kind and degree of pederasty as in Greek culture. On the other hand, the theory of the segregation of sexes does not seem valid either. In ancient Greece, men and women had entirely different lives and thereby were segregated in daily activities. Upper class women especially were almost entirely cut off from male society. But there were plenty of women who could serve men's sexual desire, i.e., prostitutes and slaves particularly. Then, we can tell that it was not merely for sexual gratification that men were pursuing younger boys. Greek society was in a very real sense a man's world. Only men could participate in public activities. They spent their time bonding together to share their common interests— warfare, hunting, physical exercises, politics, and discussions about life and the world. Thus in daily life they could have close ties among themselves. In modern times women can participate in any field in which men engaged, but in ancient Greece there was a strict division between what men should do and what women were supposed to do. Men, therefore, could feel a close affinity with each other and could share true understanding about the ideals of their lives. In this 13 ambiance it was quite natural for men to be interested in their own sex. A man did not love a boy as a substitute for a girl but a man loved a boy because he was a boy. And a boy loved an older man because he was a man. The emphasis on the male sex and the wish to develop its characteristics to the fullest were undoubtedly innate in homosexual eros. Thus pederasty had its basis in man's ideal of masculinity. The male values upheld in society might have reinforced homoerotic affairs, but the degree of the emphasis and value given to the male sex does not necessarily produce the same degree of homosexuality. The important thing is not that homosexual bonding existed and was acted upon since this happens in most cultures, but that Greek society openly encouraged it. To have/ a better understanding of Greek homoerotism we have to discover the positive motives and functions which encouraged Greeks to engage in love affairs between men. It was not so much that they were lacking in women or women were not available to them, as I stated earlier, but that they found charm and merit in the love of boys. The older men were primarily attracted to the younger boys who embodied the ideal beauty of youth. Pindar, who was active in the early 5th century B.C., sings in praise of the blooming youth of his beloved Theoxenos in one of his poems (fr. 123): 14 10 aXX’ iyta zag ix a z i xrjgog d > g da%i%ig iXa loav fisXtaaav zaxofiai, etJr’ av Xdoi naidaxv veoyviov ig rjfiav • 3 iv 6 ’ aga x a i Tevedw IIeld'd) z ’ evaiev xa i X dgiq 15 viov AyijaiXa. Pindar, like any Greek man, found the most beautiful form of the human body in an adolescent boy glowing in the bloom of youth ( n 3 n ) . The charm and the attraction which the boy possessed aroused erotic desire in the beholder, since in the primary level of all kinds of love people seek sensual pleasure. The Greeks were very sensitive to physical beauty and considered it a basic sexual instinct to seek the sensual pleasure of the eyes. The admirable qualities of the person could have intensified the sexual desire aroused by the stimulus of visual beauty. The love of youth or the characteristics of youth— this is what the Greeks cherished throughout their lives. Men wished to possess youth as long as possible and prolong the period of adolescence far into adulthood: this phenomenon is called "youth culture." Ancient Greece, indeed, had many traits of youth culture. It was mainly by becoming the erastes of a youth that the adult male could maintain his contact with the privileged, valued world of adolescence.9 Through the love of boys, in fact, Greek men could enjoy and share the characteristics of youth to a certain degree. 15 Eternal youth— which was idealized in Greek myths and embodied in their gods— was what the Greeks themselves wanted to possess indirectly through the intimate relationship with boys. Greek homoerotism thus had the element of self-love. The erastes loved the youth of the eromenos which he himself once had possessed and still wished to keep in himself and the eromenos loved his older erastes as an ideal image of himself. It was out of love for himself that a youth emulated an older man to whose ideals and image he aspired. He wanted to make himself better and grow up like his erastes who looked like an ideal heroic figure. The self-love reflected in homosexual eros, therefore, was not a selfish one but a refined and spiritualized self-love. It was love for one's ideal self, i.e., love for a perfected self. Greek homosexuality has something to do with their peculiar spirit, namely, the agonistic outlook on life. The agonistic spirit was implanted in the soul of the Greeks from the very beginning of their history, as represented in Homer's Iliad. To be the first in their rank was the aspiration of Greek men. They could not accept an easy and comfortable life but chose an adventurous and dangerous but very rewarding kind of life which required continuous competition with one another. The happiest moment in a hero's life came when he 16 * performed his dpuoTeua and won a victory over his enemies. aiev apuieUELV xai uiteupoxov eyysvau aXXwv (Homer, Iliad. XI 784)— this was what Achilles always kept in his mind from childhood. And the Greeks adopted this mode of life as the standard heroic code by believing that this should be the aim of their aspiration and zeal. The agonistic spirit pervaded not only the battlefield but almost every field of human endeavor. In ancient Greece everything— exercises, games, composing poems, performing dramas and so on— was a competition. Thus a Greek found his moment of happiness when he proved himself to be the best in his field and superior over others. This agonistic spirit is also reflected in their way of love, the love of boys. To win over the love of a boy, the erastes had to be admirable and enviable and could truly be a model for his junior partner. Thus homosexual eros inspired the erastes in an ambiance of competition to prevail over his fellow men in manly excellence. There is no need to emphasize the natural competition between rival lovers, each of whom wanted to prove his excellence over his rivals. But the agonistic way of love is the most distinct feature of male pederasty. Greek pederasty was not based on a reciprocal love derived from the equality of the partners; the 17 relationship was that of the pursuing erastes and the pursued eromenos. The senior partner was not only older but also superior in position and ability, and thereby sought to subdue and dominate his younger partner. The erastes could make a younger boy follow him as his guide and model only by subduing and overcoming the youth with his greatness and sincerity. The difficulty of subduing a younger boy not only enhanced his zeal but also satisfied his agonistic appetite— this is precisely the allure of the love of boys for the Greek man. Once the eromenos was subdued, the actual contest between erastes and eromenos was over and a new relationship had to arise— a mutual affection based on admiration and love (<puAloc). But this new relationship was still that between a dominant senior and a subordinate junior. Therefore it was quite common for an erastes to boast of his success if he won the love of his beloved, as if he had achieved victory in a fierce contest. The younger partner, however, had to be careful not to become a loser entirely, i.e., to be reduced to the role of female or prostitute. This competitive aspect of love can be found in a poem of Ibycus of Rhegium, a lyric poet of 6th century B.C. He alludes to eros as a field of contest in one of his poems (287): 18 “ Epos autre pe maveoioiv utto j3 A e< f> d p ocf raxep' oppam Septtopevos KTjAijpaert navroHanots is anei- pa Sinrva KvrrpiSos iafidAAev ij pav rpopioi viv iirepxppevov, w<rre <j>epe£vyos Zirrros acO A o< f> 6pos irorl yrjpai aetcmv ovv oxea< f> i Boots is apiAAav «/3a. Ibycus compares himself10 with an old prize-winning horse which goes to the contest reluctantly. Since the power of eros has bewitched him with an inescapable desire for the youth, he has to compete on the battlefield of love even if he is unwilling, just as a horse driven by his charioteer has no other choice. He is trembling now because he is afraid to lose in the competition due to his old age. But still.there is hope as reflected in the epithet, "prize-winning.” As the aim of the horse is to win victory in the game, the aim of the lover is to win over his love-object after a fierce competition. Although he is old, now again he has to be competitive, active and energetic for the love-contest. This agonistic aspect is, in fact, the essential characteristic of Greek pederasty as it is the main feature of a Greek man's life. The homosexual eros with its agonistic characteristics undoubtedly became a stimulus to courage for noble accomplishments. It intensified the ennobling spirit of emulation. The amorous relationship was 19 actually the chosen ground for noble rivalry. The desire of the erastes to excel and shine as an example for his beloved reinforced his courage. On the part of the eromenos, the zeal and passion to follow the teaching of his erastes out of love and admiration became a spur to his courage. Plutarch describes the power of Eros as follows (Amatorius. 760D): dvrjp yap virorrXrjadels “ TLpturos ovSev 'Apeos S e lra i paydf.uvos iroXe plots, dXXa rov avrov deov fyojv avvovra imp Kai daXaaaav xai m ods r a y aid epos nepdv crotpos vvep rov < j> iX o v odnep' a v xeXevrf. Thus the superiority of Eros over Ares is proved even in the battlefield. Eros inspires courage and ambition for noble deeds and a feeling of shame for disgraceful ones. In fact, lovers and their beloveds are most sensitive to dishonor in the presence of each other. A lover would prefer rather to die than be seen doing a shameful act by his beloved. The lovers joined by Eros thereby could devote themselves to noble endeavors which might require the endurance of pain and even death. With Eros on their sides, erastes and eromenos would exert themselves to the utmost heroism in a joint enterprise. The homoerotic relationship played a great role in satisfying a need which could not be fulfilled by other 20 human relationships. The need which required its fulfillment by pederasty was primarily a pedagogical one. Especially in the archaic and early classical periods pederasty made a great contribution to the intellectual growth of the youths. When an older man fell in love with a younger boy, it was his natural impulse to teach and implant in the youth whatever he cherished and valued. With enthusiasm and zeal the erastes tried to mold his eromenos into a man of fine character as a follower of his own ideals. Thus education took place through the passionate relationship between an older man and a younger boy. By this intimate and personal union between lovers the ideals and value of that time were implanted in the younger generation. Theognis of Megara sings in his elegy (27-38): <701 d eyoj €v (ppoveojv vrrourjaofxai, oicnrep axrros K v p v1 drro rdtv dyaBwv irais er iatv epadov. nfTTVvao, prjS* alaypotaiv eir epypaai prj&' aSlxaiaiv 30 Tip.ar / l i r j S ’ aperas eAxeo pijS' atfrevos. (Thcognidis) ra u ra pev oihruis Ia d f xaxalai 8e pr] irpoooplAei dvBpdaiv, aAA’ atei t o > v dya8d>v exeo’ xai p era rolaiv ntve x a i eaBie, xai p e ra t o i g i v *£e, xa i avSave ro ts, d> v peyaXj] Svvapis\ 35 icrdAdjv pev yap arr’ eoBAa padr/oeat' r/v 8e xaxotoi ovppiayrjis, airoAeis xai tov iovra voov. raura paBdjv dyaBoicnv oplAet, xai wore t f r r j c r e i s ev avpftovAeveiv ratal <f>lAotoiv epe. Theognis is eager to impart to the youth, Cyrnus, what he 21 himself learned from good men in his childhood. He wants to mold the youth into a person of high ideals who always aspires to the good and righteous. Theognis thereby advises the youth to associate with good men so that the youth will learn valuable lessons and imitate their ways. He counsels the youth as a good father does to his younger son. But we can tell from another passage (87-92) that Cyrnus is the boy with whom he is in love: { J .'q fi eiremv fiev orepye, voov S’ eye /cat < f> pevas aAAijt, > io 8 ac €t fie (fiiAeZs Kal aoi metros evearn voo?. d 7 ) fie cftlAei Kadapov Oeptevos voov, ij fi drroeimltv e 90 exdaip' dp.<f>aSlrjv veik o s aeipdfievos. (Thcognidis) os 8 e furft, yAwaarjt Sly* e^et voov, ovros iraZpos SeiAos K v p v ' eyQpds \SeArepos rf <f>(A os uiv. Theognis holds a grudge against Cyrnus who is not prompt in returning his love towards him. Theognis cannot be satisfied with the boy's mere word, but wants the youth's whole-hearted love or an open quarrel. A quarrel might be better for the lover than the disinterest of his beloved. This Cyrnus, whose indifference to Theognis' love causes resentment in the latter, is the youth to whom Theognis devotes himself and his good advice. The erastes, in fact, has to impress the youth with his greatness to attract the boy's attention and mind to him. He has to tell not only many wonderful things about the lives and achievements of the heroes, but also render 22 good, convincing counsel so that he could gain the youth's admiration and love. In a legendary story also, the erastes is said to have devoted himself to the development of the character of his eromenos. Theocritus of Syracuse, a bucolic poet of the 3rd century B.C., sings in one of his Idylls how Heracles behaved in regard to his eromenos Hylas (XIII Hvlas. 5-15): dXXa x a i ' A p c^tr pvcvvot o 'xa\iceoicdphio<i t/tos. os ro v \ l v vrrepeive ro v a yp to v, y p a ro iratSav, ro v yapieirro^M T \ a , ro v r d v Tr\otcap28a cftopevvroi, Kal v iv rrd vr eclBa^e rrarrjp otaet cf>l\ov vtea, Sacra padoav d y a d os Kal uolSipoc; a v ro s eyevro' X mP‘f S ov&e-rroK ■ ? )$ , ovS el pea a v a.pap upotro1 , ovB’ ap o% a \ev K tiriro9 A va rp e^o i 3 es A to? 'A cis. ovS’ otroK o p rd X txo t p tv v p o l irorl icoitov opoiev * a e ia a p e v a ^ m e p a parpo<t err’ a id a X o evri rrerevpat, a»s avrd) K ara dupov o Trat? irerrovapevo<t etrj, a vrto * S’ ev eXxcov e ’s aX adivov a.v8p urroftairj. Heracles taught his beloved Hylas whatever he knew to make the boy a renowned man. He took pains to mold the boy in his own image and guided him to grow up to reach ideal manhood. It is mainly through love, the Greeks believed, that they could accomplish the best education for the young. Only in so far as the elder man loved, could he truly devote himself to the moral and intellectual progress of his younger partner. This type of pedagogy, however, has close ties with the aristocratic heritage, inasmuch as the homosexual eros is 23 an aristocratic love in its original sense. It was the traditional wisdom of the aristocrats which the eromenos learned from the older man who was erotically attracted to him. Thus the aristocratic male ideals were transmitted from generation to generation through the passionate love affair. This educational aspect was primarily concerned with the eromenos, but it also had some ennobling effects for the erastes, since he could not have established this love relationship without inspiring the boy‘s affection through admiration of his own excellence. The wish of the erastes to impress his beloved and the reciprocal desire of the younger partner to appear worthy of his lover accordingly strengthened the love of honor and glory. Greek love of boys, therefore, acquired the power to maintain the ethical foundation and uphold the aristocratic male ideals which underlay ancient Greek culture and society. The homosexual eros furthermore became the basic grounds for philosophical speculation in Socrates and Plato. To Socrates it was a virtuous and irresistible temptation to desire close contact with a beautiful and admirable youth. Through the beauty embodied in a youth, i.e., a particular form, the erastes, Socrates thought, could reach the absolute Beauty, an eternal Being. His pupil Plato thereby considers homosexual eros as the 24 starting point in developing his metaphysical theory. Especially in his Symposium and Phaedrus Plato explores the significance of homosexual eros as a road which leads the lovers to the world of Being. Moreover, Socrates who takes eros as a way to the spiritual world of the eternal "form" proposes a purely spiritual love between erastes and eromenos by negating homosexual coitus. This is what is meant by the "Platonic love". Socrates seems to have thought that the physical contact degenerates the faculty of the soul which should aspire to the eternal Being, the Good. Although there was a slow movement in favor of this "Platonic love" in the later generations, it was taken for granted in the works of Plato and Xenophon that all the friends of Socrates sought sensual pleasure as well as the ennobling spiritual relationship. We even have the epigrams attributed to Plato which sing of sensual elements in the homosexual eros. In one place he says (fr. 3): ttjv i / ivxtiv Ayadwva e'm xetAeatv ecr^ow yap ij rXrffJuav cos StafiTjaofievTj. and in another place (fr. 1 0 ): co ifxov eVfirjva? Ovpov epcun ALuxv, Thus Plato himself attests that it is natural for anyone in love to seek sensory pleasure. Outside of the philosophical circle, the physical contact must have been 25 considered one of many diverse ingredients of the complex homosexual eros. As we have observed, Greek pederasty was love of boys who were not yet mature and who required guidance and instruction for their full maturity. If the eromenos grew up to an age when he no longer needed any help or teaching from the elder, the homosexual relationship was expected to come to an end. This proves, once more, that the principal purpose and function of ancient Greek homosexuality is pedagogy, i.e., rearing of the boys to their full maturity. As the eromenos grew up, he evolved from pupil to friend and the continuance of an erotic relationship met with disapproval, as would such a relationship between coevals.11 Besides, homosexual love affairs between two grownups were seldom condoned since the predominantly passive role of one partner should be assumed only in the period of puberty. Thus ancient Greek homosexuality was not hostile to marriage, but was rather a supplement for the important needs of society. It was a step which led to a mature heterosexual man. This pedagogic pederasty which served to produce better citizens and heirs was undoubtedly encouraged by society. In some states, we are told, it was a disgrace to the young boy if he was not honored by the love of an older man and a violation of duty to a man if he did not win a 26 youth as his beloved. Thus pederasty was held in honor, in ancient Greece, as a perfectly respectable human relationship. The praise and favorable view of society towards homoerotism surely helped its prevalence. Where homoerotism was held in esteem, it is likely to have been more prevalent than in other places where it was despised. "Since the adolescent can 'perform' 'with almost equal ease in various ways," Devereux says, "he can readily perform in the socially expected way."12 In fact, most people act in a way they have seen, learned and are expected to by others. Greek boys and men engaged in the homoerotic affair not because they were confirmed homosexuals, but because they saw and learned the merits of this relationship which brought them prestige and honor. The attitude of certain 5th century Athenians towards homoerotic relationship can be discerned from the speech of Pausanias in Plato's Symposium. He states that, in Athens, it is considered a very fine thing to be in love and to become beloveds to erastai (Plato, Symposium. 183C): o v r ta koI ol $ to l Kal ol H vQ pw rot ira a a v i£ov<r(av ■jrorotjjKaot r y tp&VTi, i s o vdfjLOS <fni<rlv 5 iv d d b t— r a v r p piiv o vv olrf&tlr) a v r»s triy K a k o v vop.L£t<rdai i v r fjb t rfj irdAei Kal t o ip a v * al t o (jiCKovs y (y v « r d a i r o ls ip a trra ls. 27 The Athenians seem to have had a high opinion of homoerotism. To feel affection towards a younger boy whose beauty and worth one cherishes and to wish to become the eromenos of an older man whose virtue one admires are fine emotions. But we should not forget that the society which Pausanias describes is one to which he himself belongs, i.e., the Athenian upper class. Pausanias, however, tries to distinguish between good and bad homosexual relationships. There is no strict rule by which any given homosexual love affair could be judged but we can have some idea about what kind of relationship they considered more honorable. The eromenos who did not yield quickly and thereby required much zeal and endeavor from the pursuer was considered more valuable. Time must elapse to test both partners and to see whether their relationship is based on true love. Worthy and valuable things are in most cases hard to obtain and necessarily demand a sort of competition in order to be possessed. The eromenos who yields to an older man as his erastes because he is rich or has political power incurs disgrace. It is difficult, indeed, for a third person to judge whether a certain homosexual affair is noble or base, since the same love affair could be seen differently by different persons. Good and bad homosexual affairs must be determined by the whole 28 situation in which the physical acts are performed, not by the existence or absence of the activity. Pausanias (184-5), however, purports that the eromenos should grant favors to his erastes only when he can obtain some gains in wisdom and excellence. There is something odd in this view. The position of Pausanias is that the boy should yield his body in return for the guidance and instruction of the older man. A love affair cannot be a means of obtaining some gain. The improvement of the boy should result from the honorable relationship between two lovers. There is indeed a great difference between granting favors to become a better man and becoming a fine and better man through love. The boy obviously has the right to refuse an older man whom he dislikes even though he could acquire some knowledge from him. In fact, most older men of citizen status can guide and instruct younger boys. The erastes on his part should respect the feeling and preference of the younger boy. Any homosexual relationship which is not based on tpuAta, therefore, can be called base and ignoble. In 5th century Athens, love of boys actually becomes quite fashionable and is considered as a sort of game. Therefore, the agonistic feature of the pederastic relationship between the pursuing erastes and the fleeing 29 eromenos becomes more distinct than in the archaic period when pederasty was encouraged by many states for the upbringing of youth. Quite often this love game is compared with hunting, and the eromenos becomes the quarry of the hunting erastes.13 Pausanias describes this agonistic characteristic between lover and beloved as follows (Plato, Symposium. 183e-184a): rovrovi hi) fio v X tra i o f/p ir fp o s vopos tv K al K a k u s f3a<ravC{fLv, K al ro ts p iv 184 y a p lc r a a B a t, ro v s 5 e b ia tfx v y a v . bta ra v r a ovv ro ts pel/ htwKtiv ir a p a K fA fu trat. rotv h i <f>tvyetv, ayw voBeroiv Kal fta c ra v tfa v rxoriptav rro re (crrw o ipmv Kal rroriputv o ipwpevos. Pausanias' position is that a contest between erastes and eromenos is a necessary thing for a desirable pederastic relationship, since both partners can be tested through a contest to determine whether they are worthy partners and truly deserve each other. Thus the persistent pursuit of erastes and the fierce flight of eromenos set up a prerequisite background on which a mutual relationship based on true cpuAta can be established. But since in this mutual relationship the erastes also seeks to assume a dominant role over his younger partner, quite often the eromenos becomes a victim for the greed and egoistic satisfaction of the older erastes. Therefore, a true pederastic relationship requires high-mindedness and 30 respect of each partner so that there can be a "balance" between the dominant erastes and a subordinate eromenos. In regard to the legal status and aspects of homosexual relationships, Aeschines in his Speech Against Timarchus (139) describes an Attic law on TcauSepaaxCa : iraX iv o avro? ehre vopod err)?• “ A ovK ov eXevOepov rraiSos pryr epav p.ijt’ h r a - xoXovdelv, 17 rvirrecrdai rjj Srjpocria p d o -n y t ■trevTrfKOVTa irXrfyar.n A slave should not, the law states, be in love with a free-born boy nor follow after him. This shows that in Athens itaL§epacrTL.a was recognized and regulated by legislators. The usual interpretation of this law is that the Attic law forbade homosexual activity to slaves and thereby encouraged this practice among free men. But we should not miss an important point in this statement. What the law says is that the slave should not be the lover of a free-born boy. Here the law makes a distinction between two social classes; in other words, a man of servile status, i.e., slave, does not deserve to be the erastes of a boy of citizen status. Thus the Attic law regulates the status of partners. We, however, do not know whether slaves were actually forbidden by law to have any homosexual affair among themselves.14 But it is obvious that a slave does not fit the role of the erastes for a free-born youth. Aeschines goes on to 31 describe that part of the law which is concerned with the protection of the free-born boys from seduction and violation (139): dxvpov S' olftai xa I dSvvd- rov eri ovtos x pi vat rov ovrmt evvovv xai p . i j , rov iptavra auxfrpovi^et, xai t o w tr j < t <ftt\Las X070W et? Ttjp <f>povovaav /cat i r peer fivr epav rjktxiav dva- /3d\\erai' to S' etraxoXovdelv xai e<popav ippovpav xai ejtvkaxijv < T ( v < f > p o < T v v r } < t fjy^eraro elvat peyiarrjv. To protect free-born boys from sexual violation and abuse, the Attic law requires from the erastes self-control and patience until the boy reaches the age when he can make decisions and judgments for his own conduct. The law implies that the erastes should respect the right and opinion of his beloved and should not perform any activity without his consent. It is of the utmost importance for the eromenos to choose the right erastes who is truly worthy of himself and deserves to be his lover. The older man should not seduce a younger boy with enticements and sweet words when he is still innocent and ignorant of this matter. Thus the Attic law provides a certain moral code concerning pederasty lest any innocent youth be harmed by an improper pursuer. If anyone engages in the affair to gain some advantage or to use the other person for his own purpose, an honorable relationship could not arise. Only when both partners 32 truly care for each other and perform any activity with due respect, can a desirable homosexual relationship be established. The story of Alcibiades and that of Sophocles might allow us a glimpse of what actually happened in 5th century Athens. In Plato's Symposium (216c-219e) we find the famous story of Alcibiades' attempt to seduce Socrates whom he considered the best teacher for him. Alcibiades, son of Cleinias, the Athenian general and statesman, was a very handsome young man and the eromenos of Socrates. Alcibiades, convinced of Socrates' admiration for the physical charms (of which he was very proud) and wishing to learn whatever Socrates knew about how to make himself as perfect as possible, tried to create an opportunity to seduce Socrates. After a few unsuccessful attempts, Alcibiades invited him to dinner and kept him so late that Socrates had to spend the night. When the light was out and servants were gone, Alcibiades, compelled by the attraction of the philosophical talk of Socrates, confessed what he had in his mind, i.e., that he believed Socrates was the only lover worthy of him and that he thought Socrates was afraid to reveal his passion towards him. Thereupon Socrates replied that the beauty Alcibiades saw in him 33 was superior to the physical beauty of Alcibiades, and if Alcibiades wanted to have a share of it by offering bodily beauty in exchange, he was getting the better of the bargain. Alcibiades, convinced that the arrow he launched wounded Socrates' heart, covered Socrates' body with his own cloak and lay down beside him, throwing his arms around Socrates. They spent the whole night thus without any sign of arousal on the part of Socrates and in the morning they parted. Alcibiades felt his beauty was insulted but nevertheless he confessed his admiration towards Socrates all the more for his self-control. Sophocles was known as cpuAoyeCpa? . 15 The poet Ion in his Soiournings reports an incident which arose when he met Sophocles on Chios.16 A Chian friend of his was entertaining him as he was about to sail to Lesbos as general. Sophocles, stirred by the beauty of the wine-pourer, a handsome, blushing boy, told the boy not to be so rushed when he handed him the cup and then took it away if the boy indeed wanted him to drink with pleasure. When the boy blushed, he sang a line from Phrynichus: "There shines upon his crimson cheeks the light of love." A little later when Sophocles saw the boy trying to pick off a straw from the cup with his finger, Sophocles told him to blow it away instead of wetting his finger. As the boy inclined his face to the 34 cup, Sophocles pulled the cup nearer to his mouth in order to draw the youth's face closer to his. When he was quite near the boy, he embraced him closely and kissed him. Thereupon all the spectators applauded with laughter, because he managed the situation so neatly. Hieronynus of Rhodes17 records in his Historical Notes an incident in which Sophocles lured a handsome boy. Sophocles consorted with the boy outside the city. The boy spread his own cloak on the grass and they covered themselves with Sophocles' fine mentle. After the affair the boy made off with Sophocles' garment leaving behind his own childish clothes. This incident was much talked of and ridiculed especially by Euripides. But we can tell that this incident did not cause any damage to his reputation, judging from the fact that he was much revered not only by his contemporaries but also by posterity. Plutarch18 relates another episode which happened when Sophocles was a general with Pericles on a naval expedition to Samos. When Sophocles praised the beauty of a lovely boy, Pericles is said to have retorted that a general should keep clean not only his hands but also his eyes. In Aristophanes, we can, however, find a picture of pederasty which is entirely different from the favorable view depicted by lyric poets, prose writers and 35 philosophers. Old comedy writers not only reduce pederasty to the coarse and base, the side of physical relations, but also completely ignore its positive motives and the ennobling effect of the spiritual side of the relationship. But Aristophanes does not consider homoerotic feeing as something wicked or abnormal which deserves censure or ridicule per se. The attraction to beautiful youth is rather one of many pleasures man can enjoy in the course of his life, as Wrong says in Clouds (1071-1074): ateeijmi y a p , at p etp d m o v, b> to> oat^poveiv airavra avecrriv, rfZovatv S' ooatv peXXeis airoorepetoBat, iratStuv, yw a tK tu v, K o n a fio jv, oifiutv, iroratv, tci- ^Am/ uuv. K airot r i croi £t \v a£tov, ro vra tv eav oreprjdijs; Thus, Wrong does not distinguish the love of boys from other pleasures: homosexual love was considered to have a position equal to heterosexual love since any man could be smitten by the desire for a boy as well as a woman. In fact, it is Peisthetairus' utopian dream in Birds that he could dwell in a place where he would be encouraged to enjoy pleasure with a decent boy. When Hoopoe asks what kind of city Peisthetairus wants to live in, he answers (137-42): ottov £wavT<2>v p o t ra S t Tts pepif/€Tat, w o irtp a&tteijdeis, natSas w patov rrat-qp' " JcaAcDy y i p o v ro v vlov, cS cip a tv airtovT’ a ira yvp.va.olov XeXovpevov 36 o v k etrvaag, ov rrpoaeZirag, ov irpoorjydyov, ovk <jjpxyir€$n\aas, utv i/xol TrarptKog $ i\o g .” Thereupon Hoopoe replies (143-145): <3 SctAoKpuoK <n)' rutv kokwv o’ ojv ipqg. arap I c r n y* otto Lav A eyerov evZo.lp.ajv t t6Atff m p a r»)v epvdpav S a A a rra v . The implication of this passage is, on the one hand, that love of boys is a fine thing which one can enjoy in a happy world and, on the other hand, that it causes much trouble in the actual society where Peisthetairus and Hoopoe dwell. In Aristophanes' time, some people might have looked at this kind of love affair with cynicism as rather degenerate and quite often reduced to mere physical pleasure. In 5th century Athens, nauSepaaxLa became a fashion; in many cases the true essence of TtatSepaarua f which we saw previously, is likely to have been neglected with the dying out of the aristocratic world. With the advent of democracy all the citizens could have equality and thereby hero-worship was slowly disappearing. In addition, the Sophists played a great role in teaching the young generation a new skill of speech, i.e., rhetoric, to be successful in politics and law-courts. They thereby turned the young men's attention to this practical skill rather than to the worship of heroic models of themselves. This lack of 37 spirit to pursue the aristocratic male ideals could have caused the pederasty, which is in its true sense an aristocratic love affair, to be degraded and reduced to its baser side— the physical relation. Furthermore, those Athenian citizens who were not descendants of the aristocrats were very much likely to misuse and abuse pederasty solely for satisfying their desire without understanding its true nature. Aristophanes must have witnessed many such corrupted pederastic relationships in his own time. Although Aristophanes does not ridicule the active partner who seeks homosexual gratification per se, he is sarcastic towards those who are obsessed by this desire and linger around palaestra to seduce younger boys, as implied in Peace (762-763): Kai yap irportpov irpa^as Kara vovv ovyi iraAaiorpas irepivoarrajv iratSas errdpaiv, and again in Wasps (1025): ot)8i iraXatarpas ir€/»K o)fia(«iv rreipdiv * But Aristophanes' main attack is aimed at those who assume a passive, and thereby submissive, role. Aristophanes is very critical of the younger boys who appear to him depraved and indiscreet. Right in Clouds 38 (961 ff.) laments the degenerate manners of the boys in his time in comparison with the manners of the boys in the good old days who were modest and respectful to older men. In those days, Right says, the boys behaved in an orderly manner and never put on strange actions to draw the attention of older men nor tried to seduce them by imitating a woman's voice. This shows that in 5th century Athens many indecent boys tried to make use of the opportunity of pederasty as a means for some personal gain and thereby were eager to seduce older men who could provide them with what they wanted in return for their service. Furthermore, Aristophanes thinks that all eromenoi are of one sort; he does not see any positive motive on the part of eromenos in the pederastic relationship. His sarcasm at the eromenoi in general is reflected in the words of Sausage-seller in Knights (735-740) who compares his rival, Demos, to "those eromenoi”: aAAoi re noXXot kox koXoi re KayadoL. o A A ’ o vx otoL r* Laptev Sta rovrovL. cru yap optotoy e l rot? n a ta l rote ipaiptevots' roue /iev KaXove r e Kayadove o v n poaheyet, a a v ro v 8c Au^vojrtoAaioi xcu vevpoppa<f>o i? Kai OKirrorofjtots kox f3 v p o o n to \a to tv St'Sco?. Aristophanes does not want to differentiate good eromenoi from bad eromenoi but puts all those boys in one category as mean and base. This sarcastic view that no eromenos 39 is truly in love with his erastes but rather interested only in obtaining some material gain is revealed in the dialogue between Carion and Chremylus in Plutus (153-159): KAi K a l t o w y e m u S o f 4 > cu ji t o v t o t o v t o Sp a v , o v ruiv ip a c r r w v aAAd r a p y v p l o v X°L PiV' XP. ou r o w y e x /jtjcttow , aAAd r o w Tropvovs' eirei aiTovcrw o v k dpyvptov ol xp rjoroi. k a . r i Bat; XP. o pthf tm rov ayaBov, o Be K w a s BrjpevTtKOVs. KA. au ryw o ftevo t y a p apyvpiov curttv tcruif o v o fta n irep tverro vm ttjv poydTipiav. Chremylus tries to distinguish between bad eromenoi who grant favors for money and good ones who receive only some gifts. On the other hand, Carion thinks that those who seek gifts are no better than those who ask for money. To him the latter are just covering their wicked deed with a fine name because of shame. Aristophanes’ entire denial of pederastic relationships based on love leads him not to differentiate between gifts as the payment for service and gifts as tokens of love. Thus, in Aristophanes the distinction between granting favor for some material gain and granting favor for love, which is so important to other writers and also to the participants, is completely negated. But we must admit that there must have been some love affairs which derived from affection felt in the hearts of both partners and had the positive merits which we already saw in a 40 desirable pederastic relationship. TtctvSepacrTCct in its true sense does not seem to have died out completely in 5th century Athens. Aristophanes' cynical view is especially turned to those boys who are effeminate and serve as substitutes for females. Agathon, who was the eromenos of Pausanias, is ridiculed in the Thesmophoriazusae for his effeminacy; he is even depicted as wearing woman's clothes and having his beard shaved.19 The cause of this ridicule might have been that Agathon continued to assume the role of eromenos even after the beard was grown. He is said to have reached his mid-thirties when the Thesmophoriazusae was performed but still continued his relationship with Pausanias. It is no wonder that Aristophanes who considers all the eromenoi as bad would ridicule Agathon who could not outgrow the stage of eromenos even at the age when he was expected to assume an active role. But much of his description could have been exaggeration or even false.20 Aristophanes' cynicism towards Agathon is expressed by the word gtvew throughout the whole play. When Mnesilochus says that he does not know who Agathon is, Euripides retorts (35) , * a l yfiv gsgCvn-was au y * , a A A ’ oux oZoq’ 'aus* That the old man did govew without knowing who he is implies that Agathon acted as a prostitute in a dark place. And again, when Agathon's 41 servant says (49-50), yeUei yap o naAAuercris ‘Ayadwv itpoyos nyerepos, Mnesilochus interrupts (50) with sarcastic remark, y£v BbveCoSab • Aristophanes associates the act of @uvew particularly with prostitutes and thereby considers it base and mean. Thus any boy who offered his body for this type of intercourse is regarded as the same as a prostitute in a moral sense. The passage in the Knights which might be a reference to an actual prosecution of a citizen who acted as a prostitute draws special attention. Paphlagon says in lines 876-877, OOTlff eirauera row s fiu>ovp.evovs, to v Vpvrrov i^aXeupat. Thereupon Sausage-seller responds (878-880): ovkow ow Bij-ra raura Beivov earn ■npuiKrorrjpeut, iravacur c t o w j^ tr a v f to v w ; kovk cod’ orrurs e/reu'ov? ovyl < f > 9ovtH t> f l r a u o w , u»a pqropes ycvourro. The middle-aged men in Aristophanes' comedies are resentful of the young men who are active and energetic and thereby play the dominant part in the assembly and political activities. Their resentment towards those young men makes them take a sarcastic look at the way they behave, and they comfort themselves by thinking that these young men are actually no better than prostitutes.2 ^ 42 The more pederasty becomes degenerate and reduced to the coarse side of physical pleasure, the more prostitutipn becomes prosperous. In 5th century Athens, anyone could satisfy his desire with servile partners by the payment of money. The Attic law, therefore, pays particular attention to the dignity of citizen status, which should not be violated by a bad name like prostitute. If any Athenian citizen prostitutes himself, the law states (Aeschines, The Speech against Timarchus. 21) he cannot participate in political or social life and thereby will be deprived of the rights of a citizen. The law is especially concerned about the status of citizen, since the punishment or prosecution on account of prostitution is applied only to Athenian citizens. If a boy prostitutes himself even against his will, although there is no indictment at the moment, he will be deprived of the rights of a citizen when he becomes a grownup. But if he himself withdraws from male society and political activities, there will be no prosecution since the law punishes those who take part in politics, not those who live as private citizens (95). The foreigners who visit or live in Athens, however, are free to prostitute themselves if only they pay tax for their income, since they already have status lower than Athenian citizens and were barred from Athenian political 43 life. Thus the law does not negate the existence of prostitution nor prevent sexual gratification by mercenary means. What the law emphasizes is that prostitution belongs to the servile people, not to the citizens who should devote themselves to the welfare of society, since anyone who prostitutes himself is morally inferior and is likely to betray the common interests of the city as Aeschines states (29): top yap t o a a p a t o e a v r o v v /3 p e t n r e tr p a K o r a , te a l r a ico tv a T775 7roXewf paStto? yy^ tra ro anroZaxreadat. While Aristophanes thinks all the eromenoi are like prostitutes, Aeschines confines prostitution to haCp.nais, a long-period relationship with a single client, and nopveCa , a short-period relationship with many clients— terms applied to those who actually take money in return for their bodily service. There is no indication in Aeschines that the homosexual act itself incurred punishment except prostitution in the case of citizens. But an excessive desire solely for physical satisfaction or an illicit intercourse ( Bt-veu) were likely to be prone to censure. As we have seen, Aristophanes does not depict any positive motives or merits in pederasty— -it is at best sensual pleasure and at worst perversion. The different 44 view reflected in old comedy is mainly due to the genre, since old comedy functioned as a satirical work whose characteristics we find later in the genre of satire in Latin literature. Philosophical works endeavor to depict the ideal aspects or try to form an ideal picture of TtatSepaaxta , whereas old comedy is much interested in satirizing the bad aspects or degraded forms of the phenomenon often by exaggeration and caricature. Old comedy writers could ridicule anybody or any phenomenon in society if only they decided to do so. It is possible that some old comedy writers ridiculed specific persons because they were asked to do so by those who had grudges against them as implied in Wasps (1025-1028): OvS’ el Tty epatrrqs, K aip u B elo d tu fftu S tx cairroV fiurutv io ire v h e trp o s airrov, ouSevt ttu m o n i < fr r )< 7 i m decrdat, yv<l>p.rp> r iv ' ex°*v CTteuri}, «»a T a r M o u a a r alow xp/fjrat fitf npoayuryovy a.7to< ftrpoj, Aristophanes* boast of his sincerity is not that he does not give a false picture but that whatever he satirizes is done by his own belief and decision and does not comply with requests or with some enticement. It is not important to him to - paint a true picture but to attack the target; he can make fun of anybody by any means, even by fictitious descriptions. For example, in Clouds Aristophanes ridicules Socrates by attributing some characteristics of the Sophists to Socrates, namely, the 45 teaching of rhetoric for a fee, which is arguably false. We can also see that the same affair is depicted entirely differently by two different writers. Autolycus, who was the eromenos of Kallias, is represented by Xenophon in his Symposium (1 8-11) as a modest, shy and beautiful youth, but becomes the target of ridicule by Eupolis in his comedy entitled Autolvcus and is alleged to have prostituted himself to Kallias. Thus, the different roles of the genres and the different interests of writers could have provided two opposite pictures of an existing phenomenon. It might be true that in 5 th century Athens some people had a bad opinion of pederasty or that there were many degenerate pederastic relationships in Aristophanes' time. But it is wrong to believe that all the pederastic relationships were such as revealed in Aristophanes and that the picture depicted in other works of literature is merely an idealized form of pederasty. The good and desirable pederastic relationships might have been prosperous in a certain group of people until pederasty was officially attacked by the Roman church. The fact that Plutarch, who lived in the 1st and 2nd century A.D., gives a favorable description of pederasty proves that still then pederasty as an aristocratic love affair was cherished at least by some enthusiasts. 