330 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. -SUPPLEMENT. 



as that of Plato 1 and Aristotle, 9 which rose far 

 above the common conceptions of the Divine 

 Being. 



Throughout our estimate of women, it is also 

 of great importance to remember the passionate 

 love of beauty which animated the Greeks. A 

 modem mind can form almost no idea of the 

 strength and universality of this passion. The 

 Greeks loved everything that was beautiful, but 

 it was in the human body that they saw the no- 

 blest form of earthly beauty. They did not con- 

 fine their admiration to the face. It was the per- 

 fect and harmonious development of every part 

 that struck them with awe. It would occupy too 

 much space to give a full account of this love 

 of the beautiful, or to bring home the intensity 

 of the Greek feeling. One instance will suffice. 

 The orator Ilyperides was defending the Hetaira 

 Phryne before a court of justice. His arguments, 

 he thought, fell on the ears of the judges without 

 any effect. He began to regard his case as hope- 

 less, when a happy idea struck him, and, tearing 

 open the garment of his client, he revealed to the 

 judges a bosom perfectly marvelous in form. 

 The judges at once acquitted her, and I have no 

 doubt that the whole Greek sentiment agreed 

 with their decision. But we .should make an 

 entire mistake if we were to suppose that the 

 jut!ge3 were actuated by any prurient motive. 

 One of the writers who relate the circumstance 

 gives the reason of the decision. The judges be- 

 held in such an exquisite form not an ordinary 

 mortal, but a priestess and prophetess of the 

 divine Aphrodite. They were inspired with awe, 3 

 and would have deemed it sacrilege to mar or 

 destroy such a perfect masterpiece of creative 

 power. And though no doubt there were low- 

 minded Greeks, as there are low-minded men 

 everywhere, yet it may be affirmed with truth 

 that the Greeks did not consider beauty to' be a 

 mere devil's lure for the continuance of the race, 

 as Schopenhauer represents it, but they saw in it 

 the outshining of divine radiance, and the fleshly 

 vehicle was but the means to lead on the soul to 

 what is eternally and imperishably beautiful. 



These are only some of the points in which 

 the Greeks differed widely from us, and we must 

 realize the difference before we can read the his- 

 tory aright. But this history has to face other 



' Plato de Legg,, vlii., p. 641 D. 



*Pol.,iv. (vii.), 16, 18. 



3 Sttvi&ainovrjcrai. Athenians, xiii., p. 590. There are 

 two versions of tlie story, which are given with all the 

 authorities in Wagner's edition of Alcipuron, vol. i., 

 p. 178. 



difficulties. The influence of woman is often ex- 

 ercised most powerfully in such a quiet and unob- 

 trusive manner that no historian can take note 

 of it. Who, for instance, could narrate the ac- 

 tion of beauty and of beautiful ways upon thou- 

 sands of hearts? The influence is silent, but not 

 the less potent. We have this additional diffi- 

 culty in Greece, that almost all we know of women 

 is derived from men. Now, men rarely write 

 dispassionately of women. They either are in 

 love with them, or hate them, or pretend to hate 

 them. They have had sweet or bitter experience 

 of them. And when they do write about them, 

 they write according to that experience. But 

 not only is the history of Greek women written 

 by men, but it was written for men. This fact 

 must be specially remembered when we have to 

 deal with the utterances of the comic poets, for 

 women did not act in the plays, nor is it probable 

 that they were even present at the comedies dur- 

 ing the best days of Athens. But men taking 