46 The different perspective on and the different characteristics of pederasty represented in Aristophanes are most striking when we compare them with those in Plato1s works. In Plato homosexual eros is considered more intense and rewarding and thereby superior to heterosexual love, while in Aristophanes homosexual eros is aimed at occasional gratifications and is treated at most as a peripheral luxury. This can be explained by another point besides the difference of their genres, namely, the different characters.22 The main characters in Plato are rich young men who belong to the upper class and might still want to keep the aristocratic heritage, whereas the main characters in Aristophanes are middle-aged, middle class men who won equality as citizens but might be sarcastic towards the old aristocracy. Since pederasty, in its true sense, is an aristocratic love affair to hand down the male ideals, it appeals mainly to the intellectuals or those who still cherish the aristocratic value system. Without the zeal for male ideals and without any interest in intellectual or spiritual association, pederasty is likely to be degraded to the coarse physical realm. The characters in Aristophanes are those who do not have such high-minded pursuits but rather imitate the old aristocratic phenomenon merely for pleasure without understanding its 47. true nature and essence. Therefore, it is natural that in Plato the homosexual relationship is spiritually ennobling as well as emotionally absorbing, while in Aristophanes homosexual eros is solely the desire of an erastes who seeks physical satisfaction for the moment. Although all the citizens had the freedom and leisure to pursue any younger boys with the advent of democracy, the Greek love of youths, in its true sense, must have been cherished by the intellectuals or high-minded people who still wanted to keep the aristocratic heritage. If we turn to Sparta, we can examine a state which is quite different from Athens in its life style and social system. The Spartans had a monarchical government which ruled over a subject population and thereby had to withstand a continuous threat of insurrection by the helots. It was the main issue of the Spartans to protect the Spartan power from the helots and other states. Therefore the worth of an individual, male or female, was measured according to his or her contribution to the sustenance of the Spartan regime. Sparta was basically a military society in which everything was controlled by and for the polis. All the male citizens had to live in barracks to be trained for warfare. Sparta was even notorious for the freedom allowed to women who could participate in exercises with males. The best women were 48 the healthiest mothers who could produce healthiest children. For this purpose, wives could be shared by kin or fellow-citizens. The children then belonged to the polis and were reared by the will of the state. Moreover, the boys had to leave their mothers at a very early age to join in the communal life. Fathers had no authority over these children who were to be raised according to tribal custom. In this ambiance, Spartan pederasty has traits somewhat different from those of Athens, although it shares with much of the general characteristics of Greek pederasty which we have already observed. In Sparta it was institutionalized as a duty for a mature man to have an eromenos to guide and instruct to become a good soldier. Their relationship was established as a public duty rather than a private love affair for the welfare of society. The erastes could thereby have displayed his influence over the eromenos for life who himself could have his own eromenos as a mature man.23 And the eromenoi might have been shared just as the wives were to produce good citizens. In Sparta everything was, in fact, the common property of the polis and no individual could have absolute authority over anything. Furthermore, it is said that in Sparta the law held the erastes morally responsible for the conduct of his 49 eromenos. If the eromenos committed anything shameful, it was not the eromenos himself but the erastes who was punished. Thus the boy's lover shared with his beloved not only fame and glory but also disgrace. Plutarch in his Lycurgus (XVIII 4) describes how when a boy let fall a painful cry in battle, his lover was afterwards punished by the magistrate. It was the lover's duty to make his beloved a person of noble and fine character. It is no wonder that in Sparta, which encouraged pederasty not for personal pleasure but for the benefit of society, love of boys was much more idealized than in other states. Xenophon, in his Constitution of the Lacedaemonians (II 13.) , gives a description of the customs instituted by Lycurgus: '0 8e AuKovpyos ivavrLa teal rourots vd<ri yvoit? el pev T < ? aitTOS cov olov See dyacr&els yfrw%T)v irai- 809 Treipatro dfjuep/nTov <pl\ov cnroTeXtaaodai teal (Tvveivat, eirrjvet teal tcaXkiaTrjv iraiBelav ra vrijv evo p t^ev el 84 t i ? TraiSov tratparos opeyopevos tbaveLrj, aX<rxiarrov t o v t o 8eU i-rroiTjtrev ev Aatee- 8alpovt pijSev t j t t o v epatTTa<s iraiSiKatv direxeadae ff yovelt iratBotv tea l1 p8e\<ftoi d8e\<f>at» els aif>po8laia direxovrat. If a man took pains to make his beloved whose soul he admired a fine friend, Lycurgus considered it the best form of education (xotXAL.arriv itaiSeiav) . But the Spartan lawgiver disapproved of the attraction towards outward beauty and chastened lovers to abstain from any physical 50 relationship with boys as parents do from their children and brothers and sisters from each other. Thus the Spartan lawgiver interpreted the function of itat,6epaaria as pedagogy and proposed a chaste spiritual relationship between lovers. But there must have been a gap between the ideal and the actual. Xenophon himself seems to have been skeptical of the idealized picture of Spartan pederasty (cf. II 14). We can, however, catch a glimpse of popular sentiment in regard to the Spartan predilection for homosexual contact in Aristophanes' Lysistrata. In this play, the Athenians are described as heterosexually inclined while the Spartans are homosexually oriented. The Athenians, in a miserable state because of the desire for their wives, want to make a peace-treaty with the Spartans. As the Athenian representative tries to summon Lysistrata as an arbiter, the Spartan says (1105): r a t tc u aruo, k o v X y r e , r o v A v a L c r r p a r o v . When they have reconciled, the dialogue they exchange is thus (1173-74): a s . rjSrj yeuipyt.lv yvpivof dnoSvs jS o u Ao ju c u . AAK. eycu S i K O T T payaryijv y a irp a i vai r w crico. The context is strongly sexual: the Athenian is seeking heterosexual intercourse while the Spartan a homosexual one. Thus the Athenians knew that the Spartans indulged 51 in homosexual contacts. Furthermore, Aristophanes caricatures the Spartans for having the illicit intercourse in homosexual relationship. Athenaeus reports that in Sparta men enjoyed this type of intercourse even with maidens (XIII 602e). But we certainly do not know how prevalent this type of physical contact was in Sparta. The point here is that Aristophanes, who shows much disgust for the illicit intercourse, is ascribing this custom to the Spartans as if it were the way of Athens' enemy.24 Then it might not be hard for us to understand how the term AahuvlCu , whose original meaning is "to imitate the manners of the Lacedaemonians," came about to mean "to have an illicit intercourse" either with male or female in a sexual context, and quite often refers to the homosexual coitus. Certainly there is a derogatory tone in the expression AanojvC£co . It was only natural that the Athenians who had been on bad terms with the Spartans especially during the Peloponnesian War tried to attribute the bad element in their society to their enemy. But in reality there must have been honorable homoerotic affairs as well as some unchaste ones. In Crete also, the practice of 7cau6£paCTTua was a nationally recognized custom. According to Athenaeus (XIII 601e) Echimenes said in his Cretan History that it 52 was Minos who carried off Ganymede, while in other traditions it was unanimously accepted that Zeus snatched him to heaven to make his cupbearer. Thus ascribing the rape of Ganymede to their ancient king Minos, the Cretans acknowledged the rape of boys as a long established custom. Ephorus of Cyme gives an account of ritualized homosexual rape in Crete most fully.25 The erastes declared his intention for rape to the boy's family, and with their consent he carried out his plan. Unless they thought the erastes was unworthy of the boy, they gladly let him go on his way. To forbid this and to hide the boy would have meant that the boy did not deserve such a lover. The boy who was distinguished for physical beauty was actually less desirable than the one renowned for valor and good character. Thus they were careful to see whether the lover was equal or superior to him in rank and nobility. But if the lover was unworthy of the boy they prevented this love affair by force. With the connivance of the boy's family the lover took him to the countryside for a sort of honeymoon. After two months, they returned to the city and the boy was presented by his erastes with rich gifts, especially military equipment, a drinking-cup and a bull. The boy was supposed to sacrifice this bull and offer a meal to his friends. Through this ritual the boy was introduced to a 53 man's club, dv6peCov , and was honored to have a special place in the chorus and public life. The beloved was now called xAetvos — the famous, and the lover TtXntaip , This ritualized rape in Crete seems to have been an initiation into the man's world, as a sort of recruitment to an aristocratic fraternity. If a handsome boy of a noble family did not get a lover, this was a disgrace. The emphasis of Strabo on the high social ranks of both parties and the assumption of having a country home for a long honeymoon indicates that in Crete, too, pederasty was a phenomenon of the aristocratic upper class. If the lover and his beloved continued their relationship after this ritual, it was the duty of the erastes to mold the boy into a good citizen and brave warrior. According to Timaeus, Cretans introduced the practice of pederasty into Greece, but others attribute the initiation of this practice to the ancient king of Thebes, Laius.26 When Laius was the guest of Pelops, he fell in love with the beautiful son of Pelops, Chrysippus, whom he carried off and made his favorite. Thus the Thebans considered the homosexual affair as the invention of their ancestral king and accepted it as their own custom. In Thebes, too, it was the traditional practice for the erastes to offer a present of a complete suit of armor to his beloved when the boy reached the age 54 of enrollment. We have, moreover, a description of the "Sacred Band" of Thebes, composed entirely of pairs of homosexual lovers, who bound themselves with the oath of love. It was Pammenes who changed the order of battleline of the hoplites. He blamed Homer for being ignorant of eros because he makes the Achaeans arrange their battleline according to tribes and clans (Iliad. II 362) and did not put lover beside his beloved.27 Pammenes took it as a principle of military organization to put lovers side by side, believing that Love is the only invincible general. Once the god Eros enters into the soul of lovers, he believed, their tie is indissoluble and unbreakable. They exhibit their ardor in danger and risk their lives even when it is not necessary. The "Sacred Band" of Thebes provided the best example for the lofty ethics of Greek pederasty. This band proved itself wonderfully in the battle of Mantinea, in which Epaminondas fell. Epaminondas, in fact, had two beloveds, Asopichus and Caphisodorus. Caphisodorus died with him at Mantinea and was buried near him, while Asopichus became a most formidable warrior.28 The power and gallantry of this band remained invincible until the defeat at Chaeronea, by which the flower of Greek freedom was put to an end. When the victor, Philip II of Macedon, inspected the battlefield after the engagement, 55 he was amazed at the sight of the fallen soldiers of Thebes. Every one of them, it is said, had his wounds in front, and lay side by side retaining their weapons. When he was told that they were all lovers, he wept for them admiring their heroic spirit. The valor and courage inspired by homosexual eros was active not only on the battlefield but also in the political sphere. Some heroic events, for example, the removal of tyrants, were brought about through passionate love affairs between men. In fact, jealousy and hurt pride were the causes for many heroic incidents as well as crimes. Some tyrants, fearing the courage and spirit it inspired, tried to abolish this kind of relationship. According to Athenaeus (XIII 602d) Polycrates, the tyrant of Samos, ordered all the arenas burnt to ashes since he regarded them as counter-walls to his own citadels and a menace to his power. Actually some revolts were fomented against tyrants by homosexual lovers whose feelings were wounded. No one dared to oppose the policies of tyrants though they acted like drunkards. But many lovers stood up against the tyrants as rivals in love and competitors for the cpuACa of their beloveds. The lovers had no quarrel with the tyrants at first, but when the tyrants tried to seduce their beloveds, they rebelled to their own peril as if they were defending holy and inviolable 56 sanctuaries (Plutarch, Amatorius. 760C). The most famous of these heroic deeds caused by a homosexual love affair is that of the Athenian tyrannicides, Harmodius and Aristogiton, celebrated by the poets and painters as champions of freedom. Thucydides reports in The Peloponnesian War (VI 54-9} the story of Harmodius and Aristogiton, whose love affair turned out to be such a spectacular political issue. The unsuccessful attempt of Hipparchus to seduce Harmodius, the beloved of Aristogiton, was the beginning of the quarrel. With insulted pride and wounded feelings, Aristogiton and Harmodius plotted with some accomplices against Hipparchus. Hipparchus, the son of Pisistratus and brother of the tyrant Hippias, was killed in 514 B.C. by these two lovers, who by their action gained the credit for having freed Athens from tyranny, though the tyrant Hippias was not actually removed until 510 B.C. The plot, however, was not carried out successfully and both Harmodius and Aristogiton perished as the result of this act. Poets, painters and sculptors immortalized them as the authors of heroic acts. The example of Harmodius and Aristogiton was later set before the young as a model for admiration and imitation. Surely, the longing for political liberty could not have been enough for such a daring act. 57 Many scholars, however, deny the erotic element implicit in Homer's Iliad. But although Homer does not explicitly name their relationship as ifpw-s-, it is obvious that the intimate relationship between Achilles and Patroclus depicted in the Iliad is not mere friendship but love, as Aeschines states in his Speech against Timarchus (142): \e£ai 8e TrpaiTov p e v trepi 'O ptjpov, ov ev t o ? ? Trpeo-fivTaTots k a t tro<poiTuToi<; t w u Troitjratv eivat r d r r o p e v . e x eivo s ya p iroXKa^oO fiep.irrfp.evos irep l IT a r p o - k K o v /cat ’A j^iW ew s, r o v p e v epasra zeal ttjv e irtJ w p L a v a vrw v r ijs tftiTuas dirozcpviTTeTat, -fjyov- p e v o s r a s rffs e v v o ia s v tr e p fia k d s /cara<f>avets e lv a t rots T reTratSevpevots rta v dxpaaT azv. Homer felt no necessity to give a name to their relationship but rather reveals the intense affection towards each other subtly so that the listeners cannot fail to grasp its true meaning. The erotic aspect of their relationship is unmistakable, if we look at certain passages in the Iliad closely. In Book IX (185 ff.) Homer depicts how Achilles and Patroclus enjoy their leisure time together. When the embassy from the Greek army comes to persuade Achilles to return to the battlefield, Achilles is delighting his heart playing a lyre while Patroclus is sitting opposite him and listening to his music in silence. They are enjoying the 58 harmony of music together as they share the harmony of their minds through love. The extravagant grief of Achilles at the death of Patroclus in Book XVIII (22 ff.) shows that Achilles is not grieving over the death of a mere friend but of his lover. He pours dust over his head, stretches his body on the ground and tears his hair with his hands. Achilles considered Patroclus the dearest person to him and even equal to his life (XVIII 82). The thought that he was not near his lover when he was in danger and could not even try to defend him torments the soul of Achilles. He is ashamed that he did not perform the due role of eromenos when his erastes was in danger. And it is this shame which he wants to erase by taking vengeance on Hector, the killer of Patroclus, although Achilles knows his own death follows right after the death of Hector; His resolve is to die together on the land of Troy if they cannot return together to their fatherland alive and thereby achieve immortal glory. He has no desire for food or drink because of his longing for Patroclus (afj ito$n / XIX 321) : through the word itodos we can have a glimpse of the sensual element implicit in their relationship. His confession that the loss of Patroclus is worse than anything else, even than the loss of his own father further proves that he is not talking of friendship but love. The strongest evidence for their 59 erotic relationship, however, comes from Book XXIII (83 ff.), where after the vengeance on Hector the ghost of Patroclus appears to Achilles in a dream and enjoins him that his bones would be buried together with those of Achilles. It is Patroclus' last wish that he would lie together with his beloved as they shared love when they were alive. The lover does not want to be separated from his beloved even in death but desires to mingle together in the same vessel. Achilles, promising to do what Patroclus bids, tries to embrace him but fails. All of the above descriptions presented in the Iliad certainly proves that their relationship is eros. This love relationship between Achilles and Patroclus was depicted again and again by later writers as the ideal heroic love and was much admired by posterity. The theme of the love between Achilles and Patroclus was further intensified by the great tragedian Aeschylus in his trilogy, Myrmidons. Nereids, and Phrygians or Ransoming of Hector, of which we have only a few fragments. Fragment 228 and fragment 229 run as follows: 'aifiau; Se [x-qpwv ayvov o u x erojiSeaoo, d> S u O ^ a p l O T S T W V 7 CUXV&V <pt,Xr)[AaTCOv’ , *[X7}po)v r e t S v crwv eu<rs(37)<; o jitX ia ’ From these fragments we can tell that Aeschylus depicted 60 their relationship quite graphically by disclosing the sensual aspects of their love. Pausanias in Plato's Symposium (180a), along with a eulogy of the honorable love of Achilles shown towards his lover Patroclus, blames Aeschylus that he made Achilles— the most beautiful of the heroes, still beardless and much younger than Patroclus according to Homer— the lover of Patroclus. It is true that Homer (XI 786-9) depicts Patroclus as the older erastes who should give good counsel to his younger eromenos, although noble in blood and mightier in strength. But Aeschylus seems to have reversed their roles by making Achilles the older erastes. Probably Aeschylus thought more highly of the erastes and did not want Achilles, the greatest of all the Greek heroes, to be in the position of the eromenos who assumes the subordinate role. Socrates in Xenophon's Symposium (VIII 31), however, takes the bond between Achilles and Patroclus as a purely spiritual love such as that between other pairs in legend, namely, Orestes and Pylades, or Theseus and Perithous: ttXXa fii'jv, co N iK t’ ipaT e, /cat 'A x c W e v i 'O uijpcp tre n o iijT a t o v % o>9 TratSiK oif Ilarpo/cAcp. «XX’ <&? €TC-Lpcp t l i r o B a v O V T l 6K "ITpC TT €<TTCCTC l T l p c O - p fja a i. teal 'Opecrrtjc; Se /cat llvXaSi;? tcai ("iijaeus /<ai riei pL0ov<: /cat aXXot Se 7roXXot rcov /)p.tBecov o i a p ta r o i vptvovvrai ov S ta to a vy /c a d ev S eiv tlXXa S tit to a y a c rd a t dXX^Xoo? r k pteyterra /cat icaA- \tc r r a KOtvfj Siave-rrpax@ at. 61 In regard to this passage29 Dover says, "Socrates denies that Homer intended any erotic element in his portrayal of Achilles and Patroclos."30 But Dover is misinterpreting this passage by ignoring its context entirely. Socrates starts his speech with the theme of f c ’pws (VIII 1) and points out what he wants to prove (VIII 12) : N > / At’, 07r* > 9 8e *al en fiaWav eucfipaivt/- T a t , fiovXofiui avrrp pa/nvp?)cra.t r«>? xai tto\v KpfLTTWV ecrrlv O T I J 9 ^frVX’tV * ) ® TO^ (T(Op.mo<{ epft>S. Therefore, what Socrates means is not that the relationship of Achilles and Patroclus was not erotic but that their relationship was elevated to a higher spiritual love through which they could accomplish heroic achievements. It is no wonder that Socrates, who denies the physical elements in the homoerotic relationship, tries to emphasize the spiritual side of their relationship. But it is clear that Socrates takes the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus not as mere friendship but love (epoog or cpuXta) . The ancient Greeks, thus, accepted their relationship as erotic, whether one sees it as purely spiritual or accompanied by sensual pleasure: we do not have any extant document which denies this aspect in their relationship. Furthermore, their love served as the model for the spiritually 62 ennobling homoerotic relationship from generation to generation. The love of Orestes and Pylades was also famous and traditionally acknowledged along with that of Achilles and Patroclus among the ancient Greeks. In the Electra of Sophocles and in the Electra of Euripides, the character of Pylades is actually unnecessary, but in both plays a mute Pylades is attached to Orestes, since their love relationship, firmly established in Greek legends, cannot be ignored. Aeschylus, however, allows one line to Pylades, in his Libation-Bearers. When Orestes, not knowing whether he should really kill his mother as she pleads for mercy, asks— nuXa6n, xt 6paaw unxep’ ' at xxaveCv; (899)— Pylades advises him to perform the deed not to nullify the oracle of Apollo and their faithful oath (900-902). It is Pylades who gives counsel to Orestes at a crucial moment. Thus, all three great tragedians of antiquity accept their relationship as an intimate one by having Orestes accompanied by Pylades even when it is dramatically unnecessary. This erotic relationship between Orestes and Pylades is much further developed and actually becomes the main theme of the play in the Orestes of Euripides. There is no specific passage which indicates their age, but from the fact that Electra, the elder sister of Orestes, is betrothed to 63 Pylades we can tell that Pylades must be much older than Orestes. Orestes wants Pylades, his lover, to marry his sister Electra, to establish a kin relationship when they can no longer continue their erotic one, which is supposed to end when the eromenos grows up enough to assume a new role as erastes. It is the desire of both Orestes and Pylades to have a permanent relationship as kin even after the end of their love relation.31 On the other hand, from the play itself we can also see that it is Pylades who advises Orestes what to do and thereby assumes the dominant role, the role of the erastes. In fact, Orestes is entirely under the influence of Pylades who guides and directs his younger partner. In the Orestes of Euripides, it is the younger eromenos, Orestes, who is sick with the attacks of the Eumenides and thereby needs the comfort and care of his older erastes. Pylades is always near Orestes when he is in a dire situation and renders help with affectionate care. When Orestes was attacked by the Eumenides as he was gathering the bones of his mother Clytaemnestra, it was Pylades who helped him to raise his body (405-406) . When Orestes is about to go to the assembly to defend himself at the advice of his erastes, it is also Pylades who is willing to accompany him to support and care for his sick beloved. It might be unpleasant to tend a sick 64 person, but not for a lover when the invalid is his beloved. It is indeed sweet for Pylades to touch and feel the body of his beloved, though sick. When they are at the point of departure, Pylades offers his body to Orestes to lean on saying (800-803): irfpifiaXiov irKcvpois ip.oitri ir\evpa va>yfX.Tj vo<rif 800 d » s i y u > b l i o T € < i s < T (, I T p l K p a . < f> p O V T C fa v 0 \ X . 0 V , ovbev aia-\vp$€ls ■ irou yap Siv b(i£w < j > tXos, « t ore (jit) V beivaiiriv ovra < rvp.< f> opa'ts iirapK^<rca; The two men embrace, putting their arms around each other's shoulders; the older erastes is supporting his beloved who in turn leans his body on his erastes. They thereupon make their way to the assembly, affirming their love with physical unity. When Orestes and Pylades reenter the stage as they return from the assembly, they are probably walking in the same posture they had when they left the stage. The love of Pylades, willing to die together with his beloved, who is sentenced to death with his sister, is well-matched with the love Achilles shows towards his erastes for whose sake he accepted death. Pylades has no wish to live alone when his beloved is gone; he exclaims— tC 6e ?fjv 6ns exottpuas axep ; (1072) Life is joyless and worthless to Pylades without his beloved who is the dearest one and actually everything to him 65 (732-733). Furthermore, Pylades assumes all the responsibility himself because he advised and helped his younger eromenos when Orestes performed the dire deed. It is, in fact, one of the characteristics of Greek naufiepaaxta that the erastes takes full responsibility for whatever his eromenos does. Pylades is willing to share the doom of Orestes by taking the ills of his beloved as his own since lovers are one and have the same destiny, as he proclaims— not,va yap xa tSv cpuAwv (735). If his beloved has to die, Pylades thinks, the erastes who is responsible for the conduct of his eromenos must die too. In fact, Pylades has no intention to forsake his beloved to death alone? he wants to remain faithful to him even in death. But, before they die, Pylades devises a plot for his beloved to avoid a shameful death— to take vengeance on Helen who is the author of all their ills. Through this device and also Apollo's intervention, Orestes and Electra along with himself are eventually saved from death. Thus, the love of Pylades rescues his beloved from death. This love between Orestes and Pylades which did not reside merely in sensual pleasure but which had higher aspirations was much esteemed among the Greeks as an honorable homoerotic relationship. Let us, finally, have a look at some of the famous 66 stories about the homoerotic affairs of the gods. The Greek gods were known to have enjoyed homosexual eros.32 Zeus, Father of the gods, loved a mortal, Ganymede, and made him his cupbearer. In the Iliad (XX 231-235) it is not Zeus but other gods who carried off Ganymede to make him the cupbearer for Zeus. Zeus (Iliad. V 265 ff.), however, gave Ganymede's father, Tros, fine horses in recompense for the loss of his son. This statement in the Iliad is well in accordance with the story told in The Hymn to Aphrodite (V 202-217) in which the story of the seizure of Ganymede by Zeus is put in the same context as the seizure of Tithonous by Dawn and thereby implies that the cause of Zeus' seizure of the youth was erotic. In both versions, it is the beauty of Ganymede which led to the abduction of Ganymede to heaven. Ganymede is described as jtaAAuaxos &v$pusnwv (Iliad. XX 233) and $a0ya u6eCv (The Homeric Hvmn to Aphrodite. V 205) and is carried off to become the cupbearer of Zeus KaAAeos eJvexa (Iliad. XX 235) and 5ia naAAeos (The Homeric Hvmn to Aphrodite. V 203). The beauty of a youth which draws the heart of mortal men can enchant even the gods. By making the greatest god of all the Greek deities be in love with a beautiful mortal youth, the Greeks seem to have idealized the beauty of a blooming youth. And this theme— Zeus' abduction of 67 Ganymede— became one of the favorite motifs for artists. Pindar in his Olympian Odes 1. on the other hand, tells us how Poseidon, enamored with Pelops, took him to heaven as Zeus did to Ganymede. Pindar seems to have felt disgust at the story of Tantalus who invited the gods to a banquet and served his own son cooked. He therefore invents his own version about how Pelops happened to disappear from the earth for a period. Poseidon was in love with Pelops whose attractions were enhanced by an ivory shoulder. When Tantalus invited the gods for a feast, Poseidon, whose heart was enthralled with love, seized Pelops and carried him to the abode of the immortal gods. But Pelops could not become an eternal beloved to Poseidon like Ganymede to Zeus but had to return to the earth to live among mortal men, since his father Tantalus committed uBpts against the gods by stealing ambrosia and nectar. When the down began to grow on his cheek, he married Hippodameia with the help of his former lover Poseidon. Through this story of Pelops Pindar reveals a distinct feature of Greek love of boys. Poseidon, who enjoyed the beauty and youth of a mortal beloved, released him when he reached the age when he should outgrow this stage, i.e., right before the growth of beard on his chin. Thus Pelops appeared on earth once again not because the gods reassembled the 68 pieces of his chopped body but because Poseidon, freed from his passion towards the youth as he approached maturity, sent him back to earth. Apollo was famous for his homoerotic affairs and had numerous favorites. One well-known story is the sad tale about Hyacinthus. Apollo loved Hyacinthus, a beautiful youth. One day the boy and his lover, Apollo, were playing a discus game. The discus hurled by Apollo hit the head of his beloved by accident and killed the youth. One version states that Zephyrus (or Boreas) , also in love with Hyacinthus, directed the orb of the discus against the youth out of jealousy. Enormous was the grief of Apollo after having killed his own beloved unwittingly. To soothe the lover's sorrowing heart, a flower sprang from the blood of the youth. This flower is named after him— Hyacinthus. Apollo could only see the flower for a short time each year because although it reappears annually it blossoms all too briefly. In memory of Hyacinthus, the beautiful beloved of Apollo who died so young, the festival Hyacinthia is celebrated in Sparta (Athenaeus, IV 139d). 69 NOTES TO CHAPTER I Herodotus in his Histories (I 135) states that the Persians learned the practice of pederasty from the Greeks. 2cf. K. J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality (Cambridge 1978) 70. 3cf. J. Henderson, The Maculate Muse:____Obscene Language in Attic Comedy (New Haven and London 1975) 206. 4G. Devereux, "Greek Pseudo-homosexuality and the 'Greek Miracle,'" Svmbolae Osloenses xlii (1967) 72. cf. K. J. Dover, "Eros and Nomos", BICS xi (19 64) 31. 5In regard to this aspect, Spartan pederasty seems to have been somewhat different from other states. Here the erastes might maintain his influence over his junior partner for life (cf. p. 49). 6The reason for this seems to be that most of the artists were men who were interested in the beauty of their own sex. If there were many women artists, it would have been somewhat different. Each sex undoubtedly has its own peculiarity and beauty. 7Plutarch, Amatorius 758D. ®The eromenos cannot have as much sensual pleasure as the erastes does because he does not feel eros which his erastes feels towards him. If he feels eros, it implies that he assumes the role of a female and thereby a servile status. 9G. Devereux, "Greek Pseudo-homosexuality and the 'Greek Miracle,'" 76-77. 10We cannot tell whether Ibycus sings of his own personal experience or of someone else's. Since Ibycus worked at the court of Polycrates, the tyrant of Samos, he might have composed many poems for Polycrates. Therefore, it is not entirely improbable that he composed this poem for Polycrates. But whether the first person 70 in this poem indicates Ibycus himself or someone else is not important for our concern here to observe the agonistic feature of male love. J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality 203. Pausanias in Plato's Symposium, however, proposes a new ethic for homosexuality. He criticizes the general attitude about homosexuality which was considered a stage for the development of the individual. To him the honorable love should be something permanent, and thereby form a lasting, life-long partnership. Pausanias blames those who enjoy the youth of a young boy and desert him as soon as a beard grows on his chin. But to most of the ancient Greeks a permanent homosexual relationship must have appeared a perversion. The nature and characteristics of ancient Greek homosexuality, in fact, do not require a permanent relationship. 1 2G. Devereux, "Greek Pseudo-homosexuality and the ’Greek Miracle,’" 75. 13For the particular passages in Greek texts, see K. J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality 87. 14It is very unlikely that there was a law which forbade slaves from any particular kind of relationship among themselves. But slaves seem to have been seldom- affected by this kind of love affair which required a noble, aristocratic mentality. 15Athenaeus, XIII 603e. 1 6Ibid., XIII 603e-604e. 1 7Ibid., XIII 604d-604f. 1 8Plutarch, Lives III; Pericles VIII 5. 19A razor was a female article in ancient Greece to remove bodily hair. Moreover, Greek men did not shave their beards. Thus Aristophanes makes fun of Agathon by alleging that he not only assumed a female role but also made himself look like a woman. To act as a substitute for a woman is against the essence of pederasty, which is motivated by interest in one's own sex and by the pursuit of male ideals. Therefore, transvestism was not only ridiculed but considered a perversion. 20It is very unlikely that Agathon, who appears as a decent, admirable, beautiful young man in Plato's 71 Symposium, went to the extent of wearing woman’s clothes and keeping a female article to shave his beard. It is not Aristophanes' aim, however, to give a true picture, but rather to make the target of his ridicule look as funny as possible. The means of his ridicule, namely, exaggeration or false description, stems from the genre of Old Comedy which served a satirical function. 2 1K. J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality 141. This view is reflected also in Wasps (1068-70). ws iyoi roujxov vo/xl^oj yfjpas elvai Kpelrrov tj 7 toX- Adjv KtnCwovs veavuuv Kai a^ijpLa KevpvTrpcoKTiav. tioAASv veavuwv must refer to the eromenoi. That all the eromenoi have the feature of EOpuitpuxxLa is Aristophanes' way of ridicule. But we do not know whether the word eupunpoiMTCa refers to the personality or alludes to the illicit intercourse. 2 2K. J. Dover, in his articles, i.e., "Eros and Nomos" (p. 36) and "Classical Greek Attitudes to Sexual Behavior" (Arethusa vi 1973 p. 69) , gives too much emphasis to the class for the different attitudes as if class itself determined different sexual behavior. The important factor is not to which class the characters belong, but what kind of mentality they have. We can see that the characters in Aristophanes belong to a lower level than the characters in Plato, not only in social class but also in mentality; they lack the zeal for the spiritual pursuit of male ideals. It is quite natural that low-minded people see homosexual eros purely in physical terms whereas high-minded people take it as a union of physical and spiritual relationships, or give more emphasis on the spiritual association between lovers, although they do not entirely deny physical pleasure except in the case of Platonic love. It is possible, however, for a lower class person to have an honorable pederastic relationship if only he has that mentality to take pederasty in its true sense. On the other hand, an upper class person who has low mentality could seek only physical pleasure and abuse pederasty for his egoistic purpose. Therefore, class itself is not actually crucial to a man's attitude towards sexual behavior but rather what kind of person he is. 23Although the erastes could advise his younger 72 partner with good counsel for life, in most cases the erotic relationships do not seem to have continued long after the eromenos becomes mature enough to have his own eromenos. The life-long relationship of Spartan pederasty seems due to the Spartan practice of having male citizens live in barracks together for life. 2 4cf. K. J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality 187-r88. 2 5Strabo, X 483f. 2 6Athenaeus, XIII 602f. 2 7Plutarch, Amatorius 76IB. 2 8Ibid., 761D. 29There is something odd in the words of Socrates that Homer depicts Achilles' regard for Patroclus not that for a iat6 u?ia but for a IxaCpos since it is obvious in Homer that Achilles, a younger eromenos cannot take Patroclus, an elder erastes, as naifiLxa. Xenophon seems to have thought that Achilles is an older erastes in Homer's Iliad, which is wrong (cf. Iliad. XI 786-89). 3 0K. J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality 189. 31To marry the sister of his beloved is not entirely unusual in Greek custom. Heracles is said to have fallen in love with Meleager when he visited the underworld. After he returned from his journey to Hades, he married Deianeira, the sister of Meleager. 32It is not surprising that Greeks who invented the gods according to their image projected what they themselves enjoyed to their deities. The homoerotic affairs ascribed to gods certainly show how deeply pederasty was implanted in Greek men's life. 73 CHAPTER II. FEMALE HOMOEROTISM Female homoerotism in ancient Greece shared with the male pederastic relationship its essence as an aristocratic love based on the zeal to pursue the ideals of its own sex. It served as a way for young maidens to grow into their mature womanhood. The older woman guided and imparted whatever she cherished to her younger partner and endeavored to mold her beloved to the ideal image of woman. And the young girl on her part could cultivate her mind and body through the intimate relationship with a mature woman. But the nature of their love was quite different from the men's, with its agonistic and therefore public aspect. In female homoerotism we do not find the distinct feature of male pederasty, namely, the older partner's trial to subdue and dominate the younger partner, but rather a mutuality based on reciprocal love. The aim in this chapter is to point out how different a woman's world was from that of men, and how different women's interests and their way of love were from those of males. The perception of similarities and differences between female homoerotism and male pederasty will enable us to understand the 74 nature and characteristics of male pederastic relationships more clearly. There is very little evidence about female homoerotism in ancient Greece partly because of the paucity of women writers and partly because of the paucity of objective statement of men on women's private life. Since the homoerotic emotion was regarded by the Greeks as one feature of human nature, it is probable that female homoerotic relationships were not far less prevalent than male pederastic relationships. Men depicted much about erotic relationships among themselves in literature, philosophical works and in visual arts. The silence of men concerning female homoerotism, however, does not prove that homoerotic love affairs were the privilege of men, but rather indicates that female homoerotic affairs belonged to the realm of another world, that is, the private world of women, which did not elicit men's attention. Thus, the homoerotic love affairs of each sex belonged respectively to two entirely separate worlds, just as the roles of women and men were carried out in two different zones of ancient life. Not only is the female homoerotic relationship veiled in mystery to the modern mind but also the life and world of women. This is mainly on account of the prejudice of men towards women in ancient Greece. Quite 75 often woman is depicted by male writers as a necessary evil and a subordinate being whose sole purpose of existence are to produce legitimate heirs to her husband and to run household affairs. The vicious comment on women's life by Hipponax of Ephesus (fr. 6 8 ) , in 6th century B.C., is one example of this male chauvinism. Sv’ ■qp.epjcu yvvaiKOS' euriv i^Storai, o rav yafirjt r t j j K tjL^K < f> €frr)i reBvrjKviav. Hipponax, ascribing two happiest days of women's life to those of wedding and death, satirizes woman as a miserable and worthless being. The misogyny of Greek men thus threw the topic of women's life into dark oblivion from which it is hard for us to rescue the true picture.1 It is, however, generally held that women's life was in the private and domestic realm while man's life was in the public and political one. It is true that women did not participate in man's society, namely, politics, warfare and forensic debates. But women had their own life and world which was precious in itself and was as important as that of the men for the welfare of society. If the whole household was run by the wife, she ought to have possessed enormous knowledge and skill to perform her role properly. In ancient Greece, household affairs were not confined to cooking and weaving, but covered all sorts of activities including managing wedding ceremonies 76 and funerals, assigning slaves to their tasks, rearing children and educating them to a certain age, taking care of finances, medical treatments and so on.2 o£mos, in ancient Greece, was actually a small society and a basic entity for the enlarged society, no Xu s. Thus, the management of oZ-nog , though on a different scale, was almost equivalent to the management of no Xus, as Xenophon testifies in his Memorabilia (III iv 12). Besides the management of the oSmos or learning about it (in the case of girls) , women participated in numerous festivals and cults. In some cults, like the Eleusinian Mysteries, men and women mingled together to worship their deities. But women had their own cults, from which men were entirely excluded, for example, Tesmophoriazusae and Adonaia.3 In these cults, from the priestess to the worshipers all were female participants. The young girls had to learn songs and dances and compose poems to perform in the rituals or festivals in honor of their goddesses. It is very unlikely that the mother taught her young daughter everything— reading, writing,4 singing, dancing or playing some musical instruments. In other words, it is quite probable that in any society young girls had opportunities to gather together to learn from talented women. We are told, however, that in classical Athens, women enjoyed relatively less freedom 77 of action than elsewhere in Greece.5 Citizen women were supposed to be unseen by men except their family members. Pericles' description of the ideal image of women, namely, that the greatest reputation a woman can have is to be least spoken of among men either for good or evil,6 reflects the attitude of men towards women in that society. But it is only from a man's point of view that the silenced woman who performs solely her role for the oZhoz faithfully is the best woman. Obviously, a talented and beautiful woman, even more than a woman whose son or husband was distinguished,7 must have been admired and much talked of by her peers. As they worshiped female deities in numerous cults, any woman who resembled their ideal deity must have been held in great respect and love. Thus, in almost every city of ancient Greece, women had opportunities to bond together for their common interests and pursuits, which were entirely different from men's. It is in this woman's world that women could feel close affinity with each other and develop intimate love affairs with other women. Strong evidence for this female homoerotism is reflected in the poetry of Lesbian Sappho. We can also see a glimpse of this phenomenon in the Partheneion of Spartan Aleman. In archaic Lesbos and Sparta,8 women enjoyed more freedom of action than in 78 classical Athens; it is probable that they even associated with men and assumed public roles. But it is here that we find the strongest evidence for female homoerotism.9 This shows that the existence of the female homoerotic relationship has nothing to do with segregation, but has its own positive motives and merits, as we saw in the case of male pederasty in Chapter I. Sappho, who was a native of Mytilene on the island of Lesbos was active in the early 6th century B.C. An epigram attributed to Plato sings of her as the tenth Muse (fr. 13): « W « a ras M ovaas <ftaotv nveg" dts oA»yw pw s’ rjvlSe teal Hantfcui A.eof368 ev ij Seiea-nj. Strabo (XIII ii 3) calls Sappho a marvelous creature (sauyctGTov tl xpnya), whom no woman could rival in poetry. Her fame as a poetess was firmly established early in her lifetime and her talent and genius were admired not only in her native island but throughout Greece. We also have an anecdote of Sappho, described by Aelian.10 Solon, an Athenian lawmaker and a contemporary of Sappho, once heard his nephew singing a poem and was impressed by its beauty. On learning that it was one of Sappho's poems, he asked the boy to teach him the poem right away, and when asked why he was so eager to learn it, he answered ^vct auxo aioftavw, Sappho was 79 not remembered by posterity solely as a poetess but also as a famous lover of women. Her name and her island thus have provided generic terms, i.e., Sapphists or Lesbians, to designate female homosexual lovers. No one at her time would have predicted such an outcome, since homoerotism was neither confined in Lesbos nor considered an extraordinary feature. Unfortunately we do not know anything whatsoever about Sappho herself; the value of ancient biographical material on Sappho is largely worthless.11 The only thing left to us is the fragments of her poems themselves through which we can draw a picture of her personality and her love affair with young girls. Although the word mascula applied to Sappho in Horace's poem often invites a vicious interpretation of her character, it does not describe her personality as masculine but rather her ability in poetry as equal to a man's, as the context of the poem shows. Horace is, in fact, comparing Sappho with Archilochus in literary style: temperat Archilochi Musam pede mascula Sappho (Ep. i 19 18) . Sappho was actually a very feminine figure who cherished female charms and ideals. All her poems are saturated with female beauty and love. She was indeed "an intensely passionate woman," as Klaich describes, "to whom sensuality of any sort, even her inordinate love of 80 flowers, was the very essence of her being."12 She must have been a very lively woman keen and sensitive to any natural instinct. It is, however, a wrong idea if anyone thinks of her as a rebellious woman who tried to break the norm of society and challenged the male world. She remained in her own woman's realm and devoted her life to developing feminine characteristics. She had no need to defy society to pursue her own life and ideals, since her way of life and sensuality were integrated into that society as a natural phenomenon of human life. Sappho gathered a group of girls around her to train them in the arts in which she excelled. This sort of circle may have existed ever since human society was formed. Sappho, however, calls her place particularly "the house of those who serve the Muses" (uoioonoXwv OLxua, fr. 150). The realm of the Muses covers not only music and dance but also all the branches of literature, history and science. But the main fields in which young girls trained seem to have been singing, dancing and composing poems. They also prepared themselves for the chorus to perform in the festivals. Sappho's circle was a kind of religious organization for the cultivation of mind and body, like most of the cultural institutions in antiquity. It might have been a sort of Suacros which designated an organization publicly dedicated to the 81 Muses. The chief deities whom they worshiped were the Muses, the Graces and Aphrodite, who were invoked in the poems of Sappho again and again. Young girls gathered from the different parts of Greece and Ionia to learn under Sappho. The fact that some parents sent their young daughters even across the sea to the island of Lesbos13 shows that Sappho's circle had a firm reputation for training girls. We are told that Sappho had rivals, namely, Andromeda and Gorgo (Max. Tyr. 18 9). But Sappho must have had a far greater reputation than they had. There must have been many other such associations for young girls in which they could develop their intellectual and physical qualities. K. J. Dover states: "The relations between participants in a female chorus or between teacher and pupils in music and poetry may thus have constituted an overt 'sub-culture,' or rather 'counter-culture' in which women and girls received from their own sex what segregation and monogamy denied them from men."14 But what the girls learned from an elder woman was not what they could have obtained from men if they were allowed in a man's circle. Quite the contrary, girls gathered together for their own pursuits which were entirely different from boys'. It is a misunderstanding to think that Sappho's circle originated from segregation.15 Rather it was formed so that a woman 82 could impart her knowledge to the younger generation of her own sex. From the fragments of Aleman's Partheneion, composed in the late 7th century B.C., we can see that there was a similar association of women in Sparta, even though it was probably not the same as Sappho's. In this poem a chorus of girls praises the beauty of a certain Hegesikhora and also Agido, who is compared with the sun. And the chorus continues to sing (73-77): ouS* es Alvr)<n(j.f$p[o]TCis ivdoiaa rf>aae is ’ Aaranftis [r]« (tot yevotro Kal noTtyAtnoi <PiXv\Aa AafjLap[4 ]ra v ipatra t« FiavOtfxls' oAA’ Ayr/rnxopa retpei. Ainesimbrota's probably means the house or place of Ainesimbrota, where girls practice singing and dancing. Ainesimbrota is not one of the chorus girls but the one who trains young girls for the chorus, since it is her place where one should go if anyone wants to find Astaphis, Philylla, Damareta, Vianthemis or Hagesichora, namely, one of the chorus girls. Thus Ainesimbrota seems to have been a woman who conducted a religious organization to train young girls for the festivals. We do not know whether in her place also young girls learned how to compose poems, as in Sappho's. But it certainly shows a glimpse of woman's circle in Sparta where girls 83 flocked together for common interests and had affectionate relationships with each other. The sentence-- 'AyncrLxopa ye xetpey --certainly has erotic connotations.16 There can be no other reason why a girl whose beauty is so admired distresses the very person who praises her beauty except because of love. Here we can intuit an atmosphere of homoerotic love affairs between women. Plutarch reports in the Life of Lvcuraus (xiii 4) that in Sparta good and noble women fell in love with maidens, since this sort of love was so approved among the Spartans. His emphasis on good and noble women (xaAas xal dyadas yuvaCxas ) reflects the fact that female homoerotic relationships were not considered meretricious but held in esteem in Spartan society. Sappho herself seems to. have belonged to an aristocratic family since according to Athenaeus (X 425a) , one of her brothers, Larichus, is said to have served as a wine-pourer in the town-hall of Mitylene. Athenaeus (X 424a) reports that this office was allowed to a youth of noble birth and beauty. The circle Sappho led must also have been an upper class phenomenon. The girls who could come to Sappho across the sea were daughters of rich families who could afford the trade and living expenses and had enough female slaves so that the daughters did not have to work for their household. 84 Sappho called these girls around her "my companions" as we can see in fr. 160: ra S e vvv iraipaxc r a te e/jut tc re pm /a koXujc aeicco Though the word exaCpat, assumed a different meaning in classical and Hellenistic times to designate "courtesans" or "mistresses" of men, at this time it did not have any such connotation, but simply "intimate friends" or "close companions." It seems that Sappho's relationship with young girls was not an authoritative one like that between teacher and pupil but rather a friendly one— between an older woman and her younger companions. The word e x a c p a , however, is also applied to a "lover" or "beloved," as we can see in fr. 126: Savoie airaA ac ir a p a c ev c rq d e a v It is clear that exacpa in this situation is not a mere friend but a "lover" or ."beloved." In the descriptions of female homoerotic relations, we do not find any terms which are equivalent to "erastes" and "eromenos." But both partners were called by the same word, namely, exaCpa. There is no distinction, then, between lover and beloved; rather, one person is at the same time subject and object. Moreover, the word n o u s , which is used by the erastes of his eromenos and which suggests the subordinate position of the eromenos, was not applied to 85 the younger female lover. In fr. 132, Sappho calls a little child itats. Icti fio i x a X a iraic xpt/ciotciv d vQ ifio ic w i(i<f>cpT]v e y o ic a p.op<f>av K X iic dya-rrd-ra, a v r i r a c eyu>vBe A v B la v ira tc a v o v S ' e p a w a v . . . Oxyrhynchus Paparus reports that Sappho had a daughter, Cleis, named after her own mother.17 This is not at all unlikely, although some scholars want to see Cleis as one of her beloveds.18 We do not hear of any erotic relationship between Sappho and Cleis. The phrase— ecnx you-.. . uau s— probably means "I have a daughter." Aphrodite is also called naE aCos in fr. 1. Furthermore, the word ayaiaxa was commonly used of an only child or a very special child. For example, in the Iliad (VI 401) Hector’s son is described as 'ExxopCSriv dyaxnxov , and in the Odvssey (II 365) Telemachos, too, is called yoOvos ediv ctyontnxos . The name Cleis, however, occurs again in fr.98(b). (a) i . .].0oc- d y a p fie yeW a[ _] ac ctt' aXtKtac p.ey[ /cjdcftov a t tic eyy(t) <^o/9a _ [ 4 TTop<f>vpu>t Ka.Te\i£ap.e[y efipevai /xaAa rotJro .[ aAAa £av9oTepa{i)c «xtj[ 7 ra (l)c Kop.a{t)c SaiSoc 7rpo[ c]re<f>dvotctv eV aprta[ qvdetuv e p td a X e w v [ io fi\ir p d v a v S’ d p r im c > eA [ — 1 ito ikLXclv a irv Z apB lco\y ... ], a o via cn o X cic [ 86 (6) cot S’ fya i K X ti iroiKiXav [ ovk €)(Ui TToOev eccerat [ 3 p .trp d v {a v )' <xAAd rtot M v n X ijv d a jt, [ ' , LC ' Trot. a . €iov v o . [ 6 dlKS T ] TTOlKtAaCK. . ,(.)[ touto r a c /CAeavaicTtSaf <j>vyac f _ _ icarroAicexett 9 pvdfiaT ' _ “Se yap a tv a Sicppuffv Since Sappho was talking about her mother (<* pe yewaC ) in fr. 98(a), it is not surprising that her thought is moved to her daughter in fr. 98(b). Sappho's mother seems to have told Sappho that the purple headband is a great adornment for the locks of a young girls. Sappho is probably appeasing her young daughter, Cleis, by telling her that she cannot obtain a decorated headband but wreaths of flowers are good enough for a girl whose hair is yellow. Even if Cleis is not Sappho's daughter, in fr. 132 Sappho obviously implies that Cleis does not belong to the category of her beloveds at this time, but rather, she is an immature little child as Sappho calls Atthis in fr. 49. rjpdfxav ftev eyw cc0ev, HirOt, irdXai irora - cpiKpa (tot traic ep,p.ev’ £<f>advto icayaptc. Here, icaCs is applied to one of Sappho's beloveds, Atthis. The word icaCs, however, does not designate her 87 to be Sappho’s beloved but in a stage when she was too immature to have feminine grace. Atthis, at this time, could neither understand Sappho' s love nor was able to offer reciprocal love to Sappho.19 When Atthis became mature enough to appreciate Sappho's affection, she is no longer called ttaCs , but one of her eraCpau . Thus a female homoerotic relationship is not established between a dominant older partner and a younger submissive iratis, but rather between companions who can share mutual affection. Sappho and her girls pursued female grace which is embodied in their ideal deities, Xctpuxes . Sappho was sensitive to beauty in any form even to the subtle phenomena of nature. But the most wonderful sight to her was a graceful beauty embodied in a young girl. Youth was, indeed, an essential element for an ideal beauty. Adorning oneself with flowers or some other accessories was thought to enhance female beauty and grace, as is revealed in fr. 81. («) ~\a-TTv6ec _ [ ] xictoA[ >p0ec[ 5 H.. ] « “? [ 88 (b) ci) Se cre<fidvoic, u > A in a , irepOecd* ipdroic <f>6fiaicw opiraxac dvryrm cvvaeppatc' aTrdXaici xd p c iv fvdvO ta fy a p f irdXerai xa l Xapire< fidxatpat /xaAAov firporeprjvf, dcTe^avturotci S’ d.7TvcTpd<f>ovrai. Thus, flowers and garlands were very much a part of Sappho's life. Sappho wanted her young girls to possess elegant attire and a graceful appearance. A talented and intellectual woman might be good, but if she lacked in grace, she could not become an ideal image of woman. The girls, however, could achieve gracefulness through cultivating their minds and bodies through music, dance and literature. They cherished the tender and soft feminine way of life in this common pursuit. It is in this female context that homoerotic emotion between women could arise and be intensified. A woman's love for another woman could reflect her zeal to enhance female ideals in herself by admiring and loving someone who possesses them. It is quite natural for an intelligent and graceful woman to draw affection from young girls and for an older woman to love and cherish the youth and beauty of a girl. The older woman, moreover, can be a guide and model to a younger girl who aspires and tries to nurture ideal feminine beauty in herself. Here, we can see almost the same characteristics as we saw in male pederastic relationships. Homoerotic love affairs in each sex, thus, arose from the interest of men and women 89 in their own sex and from the motivation to develop their own characteristics and ideals to the highest level. Sappho includes her own name in her poems, which tells us that she is not depicting a fictitious situation but rather her own love affairs with young girls. Her love lyrics are confessions from the depth of her innermost heart and reveal the jpys and sorrows which a woman in love with another woman experiences. Suda (s 107) names three girls who were Sappho's . etc* Spat and cpCActu, i.e., Atthis, Telesippa and Megara. But there seem to have been many other girls with whom Sappho fell in love. Sappho's love affairs with young girls were not always sweet and happy but accompanied by grief and pain, as she calls love a bitter-sweet, irresistible creature in fr. 130. “Epoc Srjvre p.' o XvcipeXr/c Sovci, yXvKvmKpov apaxovov opirerov Love is such an ironical entity which embodies in itself contradictory emotions. Atthis, whom Sappho particularly loved, left her and turned to Andromeda who conducted a similar circle of girls,and was a rival to Sappho. In fr. 131 Sappho cries out her disappointment and sorrow in losing her dear one. Ar(h, col S’ epedcv pkv a-irjxBcro^ <f>potfricBrjv, citt 8 Av<&popc8a.v ttotcli 90 Sappho loved this Atthis long before she realized Sappho’s love, as we already saw in fr. 49. The loss of her beloved to another woman must have been a very painful and unendurable event, as intense as was her passion. Sappho had no intention to hide the nature of her emotion and its intensity. She pours forth her feelings in her poems with sincerity and vividness. Sometimes she is shaken by the power of love as described in fr. 47: “ Epoc 8 * iriva £4 fioi <f>pcvac, me avcjxoc ko.t opoc Spvctv epircTwv. Sometimes her heart was burning with desire as she confesses in fr. 48: fjXOcc, f/ccut eTTOTjcac, eyw 84 c’ 4/xaiop.av, ov 8* ei/ru^ac 4p.av < f> p4va Kaiopivav iraduii. It is quite amazing and marvelous to see how much a woman could love another woman. Sappho's love towards members of her own sex was not just tender affection but a very violent passion dappled with heart-breaking agony. Her bitter cries not only moved ancient Greeks but still move anyone who reads her poems. Fr. 1, which is the only poem completely preserved runs as follow: no\iK iX 6dpo[v' d d a v a r A <f>po8ira, wai] A[C]oc SoAfowAoKe, Xiccopal ce, 91 prj /a ] a ca tct Q x t j8* o y ia ic i 8a p v a , 4 7rorv]ta, 8v[pov, — 1 aAA]a tu i8 ’ IA[0’, at irot o Karepwra r a ] c ejLcac a u [8 a c aiotca rrqXot Ik]Au€c, 7 rarpo[c Sc 8opov Xlnotca 8 xlp f'cto v tjA0[cc a p ]/i’ U 7rac8e[u£atca • xaA ot Sc c* a y o v eojicecc cTpou[fioi w ept y a c peXaivac Trvjicva StVfvevTcc irrep' aw ’ (Spaw auPe- 12 P °]c 8 ta peccat' I h h . S- e^tKo[vro ■ cu S’, <3 paicaipa, /xctStat[catc’ ddavdruit wpoccuwcut l]p * o t t [ i 8-qvre treirovda kw tti 16 S tj]u tc K[aA]7j[/i/xi K ]aim jjxot p a Atcra SeXat yevecdat p]atvoXai [ d v p w f rtva Srjvre ire id to . ]„ cdyrjv [ ec caw ^lA o rara ; tic c \ < 3 ao < Fd]w^>’, [a S tJ o je t; x a jt y [a p a t tf>evyet, ra yia ic S u u fe t, {at 8e 8d>pa pq 8c#cct’, aAAa S ajcet,) ( a t Se p q < f> iX et, ra\4<jic <f> tXqcet) 24 {k c j v k cPeA otca.) —J {4X8e pot K at vtJv, yaki-nav 84 Xvcov) {4k pepipvav, o c c a Se fto t W A cccat) {dvpoc tpippet, tcAccow, cu 8 ’ a u r a ) 28 1 {e vp p a v o c ecco.) 4- — 1 ; In this poem, Sappho is appealing to Aphrodite, the goddess of love and her patroness, to help and deliver her from present anguish. Sappho is using a traditional formula of prayer which starts with an invocation to the god and is followed by a description of the service offered to the god or a reminder of the service the god has given to his worshiper in previous occasions, and 92 which ends in his request for help in the present situation.20 Sappho remembers how Aphrodite, having descended in a chariot drawn by sparrows, helped her in former occasions. And Sappho remembers how Aphrodite asked what trouble she had and how she promised to accomplish what Sappho desired. The repetition of 6n3xe implies that Sappho was in the same situation before quite a few times and her prayer for help was granted in each case. Although Sappho asked for help many times, Aphrodite is not at all annoyed or indignant but patient enough to repeat 6n3xe three times, even with a smile on her immortal face.21 Aphrodite is smiling (yeLSuaaaio’), not because she is Homeric Aphrodite to whom the epithet cpbXoyyei,6ns is attributed, but because she is fond of Sappho for whom she is ready to provide help whenever Sappho asks. There is, thus, a personal relationship between Sappho, the worshiper, and the goddess Aphrodite. And Sappho is almost sure that Aphrodite will be a helper (auyyaxos) in the present situation, too. Sappho, however, is not ignorant of the power of Aphrodite whom she describes with the adjectives, uolhuAoSpov a^avax’ and SoXoxAoxe. tcolxlAoSpov’ implies the dazzling shine of Aphrodite who can lead mortals to dreams and ecstasy and to the realm beyond this world— to an immortal experience. Thus, the immortality ( d^avaxj of Aphrodite 93 does not merely affirm her power as a divinity but also implies her ability to make her worshiper immortal even momentarily through love. Sappho knows too well that this can be done by 6oAos of Aphrodite. The power of Aphrodite is quite paradoxical in the sense that she can make her worshiper both happy and miserable. Love can not only endow the lover with bliss and ecstasy but also lead her to the abyss of pain and agony and even destroy its worshiper. But Sappho is not negative about her situation or towards her patroness, since she had the affirmation of Aphrodite's willingness from her smile in each occasion. Aphrodite's previous promise to Sappho in lines 21-24 has great significance for the understanding of the characteristics of female homoerotism. This promise— "Even if she flees, soon she shall pursue; if she does not accept gifts, she shall offer; if she does not love, soon she shall love even against her will."— is actually what Sappho desired, since Aphrodite gave this answer reading Sappho's mind, i.e., what Sappho desired most in her mad heart (17-18). Flight, pursuit and gifts are common elements in any kind of love. Sappho, however, is not asking Aphrodite to help her to succeed in her pursuit and to subdue the other partner but to make the other partner come to Sappho on her own accord 94 even if she is not willing. In a male pederastic relationship, it is the dominant older partner who pursues the younger eromenos vigorously until he subdues and conquers the other partner as a hunter captures its quarry. But in a female homoerotic relationship, the distinction between a dominant partner and a subordinate one is erased, since the younger partner will pursue and offer gifts on her own accord to establish a mutual relationship. Thus, Sappho does not seek to assume a solely dominant role in her love relationship but wants a reciprocal love from her beloved. A woman cannot have satisfaction just by taking the other girl but can have pleasure only if the other partner comes voluntarily.22 A young woman, however, can initiate the relationship by offering some tokens of love, even if the older woman is not so enthusiastic. The attempt of a younger partner to try first to attract the older partner, which is disapproved in male pederasty, is quite natural in the case of female relationships. L. Rissman, however, by giving too much significance to the word auyyaxos (28) and by pointing out Homeric allusions in Sappho's poems, insists that Sappho is thinking of herself as a warrior and considers her love affairs as war.23 Although Sappho borrows many images and diction from the Iliad. Sappho is describing an 95 entirely dissimilar situation. And she knows well that her love affairs are quite different from the actual war described by Homer. The appeal to a god or goddess as cruyyaxos is quite common in literature.24 It can mean a helper in any situation, since anyone who is in need of help is in a state which requires a sort of struggle. The sole aim of war, however, is to defeat the other side, and there is a winner only if there is a loser. It is not Sappho's aim to conquer and make the other partner a loser. Sappho would not boast of her conquest because she had won the love of her love-object. What Sappho seeks is a compromise, a peace-treaty agreed upon by both partners on an equal basis with the exchange of gifts. This is, in fact, what HeC$a> will perform for Sappho. To Sappho love lies in the realm of rhetoric and persuasion rather than in that of war. Love as a contest, as agonistic— a view we see in male pederastic relationship— does not exist in female homoerotic love affairs. Aphrodite together with neC^w will be an ally to Sappho to lead the other girl to her love. No violence or aggressiveness is involved here, but only tenderness and subtlety which belong entirely to a female world. The rhetorical aspect of love is represented also in another poem of Sappho, fr. 16. 96 o]t p e v iTnrqcov crporov ol Se irecSwv o i Se vaw v <f>aic err[t] y d v peXat,[v]av e]ppeuai kclAAictov, eyeo Se kt}v' o t- 4 rut Ttc ep a ra i - ira ]yx v S’ evpapec cvverou irorjcat ir]dvTt t[ o ] u t’, a y a p ttoXv irepcKeOotca KaXXgc [avffjpurmou 'EXeva {ro]v avSpa 8 ro y [ ]_ crov KaAA[t-rroi]c’ e/3a 'c Tpotau -rrA e’oifca Kan38[e 7ra]iSoc ouSe < f> lX u > v to[k]tju>u -rraQiirav] ipvdcdrj, aAAa ■napd.ygy’ a v ra v 12_____ _ _ ' }cav ]apiTTOv y a p [ ] Kovfitoc t [ ]07? .[.]f . J/ixe vvv AvaKTopi[ac d]vepuat- 16 c’ ov ] rrapeoicac, to ]c (ff)e fioXXoip.au eparov re fia p a K apapvxpa. Xdpnpou iStjv irpocarrrut rj r a AvSuju dp p a r a |#cavo7rAotci 20 p jd xeu ra c. ],peu oil S vvarov yevecOai ] 4v av0pai7r[_,(. S’ apacdai col. ii [ ] *4 L. 3 [ ] [ ] [ ] 28 irpoc[ <ucS[ J . [ > a .E 32 £ r* e£ dSoKTj[r Fr. 16 can be divided structurally into three parts— a general statement, an example and Sappho's own case. In the first stanza, Sappho generalizes the idea revealed in the particulars, by saying that the most beautiful thing 97 on earth is whatsoever a person desires.25 Although some say that the most beautiful thing is a host of cavalry, others that of infantry, and others that of ships, in Sappho's opinion each of these is true only to that individual who desires that particular object. Thus, Sappho proposes a relativistic view on the topic of t o MaXXuCTxov that there is nothing which is the most beautiful to everybody, but that each person has his Own criterion of judgment. There is, however, a certain subtlety in the phrase, xnv’ oxxw xus epaxat. Here, Sappho is not only expressing a relativistic view of value but also asserting the rhetorical power of Eros. Love has such a power to persuade and deceive the lover's mind to believe that his love-object is the most beautiful in the whole world. The power of Eros is, in fact, like that of Xoyog in rhetoric which can persuade and deceive the mind of listeners, since Xoyog 6uvaaxns yeyas ecrxCv, os ayunpoxaxaii crtoyaxL Mao dtpavecfxaxui Seuoxaxa epya artoxeXeC (Gorgias, Helen) . To prove her point, Sappho introduces Helen who, beguiled by Aphrodite pursued the beauty she perceived, even deserting her noble husband, daughter and parents. Sappho is not depicting Helen as a person who chose her own way in order to praise her courage and commitment;26 she is, rather, depicting her as an extreme example of one who 98 was beguiled by the power of Eros. We do not know what is the subject of itapayay* in line 1 1 , whose object is a feminine noun, aurav. Sappho seems to have meant that it was Aphrodite who persuaded or deceived (Ttapayoiy ’ ) Helen's mind to follow her lover. This idea is also in keeping with the attribute, SoAouAoxe:, which describes Aphrodite's character in fr. 1. Thus, Sappho's emphasis is on the bewitching power of Aphrodite rather than on the justification of Sappho's love by the example of Helen. The episode of Helen now reminds Sappho of her beloved, Anactoria, who is absent and whom she desires to see eagerly. Sappho confesses that she prefers the lovely walk and sparkling beauty of the face of her beloved to the Lydian chariots or armed infantry (17-20). The word epaxov indicates that Sappho was already enchanted by the power of Eros and persuaded to believe that her Anactoria was the most beautiful object in the world* Sappho's mention of chariots and infantry, however, makes us return to the first stanza, where she admits that these can be the most desirable objects to some people. All the particulars mentioned in the first stanza are associated with war and thereby desired by men. But, at the end, by describing her preference for her beloved to those items for war, Sappho is contrasting 99 two value systems— male and female. In the archaic period, the sole aim of the aristocratic man was to pursue martial prowess: he proved his dpexn primarily on the battlefield. Sappho is challenging the male value system and reminds men that there are also other things which are as valuable or more valuable. Since men and women have different roles, man's value system cannot be imposed upon woman, and man should be able to admit that woman's life has its own merit as each person can have his likes and dislikes. Sappho's preference for her beloved over chariots and infantry implies that a woman's world is that of love rather than that of violence and aggression. Furthermore, there is some sarcasm towards man, who is fond of destructive war and who tries to prove his dperri only by defeating and destroying the other party. Thus, although Sappho agrees, at the beginning of the poem, that war can be an object of desire, now she proclaims that peaceful love is far more charming than destructive war.27 Let us, then, turn to fr. 31. <f»a{v€rai pot icfjvoc tcoc Beoiciv tpptv' atvrjp, ottic tva.VTt.6c rot IcSdvti Kdl -rrkdctov aSv <f>ajvcl- 4 cac unaKouet. ko.1 yeXaicac ipepoev, to p rj p a v 100 KapStav ev crr/dectv etrroatcev, d> c yap ec c tScu fipoXe* c * * c M 6 < f> a > va t- 8 * » C OVO ev €T eiKCL, aXX’ aicav pev yXtZcca \eaye Xeirrov S’ avrtKa ypuit, trvp viraSeSpoprjKev, omtarecct S’ ouS’ ev oprjpp’, emppop- 12 petci S’ aKovai, |eVaSe /u .’ tSpaic xjjvypoc K aKyeerai\ rpopoc Se ■natcav aypet, yXaiporipa Se iroiac ep.pt, reOvaicqv S’ oXLyto VtSeinjc 16 <f>atvap f a t aXXa rrav roXparov eVet f jcat weVijTaf To understand this poem, it is very important to figure out, first of all, the situation in this poem. The first word, qmCverai., certainly appeals to the sensual organs, and here obviously to the visual sight of Sappho. Therefore we should assume that a man is actually sitting opposite to the girl.28 But Sappho is not engaged in conversation with them; she is an outsider probably among a crowd watching the girl in company with a man from afar. Some phrases similar to Saos Seotoiv, however, occur in other poems of Sappho, i.e., the wedding-songs. In fr. 44 the bridegroom Hector is called koeuieAo[is; (34) and lJheAol Seols (We do not know to whom it was applied, probably to the bridegroom) occurs in line 2 1 . In fr. Ill the bridegroom is called Jaos Apeut, and the phrase oAgue yaii$pe in fr. 112 is not entirely different from the others. Thus, Sappho quite often compares the bridegroom with gods, and it is not at all unlikely that the man who is sitting opposite to the girl is her (would-be) husband. And probably it is a wedding-day, since Sappho can hardly have an opportunity to see the girl's fiance unless she has been invited for a special occasion. There has been much debate about why "that man" is described as equal to the gods (Zaoz Seouctuv): he is equal to the gods because he has godlike appearance, i.e., he is handsome; because he has superhuman strength; because he can face without going through the symptoms which Sappho experiences;29 because Sappho cannot be a match to that man in competition;30 or because he is blessed and happy having won the love of the girl. But if we accept that the man mentioned here is the bridegroom, it is quite obvious that Sappho's likening him to gods emphasizes his blessedness and happiness. He looks to be equal to the gods not just like any other bridegroom, but especially he does so to Sappho (cpctLVExau you), because he won Sappho's beloved whom she still loves and wants to cherish. Thus, describing him aslaos Seouauv Sappho also compares his happiness to her own misery as depicted by yap clause (7-16). The crucial word to understand the rest of the poem, however, is eitobuev , which is the only aorist in this poem while all the other verbs are in the present or perfect tenses which describe the present state. Most 102 scholars take eirroauaev as aorist describing present emotion, and thereby regard the emotional symptoms described in lines 7-16 as a continuation of the feeling reflected in ETcxoauaev .31 But I rather think that ETETootuaev is aorist which describes oast emotion. Sappho is, in fact, contrasting two types of emotional experiences, i.e., the emotional experience of the past and that of the present. In the past when Sappho and her beloved had an erotic relationship, the sweet talk and lovely laughter of her beloved, which now another man enjoys, truly (?i yav emphasizes the fact.) excited (eittoabOEv) 32 the heart of Sappho. But now when (ws)33 she sees her beloved in.the company of her bridegroom for a moment she goes through another emotional experience, which is entirely different from the previous one— all her senses do not function normally, sweat pours forth, she becomes paler than grass, and finally she is a little short of death. In these symptoms, the excitement which Sappho experienced before when she shared affection with her beloved is not present, only "terror" which subdues her whole body. Her mention of death certainly indicates that she is not in a situation of ecstasy but in that of desperation and helplessness. This poem is a poem of love in the sense that Sappho would not go through such symptoms, as Dover says,34 if she was not in love with 103 that. girl. But what kind love is it? It is an impossible, hopeless love which cannot be fulfilled any longer. Sappho knew well that her beloved would leave her someday for marriage, and that time is now. There is a sign of resignation: she talks to herself— "all must be endured ( axxh. uav roXya-rov ).» It is a terrible and unendurable thing to lose her beloved forever. The terror she feels is as great as her love and passion for the girl. But Sappho is ready to accept the reality and let go of her beloved to ensure her future happiness. This reaffirms that that man who now enjoys the lovely talk and laughter of Sappho•s former beloved is her bridegroom. Otherwise, Sappho would not give up her beloved easily, but rather try to • win her back by appealing to her patroness, Aphrodite. Sappho neither has any intention to do this, nor blames her beloved for her faithlessness. There is only a sigh, a sigh of resignation, since Sappho knows that this must be so. Thus, fr. 31 is a very personal poem in which Sappho expresses her private emotion and physical symptoms in a desperate situation. Although the first line has some similarity with wedding-songs, and although the man mentioned there is a bridegroom, it can hardly be a wedding-song meant to be sung at the wedding ceremony.35 And this poem is not an encomium for the bride and the 104 groom.36 But it is Sappho's confession of the dreadful emotional experience she underwent when the thought that she had to lose her beloved forever terrified her. Sappho might sing this poem to her companions later again remembering that moment. But in the main this poem belongs entirely to the private world of Sappho, inasmuch as the experience is her own. The actual parting scene is depicted in fr. 94, which runs as follow: reO vaxyjv S’ aSoA tuc 9eAa>- 2 a fie ipichopeva KaTeAtjj.TTa.vev < . — >f noAAa Kal roS’ eetn _ [ c o i j u . ’ cue Seiva nen[ovOjapev, 5 WaTT^}’, rj p a v c deK otc aTTvAijj.-na.va>. T * '5» » q f r a v o €yw ra o afieipofjLav X alpotc ep xeo Ka.jj.e6ev 8 p e p v a tc ', otcda y a p cue ce n eS ijn o p ev • a t Se ptTj, dLA A a c’ eyto OeAaj ofjtvatcau_;,.{ .)].[..(.)]. .a t i i [ ] Kal KaA’ ena.exofJ.ev • tro[ ]otc tajv Kal /3pjaSajv Jklojv t v p o t 1 4 Ka _ [ ] n a p ep o t nepeOrjKao Kal ng'AAatc vn a ]9 vp i8 a c TrAeVfraic ap<f>' a jn a X a t Sepat 1 7 avdeajv [ ] n en o rjp p eva tc Kal n f ] , pvpajt fipevO etail [ ]/?u[ _ _ ]v 20 e^aA etipa o /can j3ac]iArjla>i <— > Kal cTpa>pv[av e ]n l poA O aK av a n a A a v n a [ ] _ _ _ a>v 23 e^trjc n o 9 o [ ] _ vlS ojv K cvvre t ic [ ] . . Tt tp o v oj}St»[ ] 26 en A e r o n n [o d e v dptjfj.ee d n e c K o p e v , 105 ].p°c ~\\jjo<f>oc ]_ _ otS iai The mention of death (tedvaH-nv) in the first line not only reminds us of fr. 31, but also indicates that Sappho is experiencing another emotional agony. In this poem, like in fr. 31, there is a contrast between the present pain and the good times gone by. But the structure is quite the opposite: in fr. 31 a brief description of the past excitement is followed by a long description of the present agony, while in fr. 94 a brief description of the present agony is followed by a long description of the past happy moments which Sappho wants her beloved to remember. Sappho, in fr. 94, is describing a sorrowful parting scene in which her beloved is weeping and lamenting that she is leaving Sappho against her will. This indicates that Sappho and her beloved had to separate by some outside condition. Probably the girl's parents summoned their daughter thinking that she was of marriageable age. In that moment when the girl was leaving, Sappho was rather calm and quite poised enough to bid farewell and to remind her beloved of the past happiness they shared. Sappho actually had no room to think of her own sorrow, since she had to comfort the O V K a X c o c 29 <— > 106 grief-stricken girl as a mature woman. But now (probably that evening) when Sappho recollects that moment, she confesses that her grief is greater than her beloved's. All the sorrow,, pain and agony which Sappho experiences now is condensed in one line— xedvaxnv 6 ’ &6oAa>g SeAto. Although Sappho and her beloved are still in love with each other, both of them know that they cannot and should not have a permanent relationship, since with marriage the girl assumes a new social role and homoerotic relationships are cherished by the young before marriage.37 In a male pederastic relationship, it is usually the erastes who deserts his beloved when the beard sprouts on his chin. In a female homoerotic relationship, however, the marriage of either partner puts an end to their love affair. Thus, female homoerotic love affairs are not against marriage, like male pederastic ones. Rather, this type of love affair was intensified in an ambiance where women tried to develop their feminine characteristics to become suitable wives and mothers. It serves, therefore, as a way to make a young girl mature and able to assume her new role as a hostess in a house and to establish a happy wife-husband relationship. In this poem we can see that the mutuality which Sappho sought in fr. 1 is accomplished, and we can also 107 have a glimpse of what the lovers enjoyed together from their common experiences. It is Sappho's only wish to her parting beloved that she should remember Sappho and the happy moments they shared by making wreaths of flowers, frequenting the shrines and groves, and dancing to the rhythm of music. All these things which they experienced together are the things a woman can enjoy with another woman. Thus, their love for each other results from the desire to love a woman as a woman not as a substitute for a man. Indeed, the beautiful experiences they shared belong to the feminine realm in which man cannot take part. Sappho, however, does not forget to remind her beloved of the physical pleasure they enjoyed together— Mon soft beds you expelled (fHCns ) desire (tc6$o[v).» To expel desire probably means to satisfy it.38 But whether she expelled her own or Sappho's desire is not clear in this context. From the mutuality revealed in this poem, it is very likely that they satisfied each other's desire, even if Sappho is describing the action of one partner only. A reciprocal love is an essential element in female homoerotism, as E. Stigers states, "Sappho's sense of eroticism is based on feminine biology, on the fact that sexual response is felt within an urge to receive and that a woman cannot aggressively 'take' another in the absence of reciprocal 108 desire."39 Even if an older partner assume a relatively dominant role in their relationship, a woman, by her nature, desires to receive affection from the other partner. Therefore, a female homoerotic relationship cannot be established without mutual love, in other words, merely by possessing the other partner. Fr. 94, thus, tells us that Sappho and her beloved enjoyed physical relations as well as tender associations. We can also have a glimpse of the physical aspect of female homoerotism from fr. 126 which we already saw (p. 85), and from fr. 94D.,40 which runs as follows: StSviee ftev a <reXava Kal IJXrjiaSts, p ia a i hi vvktcs, irapa S’ epx^d' wpa, c y < l> Si nova kadevhoj. In the above fr. Sappho confesses her loneliness at night. Perhaps Sappho is tossing sleepless on her bed, remembering the pleasant experiences which she enjoyed with her beloveds. Some scholars, however, because of their own prejudice against homosexuality, try to deny the physical aspect of Sappho's love affairs and insist that her love for young girls was purely spiritual. They refer to the comparison of Sappho with Socrates drawn by Maximus of Tyre, a philosopher in the 2nd century A.D. 109 o Se rrjs A eo flia s (sc. epoj$) . . . rt av ei’ rj dAAo tj a vro , T j HioKparov? reywrj epwriK'q; Sokovoi ya p po i TTfv KalT avrov eKarepos (piAiav, rj p,kv yvvaLKUJv 6 8k dppkviov, em ryjSevoai. Kal yap ttoAAujv epav MAeyov Kal vito TravTOjv dAloKeoOai rw v ko A w v o n ya p eKeti’U ) ’AAKifitaSrjS Kal XappLi8r]s Kal (t>al8po?, rovro rfj Aeof3la Yvpivva Kal ’A rQ ls Kai 1 ’AvaKTopia- Kal o n nep HcvKpdrti oi a v n re y v o t IIpoSiKOS Kal Yopylas Kal Qpa.ovp.ayo1 ; Kai llpcurayopas, rovro rfj H arriot Yapydj Kal 'Av8pop.e8a• vvi> pkv em rtp. a ra v ra is, vvv 8k eAeyyei Kal eipw veverai a v rd e/ccu'a r a HaiKpd- ro v ?. From the characteristics of Sappho's homoerotism which we have seen so far, it is very clear that the way of Sappho's love is quite different from that of Socrates. The only similarity between Sappho and Socrates is that both of them are moved by the physical beauty of their own sex and serve as guides to their junior. But the difference between these two is more striking than the similarity. Socrates pursues absolute beauty through the particular beauty embodied in a youth, while Sappho is ready to accept anything beautiful as it is and fully accepts the relativistic view of beauty as we saw in fr. 16. Socrates seeks spiritual love with young boys by denying himself any physical relations with them, and his way of love later assumes the so-called title, "Platonic love." On the other hand, Sappho's love is a very passionate one which is often accompanied by heart-breaking agony and pain, and sensuality is very much a part of her love relations. Socrates seeks the 110 Truth and guides young men to speculative inquiry into the realm of abstract ideas, while Sappho is a lyric poetess who sings of the real world and experiences, and teaches young girls music, dance and poetry. Socrates' opponents are the Sophists who engage in rhetoric and whose way of teaching is different from his, while Sappho's rivals are, rather, rivals in the same fields. Furthermore, I doubt whether Sappho used the dialectic method of inquiry as Socrates did. Therefore, the comparison of Sappho with Socrates by Maximus of Tyre is not appropriate at all. Sappho's private life was not always understood by later generations. Much was said in praise of her and much was said against her, since the same thing can be judged as good or bad according to the viewpoints of the observers. The first definite attack against Sappho was made by the Athenian comedy writers in the fourth century B.C. We know that at least six of the old and middle comedy writers— Ameipsias, Amphis, Antiphanes, Diphilus, Ephippus and Timocles— wrote comedies called Sappho. Since none of these have survived, no one knows how Sappho was depicted by these writers. According to Athenaeus, Antiphanes represented Sappho as an expounder of riddles (X 450e-451a), and Diphilus as mistress of the poets, Archilochus and Hipponax (XIII 599d). Sappho 111 could not have been, in fact, mistress of Archilochus who lived a century earlier than she did, or of Hipponax who lived a generation later. Judging from this instance, it is clear that comedy writers made fun of Sappho by making her someone she never was. We should ponder, then, why the Athenian playwrights wanted to ridicule Sappho. Obviously it was not because of her homoerotic love affairs, since female homoerotism seldom drew men's attention, and the fact that certain men and women are attracted to the members of their own sex was accepted by the Greeks as natural. The cause of their ridicule might have been their envy of Sappho's great reputation and their predictably sarcastic view towards her free way of life. Sappho, who was called a mortal Muse, certainly had a greater reputation than those comedy writers did. The thought that they were inferior to a woman must have been irksome. On the other hand, the free and full life Sappho enjoyed as an individual was against the norm of Athenian society which saw woman's primary role being played out in a house. A great poetess who had a strong personality and led her own way of life— a way of life quite different from that of the average Athenian woman— could probably have provoked some cynical view from the comedy writers. We do not hear any comment on Sappho's homoerotic 112 love affairs from extant archaic, classical or Hellenistic writers. It is only in Roman times that Sappho's homoerotism began to draw some criticism. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus (P. Oxy. 1800 fr. 1) which dates back to the late 2nd or early 3rd century A.D. and was found in Egypt records: K[a]rT]y6pT]Ta.i S’ vtt' eV[t']aj[i’] to? aTCLKTOs ov[oa] tov Tponov Kal yvvaiKe[pda]rpia. Suda, a historical and literary encyclopedia which was compiled about the end of the 10th century A.D. tells (Z 107) : 4raZpat. 8e avrrjs Kal < f>iXai yeyovacri rpeis, ’ AtBIs, TeAealmra, Meydpa- irpos as Kal 8tafioAijv ecr^ci/ alaypas <f>iAias. This view that Sappho's love affairs were disgraceful may well have helped bring about the burning of many of her poems. But it was the Roman church which pronounced her works as a threat to public morality. We are told that the public destruction of her poems occurred twice under the order of Roman bishops: first, at the end of the 4th century A.D. under Gregory Nazienzen and second, in 1073 under Gregory VII at Rome and at Constantinople.41 The dogmatic view of Christianity that homoerotic love affairs are sins, thus, led to the destruction of especially this kind of poems. 113 None of us who read Sappho's poems can help but regret the cruel act of the Roman church. Since we have some fragments from which we can glimpse her genius which enthralled not only the ancients but also the moderns, no one could say that the burning of Sappho's poems contributed to the establishment of morality in this world. Quite the contrary, it is a loss in human history, a great loss indeed, not only of pieces of literature but also of documents that could have enabled us better to understand human nature. In closing this chapter, it might be appropriate to sing an epitaph for Sappho composed by Antipater of Sidon, who flourished in the 2nd century B.C. £an<f><6 ro t Ktvffets, xffw v AloXi, ra v f i e r i M o va a ts affa.va.Tais ffvarav M ovaav aeiSofievav, av E virpis Kai Epcos ovvafL erpa^>ovt i s fie ra TTeiffd errXex' aelt,coov H iepiSw v ore<f>avov, 'EXXaSi ftev reptpiv, trot 8e kAcos. to rpieXixrov M otpai Sivevaac vijfta xa r’ rjXai<dras, irtus ovk exXajoaade iravd^ffirov Tfficip doi8w wj>ffira fnjtraficvq. 8dtp' ' EXtxatviddatv ; 114 NOTES TO CHAPTER II ^Besides, the Attic Old Comedy writers or orators (for example, Demosthenes, XIII De Corona) caricature wives or female relatives of those whom they want to attack. cf. W. K. Lacey, The Family in Classical Greece (Ithaca 1968). 2Xenophon in the Oeconomicus gives a description of the tasks required of women. 3For the female cults, see B. Jordan, Servants of the Gods: a Study in the Religion. History and Literature (Goettingen 1979); E. Simon, Festivals of Attika: an Archaeological Commentary (Madison 1983); W. Burkert, Greek Religion (Cambridge 1985). 4For the literacy of women in ancient Greece, see S. G. Cole, "Could Greek Women Read and Write?" ed. by H. P. Foley, Reflections of Women in Antiouity (New York 1981). 5Although in classical Athens women did' not have freedom to participate in men's society, they obviously had the freedom to associate with other women and to organize and participate in female cults. The idea that women were confined only to the house is wrong. cf. K. J. Dover, Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle (Berkeley 1974) ; J. P. Gould, "Law, custom and Myth: Aspects of the Social Position of Women in Classical Athens," JHS (1980) 38-59. ^Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War II 46. 7 In Aristophanes' Thesmophoriazusae. we can have a glimpse about how much a woman who had a distinguished son or husband was envied by other women. 8For Women's life in Sparta, see P. Cartledge, "Spartan Wives: Liberation or License?" C£ 31 (1981) 84-105. 9K. J. Dover treats the topic of female homoerotism in ancient Greece in the section "Women and Homosexuality," in his Greek Homosexuality (Cambridge 115 1978) 171-84. 10Ael. ap. Stob. Flor. 3 29 58. 11cf. M. Leifkowitz, "Critical Stereotypes and the Poetry of Sappho," GRBS 14 (1973) 116. ■^2D. Klaich, Woman+Woaan (Hew York 1974) 145. 13In fr. 96 Sappho is thinking of one of her former companions who now resides in Lydia. There must have been many more who came across the sea to learn Sappho's teaching. 14K. J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality 181. Dover, however, confesses that he is entirely indebted to an unpublished paper of Dr. Judith Halett for this suggestion. 15The different gender roles and different interests of each sex might have caused or intensified segregation in ancient Greek society. 16For the erotic usage of the verb xeCpev, see K. J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality 18 0. ^7P. Oxy. 1800 fr. 1. Suda (£ 107) also reports that Sappho was married to a man named Cercylas and had a daughter, called Cleis, by him. 18Some scholars believe that Sappho never married because of the intense homoerotic passion revealed in her poems and thereby had no daughter; it follows for them that Cleis must have been one of her beloveds. Sappho's love for other women, however, does not preclude the possibility of her marriage, since in ancient Greece homoerotic relationships were premarital phenomena. Therefore, Sappho's homoerotic love affairs and marriage are not incompatible at all. 19The reciprocal love of the younger partner in female homoerotism will be discussed later when I analyze fr. 1 and fr. 94. 20The close similarity of Sappho's prayer and Diomedes' speech in the Iliad V (115-17) led many scholars to believe that Sappho is imagining herself in the same situation as Diomedes. See J. Winkler, "Public and Private in Sappho's Lyrics," ed. by H. Foley, Reflections of Women in Antiquity 66-67 and also his 116 footnote 17. But this formula is rather a standard form of prayer which appear in many other prayers, for example, Cryses' prayer to Apollo (Iliad I 37ff.) and another prayer of Diomedes (Iliad X 284ff.). 21Contra Page. D. Page, in his Sappho and Alcaeus (Oxford 1955) 13, interprets the repetition of 6n5xe as an indication of Aphrodite’s reproof and impatience. I rather think that the repetition of 6nSxe emphasizes Aphrodite's willingness to help Sappho as many times as she asks. In the case of human beings, the repeated request for help might cause some indignation or impatience. But Aphrodite, the goddess of love and patroness of Sappho, is different from mortals and patient enough to offer help at any time. Her smile proves this. 22See E. Stigers, "Sappho's Private World," ed. by H. Foley, Reflections of Women in Antiquity 51. 23L. Rissman in her book Love as War (Koenigstein/Ts. 1983) endeavors to prove this theory by comparing Sappho's poems with the situations depicted in the Iliad. It is true that Sappho is much indebted to Homer like many other ancient writers, since Homer was the Poet and the model for almost all the literary men in antiquity. But to trace the influence of Homer on Sappho is one thing and to equate two scenes depicted by two different authors is quite another. The important thing is how Sappho created her own poetic world by using Homeric words. And I wonder whether Sappho ever thought of herself as a Homeric warrior. 24See A. Cameron, "Sappho's Prayer to Aphrodite," HThR 32 (1939) 4. 25There are, however, two different theories in interpreting the first stanza; one is the "relativity theory" and the other the "correction theory." See L. Rissman, Love as War 31-3 2 for these two theories. I would rather take the relativistic interpretation. 26Contra Winkler. J. Winkler in his article "Private and Public in Sappho's Lyrics" (p. 72) asserts that Sappho's Helen is held up as a proof that it is right to desire and pursue the most beautiful thing wherever it leads. Whether Helen's action is right or wrong is not Sappho's concern here: she treats only the power of Love. Gorgias, however, made a speech Encomium of Helen to free Helen from the charge generally inflicted upon her. He 117 analyses the conduct of Helen as due to any of four causes: she acted either by divine necessity, by force, by the power of speech or in love. Since Helen's action could result from any of these four causes, Gorgias proves, Helen is not blameworthy. 27Contra Rissman. L. Rissman (Love as war p. 47) states that Sappho prefers the object of love to war in the first stanza (This is contradictory to her previous acceptance of the relative interpretation in p. 34.), but at the end demonstrates that love is a sort of war, endowing her beloved with martial splendor. To consider the beauty of Anactoria as martial beauty is quite absurd. 28Contra Winkler. J. Winkler ("Public and Private in Sappho's Lyrics," p. 74) takes the anonymous xvos <3vnp ottos, as a rhetorical cliche, not as someone who is actually present. 29M. Marcovich, "Sappho Fr. 31: Anxiety Attack or Love Declaration?" C£ n. s. xxii (1972) 23-25. Marcovich's theory that the man is called to be equal to the gods because he is unmoved by the girl's loveliness is quite awkward. Sappho would call such a man equal to a stone rather than to the gods. 30K. J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality 178. The thought of competition is out of Sappho's mind, therefore Dover's interpretation is inappropriate. Sappho has, in fact, no intention to compete with the girl's bridegroom, not because she is afraid of losing in competition, but because she accepts fully the fact that her beloved should marry someday. 31Rissman, however, takes eitToataev as "an aorist of present emotion" (P. 110 n. 21) in contrast to the physical symptoms described in lines 7-16 which she considers as past emotional experience (cf. my footnote 30) . This view that the aorist form describes present emotion, and the present and perfect forms describe past emotion is quite odd. 32Contra Rissman. Rissman (Love as War pp. 74-75) equates the meaning of this word here with that of eiToCriSey in the Odvssev (XXII 298) which describes fear and terror. For the erotic usage of this, word see G. L. Koniaris, "On Sappho, Fr. 31 (L-P)" Philoloqus 112 (1968) 183. 118 33Contra Rissman. Rissman (Love as War p. 77) interprets ois as "every time," i.e., "whenever" and asserts that the emotion described in lines 7-16 refers to the usual reaction to the girl which Sappho experienced in the past. This interpretation deprives the poem of the significance of the particular situation in which Sappho is, in other words, the existence of "that man." The adverb gpoxe’ certainly emphasizes the brief moment of the present. The emotional experience described in lines 7-16 is not what Sappho experienced anywhere, anytime and in any situation, but what she experiences now at this particular moment and in this very particular situation. 34K. J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality 179. 35Contra Rissman. Rissman (Love as War p. 103) takes this as a wedding-song. That Sappho would mention her death at her beloved's wedding is unbelievable. If Sappho had wanted to compose a wedding-song, she would rather have hidden her true emotion for the happiness of her beloved, just as she pretended to be calm and balanced at the parting scene depicted in fr. 94. 36Contra Rissman. . Rissman's view (Love as War pp. 103-4) that Sappho's description of her passion is an encomium of the couple is also irrelevant. 37Sappho never seeks a life-long relationship with her beloved, judging from the fact that she never blames her beloved for leaving her for the just cause of marriage. This attitude of Sappho reflects the norm of that society that homoerotic affairs were rather a feature of youth before marriage, as we already saw in male pederastic relationships, too. The life-long homosexual relationship might have been considered a perversion by the Greeks. 38cf. K. J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality 176. 39E. Stigers, "Sappho's Private World," 54. 40The authenticity of this poem has been widely questioned on linguistic grounds, but recently defended by J. T. Hooker, The Language and Text of the Lesbian Poets (Innsbruck 1977) 36-38. 41c. R. Haines, Sappho (New York 1926) 5-6. 119 CHAPTER III. nAIAEPASTIA IN SOPHOCLES1 PHILOCTETES Introduction Sophocles' Philoctetes won the first prize at the Dionysia in the year 409 B.C. This is the only play extant of the three Greek tragedies which deal with the same motif, i.e., Philoctetes' going to Troy; unfortunately we have only a few fragments from the versions of Aeschylus and Euripides. Dio Chrysostom, however, gives us slight information about these two lost plays in two short essays which are all too unsatisfactory to us— one (52), a discourse about the three tragedies on the bow of Philoctetes which contains some literary criticism, and the other (59) , a prose paraphrase of the first part of Euripides' Philoctetes. From Dio's description we can tell that all three tragedians agree on the dramatic time and place, i.e., the tenth year of the Trojan war on the island of Lemnos, and end their plays with Philoctetes' leaving the island for Troy. But the three tragedies must differ from one another in how Philoctetes is led to Troy, since each playwright creates his own tragedy with a different theme. Also, each tragedian must have endowed our hero, 120 Philoctetes, with a character whose development reflected his own taste and intention. The date of Aeschylus' Philoctetes is unknown but must be much earlier than Euripides' Philoctetes. produced in 431 B.C. Aeschylus, who was the first of the three tragedians to treat this motif, substitutes Odysseus for Diomedes, a deviation from the epic tradition. Odysseus comes to Lemnos to fetch Philoctetes to Troy undisguised but is not recognized by him (Dio, 52. 5-6). The confrontation in Aeschylus' version was most likely between Philoctetes and Odysseus.1 Dio (52. 9) further tells us that the shrewd and crafty Odysseus employed deception against Philoctetes and won him over with persuasive arguments. But this description is too vague for us to decipher how Philoctetes is led to Troy, since deception and arguments are used in the other plays as well. There is, however, a passage that requires our close attention i.e., 52. 2 which runs as follows; Sc r}oav dtcpcuv avSpdiv, A io^vA ou teal E o ^o k A co u s real K v p in iS a v , n a v r u iv irepl rrjv a v rrjv VJTodecrtv. rjv y a p 17 r w v <t>iXoKT-qrov r6£a>v e lre KXoirr) e tre a p rra y q 1 Sei X eye.iv ttXt/v d.<j>aipovp.€v6s y e re op oirXtov T)v O iA o k tijttj? v-tto r o d 'O h va a ecu s K al a v r a s eis tt] v T p o ia v dva yo p .evo s, t o p.ev irAeov eKcltv * t o Se t i K al 7reidol a v a y K a la , eireiSr) rd jv ottXcov eoreprjTO , a r o v r o p.ev filo v a v r a t ira p etyev eV r fj v-qocp, r o v r o Se d d p a o s ev r ij ro ia v rrj voaut, dfta Sc cu<<Aeiav. Dio is very careless in the above passage which after all does not apply to all three versions of Philoctetes. We 121 know that in Sophocles1 Philoctetes the hero does not yield because he was deprived of his bow. And it is also highly improbable that Philoctetes, in the version of Euripides which is full of rhetorical and political color according to Dio (52. 11), yields to the Greek embassy because his bow was taken from him by deception. Furthermore, in Euripides' version it is Diomedes who takes possession of the bow,2 while in Sophocles' version it is Neoptolemus. Thus, if what Dio states here is not entirely groundless, he must be referring to the version of Aeschylus.3 If that is so, in Aeschylus' Philoctetes Odysseus, having deceived Philoctetes with a false story (cf. 52. 10), gains possession of the bow and makes him yield to avay*01^. The character of Philoctetes in Aeschylus' version is different from that in Sophocles' version in that the hero cannot endure the bow, which is not only the means of his living but also the source of his courage and fame, to become the possession of another person. He decides to yield and accept his fate rather than to be separated from the bow which he considers more precious than anything else. Sophocles' Philoctetes chooses to lose his bow even if it means his death rather than yield to his enemy. Odysseus may have argued also that Philoctetes' going to Troy is his destiny and at the same time a part of the divine plan. Odysseus thus managed to lead Philoctetes by deception, i.e., the theft 122 of the bow, and by convincing arguments, which is well in accordance with Dio’s description in 52. 9. Euripides' Philoctetes. by virtue of its variety of characters, is more complicated than Aeschylus' version. From Dio's discourse we know that Odysseus is accompanied by Diomedes, and that an embassy from the Trojan side is present. Besides these two embassies there is also a certain Actor, a Lemnian who renders help to Philoctetes. Dio tells us that Euripides' version is highly political and rhetorical (itoXLTUxwTaTTi xau pnxopuxwTaTri,, 52. 11). Euripides focuses on the rhetorical arguments of each party to win over Philoctetes. Diomedes must represent the Greek embassy while Odysseus, whose form is changed by Athena (52. 13; 59. 3) and who pretends to be a refugee to this island wronged by the Greeks (59. 10), aids Diomedes' cause. The Trojan embassy, with probably Paris4 as the representative, tries to procure Philoctetes' allegiance by bribing him (52. 13; 59. 4) and perhaps by inciting his hatred against the Greeks who had mistreated him for so many years. Thereupon odysseus most likely appeals to Philoctetes' sense of loyalty to his country with his fictitious case as an example: he himself would not betray his country to the enemy, i.e., the Trojans, because he was wronged by the Greeks. Odysseus must have prevailed upon Philoctetes by evoking patriotism5 in the heart of the wronged hero with his 123 artful speech, to save his fellow countrymen and bring victory to his homeland. Here we must remember that the year 431 B.C. when Euripides' Philoctetes was produced is the same year in which the Peloponnesian War broke out. Athens needed patriotic zeal from her citizens so that they would devote themselves to their country without any consideration of personal grudges. Euripides thus seems to have made his Philoctetes be persuaded by the political arguments of Odysseus and assent to go to Troy willingly for the glory of his country. The view of Calder that the debate was a draw and therefore the intervention of the goddess Athena to arrange the voyage was inevitable^ is not convincing at all. If the disguised •Odysseus could not persuade Philoctetes any more than the undisguised Odysseus, there is no meaning in his disguise and in fact no need of the character Odysseus at all. It is a dramatic irony that Philoctetes is persuaded by his bitterest enemy, Odysseus, without knowing his identity, which the audience obviously knows. Furthermore, if in Euripides' Philoctetes no one could alter the stubborn will of Philoctetes, and a deus ex machina is required to make Philoctetes yield, then his version is too close to that of Sophocles, who would certainly not make his solution of the dilemma so similar to that of Euripides. Also, if Athena assumed so 124 important a role that she effected the final outcome of the debate, it is hardly believable that Dio would omit this incident in Essay 52. Euripides must have shown, in the course of this play, the power of Aoyos to persuade the hardened mind of Philoctetes. Xoyoz could not only melt the hatred of Philoctetes against the Greeks which he nursed for ten years (he is ready to shoot at any Greek, 59. 7) but could also turn his mind to the opposite, love of his own country. It is quite probable, however, that Athena, who helped Odysseus to perform his task by changing his form, appears in the last scene. But it must be only after Philoctetes was persuaded by the argument of Odysseus and assented to go to Troy willingly for the sake of his fatherland. Athena now has to return Odysseus to his original form. At this moment, when Philoctetes realizes that he was deceived by his old enemy Odysseus, he must rebel by proclaiming that he would never go to the Trojan land, whatever doom befalls the Greeks. Thereupon Athena must convince Philoctetes that it was her device to disguise Odysseus and to bid him keep his words. Athena might further reconcile Philoctetes with his old enemy Odysseus for the victory of the Greeks, since a personal grudge is but a trivial thing when the safety of one's country is at stake. Thus Euripides' Philoctetes is as highly rhetorical and 125 political as Dio says. Sophocles' Philoctetes is undoubtedly quite different from that of Aeschylus and that of Euripides, although it is indebted to the previous versions to a certain degree. Sophocles does not allow his Philoctetes to yield to avayxaCa, as in Aeschylus, and be deprived of his bow, or as in Euripides, to persuasive rhetoric full of politically motivated appeals. Besides, Sophocles makes Odysseus entirely unsuccessful in his scheme, although in the versions of Aeschylus and Euripides Odysseus somehow manages to prevail in his plan to convey Philoctetes to Troy. Sophocles does not let his hero yield to Odysseus who is known for cunning and shrewdness. He rather makes his hero be delivered from the miserable life through love. Sophocles' Philoctetes is the only extant play which has no female characters and thereby reveals a male world. It is a play about duty and love between men and deals with the theme of TtauSepaar Ca . For this purpose, Sophocles devises some new elements in his play. First of all, he represents Lemnos as a deserted island by composing the chorus out of the sailors who followed Neoptolemus, while Aeschylus and Euripides employed a chorus made up of the Lemnians. In making Lemnos an uninhabited island Sophocles emphasizes the loneliness of 126 the abandoned hero who had to live in solitude for ten years without any human contact except for encounters with the occasional passerby. Thus, Philoctetes' state of mind is such that he can easily fall in love with any noble youth. Here Sophocles introduces Neoptolemus, the son of Achilles, who is in the bloom of youth, and with whom the lonely hero falls in love at first sight (cf. pp. 140-41). The development of Sophocles' version has indeed much to do with the interaction of these characters who influence each other with their noble nature and finally become the erastes and the eromenos. Furthermore, Sophocles ends his play with the epiphany of Heracles who is not a mere god but a former erastes of Philoctetes. In this play the appearance of Heracles, who assumes a role quite different from that of Athena in Euripides' Philoctetes. is essential since Sophocles' Philoctetes, a stubborn hero, can be persuaded by no one but his erastes. nauSepaarCa was, in fact, a common feature in fifth century Athens. But quite often its traditional aristocratic configuration as a love relationship designed to hand down male ideals suffered neglect under the democracy. Aristophanes, the younger contemporary of Sophocles, often criticized the suspect aspects of TtaL.6£paaxCa in his society through his satirical 127 dramas(cf. pp. 36-48). Sophocles, who himself indulged in itau6epaaxua not only spiritually but also sensually,7 on the other hand, tries to explore the spiritually ennobling aspect of the relationship in his old age, i.e., in his nineties, through his Philoctetes. Sophocles molds the legendary story for his own purpose to illuminate the contemporary social phenomena, by evoking the good and desirable relationship as well as chastising the sordid type. In this play, we can see two different kinds of pederastic relationship. Odysseus exacts from his eromenos total compliance and subordination to the purpose of the erastes by using his eromenos as a tool to accomplish his vain ambition. The new relationship between Neoptolemus and Philoctetes, however, has as its basis a mutual love and trust that result in reciprocal loyalty and understanding. Through the love of Philoctetes, Neoptolemus changes from a callow but aspiring puppet of the erastes into a mature person, who has the strength of character to break his relationship with the bad erastes and choose a worthy partner truly deserving to be his guide and model. On his part, the lonely warrior begins life anew, cleansed of his bitterness by the affection and esteem of young Neoptolemus, who is perceptive enough to see the true identity of the hero in spite of his unkempt appearance. 128 It is through his new eromenos that Philoctetes changes from a solitary outcast into a man who accepts a hero's destiny willingly at the behest of his former erastes Heracles. Thus, the love relationship between Philoctetes and Neoptolemus becomes a noble basis for achieving heroic ends in accordance with Heracles' bidding. Sophocles' Philoctetes was performed in the middle of the Peloponnesian War, in 409 B.C., when Athens needed heroic spirit like that of Neoptolemus and Philoctetes. Sophocles therefore endeavors to implant the essence of ttat>6epaaxCa as a spiritually ennobling love relationship in the hearts of the erastai and eromenoi among the audience so that they could devote themselves to the glorious victory of their country in a joint enterprise. Sophocles, believing that love is the best spur, apparently thinks that only the zeal and passion from the homoerotic relationship could save Athens from its dire situation. Prologue (1-134) When the play opens, Odysseus and Neoptolemus appear on the scene with an attendant following behind them. An older man is accompanied by a youth. The fifth century Athenian audience must have immediately realized that their relationship is that of erastes and eromenos, which was a distinct feature in that society. The word 129 Tpacpsls (3) mentioned by Odysseus further announces the theme of this play, i.e., itaLSepacnrCoi, by implying that there is another kind of nurturance besides that given by the parents— the spiritual nurturance of youth quite often provided by the pederastic relationship. Through the first speech of Odysseus, Sophocles also endows the audience with the basic knowledge about the situation of the play. The place is Lemnos, an uninhabited island, where Odysseus abandoned the Malian8 son of Poeas a long time ago on the way to Troy because the son of Poeas afflicted with a sore on his foot made peaceful libation and sacrifice impossible with his ill-omened cries. Now Odysseus has come back to the same place with his junior partner to take Philoctetes to Troy— a mission entrusted to them by the chiefs of the Greek army. Neoptolemus is actually little more than a boy, immature and inexperienced in such expeditions. Odysseus is ready to take advantage of the youth's callowness to mold the boy for his own needs. From the beginning of the play Odysseus coaches young Neoptolemus on what to do: he bids Neoptolemus to find a cave, i.e., Philoctetes1 abode, by describing the place he remembers. Then having learned that Philoctetes is away, Odysseus gives instructions for the mission he wants Neoptolemus to perform. Neoptolemus' task is to deceive Philoctetes 130 by pretending that he is sailing home full of hatred against the Atreidae and thus he could ship Philoctetes aboard. Odysseus appeals to Neoptolemus’ sense of nobility; he asks Neoptolemus to be noble in the mission not just in body alone(50-51) . But it is dangerous for Odysseus to use the word yevvaCov which evokes the traditional heroic morality.9 Odysseus is, in fact, distorting the meaning of yevvaCov for his present purpose by ascribing to nobility absolute obedience to one1 s superiors when he asks Neoptolemus to become a u u n p e m s (53) . But Odysseus knows well that deceit is not the way of Neoptolemus, the son of Achilles. Odysseus thereby tries to sway the youth' s mind with the enticement of victory(77-85): aAA’ a v ro ro v ro b f i <ro<f>ur0jjvai, icAoireiis oitm s ytvrjcrj) ru>v aviK-rjrtov oirXutv. i£ o tb a , 7ral, (pvcret <re pr\ ite^yuKora to (.aura (ptaveiv pr}be T ty v a trd a t xaxc£• aAA’ ribi) y a p n KTrjpa rrjs vIktjs X afieiv, ro X p a ' bfcaioi b’ a vd is iic(pavovp.tda. vvv S’ eis a v a ib is rjp tp a s pepos (ip a yy Soy p o t treavrov, Kara rb v Xoiirov ypovov KefcArj<ro navrcDir fO fre/3/oTaroy ppor& v. The lesson which Odysseus imparts to his younger eromenos is shocking to the youth as well as to the audience. Odysseus is instructing Neoptolemus that he should sacrifice justice and nobility for the sake of victory. If it is to his advantage, Odysseus is ready to adopt any tactic. In his value system, there is no moral standard 131 or heroic code which can guide his actions. The result justifies the means. Odysseus is trying to imbue Neoptolemus with his shrewd principles of life to use his younger partner for his own devices without any respect for his person. In fact, Odysseus is using his eromenos as a tool with which he intends to fulfill his own personal ambition. At the instruction of Odysseus that Neoptolemus should become a thief to accomplish the mission, the youth’s immediate response is reluctance. Neoptolemus knows that the method of deception is not only against his nature but also against his father's. He is ready to lose in an honorable way rather than to succeed by evil means. , But he is also reluctant to be called a traitor. Odysseus takes full advantage of the youth's sense of duty. He convinces Neoptolemus that it is impossible to take Philoctetes to Troy either by force since he has the invincible bow, or by persuasion since he has a deadly enmity against Odysseus himself and the Atreidae; therefore the only possible way is to use deception. Thereupon the youth comes entirely under the influence of his older erastes, as we can see in the following dialogue between Odysseus and Neoptolemus (108-22): N e. ovk altrxpov fiyrj brjra ra \j/(vbfj \tyeiv; 0 8 . ovk, tl to <r(tj6T}vai ye t o '(/tvoos <pipti. Ne. 7rws ovv j3\ 4 iru> v tis raC ra roApw/o'ei Aa/cetv; 110 0 8 . Srav r i Spas is Kepbos, ovk oKvtlv irpeirei. 132 Nc. K^pbos b' tp .0 1 rl t o v t o v is T polav p.o\eiv; 0 8 . alpei ra ro£a ravra rr;v T polav p.dva. Ne. o v k d ip ' < 5 i t f p a w v , i s i r p a a K f r , e lp .' iyti; 0 8 . o v r a v <rv K t i v u i v \(»pls o i i t ' i n e i v a trov. W 5 N e. Or;par" ovv ylyvocr av, drrep <38’ ex«t. 0 8 . i s rovro y «p£as 8t5o (pipy bu}prjp.ara. Ne. ttoCio; pad<dv yap o v k hv apvoipr\v ro Spar. 0 8 . crowds r av avros KayaOos KeicArj’ apa. N e. Irw r r o r ja m , r r a c r a v a l a y v v q v a c p eIs. IJO 0 8 . 77 p v r j p o v e v e i s o v v & trot i r a p y v e a a ; N e. aa<f>’ lad', ewetirep eladnra£ avvrjveaa. Odysseus argues that anything can be justified if it brings gain. Furthermore, he appeals to Neoptolemus' youthful ambition by pointing out that Neoptolemus can never be the conqueror of Troy without the help of Philoctetes' bow, and that he will be called both wise and noble if he performs successfully. Neoptolemus seems to be quite impressed by the wits of Odysseus and is eager to impress his older partner in turn by accomplishing the mission entrusted to him. Here we can perceive what effect the erastes has on his younger eromenos and how important the role of the erastes is. The youth who is under the influence of the erastes is not yet mature enough to have his own definitive views but is entitled to be molded according to the teaching of his erastes. In the prologue Neoptolemus is wholly subdued by Odysseus, his elder partner. The audience might feel that Odysseus, known for guile and cunning, and Neoptolemus, whose father is 133 Achilles, the ideal figure of Greek aristocratic tradition, are ill-matched. The tension and disharmony between these two partners are latent in the prologue, although Odysseus momentarily manages to win over Neoptolemus to his side. Neoptolemus certainly wants to and must grow up to be worthy of his heroic father, and therefore needs an erastes who pursues the same heroic ideals of Achilles. In fact, deceit has no place in the Achillean value system; fair play grounded on honesty and justice is always the basic condition for a heroic contest. Neoptolemus' reluctance expressed right after hearing his task (86-95) reveals his true nature, which seeks to follow the aristocratic ethical code. On the other hand, Odysseus is a political opportunist whose sole interest lies in utilitarian expediency combined with diplomatic skill and adaptability. These characteristics . occur quite often in the democratic viewpoint in the late 5th century. Moreover, Odysseus in this play is wholly an anti-heroic character possessed by the fear of death— the trait of a coward. Odysseus is afraid to face Philoctetes; at the beginning of the play he sends Neoptolemus to find the abode of Philoctetes, while he himself hides behind. Then he instructs Neoptolemus to steal the bow, although he already declared that their mission is to take Philoctetes to 134 Troy. The main reason Odysseus emphasizes to Neoptolemus the theft of the bow is that he is afraid he might be killed by the invincible bow of Heracles (cf. 75-76).10 This fear, fear of death, is exactly opposed to the heroic code of Achilles, who sacrificed long life for the sake of glory. The honorable death which a hero meets by pursuing his goal is always considered the best reward granted the heroic life. Thus the value system of Achilles, who is the model for the heroic ideal, and that of Odysseus, who seeks only gain by his shrewd wit, belong to two entirely different realms. The audience, therefore, would already wonder about the discrepancy in the relationship of Odysseus and the son of Achilles, which will unfold in the course of the play. They may doubt whether Neoptolemus can accept Odysseus truly as his erastes and perform his mission successfully. Odysseus represents the Greek army and society in a sense. The Greek army is much interested in the success of its campaign rather than the feelings and rights of the individual. The Greek army abandoned Philoctetes ten years ago for a successful expedition. Now it requires Philoctetes again for a successful campaign since Troy cannot be taken without the bow of Philoctetes. Thus, the society which Odysseus represents is based on expediency for its own benefit without any concern for 135 the spiritual and emotional aspects of the individual. Odysseus never takes into consideration the morality of his action or the feelings of other men. Neither the conscience of his younger eromenos nor the sensitivity of a loyal warrior matters to him. His only concern is political expediency and selfish victory. Odysseus, however, is quite often understood as a sophistic figure. W.B. Stanford, for example, considers Odysseus a corrupt and contemptible sophist.11 And C. Segal sees the way of Odysseus, who takes language as a tool to attain his ends, as the way of the sophist who takes language as an a moral medium for winning one's case.12 But it is not right to label anyone who tries to obtain gain by deceiving another person with lies as a sophist.13 The way of the sophists is sincere persuasion through logical calculation (Aoyuayos) considering the particular situation. This view is based on their philosophical skepticism that there is no absolute truth or criterion of judgment, but each case should be judged relatively by the particular person, who is the measure of all things (icavTcov xpnyaxwv yexpov ), in the light of the particular circumstance. Actually there is a clear difference between the statement of the sophists that Xoyos has persuasive power as well as deceptive characteristics and the attitude of Odysseus who takes deception as the means 136 to obtain an end. Furthermore, the sophists were never accused by a charge that they were corrupting the youth. Quite the contrary, Protagoras and Gorgias, the representatives of the sophists, enjoyed respect and won high reputation among their contemporaries. Gorgias1 cynical view against the character of Odysseus expressed in his Defense of Palamedes shows the antagonism of the sophists against the Odyssean characteristics. In the prologue, Philoctetes has not appeared on the stage yet, but the audience can have a slight impression of his person from the few references to his situation. Ever since he was abandoned by the Greek army, he has been living on this desert island alone with one foot maimed by an ulcerous wound. The inanimate objects which Neoptolemus describes-— the bed of leaves, a wooden cup, and the rags stained with matter from the sore— tells the audience what a miserable life he has been leading for the last ten years. This is the man whom Neoptolemus now has to deceive. At the end of the prologue, Odysseus departs leaving Neoptolemus alone to accomplish the task with a promise that he will send a helper in the guise of a merchant if Neoptolemus tarries too long. Parodos (135-218) After the prologue, a chorus of fifteen old men, the 137 followers of Neoptolemus, enters. The parodos is a lyric dialogue between Neoptolemus and the chorus, which fills the interval between the prologue and the first episode and prepares the audience to meet the hero of this play, Philoctetes. Although the members of the chorus are old men, they are loyal subjects who are eager to serve Neoptolemus* need. Neoptolemus tells them what their role is (146-49): 6it6rav pu}\Tf Sea'os oScnjs, r& vS’ I k p.e\a$p<av irpos eprqv ale I xe‘ Pa itpoyatpGtv Tteipd rb -napbv depaiteveiv. Thus, the chorus is supposed to help Neoptolemus accomplish the Odyssean scheme whenever the situation requires. But they are not in existence solely as an instrument to support Neoptolemus* cause. They express their own emotion and opinion of the situation. In fact, the chorus is the first to pity Philoctetes although they have not yet met. The words tAnuoiv (161), olxtCpw (169) and oilxtpbs (186) certainly show their sincere sympathy towards Philoctetes. They can imagine what kind of life Philoctetes has led during the last ten years, and thereby sing of his miserable life in a pathetic ode. Philoctetes has been living a lonely life among the shaggy beasts and birds without any companion who can help him. A man of noble birth lies alone on a desolate 138 island suffering from a deadly wound apart from human society without the joy of life. Human fate is indeed unpredictable and beyond measure. This ode certainly roused pathos and compassion in the hearts of the audience towards the crippled hero whom they are to meet soon. Neoptolemus responds to the chorus that Philoctetes' suffering is not a mystery to him at all. He sees a meaning in the miserable life of Philoctetes. Neoptolemus believes that Philoctetes is suffering neither by some chance nor by cruel injustice but by the providence of the god so that he might not bend his invincible shafts against Troy until the time comes when Troy is destined to fall by these shafts (195-2 00). Linforth interprets Neoptolemus1 response at this point as an instinctive rebellion against the fraud of Odysseus.Neoptolemus does not show any concern about the rightness and wrongness of the method which he is about to use. The only thing which is clear to him through his perception of the divine plan is that the time when Troy should fall has arrived; therefore, Philoctetes must be conveyed to Troy with his invincible bow. Quite contrary to the view of Linforth, Neoptolemus is all the more eager to perform his task since he knows that now is the time Philoctetes is needed for the sack 139 of Troy. The chorus suddenly bids Neoptolemus to be silent? they seem to hear a noise. A sound, a grievous sound from a man worn out in distress rises, and becomes louder although low at first. The audience can also hear the anguished moaning of a man who appears slowly on the / stage from the direction opposite the sea-shore. Neoptolemus and the chorus do not notice Philoctetes yet, but pay attention only to the sound. The chorus thereupon advises Neoptolemus to have a new thought as to prepare to meet Philoctetes. First Episode (219-675) Philoctetes now makes his full appearance to Neoptolemus and the chorus. He is approaching the center of the stage dragging one foot maimed by the snake-bite. He is clad in the skin of animals with shaggy hair and unkempt beard. It is the sight of a wretched man who has been living in solitude for ten years apart from human society. Despite his wild appearance, we can see that Philoctetes still keeps human warmth in his heart, when he rejoices in seeing fellow human beings and greets them heartily. The style of their garments which is Greek especially delights his heart, but he is eager to hear their speech to see whether they are truly Greeks. 140 Neoptolemus opens his mouth to confirm to Philoctetes, first of all, that they are indeed his fellow countrymen. The joy of Philoctetes who hears the speech of Greeks, denied to him for a long time, is enormous. Philoctetes seems quite moved by the sight of the youth who certainly exhibits nobility and youthful beauty. His admiration for the youth is well expressed in his designation of Neoptolemus as xouo06* avSpog (235). Thereupon Philoctetes immediately tries to establish a friendly and intimate relationship with the youth by addressing him u > t e k v o v (236) affectionately.15 The fact that he is the son of Achilles, the foremost hero of the Greeks, enhances Philoctetes’ attachment to the youth all the more. Neoptolemus, who is cpoXxaxou itac itaxpos (242), (pCxn.s x$ovos (242) , and speaks' cpCxxaxov cpuvnya (234), already pours love ( < p c X C o t ) in the heart of the lonely hero whose life has been devoid of this emotion for so many years. Neoptolemus, however, is not emotionally aroused at the first encounter of the hero; his sole concern is to accomplish his task.16 Neoptolemus starts to mingle truth with lies. Moreover, he pretends he never heard of Philoctetes' name or his suffering. It is indeed a great blow to the wronged hero that he has been wasting his life without anyone knowing the injustice done to him 141 while those who caused his misery rejoice in silence. Philoctetes bitterly explains to the youth who he is and what injustice he had to suffer. Philoctetes identifies himself thus (260-63): o > t4kvov, Si ird i irarpos ’A^iAAe'cos, o5* tlft i y d croi K€ivos, bv Kkvfts Icrcos rtbv 'ilpaxAtCaiV ovra bftrirorrjp Sirkcav, 6 tow llo^awroy irats ‘btAoKTrjr^s, By addressing Neoptolemus twice and by emphasizing his identity twice with 06’ and xeGvos, Philoctetes tries to draw the attention of the youth's eyes and mind towards himself. His first identification comes from his relationship with Heracles and then secondly from his parentage. The most important fact which Philoctetes wants the youth to know, is that he is the famous hero who was < p C x o s of Heracles and thereby received his famous bow.17 There is certainly a personal intention to impress the youth towards whom he felt affection at the first sight by referring to his close association with the god Heracles. Then, Philoctetes continues his speech to explain how he was deserted on this island, how he felt when he found himself left all alone, and what a miserable life he had to live procuring the bare necessities all by himself. Although some mariners, who stopped at this* barren island against their will, had compassionate words for Philoctetes and offered some food 142 or clothes, no one dared to take him home. It is now the tenth year that Philoctetes is wearing out his life with his plague as a sole companion. We have a glimpse of a sort of pride in his narration as Philoctetes tries to prove before the youth what a great hero he is and what a stout heart he has. Philoctetes wants to win admiration from the youth by showing the bravery with which he mastered miserable conditions which no other mortal could endure. He ends his story with a prayer that the Atreidae and Odysseus who devised such an evil may suffer like sufferings in requital. Philoctetes' speech has clearly moved the hearts of the chorus, but Neoptolemus uses its tenor to continue his deception. Neoptolemus pretends that he has the same hatred against the sons of Atreus and Odysseus. At the request of Philoctetes who is eager to learn what wrong he suffered from them, Neoptolemus tells how they summoned him from Scyros with a promise of glory to capture the towers of Troy and then how they robbed him of his dead father's arms and bestowed them on Odysseus. Neoptolemus tries to defend Odysseus' position by attributing the blame to the superiors who advises evil things (382-88): r o ia v r ' aKovrras Ka£ovf<.hirr0t\s kolkcl i r \ t< 0 irpos o Iko vs, to>v ffxu>v r tjr d fx tv o s 7 7 7 3 0 9 row x q k iV to v k&k kclkwv ’08i>tro-ea>y. 143 kovk aln& pat kcivov uts rows iv reA«* 385 iro\is yap i<rrt iraaa rw v ffyovpivu>v trrparos re o i/p ira f ol S’ aKotrpavvres (3poru>v StSaa-KaXaiv koyourt yiyvovrai KaKoC. What Neoptolemus is describing here, the audience knows, actually applies to himself and his own situation. Neoptolemus enjoined to deceive Philoctetes by Odysseus, his so called erastes, has been performing his task brilliantly so far. At the instruction of the bad erastes, Neoptolemus, the son of the noblest aristocratic hero, discards the standard of the heroic code and becomes a degenerate youth by adopting deception against a wronged hero who has already shown affection towards him. It is a dramatic irony, which Sophocles often uses, that Neoptolemus reveals his situation by describing someone else's. Although Neoptolemus is not conscious of his corruption, the audience clearly perceives Neoptolemus' degeneration and may feel sorry for him. Furthermore, Sophocles may be alluding to the unwholesome pederastic relationships in the contemporary society and thereby makes the erastai and eromenoi among the audience reflect upon their own relationships. latSepaaTta, an aristocratic love affair in its true sense, had been much degraded by Sophocles' time with the advent of democracy (cf. pp. 37-38) . Quite often not only its original function— the pursuit of male ideals— was likely to be 144 neglected but also the eromenos become a tool with which the erastes satisfied his egoistic purpose. Sophocles certainly gives a warning to the young epheboi who have just joined male society to be careful not to have bad erastai who would corrupt their youthful minds. Neoptolemus ends his story, like Philoctetes by expressing hatred for the Atreidae and wishing good luck to their enemies. The chorus, thereupon, sings of their witness of the injustice done to Neoptolemus, as they were bidden, to help Neoptolemus as the situation requires. This lyric interlude in the middle of the dialogue, accompanied by music and perhaps dance, not only helps the flow of the drama but also lifts the emotion of the audience. The relationship between Neoptolemus and Philoctetes is now firmly established by their common grief and hatred against the Atreidae and Odysseus. In the ensuing dialogue between the two characters (403-60), Neoptolemus further wins the trust of Philoctetes by showing that his view of the world and his judgment about individuals are the same as Philoctetes1.18 Although Philoctetes has lived a lonely life in a desert island, his humanity and love towards his fellow heroes and heroic valor has not died. His great sorrow at the news of the death of Achilles (332-33) and other heroes with whom he shared 145 manly ideals shows that Philoctetes still yearns for a place in the heroic world. But at the same time he feels great resentment toward the prosperity of evil men. Odysseus, who Philoctetes thinks should be numbered among the dead, is full prospering, while Ajax is dead and Patroclus whom Achilles loved so dearly (cf. pp. 58-63) is gone, too. Actually the whole world appears to him out of joint; the good are perishing and the evil ones are prospering. Neoptolemus' cynical remark that war never takes base men but always good men (43 6-437) intensifies Philoctetes' pessimistic view of the world. After the great injustice done to him and the early deaths met by his dear friends, Philoctetes can hardly accept the gods as good and becomes skeptical even about the divine world. The soul of Philoctetes is full of hatred and bitterness. But Philoctetes is glad to have found a youth who has a like mind. Philoctetes seems to feel the union of their souls with common hatred against evil men and evil society as well as common love for the great heroes. Neoptolemus suddenly pretends to go back to the ship to sail home with feigned hatred against Ilium. But Neoptolemus intentionally arouses in the heart of Philoctetes the desire to go home first by reminding him of his hometown by addressing Philoctetes as the son of 146 Oetean sire and then by reminding him of the destination of Neoptolemus' voyage, i.e., Scyros, which is in the same direction as Oeta. Neoptolemus knows well that his pretense of sailing home will certainly provoke from Philoctetes a plea to take him home as he made to any passenger who stopped at this island. Neoptolemus thus provides an opportunity for Philoctetes to make a long pathetic appeal to save him from his present misery. It is a pitiable scene when a hero pleads to a younger boy by supplicating on his knees. He appeals to Neoptolemus1 sense of honor and nobility to perform a good deed by enduring the trouble which will not last one whole day and thereby reap a meed of glory. Philoctetes is begging Neoptolemus desperately to take him- even to Scyros or Euboea from which it is not a long way to the land of Oeta, the Trachinian heights and the fair-flowing Spercheius. The names of Oeta and Trachis, however, remind the audience that these places are closely associated with Heracles, and thereby reveal to the audience that Philoctetes must have known Heracles well when he was a youth and might have had an intimate relationship with the hero from whom he received his most precious heritage.19 In fact, the hypothesis of this play, written by the Alexandrians, tells us that Philoctetes knew Heracles when he was a youth. 147 Philoctetes is said to have led the fleet of the Achaeans to the isle of Chryse as a guide to offer sacrifice; he alone knew the place since he had been there with Heracles. Philostratus (Philostr. jun. 17) also reports that Philoctetes was a servant-boy of Heracles already in his youth, that he was the bearer of his bow, and that Philoctetes at that time learned the location of the altar of Heracles erected by Jason on the island Chryse. An Attic red-figure vase (ARV2 319,6) depicts a scene which shows Heracles making a sacrifice to Chryse. A young man whose inscribed name appears to be either Iolaos or Jason stands nearby while Nike assists with an unknown servant youth. It is very likely that this youth is Philoctetes. The fifth century Athenians, therefore, must have been familiar with the story of the early association of Heracles and Philoctetes. At the speech of Philoctetes, the chorus urges Neoptolemus to take him aboard and convey him home. They do this partly out of pity and partly out of their intention to help Neoptolemus' deceit. The chorus certainly feels that it is better for Philoctetes to be rescued from this deserted island than to stay longer in this miserable situation. Neoptolemus, however, makes some ironic statement— ironic because the same words mean one thing to Philoctetes and anther to the audience— that 148 it would be shameful if he looks to the stranger less prompt in doing what is the appropriate thing for the moment ( x p o s to hcxCplov, . 525). To Philoctetes it is advantageous to be taken home, but to the audience Neoptolemus appears to mean that it is advantageous to take Philoctetes to Troy for the Greek army as well as for his own glory. Neoptolemus adds another ironic remark that he wishes the god's favor wherever they would sail (529). Philoctetes thinks that their destination is his hometown or at least Neoptolemus', but the audience knows that Neoptolemus is planning to take Philoctetes to Troy. Philoctetes, however, taking Neoptolemus' words in his favor, exclaims with joy: S (ptAxaxov yev ?hiap , nfiuaxos 6’ avrip (530). It is the happiest day to Philoctetes since he met the sweetest youth who would perform what he yearned for during the last ten years. Philoctetes believes that he has found a youth who truly deserves to be his eromenos, while Neoptolemus in disguise has entirely won the affection and trust of the older man. Philoctetes' salutation to Neoptolemus, 5 xaC (533), is all the more significant at this point; it is full of love and admiration. Before they leave, Philoctetes wants to make a final farewell to his abode and wants Neoptolemus to learn what misery he endured with great perseverance. He desires his beloved to see 149 with his own eyes and witness the bare means by which he sustained his life. Philoctetes is now proud of himself when he, looking back his past, thinks that he deserves admiration from Neoptolemus, his beloved. It is a wonderful thing for the embittered hero to have found an eromenos who truly understands him and recognizes his greatness and patience. When Neoptolemus is about to follow Philoctetes into the cave, the chorus, perceiving two men approaching, urges Neoptolemus to hear their words first. One is a sailor of Neoptolemus' ship and the other the disguised merchant. Neoptolemus immediately realizes that these men have been sent by Odysseus to hasten his scheme just as Odysseus promised to do at the end of the prologue, if Neoptolemus seemed to delay. Although some scholars consider the merchant scene as superfluous, it not only introduces a change but also has great significance for the play's development, as we will see soon. The merchant gives a false story to Neoptolemus, obviously allowing Philoctetes to overhear it, that Phoenix and the son of Theseus are in guest of Neoptolemus, and Odysseus and Diomedes, the son of Tydeus, are on the way to Lemnos to fetch Philoctetes. But ironically, the merchant reveals the oracle of Helenus in the middle of his deceptive speech. He states that Helenus, whom Odysseus 150 captured by tricks, prophesied to the Greeks that they can never sack the towers of Troy unless they bring Philoctetes from the island where he dwells now by having persuaded him with words (iceCa-avres Aoyw, 612). He also reports how Odysseus arrogantly boasted that he would bring this man of his own will and if not, against his will, i.e., by force, and finally advises Neoptolemus to make haste. The intention of Odysseus is obvious: he wants to cause .Philoctetes to feel more affinity towards Neoptolemus by making the youth appear hounded by the Greeks like him and thereby hasten him to the ship to leave at once with Neoptolemus. In one sense, Odysseus’ plan is working because Philoctetes is more eager to depart the island and even forgets what he was trying to do before the arrival of the merchant, i.e., to bid farewell to his cave. But, in another sense, Odysseus’ new design is ineffectual for the ultimate need of the Greek army, i.e., Philoctetes' help, since it hardens the heart of Philoctetes with more hatred against Odysseus and Greek society. The story that Odysseus, author of his ten years' suffering on the desert island, is now going to take him to Troy even by force evoke a fierce determination from Philoctetes never to participate in the Trojan war. The outrageous boast and vain ambition 151 of Odysseus indeed wounds the pride of a wronged hero all the more and intensifies his antagonism against the Greek expedition. Actually, it is useless to fetch Philoctetes to Troy by deceit because he will not fight for them and nobody can force him to fight unless he himself wills it. Here we can see clearly that Odysseus' aim is only to carry Philoctetes to Troy, and thereby fulfill his boast. He is not interested in whether Philoctetes will truly help their campaign against Troy with the bow of Heracles but only in his mission to bring Philoctetes to Troy even if his actions arouse more enmity against the Greek army in Philoctetes1 heart. On the other hand, this merchant scene has a significant effect on Neoptolemus, a youth who has engaged in the .Odyssean scheme at the bidding of his older erastes. After the merchant's revelation of the oracle of Helenus, Neoptolemus is silent until Philoctetes urges him to hasten to the ship. Neoptolemus' next response is that the wind is adverse (640) . Philoctetes on his part is eager to sail but Neoptolemus insists again that the weather is bad (642). Neoptolemus is reluctant to lead Philoctetes to the ship; this attitude is quite different from his previous eagerness before the merchant's arrival. Something must have gone through his mind while he was listening to the merchant's narration about the oracle of Helenus. This 152 oracle, in fact, invites many different interpretations from the critics of the real meaning and its significance and effect on the whole drama.20 Some scholars, however, doubt the authenticity of the oracle told by a disguised merchant. But, whether the statement— xovSe iteCaavxes Aoyai (612)— is exactly from the oracle or the merchant's interpretation is not important, but its effect on Neoptolemus is. When Neoptolemus hears the merchant's version of the oracle, he realizes the discrepancy between the Odyssean scheme and the real meaning of the oracle which he now begins to perceive. It is obvious that persuasion is the right method and Philoctetes must come on his own accord if he is to engage in battle. For the first time Neoptolemus' conscience is uneasy and he feels that something is wrong, but he is not yet able to break from his deceptive stance. At the persistent urging of Philoctetes Neoptolemus agrees to go, but still wants to delay the departure by turning his attention to the cave and by reminding Philoctetes to gather what he needs. At this point Philoctetes remembers that he should bring some herbs to soothe his painful wound until it is healed and the arrows, any of which, if forgotten, ought not to be left to become another's prize. Thereupon Neoptolemus' attention turns to the famous bow of 153 Heracles, and he wishes to have a closer view and salute it as a god (657). Neoptolemus' attitude towards the bow differs markedly from that of Odysseus. To Odysseus, the bow of Heracles is only a lifeless instrument which can be taken by deceit as a means for his vain glory. He has respect neither for the present owner of the famous bow nor for the original owner, the god Heracles. He negates all the significance the bow embodies by regarding it solely as a way to success. On the other hand, Neoptolemus is ready to pay homage to it as a god and greet it as if he salutes the god Heracles himself. To Neoptolemus the bow is a symbol of the heroic apexn. which Heracles represents and which Heracles wants his successor to attain. Neoptolemus thereby express his desire to touch this divine bow but adds that he wishes it if it is lawful. This humble reverence and earnest desire wins the affection and trust of Philoctetes all the more, who kindly allows Neoptolemus to take hold of the bow as one who truly deserves to handle such a treasure. Philoctetes firmly believes that Neoptolemus could perform the same kind of great deed by which he himself won the bow of Heracles. Just as he freed Heracles from his agony and sent him to the eternal home, i.e., the abode of gods, by kindling the pyre, Neoptolemus can free Philoctetes from his present misery 154 and give him a new life by taking him home. Philoctetes probably hands over the bow when he speaks line 667 and thus reinforces his words by an action which quite moves the youth. As Neoptolemus returns the bow to Philoctetes, the young man on his part expresses sincere gratitude to Philoctetes (671-73): ovic aydofxai < r’ Ihtiv r« Kal \af3aiv <f>(\ov. oerris yap ev hpav <v -iraOaiv iitCaraTat., TtavTos y4voi t ’ air KTTjjxaro? K pei<rcru>ir <p(\os. Neoptolemus is grateful to have met a great hero who knows how to grant a favor in return. The word cpoAos which can mean both friend and lover, however, has an ironic import. Neoptolemus, who is deceiving Philoctetes after all, must have meant here just a good friend by cpuAos,21 but it sounds to Philoctetes as if Neoptolemus is grateful to have met a worthy man who deserves to be his erastes. The gnomic utterance of Neoptolemus that cpbAos is better than any material possession is enough to make Philoctetes believe in the tie established between himself and Neoptolemus whom he now regards as his eromenos. The more Philoctetes shows his affection and trust to the youth, the more the conscience of Neoptolemus, who certainly knows that he is not sincere and truthful to the hero, is aching. Neoptolemus thereupon changes his subject and hastens Philoctetes to 155 go inside the cave. Philoctetes, however, desires (ito^eC, 675) the company of Neoptolemus and attributes this desire to his sickness. Although Philoctetes can manage everything alone, he wants the youth's help. It is Philoctetes' desire not to separate from his beloved even a single moment, but to be with him wherever he goes. The mere presence of his beloved is indeed a great comfort to the sick erastes. At the end of the first episode Neoptolemus and Philoctetes disappear into the cave. First Stasimon (676-729) The chorus, now left alone on the stage, sings an ode composed of two pairs of strophe and antistrophe. This first stasimon is the only choral ode in the entire play which is not addressed to any specific character but is an expression of the thoughts and emotions of the chorus. This choral ode not only fills the interval of time which Philoctetes and Neoptolemus spend in the cave but also creates a great dramatic atmosphere for the next episode. Before Philoctetes leaves the island, the place of his many years' adversity, the chorus once again reflects upon the past miserable life of Philoctetes. Their song is full of compassion for a man who did nothing wrong but 156 suffered undeservedly terrible misery. They marvel at Philoctetes * persevering endurance of the hardships from which he is about to be delivered now. Actually there is nothing new in what the chorus sings of in the antistrophe and the second strophe. But by repeating his past loneliness and miserable life at the point of his deliverance with music and dance, they not only emphasize the unmerited suffering of Philoctetes, but also contrast it with the future happiness of Philoctetes which they sing of in the following antistrophe (719-29): This last antistrophe has caused much trouble to critics of the play since the audience knows well that Neoptolemus has been deceiving Philoctetes to take him to Troy, and yet the chorus is singing with joy that Philoctetes will be carried to his homeland. Jebb,22 followed by Linforth23 and others, tries to solve the problem by insisting that in this antistrophe the chorus change from their previous genuine sympathy for v v v S’ a v b p & v a y a d S ip i r a i b i c r v v a v n j t r a s t v h a i p w v a v v c r f i k o l p e y a s fie K t i v t n v os v i v T to vT O T t6 p u t h o v p a n , itX -p O ti ttoKXQv p.T}i’G>v, t t a T p i a v a y tt Trpos a v X a v MaAmSajv p v p .fp a v , ^,Trep\fiov re Trap’ o- avr. 720 X$as, tv o ydXxafnTLS avrjp 0(ois irXada irauriv dfiip m p l itap<par)s. Otras irtep dydaiif, 157 Philoctetes to the deceptive role in support of Neoptolemus' plan as they see Philoctetes and Neoptolemus appearing from the cave. But it is unreasonable that the chorus should suddenly change from sincerity to deception; this interpretation breaks the unity of the choral ode. Furthermore, it is inappropriate to assume that Philoctetes and Neoptolemus come out of the cave right before the second antistrophe.24 On the other hand, Kranz,25 along with Waldock26 and other scholars suggests that the poet here separates the singing and dancing chorus from its actual role in the play for dramatic effect. But this view that the same chorus in one play assumes two different roles is also unacceptable. It is unbelievable that Sophocles endowed the chorus with two distinct roles— in one role a fully aware partner in the Odyssean scheme, and in the other the instrument of the poet to produce a dramatic effect. We must find a solution which allows this choral ode consistency and unity as an artistic whole. Contrary to the view of Kamerbeek who sees the first stasimon as remaining in the framework of the fraud,27 I think that the whole stasimon is a sincere expression of the chorus who pities the wronged hero and rejoices for the happy future awaiting Philoctetes. The phrase that is the key to understanding the second antistrophe is 158 nAnSeu noAuv unvffiv (721-22)— in the lapse of many months— which all the above critics have ignored. The duration of many months can refer neither to the ten years of Philoctetes1 suffering which the chorus already described with a specific term, Sexexn xpovov (715), in the previous strophe, nor to the length of time in which Philoctetes can be conveyed from Lemnos to his homeland, since it will not take even one whole day as he says in line 480. TtAn^eL rcoAtov unv&v indicates the duration of time in which Neoptolemus carries Philoctetes to Troy where he can become eufiaCuwv and peyas and then after the capture of Troy Neoptolemus will take Philoctetes home. The words euSctCywv and. yeyas certainly point to his new life on the plain of Troy, since the happiest moment in a Greek hero's life is when he displays his apoaxeta and proves himself to be superior over others. The journey to Philoctetes' home indeed starts now but not directly from Lemnos but via Troy. The chorus knows well that the noble son of Achilles will not desert Philoctetes on Trojan land after the seizure of Ilium but will take him home with the glorious victory. The joy with which the chorus sings in the second antistrophe is as sincere as the compassion expressed in the previous sections of the ode since the chorus firmly believes that it is for Philoctetes' own good that he go to Troy. The final 159 destination of their journey— the haunt of Malian nymphs, the banks of Spercheius and the hills of Oeta— on the other hand, insinuates the audience again the intimate relationship between Philoctetes and Heracles. Philoctetes will finally return in joy and triumph to the homeland where he as a youth had enjoyed the association with Heracles. This premature happiness of the chorus, however, has a dramatic effect since the following scene is a reversal of their joyful expectation. The contrast between the last antistrophe of the first stasimon and the second episode which is filled with the dreadful pain and agony of Philoctetes, struck by a spasm, produces an emotional about-face in the audience. Second Episode (730-826) Neoptolemus and Philoctetes appear from the cave, but Philoctetes lags behind as if dismayed. At the words of Neoptolemus to move forward, Philoctetes utters only a painful cry, 5 8 & 5 (732). Neoptolemus perceives that something is bothering Philoctetes, but Philoctetes tries to hide from the youth the painful spasm. The pain, however, becomes too severe to hide any more. Philoctetes cries out painfully what a piercing and devouring attack tortures him now and wants Neoptolemus 160 to strike his wounded foot with a knife. In his agony Philoctetes calls upon Neoptolemus five times in nine lines (742-50) with xe*vov and itaC, and again twice in line 753. Here we can see how deeply Neoptolemus' being is embedded in the soul of Philoctetes. In fact, Neoptolemus is the only person from whom Philoctetes can seek comfort in his distress. Now for the first time Neoptolemus sees what dreadful agony Philoctetes has had to endure for the last ten years; until now he knew of it only by description. The painful cry of Philoctetes, u cm i t a i t a me a i t a c (754) , rings more significantly to the ears of Neoptolemus, since the sound of this cry is almost like the emphatic form of uaE . At this bitter cry, Neoptolemus for the first time emits an utterance which shows his concern for Philoctetes— Seuvov ye xounucruyya tou v o a n y a x o s (755) . Neoptolemus no longer sees Philoctetes as a mere object of the Odyssean scheme but as a human being towards whom he has feelings. Neoptolemus asks, "What shall I do?" ( i t 6 n x a 6 p a o u ; 757) wishing to render some help if he can do anything. Philoctetes on his part asks Neoptolemus not to forsake him out of fear and assures him that this attack occurs only occasionally. Philoctetes1 main concern, at this point is the bow, the famous bow of Heracles, which he does not want to be 161 the plunder of his enemy. He knows sleep usually follows the spasm and therefore wants to entrust the bow to Neoptolemus for safekeeping although previously he allowed only a mere touch. He adds that if Neoptolemus surrenders the bow to those men who will be there soon, both of them, Philoctetes and Neoptolemus, will be destroyed. Philoctetes believes that their destiny, the destiny of the erastes and the eromenos, is one and the same. Philoctetes is entirely dependent on Neoptolemus, as any erastes might be on his beloved in his dire situation. Neoptolemus on his part convinces Philoctetes, affirming their relationship with the phrase itArjv ctoC te k&uol (775) , that the bow shall be handled by no one except Philoctetes and himself. The handing over of the bow in line 776 indeed signals Philoctetes* entire trust on and his love for Neoptolemus. Moreover, Philoctetes talks as if Neoptolemus will be the future owner of the bow (776-778): <t>i. Ibov, 8«Xou> lra‘‘ T° v < f> Q o v °v irpotTKvirov, pr\ ( t o i y e v e trd a t t t o K v t t o v ' avra, /xjj8’ o t t i o s i p o ( re k a l r<jj irpoa-d’ e p o v KeKrrjpevtp. Philoctetes might be actually thinking to hand down the bow to Neoptolemus as his truly deserving eromenos. Although the previous owner of the bow, Heracles, and the present owner, Philoctetes himself, had to endure 162 grievous things, the cause of which Philoctetes attributes to the jealousy of the gods, Philoctetes wishes that the future owner of the bow, his beloved, be free from any such suffering. The phrase "you and me (772-773)" is rephrased here as "me and Heracles (778)." Philoctetes clearly sees that his relationship to Neoptolemus is equivalent to Heracles* to him. As Heracles handed down his most precious possession to his beloved Philoctetes, Philoctetes might hand down the bow to his beloved Neoptolemus some day. This view becomes more apparent when we see Philoctetes asking Neoptolemus to burn him up to put an end to his pain as he once did to Heracles. Philoctetes wants Neoptolemus to become to him what he himself was to Heracles and to perform the same sort of service as he did for Heracles, his erastes. While Philoctetes is delivering his speech whose agony is intensified by the increased pain of the spasm, Neoptolemus is silent. When Neoptolemus opens his mouth at last, he says—— a\y& itaAat Sri T a u t c o t axevwv waxa (806). Although Neoptolemus has not realized it consciously till now, he knows that he has been grieving for the suffering hero long since. The agony of Philoctetes has affected Neoptolemus and turns* his mind to the person Philoctetes. The only hope of Philoctetes at this moment is that his beloved remain beside him even .while he is asleep. Neoptolemus promises to stay not only because he has compassion for Philoctetes but also because his mission demands that he stay with Philoctetes. Philoctetes does not want an oath but prefers a handclasp. Now that the bow is safe in Neoptolemus' hand and Neoptolemus will abide by him until he overcomes the present attack, Philoctetes has another desire— to touch and feel the hand of his beloved. To Philoctetes the touch of his beloved is more pleasant than the sweet words of an oath. But the touch of Neoptolemus throws Philoctetes into a new frenzy as we can see through the following passage (813-18): <Ih. tp&aAke \ttp o s Tztrmv. Ne. ept/3dAAo) pevflv. < t> c. uvv p, ffcetfre Ne. noZ Aeyeis; < P i . a t v r n N e. tI Tiapatfipovfis a v; tC tov avco A euovreis kukKov; 815 <f>i. ptdes pedes pe. N e. -Trot peQS>; 4>t. /xe'Oei wore'. Ne. ofi 4> r \p eacretv. <l>i. awo p oAets, r \ v ■npoa-Oiyris. Ne. Atai 8»j p tdirjp, t l r t 8^ wAe'01/ (jjpovtZs. Philoctetes and Neoptolemus clasp hands when they speak line 813. Immediately after this handclasp Philoctetes becomes frantic and utters strange words. The ambiguous word exeCae (814), however, invites many different interpretations from scholars. For example, Jebb interprets exeCcre to mean "up to the cave," where he can rest on the couch of leaves;28 Webster thinks that if 799f. means "throw me into the volcano," Philoctetes, repeating the earlier wish, refers to the volcano by 164 exeCae;29 Robinson takes exeCae as "to the cliff from which he could throw himself down, as he threatens to do again at 1001-1.1,30 On the other hand, Linforth describes this scene thus: "At this point Philoctetes is overmastered by a fresh access of pain. Staring upward he tosses his arms to the sky, as if he would fly away."31 In fact, exeCae indicates neither cave nor volcano nor cliff, since Philoctetes is not looking at any of these objects but at the sky (tov avu> kuhAov , 815) . In this sense, Linforth is right by taking kneice as "upward" or "to the sky" but he entirely fails to grasp the real meaning implicit in this word. What Philoctetes means by exeCae is not that he wants to fly away because the touch of Neoptolemus increases his physical pain, but that the touch of his beloved lifts his emotions up to the sky. Philoctetes has been living for ten years without knowing the warmth of human touch. Moreover, Neoptolemus is not just anybody but a youth with whom he fell in love at the first encounter. Philoctetes is exalted by the handclasp of his beloved and expresses his emotional excitement by £xeCcre. Neoptolemus, not knowing the meaning of Philoctetes, although it is obvious to the audience, asks tcoC . Neoptolemus and Philoctetes must be holding each other's hand from line 813 till line 818 when Neoptolemus finally 165 releases Philoctetes. Neoptolemus, who does not understand the frantic attitude of Philoctetes, probably holds his body with the other hand right before line 816 to calm Philoctetes down. But ironically this contact incites Philoctetes' frenzy all the more and makes him shout ye^Es . Neoptolemus1 hand on the body of Philoctetes inflames Philoctetes' heart and fuels his fever. Philoctetes, suffering from a pain and fever mingled with passion, cannot stand Neoptolemus' touch any more and shouts aito y * oAeCs , n v upoa^Cyns.32 Neoptolemus finally releases Philoctetes when he speaks line 818. Philoctetes, now freed from the touch of Neoptolemus and exhausted from the struggle, begins to fall asleep, his whole body bathed in sweat. Second Stasimon (827-864) After the violent scene of the second episode, a calm lyric song follows. Sleep gives relief from pain to Philoctetes while it grants Neoptolemus a great opportunity to accomplish the task which was enjoined on him by Odysseus. The chorus thereby advises Neoptolemus to ponder what he should do at this favorable moment (833-38): 5 > T€K VO V , opa TTOV <TTa<TTf, not be flaa-p, nSts 8e pot TavrtvOtv (f> p o v T tb o s - o p ay; e v d ft. 166 ■npbi r ( fj.tvofj.ev -rrpa.tr rr ttv ; Kaipos rot -navrmv yvt&fxav Icryujv (ttoKv r i) tto\v irapa iroba Kparos a p w r a t. The chorus does not point out specifically what is the appropriate thing to be done at the present moment but only reminds Neoptolemus that he can attain victory if only he devises the appropriate thing at the appropriate moment. This theory of xatpos represents a prevalent idea in 5th century Athens. The sophists, who perceived that there is nothing which is absolutely right, proposed that everything should be judged relative to the particular situation. The right thing at the right moment, therefore, differs according to each person who is after all the measure of things. The chorus thinks that Neoptolemus must grasp the right moment for action to achieve an advantage and that now is the moment Neoptolemus can accomplish a great thing if only he has a t prudent mind. But Neoptolemus has to consider by himself what is the appropriate thing to do in this particular situation. The advice of the chorus, however, implies to Neoptolemus that they are urging him to run away with the bow and leave Philoctetes behind alone. Thereupon Neoptolemus says to the chorus in dactylic hexameters (839-42): 167 Ne. a \ \ ' obe p e v ickvet oiibev, iy to S’ opS> o vvexa drjpav rijvo akCws eyopev t o £ io v , btya rovbe irheovres. 8 4 0 ToOSe yap o crre<f>avo?, t o v t o v Beds elite KopC^eiv. K opitelv S’ e a r areArj <rvv \}/evbe<rtv ai< r\pbv o veib o s. Most scholars accept- that Neoptolemus is speaking here oracularly in dactylic hexameter, the meter of oracles. Neoptolemus is not merely addressing the chorus, but rather talks to himself: it is indeed a revelation of divine insight. After witnessing the painful agony of Philoctetes, Neoptolemus perceives what he could not see till now. Until a moment ago Neoptolemus was a naive youth who was thinking only of his own glory. Philoctetes and his bow were needed for the glory of Neoptolemus himself (114-15)— this was actually the enticement with which Odysseus won over the youth's mind to his scheme. But now Neoptolemus realizes that the glory will not be his but Philoctetes' and that this is why the gods told them to bring Philoctetes.33 Philoctetes cannot become a mere instrument to bring victory to the Greek army. He will be the owner of the glory which the gods want to grant to the hero because he still keeps to the heroic ideal despite his many years of suffering. After all, the Greeks cannot win in battle without retrieving the innocent hero they wronged for the last ten years. When Neoptolemus perceives the true meaning of the oracle he is ashamed of himself for 168 ______ deceiving an unjustly wronged hero. Neoptolemus knows how shameful the success of deception is. It is in direct contrast to the heroism embodied in the person of Philoctetes and the bow of Heracles. Through his association with Philoctetes Neoptolemus has grown up and become maturer than he was at the beginning of the play. His eyes and mind have been opened and he sees more now than before. He understands his mission to take Philoctetes to Troy is ultimately to make Philoctetes the future possessor of the highest glory. At the words of Neoptolemus, the chorus immediately objects to his attitude by bidding him to leave those things to the gods. At the same time they caution Neoptolemus to speak softly, because Neoptolemus . will lose a great opportunity if Philoctetes is awakened by a loud voice. In antistrophe, the chorus is more specific about the method they want Neoptolemus to adopt: they urge him to win the prize by stealth (850-51).34 Odysseus, in the prologue, bade Neoptolemus to steal the bow. Now Neoptolemus has the bow in his hand. The chorus thereupon bids Neoptolemus to accomplish the task which Odysseus enjoined upon him. Furthermore, the chorus perceives the grievous troubles which will ensue if Neoptolemus persists in his present positions; here the chorus is certainly hinting to the audience about the 1 169 following episode. But Neoptolemus' position is firm. He chooses to face the troubles, if he has to, rather than deceive and betray a man who lies sleeping. In the epode, the chorus becomes more anxious and advises once again to take advantage of this great opportunity. Now the wind is fair and the man lies sightless and helpless like a dead man. As time passes by, the chorus, becoming rather nervous and fearing that Neoptolemus might entirely lose this good chance, bids Neoptolemus to reconsider— opa, gAeit1 eo xatpta cpSeyyn (862-63). To the chorus the best thing in this situation is to make off with the bow, while Philoctetes is asleep, but to Neoptolemus the appropriate thing at this moment is something else— to abide by Philoctetes until he wakes up. Neoptolemus cannot endure the thought that Philoctetes will wake up to find himself betrayed by the very person to whom he entrusted the bow. Neoptolemus is unmoved throughout the antistrophe and the epode. Since Neoptolemus has perceived the essence of the oracle, he is resolved to do what he thinks is right. The insistence of the chorus now means nothing to Neoptolemus; he stands by his own conviction and judgment. Although in the prologue he was manipulated by the skillful words of Odysseus, Neoptolemus slowly emerges as an individual who has his own mind and voice. 170 Third Episode (865-1080) The third episode begins with the awakening of Philoctetes from his sleep. Neoptolemus, perceiving that Philoctetes has opened his eyes and is lifting his head, bids the chorus to be silent. Philoctetes recovers his senses. At the sight of Neoptolemus and his men still waiting by, Philoctetes' joy is enormous. The fact that his belief in the youth was not unfounded causes Philoctetes great pleasure. Philoctetes thereupon expresses his warm gratitude to the youth by calling him itcic affectionately. He praises the noble nature of the youth who had enough patience to watch over his suffering and to wait calmly until he woke up. This heartful thanks of Philoctetes must be stirring the conscience of Neoptolemus since he has won such praise from the very person he has been deceiving till now even though in one sense he deserves the praise since he did remain beside Philoctetes and refused the temptation of the chorus to take advantage of his sleep.35 Philoctetes is now eager to resume their previous course of action before the attack— to go to the ship, and sail home. He asks Neoptolemus to help him raise his body up not because he really needs his help but the assistance of his beloved is the sweetest thing to the sick erastes. Neoptolemus, 171 who is still ignorant of Philoctetes' true feelings, urges him to raise himself and adds that his men will carry Philoctetes if he prefers. But Philoctetes brushes away Neoptolemus' suggestion by pretending that he does not want to bother them unnecessarily. Although Philoctetes can manage alone as he did for the last ten years he acts as if he badly needs the youth's help in order to touch and feel the warmth of his beloved's body. Neoptolemus finally offers himself for Philoctetes to lean on and helps him to raise his body (893). Now an older man and a youth are standing in the middle of the stage putting their arms around each other's shoulders ready to make their way; Neoptolemus is supporting the older man while Philoctetes is leaning on the youth. Although Taplin36 followed by Easterling37 points out this scene as one of the significant actions in this play, they fail to understand the real significance and effect of this action by interpreting it to represent Philoctetes' trust in Neoptolemus. But what is in the heart of Philoctetes is actually something more than trust— it is love (epuisj . An older man is embracing a youth with whom he. fell in love and whom he considers his eromenos. Although the touch of Neoptolemus drove Philoctetes into a state of frenzy when he was under the spastic attack, Philoctetes can now enjoy the embrace of 172 his beloved calmly and heartily. In fact, there can be nothing more pleasurable to Philoctetes, at the present moment, than being in the arms of his beloved, ready to make his way to the ship to sail home.. But Neoptolemus exclaims in perplexity: itaitaE* rt 6ftr' <2v 6 p 65 y * lyui touvSevSe ye 7 (895) It is precisely the embrace of Philoctetes which makes Neoptolemus pause. When Neoptolemus feels the warmth of the body of an affectionate older man who embodies the heroic ideal like his father Achilles, he realizes that he cannot move even one step with something hidden in his heart. It is hard indeed to make a confession, but Neoptolemus knows that he must. Upon realizing the perplexed attitude of Neoptolemus, Philoctetes wonders whether the offense of his disease has changed the youth's mind to take him to the ship. But it is not the disease of Philoctetes,38 which bothers him but his conscience: he has deceived a noble hero whose suffering he has witnessed and whose trust and affection he has won. Neoptolemus pours out these words bitterly—- ait a via Suaxepeya, t ri v a^roO cpuatv oxav Altcwv n s 6pa ra y i n it p o ae u m o ta (902 — 3). Neoptolemus clearly perceives that the deception he has been employing till now is not only contrary to the heroism which Philoctetes embodied but also to his own true nature (cpuaus39). It is indeed against the morality of 173 the aristocrats to whom Neoptolemus and his father Achilles belong. Although Odysseus persuaded Neoptolemus to lend himself to knavery for one single day and be righteous for the rest of his life (83-85) , Neoptolemus knows well that this single day cannot be removed from his lifetime. Philoctetes, who does not understand Neoptolemus' words since he believes it is an honorable deed to take him home, i.e., to save a sick abandoned hero from loneliness and misery, is afraid that Neoptolemus might abandon him and go on his way. But Neoptolemus' offense does not lie in forsaking him but in taking— taking Philoctetes to the place where he least wants to go. Neoptolemus at last confesses that Philoctetes must sail to Troy, to the Achaeans and to the host of the Atreidae (915-16). We, however, do not know from the text when Philoctetes and Neoptolemus break their embrace. But if they are still holding onto each other, it is at this point when Philoctetes exclaims with surprise— oupoo, tC eZ%as? (917)— that Philoctetes detaches himself from Neoptolemus. This visual separation emphasizes the breakdown of the bond once established between Philoctetes and Neoptolemus under Neoptolemus' disguise. Neoptolemus on his part tries to persuade Philoctetes by telling that his intention is to rescue Philoctetes out of his present misery and to sack 174 the Trojan realm with him, which Neoptolemus sees as avayxn (922) . It is a bitter thing for Philoctetes to hear that Neoptolemus is going to lead him to his enemy. Philoctetes feels betrayed and calls Neoptolemus a stranger ( 5 Ceve, 923). It is indeed a great blow to Philoctetes that he has been betrayed by the very youth with whom he is in love and whose love he is seeking to win. Philoctetes, now regarding Neoptolemus as an entirely different person, a stranger with whom he has no bond, bids him to restore the bow. But Neoptolemus refuses to return the bow, since he cannot abandon his mission although he has discarded the deception. To Neoptolemus1 mind Philoctetes1 going to Troy is not only right but also advantageous for Philoctetes himself and Greek society, of which Neoptolemus is a member. Philoctetes thereupon pours forth a speech full of resentment and bitterness. He is furious; he taunts Neoptolemus with all sorts of mockery and insults. To be deceived by anybody is bad enough. But to be deceived by the very person to whom he has shown affection and trust, whose admiration he thought he had won, and whose erastes he wanted to become is worse than anything else. The youth who he thought would give him a new life by conveying him home has turned out to be robbing him of his life by taking his bow. Philoctetes, however, 175 changes his tone and beseeches the youth to return his bow by calling him tekvov (932) again. But Neoptolemus is silent and turns his head away. Philoctetes* disappointment and grief is beyond description. Now he has to turn to the wild animals and lifeless cliffs which were his sole companions for the last ten years. He laments what ill treatment he is suffering from the son of Achilles, and at the same time wants to rouse a sense of shame in Neoptolemus. He points out that it is cowardice to trick a sick man— a corpse, the shade of a smoke, and a mere phantom (946-47)— by guile. Philoctetes once again turns back to Neoptolemus and entreats him to return to his true self— &\Aa vOv St1 ev aauToO yevou (950). Philoctetes thinks that there is some hope to make Neoptolemus regret his deed since he believes in his true nature. Philoctetes knows that Neoptolemus is doing something against his true nature. But Neoptolemus is still silent. With no sign of Neoptolemus' returning the bow, Philoctetes now has to imagine what his future life will be like without the bow— the sole means of his life. He will fade away, a feast to those who fed him, and will become prey to those on whom he preyed— a paradoxical exchange of positions. Philoctetes ends his speech by cursing Neoptolemus. He prays that Neoptolemus die wretchedly if he does not 176 change his mind. The heart of Neoptolemus as he who hears the bitter resentment of Philoctetes is sorrowful. Neoptolemus confesses to the chorus that a strange pity has smitten his heart not now for the first time but long since (965-66). But it is not just a pity which occupies the heart of Neoptolemus. Ever since he met Philoctetes, a strange influence has been working on him although Neoptolemus does not yet quite realize it. His reaction to the wronged hero and his slow change of mind certainly gives proof of this. At the same time Neoptolemus is still under the influence of Odysseus. Neoptolemus is puzzled. He is in a state of conflict under the influence of two opposite characters. Neoptolemus, not knowing what to do, ..exclaims— otyot, xt spacxaj ; (969) Philoctetes, a mature man who has gone through the stage of eromenos perceives the youth's dilemma and points out explicitly (971-73): 4>u ovk ei KaKds av' vpbs kolk&v 5’ avhpStv padaiv eoiicas tjmui alir\pa. vvv S’ aAAotm Sows oV <ixos IxsrAet, rap.’ Ipot pt&eis oirka. Although Philoctetes was furious momentarily at the youth's betrayal, his affection and trust in the youth has not died out entirely. He still believes in the noble nature of the youth, born of a noble sire, and thinks that Neoptolemus must have been ill-guided by base 177 men. The age of Neoptolemus, Philoctetes knows, is that which requires the guidance of a good erastes, especially since Neoptolemus has lost his father. Judging from the deeds of Neoptolemus who has done what does not befit him and who already repents of his deception, Philoctetes realizes that Neoptolemus must have been instructed by some bad erastai. Although Philoctetes no longer considers Neoptolemus his eromenos, the voice of Philoctetes here is like that of an older erastes who wants to straighten out the wrongs of the youth to mold him into a fine man. Neoptolemus is at a loss. Not knowing what to do he exclaims again— tu Spffiunv, avfipes; (974) Taplin suggests that Neoptolemus at this point makes a move to give back the bow.40 But there is no indication of this in this passage or in the following speech of Odysseus. Neoptolemus' hesitance and doubt force Odysseus,41 who has been hiding behind the rock, nervous, to step out to prevent Neoptolemus from doing something damaging to their mission. Philoctetes immediately recognizes Odysseus as the author of the present scheme. Facing his enemy, Philoctetes desperately asks Neoptolemus to restore the bow to him. But Odysseus checks their conversation by stepping in front of Neoptolemus. Neoptolemus is now forced to move back, leaving the two 178 men to argue with each other. It is no longer possible, Odysseus knows, to convey Philoctetes to Troy under the pretense of taking him home. But there is another way to carry him Troy, i.e., by force, since the bow has been taken away from Philoctetes. The attitude of Odysseus in this scene is entirely different from that in the prologue. He assumes a pompous and authoritative posture although he had acted like a coward while Philoctetes was in possession of the bow. Odysseus' manner of speaking is indeed outrageous. He commands Philoctetes with the threat of force as if he were his superior. He has no regard for the feelings of Philoctetes. He even maintains that he is acting according to the will of Zeus.42 But Philoctetes is right in judging that Odysseus is hiding behind the gods since his actions are contrary to the purpose of divine will. Moreover, Odysseus is treating Philoctetes like a slave. Without any concern for the person Philoctetes, he gives orders— ueuaxeov xaSe (994). The inducement of Odysseus— to be equal to the best and to capture Troy with them— has no attraction for Philoctetes. For the last ten years Philoctetes has been sharpening his hatred against those who wronged him. The attempt of Odysseus to convey him to Troy by deceit has added new hatred to the old. It is a humiliation to yield to such a man. To 179 Philoctetes humiliation is worse than death; he would rather die than be shamed by his enemy. Philoctetes demonstrates his intention to kill himself by throwing his body off the cliff. Thereupon Odysseus bids his men to seize Philoctetes to prevent him from committing suicide. Philoctetes, held by the men of Odysseus, throws accusations against Odysseus, who has now devised a new villainy in addition to the wrongs he committed ten years ago. But his fury turns especially towards the fact that he used an innocent boy as his screen (1006-15): S > prjbiv v y te s prjb' (Xevdepov (ppovtov, oV av fi virijXBes, <5 s p ' edrjpdmo, \ a f3dtv TTpoftXrjpa iravrov irdtba rovo’ d y v d r ' ip o i, avd ^to v p t v (tov, Karasiov b’ ip o v, bs oubZir fjbei irXriv to irpoa'TayQ'iv ito tiv, io io brjXos be /cat vvv ( crriv dXyeivU s < f > 4poiv oIs t a vrb s (£rjpaprev ols t iyd> ’ttclOov. 1 . v I ( \ \ *» \ « n \ t 1 * \ aAA r) kclki) <r i \ bia p v \io v pAtTTnvrr aei \ffv\i] viv a<j>vtj t o vra kov BekovO' dpios ev TTpovbtba^tv iv kcucoZs etvai crotpdv. 1015 Philoctetes blames Odysseus for training an unwilling youth to do a base deed for his own purpose. In fact, Neoptolemus is a mere child who could do nothing else but what his erastes bids. He is still an innocent young boy who has no experience in male society or firm view on life and the world. He is dependent upon the guidance of the erastes to mature into a fine man. But Odysseus, having no concern for the spiritual growth of the youth, 180 has corrupted his mind by using him as a tool for his own scheme. Neoptolemus' hesitation to perform the task and his regret at having deceived an honorable hero proves that he is not the kind of person Odysseus is. Philoctetes openly declares to Odysseus that he does not deserve to be the erastes of Neoptolemus, but Philoctetes himself does (itaC6a to v 6 * . . . a v a ^ u o v yiev aoO, natagCov 6’ eyou, 1008-9). Here, Philoctetes subtly reveals to Neoptolemus who silently observes two men's arguments that he has a hidden desire to become the erastes of Neoptolemus. Philoctetes at the same time wants to point out to Neoptolemus that he has to choose the right erastes who can truly be his model and guide. Through the words of Philoctetes Sophocles is reminding the youths who take their seats in ecpnBeta that it is of utmost importance for them to have worthy partners who deserve to be their erastai, since a youth is likely to be degraded if, like Neoptolemus, he follows an unworthy erastes. Philoctetes then continues his speech, accusing not only Odysseus but also Greek society, which Odysseus presents. The Greek army deserted Philoctetes who had voluntarily joined the expedition because of his loathsome disease. It is strange indeed to Philoctetes that the same disease that was noxious to them ten years ago is no longer bothersome and that they can now offer 181 sacrifices and libations to the gods with his painful cries in the background. Greek society ignored the rights of an individual who was a component of that society. Now the same society, discounting again the feelings of the wronged hero, tries to procure Philoctetes for the benefit of that society. It disgusts Philoctetes that he has to return to a society that disregards the rights of an individual. Philoctetes has no wish to become a member of this sick and corrupt society. But at this moment he recognizes that the gods have some regard for justice since if the Greeks were not being goaded by a divine impetus (xevrpov deCov , 1039) they would not seek such a wretched man like himself. Philoctetes then ends his speech by calling for the god's vengeance though it be late. The soul of Philoctetes is full of bitterness and he shows no sign of yielding, as the chorus observes. Although Odysseus can have his men carry Philoctetes, a sick lamed person, aboard by force, he bids them release Philoctetes by subtly appearing to give way (1047-53): 0 5 . ir o k k ' a v k e y e e v eyot.pt ^ p o s r a tov5’ emj, e l p o t ir a p e U o f v v v 5 ’ evas KparSt k o y o v . o v y a p rotovrcov del, ro to v rd s elpt eyd v ydtirov dotation KayaQatv avbpiav kp irn s, 1050 qvk a v ko,f3o is p o v fx a k k a v o vb ev' evcrefip. viK av y e p-evrot v a v r a y o v ypij^jtov e<j>vv, irkrfv i s ere • v v v be <rol y eKutv eK arqaropat. 182 Odysseus tries to justify himself with the moral relativism that he is such a man as the circumstance requires. Odysseus must be referring to the sophistic idea that Right should be decided relatively according to the situation and the particular person. Gorgias, in fact, proposed the relativistic merits which an individual should possess in different situations— reverent to the gods by justice, respectful to parents by care, just to fellow citizens by equality, loyal to friends by faithfulness (Funeral Orations). Thus each person should have different virtues in different situations and each action should be performed according to the suitability of each occasion. But we know that Odysseus is vainly trying to cover himself with the sophistic ideas just as he tried to hide behind the gods previously (cf. 989-90) . It is not a person like Odysseus who is needed in this situation but someone like Neoptolemus. He truly feels compassion towards the wronged hero and sincerely tries to persuade him for the good of Philoctetes. In fact, the rescue from the desert island is what Philoctetes longs for above everything else and the glory he can win on the Trojan battlefield is not a small recompense. Therefore, the right person at the right time with the right method might be able to 183 accomplish the task without further hurting the feeling of Philoctetes. Odysseus with his vain justification pompously proclaims that he gives way in this case although he seeks victory everywhere. Odysseus* giving in actually means that he will allow Philoctetes to starve to death on the desert island without any means for his livelihood. To use force, on the other hand, could bring Philoctetes some benefits— rescue from this island at least and if he wills, glory on the battlefield of Troy. Having heard the curse poured upon himself, Odysseus has no wish to do anything beneficial to Philoctetes. Since they have the bow, Odysseus thinks that it is enough for them and it might bring Odysseus himself the honor which ought to be Philoctetes*. This boast of Odysseus is indeed the worst insult to Philoctetes as he imagines his enemy striding among the Argives and brandishing the bow of Heracles as his own. Odysseus, having no desire for further argument with Philoctetes, announces his departure. Philoctetes turns to Neoptolemus and, asking whether he too is going without a word, calls him "son of Achilles."43 He wishes to remind Neoptolemus of his noble father, the opposite of Odysseus, and hopes that the youth would do something worthy of his father. Neoptolemus, however, has been silent since the appearance of Odysseus. Now Neoptolemus 184 fixes his eyes on Philoctetes. Having realized what is in the heart of Philoctetes when he declared that he deserves to be the erastes of Neoptolemus, he has been gazing at the hero silently. He is also impressed by the hero's stubborn will and heroic spirit. But Neoptolemus cannot yet cut himself off from Odysseus completely. When Odysseus recognizes the meaning of Neoptolemus' intense gaze he anxiously bids him to go by ceasing to look at Philoctetes. Neoptolemus follows Odysseus but leaves the chorus behind with Philoctetes. It is a small comfort offered to the hero by Neoptolemus. Neoptolemus expresses the wish that Philoctetes think more favorably of them and exits the stage with Odysseus. Kommos (1081-1217) The kommos consists of a lyric dialogue between Philoctetes and the chorus. Philoctetes now without hope laments his all too wretched and miserable fate. The only future he can foresee is death, death by starvation since he has no means to procure his daily sustenance. Thereupon the chorus blames Philoctetes as the author of his own misery because he preferred the worse lot when he could have had a better, fate (1095-1100): X o. (rv ro i (rtf r o t (car7j£tai- <ray, oj fiapuTTOT/j,'- o v k fkAAoQti/ a rv)(€L a h ’ oltto 185 <3re ye Ttapov <f>povij(Tat \wovos (ic ba.Cp.ovos et- k OV TO KO.KIOV atvfiv. It is indeed Philoctetes himself who chose to remain on this desert island even if it means death rather than humiliate himself by yielding for the sake of his fate. In fact, the heroic code which Philoctetes embodies regards humiliation and shame as the worst forms of disgrace. This characteristic of Philoctetes— unyielding resistance— is the common characteristic of heroes who aspires to something higher than life. Thus to Philoctetes, a hero who has self-respect and pride, there is something which is more important than life itself— the value of life. He is ready to sacrifice his own life for what makes life itself valuable. We empathize with Philoctetes' dire situation in that it is a humiliation for him to yield to his enemy, but at the same time it is not heroic to die by starvation on a desert island. We somehow wish that Philoctetes would be rescued from this cruel death without being shamed. Upon Philoctetes' lament on his miserable life and his curse on the contriver of the deceitful plot, the chorus, well aware of its part in the Odyssean scheme, tries to avoid blame by attributing what has happened to fate. Philoctetes, not heeding the words of the chorus, imagines that Odysseus is mocking him by brandishing his 186 well-cherished bow on the shore. Philoctetes thereupon addresses the bow which he loved just as he loved Heracles and which is now the property of an undeserving master (1128-39): ui t o £ o v ipCXov, < 2 > <f>(Xiov \e tp & v iK p ffiia irfxtvo v, i ? t t o v iX eivov o pas, <f>pivas «t rtv a s 113° Toy ' Hpa/cA.etoy +a d k io v f wSe croi oxiKfTi yprjaopevov rd pedvcrrepov aXXov 8’ ev peraX X aya iroXvpijyavov avdpos ipeirtrT], 1135 6pav p k v a la y p a s air liras, a rv y v o v re < pa> r’ eyOodoirov, pvpCa r adpavv a v a riX - Xov6' oir' e<p’ fip tv kclk iprftraB' ovros. Philoctetes laments the fate of the bow wrested from loving hands of its master. Here Philoctetes by designating himself as tov 'h p mAelov explicitly proclaims that he is indeed the successor and the beloved of Heracles, although hitherto he had only implied this through his reference to their shared homeland and the bow which Heracles bequested to him. It is now clear that Philoctetes was not a mere stranger when he kindled the pyre of Heracles but his eromenos who merited the title tov 'HpaxXeuov and thereby received the famous bow of Heracles as the token of their love. This precious bow is taken away from Philoctetes, the beloved of its original master Heracles and now in the possession of Odysseus who knows nothing but contriving shameful 187 deceits. Through his appeals that the bow pity tov 'HepaxXeuov adXuov, if it can feel, Philoctetes is appealing to Heracles himself that if he truly loved Philoctetes he would have concern for the mistreatment done to his bow and his former eromenos. The chorus on their part is eager to defend Odysseus by saying that he only obeyed a command for the common good of his people. They are trying to convince Philoctetes to have a better opinion of Odysseus and Neoptolemus in accordance with what their master Neoptolemus wished as he departed at the end of the third episode. But the words of the chorus have no meaning to Philoctetes as he continues to deplore his ill fortune. Thereupon the chorus, reminding him once again that it is in his own power to escape from his present doom, advises Philoctetes to accept with good will the person who approaches. Here the chorus is intimating Neoptolemus1 approach in the next episode and is trying to prepare Philoctetes for his arrival. They know that the son of Achilles would not give up easily but would attempt once more to persuade Philoctetes. Now Philoctetes turns his ire against the chorus. He blames them for what they have done to him— they played a part in the Odyssean scheme to take him to Trojan land. At the remonstrance of the chorus that they thought it the best way, 188 Philoctetes flares up and shouts at them to depart. But when the chorus is about to leave, Philoctetes desperately begs them to stay. It is unbearable for Philoctetes to be left all alone in his wretchedness. It is better for him to have at least someone upon whom he can pour forth his laments and anger. The chorus, however, can do nothing else for Philoctetes but repeat their advice to come to Troy with them. At this point Philoctetes has another attack and wishes to die. He is firmly resolved not to go to Troy and is impervious to any threat, even the thunderbolt of Zeus. But Philoctetes is actually ambivalent: he seeks death but at the same time he still has love for life as expressed in his desire to see his homeland once again. At the end of the kommos Philoctetes drags his body into the cave and deplores his poor existence— ■ It ’ ou6ev etpu(1217). Fourth Episode (1218-1408) As soon as Philoctetes disappears into the cave, the chorus notices Odysseus and Neoptolemus coming back from the ship toward them. Neoptolemus enters the stage followed by Odysseus who is pursuing the youth anxiously to learn why he is returning in such haste. This scene— the fleeing eromenos and the pursuing erastes— reflects one of the common features in the male 189 pederastic relationship. It is a contest between erastes and eromenos which often occurs to test whether the two partners truly deserve each other. While Neoptolemus was listening to two older men’s arguments in the previous episode and when he pondered again the whole situation back in the ship, he realized that he cannot follow the Odyssean way any more because it is after all contrary to his true nature ( ^ 01,5) . He decides to stand up against his erastes and sees, as Philoctetes earlier pointed out to him, that Odysseus is unworthy to be his erastes. Neoptolemus proclaims to Odysseus that he wants to undo the fault which he committed before under his guidance. He has recognized that his youthful mind was tainted by the guidance of his . bad erastes, Odysseus, who made him ensnare a heroic man with deceit and guile. Neoptolemus thereby reveals his intention to break their bond. This decision assumes the form of a contest. Odysseus, who realizes that the youth is defying him, is struck with fear that Neoptolemus might do some rash act which will spoil the whole plan— to return the bow to Philoctetes. In fact, this is exactly what Neoptolemus has decided to do to rectify his error. Odysseus at this point tries to coerce the youth once again by appealing to his sense of loyalty to the Greek army. But this appeal to loyalty no longer works and rings empty. Neoptolemus knows that 190 there is a discrepancy between his inborn nature and loyalty to the army. Furthermore/ he is ready to sacrifice expediency for the sake of justice if he cannot unite them. Neoptolemus is firm when he says— xhv ayaptCav auaxpav ayctpTwv dvaAageCv ite Lpaaoyat, (1248-49). Although Odysseus is afraid that he might be punished by the Greek host, Neoptolemus has no fear with justice on his side. Odysseus, realizing that he can no longer control the youth with words, offers to decide the contest in an open combat. Odysseus shows his intention to draw his sword, while Neoptolemus is ready to meet the challenge promptly. But Odysseus withdraws, proving that his words were merely an empty threat. Turning away from Neoptolemus, he warns in vain that he will tell the Achaeans everything that happened and Neoptolemus will be punished. Neoptolemus is not afraid at all since he knows that what he is doing is right. Thus in a contest between an erastes and an eromenos Odysseus is entirely defeated by his younger partner, who now separates himself from the influence and presence of Odysseus. Odysseus, an opportunist able to sacrifice virtue for gain by any means, and Neoptolemus, the son of Achilles, the ideal hero for Greek aristocracy, were obviously ill-matched already in the prologue. Now in an open contest with his erastes, Neoptolemus breaks off his 191 relationship with Odysseus. This signifies that Odysseus no longer be his guide and model. Neoptolemus now clearly sees that it is not Odysseus but Philoctetes who has the proper qualities to be his erastes. Although maimed in body and shaggy in appearance, the figure of Philoctetes had a major impact on the mind of the youth from their first encounter. It has been working slowly, step by step, and has implanted a sense of admiration and love in the heart of Neoptolemus. Now Neoptolemus has returned to Philoctetes in a sincere effort to win back the love of a great hero whose love he once gained by guile. After the departure of Odysseus44 Neoptolemus, his mind newly cleansed, calls Philoctetes to come out of the cave. Philoctetes appearing from the cave sees Neoptolemus and immediately imagines that he is plotting a new evil for him. Understandably Philoctetes is reluctant to hear the words of Neoptolemus who has deceived him before. Neoptolemus thereupon takes the first step to establish a new relationship with Philoctetes by admitting that he committed a wrong to the hero under the ill guidance of Odysseus; he says— ouxouv e v e a x u xa'u pexayvajvau TtaAov; (1270) The change of mind is indeed an important element for the growth of the youth as he is in the process of forming his own definite 192 views. Neoptolemus recognized that his actions deviated from his nature and must now alter his way to adapt himself to what he ought to be. But before returning the bow, Neoptolemus wants to hear whether Philoctetes has made up his mind to go with him or to remain on the island. Philoctetes is adamant. His resolve is firmer than any speech can express. The good intentions of Neoptolemus are actually meaningless because he is still holding the bow. Philoctetes cannot be swayed by someone, however kind his intent, who has robbed him of his most precious possession. Neoptolemus realizing that he has to return the bow to have any meaningful communication tells Philoctetes to receive the bow and holds out his hand. Philoctetes, however, cannot accept Neoptolemus1 words and thinks that he is going to deceive him again. When Neoptolemus swears his sincerity by the almighty Zeus, Philoctetes is glad indeed at the sweet words of the youth. Neoptolemus is eager to prove his words by deed, and urges him to be the master of his bow again. At this point Odysseus, who cannot abide this, pops out of his hiding place behind the rock and tries to prevent the return of the bow. But his attempt is futile since the bow is already in the hand of Philoctetes. Odysseus in embarrassment hurls his final empty threat that he will carry Philoctetes to Troy by force whether 193 Neoptolemus will or not. But we know that the use of force is no longer possible because Philoctetes is in possession of the invincible bow. Philoctetes and Odysseus are now standing face to face. Philoctetes1 anger towards Odysseus at this point stems from two sources. Odysseus is not only the enemy who marooned him on this desert island ten years ago and has now devised an additional injury by trying to ship him to Troy by subterfuge, but he is now also a rival for the love of a fine youth whom he attempted to corrupt in his base scheme to deceive Philoctetes. The latter reason has now taken on greater impetus for his hatred. Since Neoptolemus has returned the bow to Philoctetes, Philoctetes realizes that Neoptolemus has no more intention to follow Odysseus as his erastes. Philoctetes thereby accepts the youth again as his beloved. His love and affection towards the youth who confessed the truth and repented the wrong he committed by restoring the bow to him, is greater than before. Philoctetes calls Neoptolemus (ptAiaiov xenvov (1301), which affirms his reestablished relationship with the youth. Neoptolemus cannot let Philoctetes kill Odysseus, his former erastes in spite of his disservice to him and tries to prevent Philoctetes from launching the arrow against Odysseus. Neoptolemus knows that it is not right for Philoctetes to 194 take vengeance on Odysseus by killing him; he says— aXX’ o\5x’ epol t o Ot ! eoxlv outs ool koiAov (1304). Neoptolemus now wholeheartedly unites himself with Philoctetes in the relationship of "you and me" in contrast to his former use of this phrase under pretense. It is honorable neither for Philoctetes to kill his rival in love nor for Neoptolemus to let his new erastes shoot his old erastes. Philoctetes has to satisfy himself by having won Neoptolemus back to his side as his beloved. Besides, in the mind of the youth a new concept is growing— vengeance is not the right way. In fact, the killing of Odysseus will not bring anything good to either of them. Odysseus must have ran away from the stage to flee death when Philoctetes utters tpeO (13 02)— this is the last appearance of Odysseus on the stage in this play.45 Neoptolemus, thus, saves the life of Odysseus and at the same time he is eager to save Philoctetes more than anybody else. With the restoration of the bow Neoptolemus is now free from the guilt which has been troubling him till now. Philoctetes no longer holds a grudge against him and praises the youth, saying that he is truly the son of Achilles whose fame is fairest among the dead as he was among the living. Having won the love and trust of Philoctetes back, Neoptolemus sincerely wishes to 195 persuade Philoctetes with good will on behalf of Philoctetes himself. He tells Philoctetes the prophecy of Helenus. At this time it is Neoptolemus' own version and therefore is slightly different from that of the merchant. In fact, the oracle is a sort of riddle, and therefore it invites various interpretations. But it is of the utmost importance to grasp its hidden meaning. When Philoctetes was at his mercy, Neoptolemus recognized an important thing: the glory will belong to Philoctetes. Now Neoptolemus perceives another implication of the oracle, i.e., the cure of Philoctetes' disease since it is the prerequisite for Philoctetes to win glory by fighting for the Greek army on the battlefield of Troy. To achieve this glory Philoctetes must be cured not only in body but also in spirit. In fact, Philoctetes must overcome his hatred first and by his own free will come to Troy to gain the cure of his body and reap victorious fame as Neoptolemus narrates (1329-35): Kal rravkav tcrdi rfjcr&e prj iror' &v vocrov /3aptCas, Iws &v avros rjktos 1330 ravrrj piv alprj, rfjde d’ av ovvrj rsakiv, irplv tiv ra Tpoias nebC £k w u avros fxokrjs, Kal rotv rtap' fjp.lv ivrvx^v ’AcrKkrjirCbaiv voirov pakaxOfjs rrJerSe, /cat ra Ttepyapa £vv roiirde robots £vv r ipol ir4 p<ras <f>avfjs. >335 It is Neoptolemus who interprets the oracle most correctly and grasps the true meaning which neither 196 Odysseus nor the merchant could perceive.46 This is because Neoptolemus truly cares for Philoctetes and interprets the oracle from the view of Philoctetes who is in reality the object of the god's concern. Though Odysseus sees Philoctetes merely as a means for his own vain ambition or at most for the victory of the Greek army, in the interpretation of Neoptolemus Philoctetes emerges as a subject who has to will and who shall achieve the glory of sacking Ilium. Ever since Neoptolemus perceived the true meaning of the oracle that the crown belongs to Philoctetes (841), he was ready to be satisfied with his role as a helper for Philoctetes. Neoptolemus as an eromenos of Philoctetes will stand beside him and. help to ease his difficulties. With this help of Neoptolemus, his beloved, and with the help of the bow of Heracles which embodies the heroic spirit of his former erastes, Philoctetes will display his ctpLpxeLa to prove himself before the Greeks. For the sake of all these things Neoptolemus now sincerely begs Philoctetes to yield willingly ( auyx^peu deXaiv , 1343) . To young Neoptolemus, yielding in this situation appears a great act which will bring benefits not only to Philoctetes himself but also to his country Greece. Philoctetes, who has influenced the youth to rectify his mistakes, now has to learn . from the youth in turn to accept his heartfelt 197 advice and to will what is right in this particular instance. Philoctetes is indeed greatly moved by the sincere persuasion of his beloved. Philoctetes wished he were dead at this difficult moment for decision as Neoptolemus previously wished he had never left Scyros. It is now Philoctetes who exclaims— oi1'u o l , t £ spacrui ; (1350) This attitude of Philoctetes certainly reveals the possibility for yielding47 and proves that if Neoptolemus had tried to persuade Philoctetes without deception at the beginning, he might have prevailed. Philoctetes is at a loss since it is hard to resist the words of Neoptolemus, but it is hard also to yield to his enemy who caused his ten years’ horrible suffering and humiliated him by further outrages. The idea of yielding now torments him. It is not just the past which bothers Philoctetes but the future he can foresee. In fact, nobody can guarantee that Philoctetes will not suffer at their hands again. The thought that an evil mind teaches evil things all the time grieves the soul of Philoctetes. At this moment Philoctetes remembers the outrage of the Atreidae done to Neoptolemus by robbing him of his father’s armor. Thereupon Philoctetes in turn tries to persuade Neoptolemus to turn away from these evil men, but take him home as he promised, leaving evil men to perish by 198 their evil doom. Neoptolemus, however, does not contradict Philoctetes' words but rather admits what he says is reasonable.48 Neoptolemus thinks that Philoctetes has a just cause to hate the Atreidae and to refuse to help them. Nevertheless Neoptolemus wishes Philoctetes, his erastes, to trust the words of his beloved and sail with him. Neoptolemus here reveals his willingness to become the eromenos of Philoctetes by calling himself "your beloved" («pCAou avSpos , 1375). Neoptolemus wants Philoctetes to go to Troy by overcoming his hatred. He firmly believes that it is the best way for both of them (oou xe xayol , 1381) . Philoctetes will have his cure and glory while Neoptolemus can display his apuaxeCa as the partner of a great hero. At the stubborn resistance of Philoctetes, Neoptolemus reaffirms that he is indeed the eromenos of Philoctetes; therefore he speaks for the sake of Philoctetes himself— oot iou cpCxos y’ fiv* x« ^oyos xouocr6e you(i385). Yet even the love (cpxAua) and good will (eovota) of Neoptolemus is not enough to persuade the hero, embittered by too much suffering. Neoptolemus is at a loss in the face of his adamance. If Philoctetes does persist in his present position, the easiest course for Neoptolemus is to let him live in this desert island without deliverance. Philoctetes, however, is ready to accept whatever 199 suffering he must endure but charges Neoptolemus on his part to perform the promise he made by holding his right hand (1398-99),49 i.e., to take him home. Neoptolemus finally consents: eu 6o.xe.C , crxeCxwyev (1402). In this last scene of the fourth episode, Neoptolemus is entirely overcome by his new erastes, although he defeated Odysseus in a previous contest. In a new contest between erastes and eromenos, Philoctetes conquers Neoptolemus by making him keep the promise he once made. Although Philoctetes knows the intention of Neoptolemus is sincere, he cannot yield to the youth; if he sails to Troy with Neoptolemus the promise Neoptolemus made would remain false forever. He cannot accept the fact that his new eromenos made a false promise to him. To become the eromenos of Philoctetes, Neoptolemus has to make good his words. Without this, Philoctetes thinks, Neoptolemus does not deserve to be his eromenos. Furthermore, Philoctetes has the desire to subdue the youth to assume a dominant role over his younger partner, which is indeed a distinct feature of the male pederastic relationship. Neoptolemus, who decided to take Philoctetes as his new erastes, cannot refuse what Philoctetes enjoins him to do. He knows that he has to prove before Philoctetes that he is a worthy eromenos by fulfilling his false promise. Neoptolemus, who now 200 considers the love won from a great hero more precious than anything else in the world, has no wish to go to Troy alone and leave Philoctetes on the island. He is ready to forgo the heroic life and long-cherished desire for glory for the sake of this love. Neoptolemus is now resolved to do what his erastes wants, i.e., to take him home as he promised. Neoptolemus offers his body willingly to Philoctetes to lean on as he says— dvxepeuSe vGv gaaxv ariv ( 1 4 0 3 ) . It was Philoctetes who desired to embrace his younger beloved when they were at the point of departure toward the ship in the third episode. But now Neoptolemus desires to embrace and be embraced by his new erastes. His voluntary offer of his body as a support for his sick erastes presents a visual reaffirmation of his love shown towards the hero to the audience. Two men are now standing in the middle of the stage putting their arms around each other's shoulders— this action is reenacted but the bond which joins two persons is different from that of the previous action. This time there is no pretense on either side but a mutual love combined with trust and true understanding. Now two lovers in an embrace are moving slowly, making their way to the ship to .sail home. The meter also changes to trochaic tetrameter from line 1402, which emphasizes their movement. But Neoptolemus is 201 worried about how he might escape the blame of the Greek army. Till now Neoptolemus was a strong youth who could defy his former erastes and even the charge of the Atreidae. When he comes under the power of his new erastes Philoctetes, Neoptolemus wants to seek the protection of his older partner. It is now Neoptolemus' wish to obtain the promise of Philoctetes to help him in his need as he does for Philoctetes. Philoctetes thereupon confirms his will to render help to defend him from the Achaeans with the shafts of Heracles. Philoctetes, who has subdued the youth, his new eromenos, now emerges as a great hero who proclaims to use the bow of Heracles to defend the country of his beloved from its enemy. Although Philoctetes was a helpless, miserable outcast till a moment ago, he becomes an entirely different figure with his eromenos beside him. He soothes the fear of Neoptolemus and asserts himself as a powerful erastes who can protect and guide his younger partner. Thus the bond between two men is now firmly established and their physical unity reaffirms their mutual love.51 Exodos (1409-1471) The sudden appearance of Heracles stops the footsteps of two men. This epiphany of Heracles might be 202 surprising to the audience but is not irrelevant to the movement of the play at all.52 Actually, Sophocles has been building up to this outcome by continuously recalling to mind the figure of Heracles, the erastes of Philoctetes. The allusions made till now that Heracles and Philoctetes were lovers finally receive confirmation in this last scene when Heracles appears to his former beloved on his behalf (xnv onv x®p ^ , 1413). The speech of Heracles addressed to Philoctetes is not one delivered to a mere acquaintance; it is a speech which the former erastes addresses to his beloved for his well-being and happiness with sincere affection. On the other hand, the greeting of Philoctetes, which designates his voice as a '•longed-for sound" (cp^eyya itodcLvov, 1445), certainly shows how much Philoctetes desired to hear the voice of Heracles and how much he yearned to see his form. Here we can clearly see that there are intense personal feelings on both sides and that an intimate relationship is involved at the meeting of Heracles and Philoctetes. The deus ex machina, however, might seem somewhat unreasonable to the modern audience, but it was a well-known dramatic device to the fifth century Athenians. Moreover, the Greeks took it for granted that the anthropomorphic gods could interfere with human affairs. This epiphany of Heracles is realistic to the 203 ancient Greeks, quite contrary to the view of Whitman who considers the appearance of divine Heracles as completely symbolic.53 Actually it is a very exciting moment to the audience when Heracles, who has become an immortal god, reveals himself to his former beloved. Although the erotic relationship between Heracles and Philoctetes is over now, Heracles, still caring for his beloved, has come down to Philoctetes to give kindly advice as a true friend. Heracles knows well that no one but he himself can bend the will of Philoctetes. As Philoctetes persuaded Neoptolemus to keep his promise by subduing his younger eromenos, so the erastes of Philoctetes must subdue and persuade his hardened mind. The of Heracles, the utterance of a god, is pure, sincere and has a power different from the Xoyos of human beings which has not only persuasive but also deceptive characteristics. Philoctetes does not need to doubt the authenticity of the words of Heracles, an immortal god. Heracles thereby assumes two roles by speaking in behalf of Philoctetes, former beloved, and by revealing the plan (SouAeupaTo) of Zeus. Heracles wants Philoctetes to become a follower of his heroic life by exhibiting dpexn on the plain of Troy, which is also in accordance with the divine will. The parallel between the life of Heracles and that of Philoctetes, revealed 204 now through the mouth of Heracles himself is unmistakable (1418-22): n p & r a p i v <rot r h s i p a s ke£ u > r v ^ a s , o < ro v s T r o v rja -a s K a l b i e £ e \ 8 c u i r n o v o v s a O & v a r o v a p e r y v l a r y o v , < 5»s ndpeerd’ opav. 1 4 2 0 K a l <ro(, cra.(p’ l e r d i , t o v t d e p e i k e r a t n a d e i v ., c k r & v n o v t o v r & v h ’ e x iK k e a Q e< r6 a t f i i a v . As Heracles had won the immortal dpern through his labors, Philoctetes is destined to obtain a glorious life through his sufferings. The miserable life Philoctetes endured for the last ten years is not after all without meaning but provides a way to attain higher glory. Philoctetes will go with his new eromenos to the Trojan city, where he will be cured of his disease, having been chosen as foremost in dpern among the host, he will slay Paris, sack the towers of Troy, and receive the prize of valor (dpLoreta) which he will carry to his home for his father Poias (1423-30). In fact, the speech of Heracles adds nothing new about the destiny of Philoctetes; it is rather a reaffirmation of Neoptolemus' interpretation of the oracle.54 Heracles, however, does not forget to enjoin his former eromenos to make a thank-offering to his pyre in honor of the bow, if he returns to the Oetean heights. The bow which Heracles bequeathed to his eromenos is not only the symbol of his heroic dpern which he wants his successor to achieve but also the token of 205 their love which they shared together in the land of Oeta. As the bow is sacred and revered, their erotic relationship which the bow symbolizes is also sacred and honorable. It is now Heracles' wish that his former eromenos remember and cherish in his heart their forgone love and that in memory of this love Philoctetes makes a thank-offering, taking a part from the spoils which he won with this bow. Heracles, then, turns to confirm the new relationship established between Philoctetes and Neoptolemus by joining them with a simile of two consorting lions (ws Aeovxe auvvoyw , 1406). Philoctetes cannot conquer the plain of Troy without his eromenos Neoptolemus. Their relationship is firm and intimate as the word auvvoyui implies— it is, in fact, the custom (voyos) of the Greeks that the erastes and eromenos should be together(auv-) and guard each other's life by rendering help in difficult situations. Besides, love can make them exert their power beyond their abilities. Philoctetes cannot resist the words of his former erastes. The much-loved form and voice of Heracles is enough to persuade Philoctetes to yield willingly.55 In face of the love of Heracles, his enmity towards Odysseus and the Atreidae no longer matters to him, and is nullified. The love of the erastes is, indeed, so great 206 that it can melt the ten years’ hatred of Philoctetes. Thus, it is only the erastes of Philoctetes who can change his mind and provide a new direction. Now Philoctetes is ready to follow the footsteps of Heracles whom he followed as his model to become a great hero— to sack the Trojan realm a second time with the same bow with which Heracles once conquered Troy. The love which Philoctetes shares with his newly found eromenos should become a noble basis for heroic achievements. Heracles thereby endows the relationship of Philoctetes and Neoptolemus with a new significance. Their love should not reside in the satisfaction of personal pleasure but must aspire towards a higher goal to achieve male ideals. As Heracles was the model and guide of Philoctetes, Philoctetes should assume the rightful role of the erastes to become the model of Neoptolemus, the son of Achilles. Neoptolemus, in turn, must try to grow into the ideal image of his erastes who is following the footsteps of Heracles. In this scene, Neoptolemus is the future successor to the bow of Heracles, which Philoctetes once entrusted to him for safe-keeping. The bow is now a new symbol for the love between Philoctetes and Neoptolemus, therefore their love relationship should be something worthy of this bow of Heracles— a noble and honorable one. This is actually the message Heracles 207 gives to his former beloved and his new eromenos. At the counsel of Heracles Philoctetes, whose heart was already partially moved by the advice of Neoptolemus, decides to go to Troy where he can display heroic valor with his eromenos. It is a return to the society from which he has been discarded for ten years. He now agrees to join society willingly though it wronged him. In fact, man is a social being who cannot and should not live apart from fellow human beings, and Philoctetes cannot become a whole man without participating in male society. When an opportunity is given to him to resume his life in society without damage to his pride— this is what Heracles does— he knows that it is right to rejoin society to prove himself and to lead a worthy life. Thus, his return to Troy implies not only a cure of bodily disease but also of spiritual wound. On the other hand, Neoptolemus can go to Troy with Philoctetes without losing face, i.e., without the disgrace of breaking his promise. Heracles at once saves the honor of both men and turns them to a new destination. Philoctetes, who accepts human society, can resume his relationship with divine beings too. Philoctetes now has a conviction that the gods do care about justice and have concern for Philoctetes himself. Although Philoctetes was negative not only towards human society but also the divine 208 beings, he now has an entirely different perspective on the whole world. All of a sudden, everything is restored to him— the cure of his disease, human society, gods, glory as well as his beloved Neoptolemus. At last, Philoctetes is saved from the death-like life of inactivity back to male society where he can exhibit his dpoareCa with his eromenos and thereby accomplish glorious achievements in a joint enterprise. After Heracles disappears, leaving his last words to hasten their journey, Philoctetes wants to say farewell to the island which has been his sole companion for the last ten years. His speech is abundant with joy and affection when he greets lifeless objects as if they lived. The island, the rocks, trees and cave— all these seem to be alive and to greet Philoctetes in turn upon his happy departure. Philoctetes will never forget this lonely place which has been his refuge for so many years. The dashing waves of the sea, the sound of the wind and the echo of the Hermaean mount will be alive in his memory. Although Philoctetes eagerly desired to be rescued from this desert island, at the moment of departure he cannot leave without some emotion. He has been accustomed to his bare environment through necessity and has learned to have affection towards Nature. With his last farewell to the island Lemnos, Philoctetes 209 wishes a fair voyage to Troy to which he is now willing to sail with his beloved (1464-68): yaip', S > Arfpvov irebov apxjtCaKov, /cat p tvirXoia i r ^ o v a p e p v r to s , evd’ ff p e y d k rj M o t p a /copt{ct, yvtopt) re < j> lk < a v iravbapaTutp b a ip w v , i s raC r* (irtKpaifev. Philoctetes now perceives that the counsel of cpCXo-L are in harmony with his fate and the will of god. At the advice of Neoptolemus, his new eromenos, and at the advice of Heracles, his former erastes, Philoctetes has finally accepted his destiny of his own free will. Only great prosperity and happiness awaits Philoctetes who is to win glory with his beloved in the Trojan realm. Neoptolemus and Philoctetes, who have been embracing each other till now, at last start joyfully towards the ship. The chorus follow them behind wishing on their part for safety until they finally return home after the capture of Troy. Conclusion The Philoctetes of Sophocles is, as we have observed, a play which depicts a man's world where the homoerotic relationship takes an important place in relation to education, duty, glory and ideals. Sophocles deals with the role of this relationship in Athenian 210 society in regard to the good erastes and bad erastes (a topic of frequent discussion also in the works of Plato). Through the conflicts Neoptolemus faces as he is torn between two erastai of opposite characters, Sophocles illustrates a dilemma which a youth may confront in that society. In this play, Philoctetes, a lonely outcast, turns out to be the right erastes for the noble son of Achilles instead of the shrewd and crafty Odysseus. Sophocles shows us two different types of pederastic relationship in this drama. Odysseus demands from his eromenos absolute obedience and subordination and thereby considers his younger partner solely a means for his vain glory. Moreover, Odysseus corrupts Neoptolemus' mind by making him assume a deceitful role to accomplish the task enjoined to them. In fact, Odysseus uses his younger eromenos for his own purpose without any respect for his person. To Odysseus, the eromenos is a tool with which to fulfill his ambition and glory. He never considers the morality of his action and the feelings of other men. Neither the conscience of his younger eromenos nor the sensitivity of a loyal warrior matters to him. His only concerns are selfish victory and political expediency. Influenced by Odysseus, and lured by the enticements of ambition and loyalty to the army (which resembles the democratic assembly of Athens), Neoptolemus agrees to do 211 Odysseus1 bidding and performs it brilliantly. Although Neoptolemus, the noble son of Achilles, was subdued momentarily by the shrewd wit of Odysseus, upon encountering our hero, Philoctetes, a sick, abandoned, bitter man, he slowly begins to be influenced by the latter*s noble character. Philoctetes, on the other hand, who fell in love with the youth at first sight, tries to win his love by impressing him with his greatness and perseverance. Philoctetes endured long suffering but did not lose his identity as a hero; this wins the admiration of the youth, who eventually sees Philoctetes as the future owner of the ultimate glory. Neoptolemus perceives that the trick he is employing is in direct contrast to the heroism which Philoctetes embodies and is also contrary to his own true nature. When the hero is at his mercy under violent attack from his wound, he clearly realizes how worthless and shameful the success of deception is. Neoptolemus, who recognizes that Odysseus cannot be a suitable erastes for him, slowly detaches himself from the influence of Odysseus, the bad erastes. He decides to undo what he has committed by his misguidance. As Neoptolemus separates himself from the spirit and the person of Odysseus, the influence of Philoctetes increases. Neoptolemus sees the true identity of the hero in spite of his unattractive 212 appearance and is ready to accept Philoctetes as his new erastes, who he thinks can truly be his guide and model. Before his new erastes Neoptolemus not only admits the error he committed but decides to make up for the shameful deed by fulfilling his false promise to take him home. Neoptolemus gives up his longed-for ambition for glory to prove himself before his new erastes. For his part Philoctetes by making his new eromenos fulfill the promise he once made subdues Neoptolemus and wins him over to be his eromenos. The new relationship between Neoptolemus and Philoctetes rests on love, trust and true understanding. Their love is reciprocal. Through the love of Philoctetes, Neoptolemus changes from a naive but ambitious instrument of the erastes into a mature man with a keen sense of moral values and judgment. On the other hand, the abandoned and embittered warrior gets a new life through the affection and admiration of young Neoptolemus. Their love, however, does not end in the personal realm. It becomes a noble ground for heroic achievements, as Heracles enjoins. Through this play we can see what an important role an erastes assumes for the mental growth of the younger partner. The eromenos is not yet mature enough to have definitive views on life and the world but is still on the way to maturity and judgment molded by the guidance 213 of a good erastes. Therefore it is of the utmost importance for the eromenos to choose a worthy erastes. Odysseus, a democratic politician and representative of a collective concept of virtue, teaches his eromenos to adopt any means if only it brings gain, while Philoctetes, representing an older, individualistic concept of heroism, instructs him to be truthful to himself and to do what is right. Odysseus has high social rank and political power. By contrast, Philoctetes, a lonely outcast, can offer nothing but good counsel for the youth. But Philoctetes, maimed in body and abandoned by society, eventually turns out to be the right erastes for the noble youth. Sophocles apparently thinks that the good erastes is someone who can be a good guide or "teacher" for the mental growth of the youth. The eromenos should therefore choose as his erastes not someone who is rich or has political power but a person who can truly provide nourishment for his soul and mind. In Philoctetes Neoptolemus sees the sparkling beauty of a soul which can be a true guide for his mature manhood. Thus Philoctetes becomes the ego-ideal which the youth should emulate. Through this play, Socrates reveals the conflict which the pederastic relationship faces under democracy. Odysseus represents a democratic politician of high 214 social rank. He represents the will of the majority in that society. The majority abandoned Philoctetes ten years ago for the good of the expedition. Now the majority need Philoctetes again for the good of its last campaign. Neoptolemus has to reject the will of the majority to accept an erastes who teaches him to do what is personally just. Through inspiration from a noble hero, Philoctetes, Neoptolemus not only defies his superior but also disobeys the will of his country. Thus what is pursued in the pederastic relationship— truth, justice, heroic ideals— may come into conflict with the goal of democratic government, i.e., benefit for the majority (at the expense of the minority), and thus create social tension. But Sophocles thinks that this is what a noble youth should do; he should be able to stand up against society when the society is wrong. Sophocles seems in this play to be cynical about democracy where the majority rules and where a true hero can be deserted by the unjust many. The character Philoctetes in this play can thus be compared to an actual person in 5th century Athens, namely, Socrates. Socrates taught the young to do what was just rather than obey the will of the government. His pursuit for the eternal Truth encouraged the youths to defy anything wrong and disobey the government when 215 its way was not right, i.e., when personal conviction of what is just conflicts with the majority opinion of the citizenry. Socrates, in fact, like Philoctetes, became the victim of the majority and was put to death in 399 B.C. By making Philoctetes, a social outcast, a true hero worthy to be the erastes of Neoptolemus, Sophocles points out that the view of society cannot invariably be the true criterion of judgment for the individual. He further reveals the irrationality of human society in which the just can be condemned by the unjust. A real aristocratic hero can be despised in the democratic world in which the number rules rather than the worthy and valuable. Moreover, by making Neoptolemus' worthy erastes a "pariah-figure," Sophocles is preaching that social success is not the ultimate goal of a noble youth but that a youth should rather strive to possess the true heroic essence, such as that maintained by Philoctetes despite ten years of suffering. Sophocles thus considers the heroic spirit, the essence of a human being, more important than any property or political position, just as Socrates thought "virtue" the most precious thing that human beings can seek. Sophocles, by making Philoctetes the right erastes of Neoptolemus, further points to the fact that the erastes who is the ego-ideal of the eromenos does not 216 need to have physical beauty but only beauty of soul. Sophocles might be hinting to the audience the problem of Alcibiades, the most desirable eromenos of his time who (Plato thought) should have taken Socrates, though ugly, as his true erastes. Although Alcibiades was very attracted to the philosophical dialogue of Socrates, he did not follow the teachings of Socrates and later turned to the politicians. Alcibiades, a very handsome and ambitious youth, sought social success and political power instead of pursuing the "virtue" Socrates wanted him to possess. This Alcibiades is a perfect example of a youth who did not choose the right erastes and thereby destroyed himself. Through the example of Neoptolemus whose judgment is quite different from that of Alcibiades> Sophocles may be telling the Athenian demos that they should not err like Alcibiades by turning away from a worthy erastes who could have been the best "teacher" for his mental growth. The model, ego-ideal of a youth, Sophocles thinks, should not be an Odyssean figure, but someone like Philoctetes who, though a social outcast, could guide the youth in the right direction to his mature manhood. 217 NOTES TO CHAPTER III ^We do not know how many characters appear in Aeschylus' Philoctetes. W. M. Calder III in his article "Aeschylus' Philoctetes." GRBS 11 (1970) 172, favors another character besides odysseus and Philoctetes— a hero or a god— on the grounds that Odysseus, having once deceived Philoctetes, cannot be a convincing speaker of the truth. But it is not entirely improbable for Odysseus to make Philoctetes yield. Quite the contrary, this is what actually happened in Aeschylus' version in my view as I interpret Dio's description in 52.2 (cf. p. 140) . The view held by many other scholars that Athena is also involved in this play is not compelling since Dio (52. 2) clearly says that there is no need of Athena in Aeschylus' Philoctetes. 2Pausanias, Description of Greece I xxii 6. 3cf. J. S. Kieffer, "Philoctetes and Arete," CP 37 (1942) 39 n.4. The reason Dio describes Aeschylus' version as the motif of the three tragedies seems to be that Dio thinks the later writers, Euripides and Sophocles, took their motif from Aeschylus by making Odysseus the antagonist of Philoctetes. 4See W. M. Calder III, "A Reconstruction of Euripides, Philoctetes." ed. by 0. M^rkholm & N. M. Waggoner, Greek Numismatics and Archaeology. Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson (Wetteren 1979) 54-55. 5J. S. Kieffer ("Philoctetes and Arete," p. 42) also thinks that Dio's description of Euripides' version as "political" indicates that his version has much to do with patriotic spirit. ®W. M. Calder III, "A Reconstruction of Euripides, Philoctetes." 59-61. 7cf. Plutarch, Lives III; Pericles VIII 5. Athenaeus, XIII 605. 8H. C. Avery in his article "Heracles, Philoctetes, Neoptolemus," Hermes 93 (1965) 291, suggests that 218 Sophocles was the first to take the region around the gulf of Malia as the homeland of Philoctetes, while it was the Magnesian Peninsula in the epic tradition. This is highly probable, although there is no way to prove it. Sophocles clearly makes Philoctetes' homeland a place which has close connections with Heracles in the prologue in order to prepare us for what he is going to reveal in the course of the play, namely, Philoctetes' close association with Heracles. 9Odysseus distorts the word yewaCov for his own purpose to mold Neoptolemus to be obedient to him. The nobility which Odysseus wants Neoptolemus to prove is to deceive Philoctetes, a wronged hero. But to become truly noble (ye waCov ) as the son of Achilles, Neoptolemus has to reject his mission eventually by defying Odysseus, cf. B. M. Knox, The Heroic Temper (Los Angeles 1964) 125-26. 10A1though Odysseus can carry Philoctetes to Troy if Neoptolemus succeeds in deceiving him and thereby ship Philoctetes aboard by pretending to sail home, he asks Neoptolemus to steal the bow because as long as Philoctetes possesses the invincible bow, Odysseus will not have the courage to appear in front of Philoctetes. On the other hand, Odysseus must be thinking that if the bow is taken away from Philoctetes he can easily force Philoctetes to yield since otherwise he will meet his death on a desert island without the bow— the sole means of his life. But it does not turn out this way as we will see in the third episode. There are, however, some other reasons why Odysseus emphasize the seizure of the bow rather than Philoctetes himself. Odysseus has no concern for his person or feelings but sees Philoctetes only as the owner of the bow. He thinks that the bow is what they need for the sack of Troy, which is actually contrary to the real meaning of the oracle. Odysseus also emphasizes the bow because he wants to win over Neoptolemus with the enticement of the glory which will reflect on him. Odysseus tries to make Neoptolemus eager to perform his task by speaking as if Neoptolemus will be the conqueror of Troy with the help of the bow of Philoctetes. 1:LW. B. Stanford, The Ulvsses Theme (Oxford 1954) 102 (cf. 110-11). 12C. Segal, Tragedy and Civilization: An Interpretation of Sophocles (Cambridge 1981) 333. 219 13It is true, however, that Odysseus uses words or phrases which remind us of the sophists. Odysseus is using these words merely to shield himself and vainly justify his motives, a tactic which does not work out in the end. Furthermore, not only Odysseus but many other characters in this play use words which reflect sophistic ideas. 14I. M. Linforth, "Philoctetes: the Play and the Man," CPCP 15. 3 (1956) 107. 15 i t at and xewvov are the terms with which Philoctetes most frequently addresses Neoptolemus. His words are full of love and affection and his tone is quite different from that of Odysseus who addresses Neoptolemus with the same terms a couple of times. The merchant and the chorus also use these terms, but their usage is distinct from that of Odysseus and Philoctetes each of whom considers Neoptolemus his eromenos. Although H. C. Avery ("Heracles, Philoctetes, Neoptolemus," 285-6) well points out the different usage of these terms by various personages, he fails to see Philoctetes' attitude as erotic. Avery tries to prove that Sophocles represents the relationship of Philoctetes and Neoptolemus as that of father and son by viewing Philoctetes' affectionate attitude towards the youth as paternal. But what Sophocles depicts through the relationship’ of Philoctetes and Neoptolemus is not a father-son bond but that between erastes and eromenos. 16Some scholars think that Neoptolemus is hesitant in performing the task enjoined to him by Odysseus when he encounters Philoctetes. But there is no sign in the text which indicates Neoptolemus1 hesitance. Neoptolemus cannot tell the whole lie in his first speech. He is rather trying to seize the appropriate moment to tell the appropriate lie. Actually Neoptolemus is managing too well in this effort to win over Philoctetes1 mind, inasmuch as he is resolved to accomplish the task. 17This is the first time in the play that the name of Heracles is mentioned in relation to Philoctetes. Sophocles is here depicting Heracles as the erastes who handed down his precious bow to his beloved Philoctetes. Although it is not apparent at this point, it becomes clearer as the play develops. In fact, Sophocles is revealing the relationship of Heracles and Philoctetes very subtly and gradually. It is highly probable that this is an innovation of Sophocles to interpret the relationship of Heracles and Philoctetes as that of 220 erastes and eromenos, which became well-known in the Hellenistic period. 18G. M. Kirkwood suggests, in A Study of Soohoclean Drama (Ithaca 1958) 146, that Neoptolemus' agreement with Philoctetes in this dialogue is not part of the scheme of deception but a spontaneous response. Neoptolemus' true opinion of Odysseus, he says, comes out when Philoctetes asks about "a worthless man skilled in tongue and clever," to which Neoptolemus responds with the name of Odysseus although Philoctetes is actually thinking of another person, namely, Thersites. But although Neoptolemus does not tell any explicit lies about the lives and deaths of the Greek heroes in Troy, he is certainly mindful of the task he is performing now. His opinion about Odysseus at this point cannot be taken as his true opinion but rather as a feigned one. Neoptolemus obviously knows that Philoctetes has a bad opinion of Odysseus because he wronged him and also has in mind Odysseus' words that he is free to talk badly of him for the mission (cf. 64-65). Furthermore, if Neoptolemus truly thinks of Odysseus as a worthless fellow, he would not have followed Odysseus as his erastes for the mission. Neoptolemus is an innocent youth who does not really see the true identity of Odysseus yet. This he perceives later under the influence of Philoctetes.. In this dialogue with Philoctetes, Neoptolemus is expressing similar opinions to win over his his trust. Actually, we can see that Neoptolemus has outwitted Philoctetes when the latter repeats the same sentiment (446-50) as that of Neoptolemus— "War takes always the best and spares the bad (436-37)." 19Philoctetes is described as the Malian in the prologue (4) , which indicates his home as the region around the Malian gulf. It is made more specific now as Oeta and Trachis whose significance in the life of Heracles none of the audience would mistake. Thus, Sophocles further insinuates the intimate relationship between Heracles and Philoctetes through their mutual homeland. 20Some scholars have given too much emphasis to the oracle in their interpretations of this play. C. M. Bowra says in his Soohoclean Tragedy (London 1944) 2 65, "The plot of the Philoctetes depends largely on the misinterpretation of the oracle." Bowra considers that the movement of the whole play is entirely dependent on the interpretation of the oracle on the grounds that when 221 the oracle is misinterpreted or disobeyed troubles ensue. But this view certainly destroys the balance of the play and misses the whole point. 21Here Neoptolemus obviously does not yet take Philoctetes as his erastes, and merely expresses his gratitude to have met a great hero who granted him the favor of touching his most precious property. But the same word, cpCAos , mentioned by the same person, Neoptolemus, has a different meaning, i.e., lover or beloved, when his attitude changes to accept Philoctetes as his true erastes in the fourth episode. 22R. C. Jebb, Sophocles: the plavs and Fragments Part IV The Philoctetes (Cambridge 1898) 111. 23I. M. Linforth, “Philoctetes: the Plav and the Man," 122-23. 24It is very odd that Philoctetes and Neoptolemus come out of the cave before the second antistrophe and stand by calmly until the chorus ends their ode and only then does Philoctetes suffer the attack of his wound. Actually, it is more appropriate that Philoctetes begins to halt as soon as he appears with neoptolemus from the cave after the first stasimon. 25Walter Kranz, Stasimon. Untersuchunqen zu Form und Gehalt der Griechischen Traaoedie (Berlin 1933) 221. (cf. I. M. Linforth, "Philoctetes: the Play and the Man," 121) . 26A. J. A. Waldock, in Sophocles the Dramatist (Cambridge 1966) 211, believes that the chorus in this play sometimes remain well within their nominal roles and at other times they step outside them. He states that this second antistrophe is exceptional in the degree to which the chorus deviates from its normal role. Kranz (cf. n.25) has expressed almost the same view. 27 J. C. Kamerbeek, The Plavs of Sophocles: Commentaries VI The Philoctetes (Leiden 1980) 104. 28R. C. Jebb, Sophocles: the Plavs and Fragments Part IV The Philoctetes 132-33. 29T. B. L. Webster ed., Sophocles: Philoctetes (Cambridge 1970) 119. 3°D. B. Robinson, "Topics in Sophocles' Philoctetes." 222 CO n.s. 19 (1969) 41. 3^I. M. Linforth, Philoctetes: the Play and the Man,1 1 124. 32D. B. Robinson in "Topics in Sophocles' Philoctetes" (p. 41) interprets the attitude of Philoctetes when he says a no p ’ oXeCg/ f\ v TTpoa-&C.yr3s as a protest that Neoptolemus is hurting him by touching him. But Neoptolemus' touch does not hurt Philoctetes physically. The touch of Neoptolemus actually intensifies an emotional excitement which Philoctetes can hardly bear combined with the pain of the spasm. 33I. M. Linforth ("Philoctetes: the Play and the Man," p. 127) says that Neoptolemus has always known Philoctetes himself is needed and that he is only reminding the chorus of what they have forgotten in their excitement and haste. Linforth entirely misses the important point which Neoptolemus perceived for the firth time, namely, that the crown will belong to Philoctetes. 34What the chorus advises Neoptolemus here is not to go to Troy and leave Philoctetes behind, but to steal the bow, although Neoptolemus took the strophe to mean he should sail without him. The chorus bids Neoptolemus to accomplish the task which was enjoined on him by Odysseus, i.e.,- to steal the bow, as they are supposed to help the scheme of Odysseus when the moment requires it. If Neoptolemus returns to the ship and gives the bow to Odysseus while Philoctetes is asleep, Neoptolemus' part of the scheme is accomplished. Whether Odysseus carries Philoctetes to Troy along with the bow or not is up to Odysseus. The attitude of the chorus as it urges Neoptolemus to steal the bow, however, is not a contradiction of its sincere emotion it has expressed from time to time towards a wronged hero. 35cf. I. M. Linforth, "Philoctetes: the Play and the Man," 131. 360. Taplin, "Significant Actions in Sophocles' Philoctetes.» GRBS XII (1971) 131. 37P. E. Easterling, "Philoctetes and Modern Criticism," ICS III (1978) 34. 38The attack of Philoctetes' disease which Neoptolemus has witnessed paradoxically helps the wounded hero win Neoptolemus over to his side. The wild cries of 223 Philoctetes start to open the inner eyes of Neoptolemus, while the guileful words of odysseus fail to hold the youth under his power. cf. C. Segal, Tragedy and Civilization: An Interpretation of Sophocles 336. 39For an analysis of <puats , consult F. Heinimann, Nomos und Phvsis (Basel 1945). 40O. Taplin ("Significant Actions in Sophocles1 Philoctetes.1 1 p. 27) states that what Odysseus says in 975 clearly implies that Neoptolemus had made a "move" to return the bow. He (p. 34, n.23) points out the word itaAtv as the key for his interpretation. But naAuv does not imply any such movement on the part of Neoptolemus. 410dysseus, who has been waiting at the ship, becomes anxious since Neoptolemus seems to delay too long after the merchant's return, and he comes back to see what is occurring. While Neoptolemus and Philoctetes are talking to each other, Odysseus enters the stage unnoticed by Neoptolemus and Philoctetes but seen by the audience and hides himself behind a rock. This must be the same spot where odysseus was hiding before when he sent Neoptolemus to search Philoctetes' cave in the prologue. 43G. M. Kirkwood (A Study of Soohoclean Drama p. 149) believes Odysseus, the shifty opportunist, is in accord with the will of Zeus, to which the heroic individualist Philoctetes eventually submits. But Odysseus is not actually following the god's will. Quite the contrary, he is using the god as a screen to justify himself. His method negates the will of the god and furthermore odysseus shows no true piety toward Zeus. 43Philoctetes addresses Neoptolemus specifically with the term "son of Achilles" only twice in line 260 and in line 1066. In both cases Philoctetes shows a sort of regret towards Neoptolemus by indicating that he should be worthy of the name. Just as Philoctetes implied in line 260 that it is not right for you, son of Achilles, to follow Odysseus by deserting me, Philoctetes, who shares the same heroic ideals with your father Achilles. Furthermore, Philoctetes seems to want to remind of Neoptolemus what he revealed in his speech (1006-15), namely that he should seek a worthy erastes, someone better than Odysseus, who could truly be his model. 440dysseus, however, does not exit to return to the ship. When Neoptolemus turns his back towards the cave, Odysseus again conceals himself in his usual hiding place 224 to observe Neoptolemus1 action. 450dysseus' first action in this play is to hide and his last one is to run away. There is no way to interpret the character of Odysseus as a hero. In fact, no Greek hero runs away on stage in Greek tragedies; this is the trait of a coward. Furthermore, Odysseus attempts to hide himself not only physically but also mentally behind a god or some sophistic ideas. Sophocles in this play shows that Odysseus has entirely failed in his mission because he must run away to save his life. 46This becomes clear in the exodos where Heracles appears to Philoctetes and tells his future destiny. 47That Philoctetes is moved greatly by the sincere persuasion of Neoptolemus provides a basis for Philoctetes to yield willingly when Heracles appears and advises him once again to yield. Thus, what Heracles accomplished in the exodos is not actually turning Philoctetes in the opposite direction but rather fulfilling what Neoptolemus has begun. 48R. P. Winnington-Ingram, in Sophocles; An Interpretation (Cambridge 1980) 296, is convinced that Neoptolemus here is still the prisoner of lies and that Philoctetes tries to turn Neoptolemus against the Atreidae on non-existent grounds. But it is unbelievable that Neoptolemus, who revealed the truth to Philoctetes that he was actually trying to lead him to Troy and who even returned the bow to the hero by repenting his wrong, is still in a prison of deception. From the fact that Neoptolemus does not deny the words of Philoctetes, we must assume that this part of the story, i.e., the bestowing of Achilles' armor on Odysseus, which also agrees with the legend, is based on truth. 49Some scholars point out that there is an inconsistency in this passage on the grounds that when Neoptolemus offered his hand for a pledge (813) he promised only to remain beside Philoctetes until he wakes up from his sleep. But without a doubt when Philoctetes clasped Neoptolemus' hand he put all his trust in Neoptolemus in this pledge by including his agreement to take him home and the safe keeping of the bow. Actually there is no inconsistency in Sophocles' presentation. 50This stage action is observed by D. B. Robinson ("Topics in Sophocles' Philoctetes." p.42) and 0. Taplin ("Significant Actions in Sophocles' Philoctetes." p. 29) 225 following Campbell. But they fail . to see the significance implied in this action. 51This scene— two men walking in a mutual embrace— is reenacted in the Orestes of Euripides which was produced one year after the Philoctetes of Sophocles, i.e., in the year 408 B.C. (cf. pp. 63-67) 52Some scholars consider the last scene (1409-71) superfluous and without any real significance. For example, D. B. Robinson ("Topics in Sophocles' Philoctetes. pp. 51-56) thinks that the real conclusion of the play ends at line 1408, and the whole play builds up to this conclusion (1402-8) which he takes as the first conclusion. The second conclusion (1409-71), he thinks, is to make the new interpretation of the episode fit with other traditional episodes. I. M. Linforth ("Philoctetes: the Play and the Man," p. 156) also sees that the arbitrary intervention of Heracles is necessary to fulfill the requirements of the legend. But this view entirely deprives the last scene (1409-71), the actual climax of this play, of its real significance and meaning. The appearance of Heracles, the former erastes of Philoctetes, is essential in this play for what Sophocles wants to represent, namely, the influential power of the erastes and the real essence of ncetSepaaTtla as a noble foundation for the heroic achievements. 53C. H. Whitman, Sophocles (Cambridge 1951) 177. Whitman says that the brilliant but completely symbolic appearance of heracles motivates nothing. He is of the opinion that an end has already been achieved before his appearance. He further thinks (p. 187) that it is Philoctetes himself who resolves to go to Troy and that this resolution is like a god awakening in him or a vision of sudden spiritual liberation. But we cannot assume that the god who appears on stage in Greek tragedy is merely symbolic and actually it is not the case in Sophocles' Philoctetes. The voice and message of Heracles is not that of Philoctetes' inner vision but that of the former erastes of Philoctetes, who appears before his former beloved as a god. The epiphany of Heracles in this play is too natural to be entirely symbolic. 54This affirms that Neoptolemus was the person who interpreted the oracle most correctly. Heracles, however, offers to send Asclepius himself, the god of medicine, to the Trojan field to cure Philoctetes' wound, although Neoptolemus thought that Philoctetes could be 226 cured by the hands of the sons of Asclepius. 55D. B. Robinson ("Topics in Sophocles' Philoctetes," p. 53) and I. M. Linforth ("Philoctetes: the Play and the Man," p. 151) along with other scholars take the words of Heracles as a command of god speaking with divine authority. Linforth (p. 156) further states that Philoctetes cannot go willingly since the wound in his soul is beyond cure although the wound in his foot can be healed. Quite the contrary, the love of Heracles heals the bitter soul of Philoctetes before he obtains the bodily cure. The relationship of Heracles and Philoctetes is not based on commands and obedience but on love which procures Philoctetes' willing response to the good counsel of his former erastes. 227 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, S. M., Sophocles. the Playwright (Toronto 1957) Alt, K., "Schicksal und < p6ols in Sophocles' Phil octet." Hermes 89 (1961) 141-179 Avery, H. C., "Heracles, Philoctetes, Neoptolemus," Hermes 93 (1965) 279-297 Bates, W. N., Sophocles. Poet and Dramatist (New York 1969) Beattie, A. J. , "Sappho Fr. 31," Mnemosyne s. 4.9 (1956) 103-11 Beck, F. A. G., Greek Education (New York 1964) Bethe, E., "Die dorische Knabenliebe," RM n.f. 62 (1907) 438-75 Beye, C. R. , "Sophocles' Philoctetes and the Homeric Embassy," TAPA 101 (1970) 63-75 Biggs, P., "The Disease Theme in Sophocles' Ai ax Philoctetes. and Trachiniae." CP 61 (1966) 223-235 Boardman, J. and La Rocca, E. , Eros in Greece (London 1978) Bowra, C. M., The Greek Experience (London 1957) ___________, Greek Lvric Poetry from Aleman to Simonides (Oxford 1961) ___________ , Sophoclean Tragedy (Oxford 1965) Burkert, W., Greek Religion (Cambridge 1985) Burnett, A. P., Three Archaic Poets: Archilochus. Alcaeus. Sappho (Cambridge 1985) Calder III, W. M., "Aeschylus' Philoctetes.» GRBS 11 (1970) 171-179 228 ___________, "A Reconstruction of Euripides, Philoctetes.1 1 ed. by O. M^rkholm and N. M. Waggoner, Greek Numismatics and Arcaeology. Essavs in Honor of Margaret Thompson (Wetteren 1979) 53-62 Cameron, A., "Sappho's Prayer to Aphrodite," HThR 32 (1939) 1-17 Casevitz, M. , "A Propos de Philoctete 473-479," RP 48 (1974) 302-303 Castledge, P., "Spartan Wives: Liberation or License?" C Q 31 (1981) 84-105 Cory, D. W. ed., Homosexuality (New York 1956) Craik, E. M., "A Note on Sophocles' Philoctetes 456-458 and Antigone 323-326," Mnemosyne 31 (1978) 196-198 ___________, "Philoctetes, Sophoclean Melodrama," AC 48 (1979) 15-29 ___________, "Sophocles and the Sophists," AC 49 (1980) 247-53 Devereux, G. , "Greek Pseudo-homosexuality and the 'Greek Miracle,'" Svmbolae Osloenses 42 (1967) 69-92 ___________, "The Nature of Sappho's Seizure in fr. 31 LP as Evidence of her Inversion," C£ n.s. 20 (1970) 17-31 Dickinson, G. L., The Greek View of Life (New York 1930) Diller, H., "Erwartung, Enttaeuschung und Erfullung in der griechisen Tragoedie," Serta Aenipontana 7/8 (1962) 93-115 ___________, "Menschendarstellung und Handlungsfuehrung bei Sophocles," Antike u. Abendland 6 (1957) 157-169 ___________, ed. , Sophocles. Wege der Forshung (Darmstadt 1967) ___________, "Uber das Selbstbewusstsein der sophokleischen Personen," WS 69 (1956) 70-85 Dover, K. J. , "Aristophanes' Speech in Plato's Symposium." JHS 86 (1966) 41-45 229 ___________ , "Classical Greek Attitudes to Sexual Behavior," Arethusa 6 (1973) 59-73 ___________ , "Eros and Nomos," BICS 11 (1964) 31-42 ___________ , Greek Homosexuality (Cambridge 1978) ___________ , Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle (Berkerly 1974) Doyle, R. E., "The Concept of axn in Sophoclean Tragedy," Traditio 32 (1976) 1-27 Easterling, P. E., "Character in Sophocles," G&R, ser. 2, 24 (1977) 121-129 ___________ , "Philoctetes and Mordern Criticism," ICS 3 (1978) 27-39 Ehrenberg, V., From Solon to Socrates (London 1968) ___________ , Sophocles and Pericles (Oxford 1954) Eisner, R., "Philoctetes, Hephaestus and Heracles," RSC 27 (1979) 330-337 Elftmann, G. B. , Nobility of Birth in Sophoclean Drama (Diss., Philadelphia 1973) Erbse, H., "Neoptolemus und Philoktet bei Sophokles," Hermes 94 (1966) 177-201 Feder, L., "The Symbol of the Desert Island in Sophocles' Philoctetes." Drama Survey 3 (1963) 33-41 Flaceliere, R. , Love in Ancient Greece (English trans., London 1962) Foley, H. P., ed., Reflections of Women in Anticruitv (New York 1981) Foucault, M., The History of Sexuality (English trans., New York 1978) Fuqua, C., "Studies in the Use of Myth in Sophocles' Philoctetes and the Orestes of Euripides," Traditio 32 (1976) 29-95 Galdner, W. M. Ill, "Sophoclean Apologia. Philoctetes." 230 GRBS 12 (1971) 153-174 Gardiner, M. M. , . $uol, < ; and No ups in the Plavs of Sophocles (Diss., Cambridge 1973) Garvie, A. P., "Deceit, Violence, and Persuasion in the Philoctetes." Studi Cataudella I (1972) 213-216 Garvin, M. H. , Manifestations of Divinity in Sophoclean Drama (Diss., Cambridge 1973) Gellie, G. H., "Motivation in Sophocles," BICS 11 (1964) 1-14 ___________, Sophocles: A Reading (Carlton 1972) Giangrande, G., "Anacreon and the Lesbian Girl," OUCC 16 (1973) 129-133 Gill, C., "Bow, Oracle, and Epiphany in Sophocles' Philoctetes." GSR 27 (1980) 137-146 Golden, M., "Slavery and Homosexuality at Athens," Phoenix 3 8 (1984) 4 308-324 Gould, J. P., "Law, Custom and Myth: Aspects of the Social Position of Women in Classical Athens," JHS 100 (1980) 38-59 Gould, T. P., Platonic Love (London 1963) Gouldner, A., The Hellenic World (New York 1969) Grande, C. D., "Saffo, Ode cpaCvexai, uou x n v o s Ccros," Euphrosvne 2 (1959) 181-188 Gutherie, W. K. C., The Sophists (Cambridge 1971) Haldane, J. A., "A Paean in the Philoctetes." CO 13 (1963) 53-56 Hallett, J. , "Sappho and her Social Context," Signs 4 (1979) 447-464 Hamilton, R., "Neoptolemus' Story in the Philoctetes," AJP 96 (1975) 131-137 Harsh, P. W., "The Role of the Bow in the Philoctetes of Sophocles," AJP 81 (1960) 408-414 231 Heinimann, F., Nomos und Phvsis (Basel 1945) Henderson, J. , The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy (New Haven and London 1975) Henry, A. S., "bCos in Sophocles' Philoctetes," CR 24 (1974) 3-4 ___________, "Sophocles' Philoctetes 849-54," CP 68 (1973) 61-62 Hyland, D. A., " "Epws, ’ Eitb-duy Ca and in Plato," Phronesis XIII (1968) 32-46 Inoue, E., "Sight, Sound and Rhetoric; Philoctetes 29ff," AJP C (1979) 217-227 Jameson, M. H., "Politics and the Philoctetes." CP 51 (1956) 217-227 Jebb, R. C., Soohocles; the Plavs and Fragments Part IV The Philoctetes (Cambridge 1898) Jordan, B., Servants of the Gods; a study in the Religion. History and Literature (Goettingen 1979) Kamerbeek, J. , The Plavs of Sophocles. Commentaries The Philoctetes (Leiden 1953) Karavites, P., "Tradition, Skepticism, and Sophocles' Political Career," Klio 58 (1976) 359-365 Karlen, A., Sexuality and Homosexuality (London 1971) Kieffer, J. S., "Philoctetes and Arete," CP 37 (1942) 38-50 Kitto, H. D. F. Poesis; Structure and Thought (Berkerly and Los Angeles 19 66) ___________, Sophocles: Dramatist and Philosopher (London 1958) Kirkwood, G., A Study of Sophoclean Drama (Ithaca 1958) Klaich, D., Women+Women (New York 1974) Knox, B. M. W., The Heroic Temper (Berkeley 1964) Koniaris, G. , "On Sappho Fr. 31 (L-P)," Philologus 112 232 (1968) 173-186 Kranz, W., Stasimon. Untersuchunqen zu Form und Gehalt der Griechischen Trqoedie (Berlin 1933) Kroll, W., "Knabenliebe," RE 21 (1921) 897-906 ___________, "Lesbische Liebe,1 1 RE 23 (1924) 2100-2102 Lacey, W. K., The Family in Classical Greece (Ithaca 1968) Lagerborg, R., Die Platonische Liebe (Leipzig 1926) Landfester, M., Das griechische Nomen >philos< und seine Ableitunqen (Hildesheim 1966) Lefkowitz, M., "Critical Stereotypes and the Poetry of Sappho," GRBS 14 (1973) 113-123 Lesky, A., Greek Tragedy (English trans., New York 1978) ___________, History of Greek Literature (English trans., New York 1966) Licht, H., Sexual Life in Ancient Greece (English trans., New York 1953) Linforth, I. M., "Philoctetes: the Play and the Man," CPCP 15. 3 (19.56) 95-156 Littman, R. J., "The Loves of Alcibiades," TAPA 101 (1970) 263-278 Long, A., Language and Thought in Sophocles (London 1968) Marcade, J., Eros Kalos (Geneva 1962) Marcovich, M., "Sappho Fr. 31: Anxiety Attack or Love Declaration?," CQ n.s. 22 (1972) 19-32 Marrou, H. I., History of Education in Antiquity (New York 1956) Marry, J. D. , "Sappho and the Heroic Ideal," Arethusa 12 (1979) 71-92 Merkelbach, R., "Sappho und ihr Kreis," Philologus 101 (1957) 2-29 233 Moore, J., Sophocles and Arete (Cambridge 1938) Musurillo, H., The Light and the Darkness; Studies in the Dramatic Poetry of Sophocles (Leidon 1967) Neuberger-Donath, R., "Die Pfeile des Philoctetes,” Eranos 77 (1979) 163-165 Neumann, H. , "Diotima's Concept of Love," AJP 86 (1965) 33-59 Nicolai, W., "Sophocles und die griechische Ethik," ZRGG 31 (1979) 147-158 Nygren, A., Agape and Eros (English trans., London 1953) Opelsten, J., Sophocles and Greek Pessimism (Amsterdam 1952) Page, D.L., Alkman; the Partheneion (Oxford 1951) ___________, "Conjectures in Sophocles1 Philoctetes," PCPS 186 (1960) 49-53 ___________, Sappho and Alcaeus (Oxford 1955) Poe, J. P., Heroism and Divine Justice in Sophocles' Philoctetes (Leiden 1974) Podlecki, A. J., "The Power of the Word in Sophocles' Philoctetes." GRBS 7 (1966) 233-250 Redling, J., The Dramatic Function of Philia in the Later Plavs of Sophocles (Diss., Ann Arbor 1971) Reinhardt, K., Sophocles (English trans., New York 1979) Reynen, H., "Philosophie und Knabenliebe," Hermes 95 (1967) 308-316 Rissman, L., Love as War; Homeric Allusion in the Poetry of Sappho (Koenigstein/Ts. 1983) Rist, J. M., Eros and Pvche (Toronto 1964) Robin, L., La Theorie Platonicienne de 1'amour (Paris 1908) Robinson, D. B., "Topics in Sophocles' Philoctetes," CQ n.S. 19 (1969) 34-56 234 Rose, P. W., "Sophocles' Philoctetes and the Teachings of the Sophists," HSCP 80 (1976) 49-105 Schachermeyr, F. , "Sophokles und die Perikleische Politik," WS 79 (1966) 45-63 Schlesinger, E., "Die Intrige im Aufbau von Sophocles' Philoktet," RhM 3 (1968) 97-156 Schmidt, J. U., Sophocles Philoctet. Eine Strukturanalvse (Heidelberg 1973) Seale, D., "The Element of Surprise in Sophocles' Philoctetes." BICS 19 (1972) 94-102 ___________, Vision and Stagecraft in Sophocles (Chicago 1982) Segal, C. P., "Philoctetes and the Imperishable Piety," Hermes 105 (1977) 133-158 ___________, Tragedy and Civilization: an Interpretation of Sophocles (Cambridge 1981) Semenov, A., "Zur dorischen Knabenliebe," Philoloaus n.f. 70 (1911) 146-150 Shucard, S. C., "Some Developments in Sophocles' Late Plays of Intrigue," CJ 69 (1973) 133-138 Sichtermann, H., "Zeus und Ganymed in fruehklassischer zeit," AK 2 (1959) 10-15 Simon, E., Festivals of Attika: an Archaeological Commentary (Medison 1983) Slater, P. E., The Glorv of Hera (Boston 1968) Stanford, W. B., The Ulvsses Theme (Oxford 1954) Stanley, K. , "The Role of Aphrodite in Sappho Fr. 1," GRBS 17 (1976) 305-321 Stigers, E. S., "Retreat from the Male: Catullus 62 and Sappho's Erotic Flowers," Ramus 6 (1977) 83-102 Svenbro, J., "Sappho and Diomedes," Musuem Phjlolomnn Londoniense 1 (1975) 37-49 235 Taplin, O., "Significant Actions in Sophocles' Philoctetes," GRBS 12 (1971) 25-44 Tripp, C. A., The Homosexual Matrix (New York 1975) Waldock, A., Sophocles the Dramatist (Cambridge 1966) Webster, T., An Introduction to Sophocles (London 1969) West, D. J., Homosexuality Re-examined (London 1977) West, M. L., "Alcmanica," CQ n.s. 15 (1965) 188-202 Westermarck, E., The Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas (London 1906) Whitman, C. H., Sophocles; a Study of Heroic Humanism (Cambridge 1951) Wilson, E., The Wound and the Bow (New York 1947) Winnington-Ingram, R. P., Sophocles (Cambridge 1980) 236

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Sophocles' "Elektra" and "Philoktetes": Knowledge, plot, and self-reference

PDF

Religion and politics in Aristophanes' "Clouds"

PDF

She's nothing: Gender and representation in Catullus and elegy

PDF

Thebais rescriptrix: Rewriting and closure in Statius' "Thebaid" 12

PDF

The liberal muse: Juvenal's sexual persona and the purpose of satire

PDF

Antigone: A study in critical method

PDF

Diana on Roman coins

PDF

The Mercury-Augustus identification.

PDF

Women and the unspeakable: Rape in Ovid's "Metamorphoses"

PDF

Love's economy: Aesthetics, exchange and youthful poetics in Roman elegy

PDF

Countercultural responses to the crisis of masculinity in late republican Rome

PDF

Reflexive politics: Cicero's relationship with the Roman voters

PDF

Ovid's musomachy

PDF

The translation of tragedy into imperial Rome: A study of Seneca's "Hercules" and "Oedipus"

PDF

Forma orbis: Geography, ethnography and shaping the Roman Empire

PDF

The Nine Songs: A reexamination of shamanism in ancient China

PDF

The art of 'la fuga': Mythic and musical modes in relation to the theme of identity in Alejo Carpentier's "Los pasos perdidos"

PDF

Pasternak's Verlaine: The translations as transcripts of influence

PDF

The act and the word: A study of abstraction versus the concrete in the work of Albert Camus

PDF

The centrality of the peripheral: Illuminating borders and the topography of space in medieval narrative and art, 1066-1400

Asset Metadata

Creator Chung, Haeshin (author)

Core Title Paiderastia in Sophocles' "Philoctetes"

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Classics

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag literature, classical,OAI-PMH Harvest,theater history

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-685777

Unique identifier UC11342939

Identifier DP22296.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-685777 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier DP22296.pdf

Dmrecord 685777

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Chung, Haeshin

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA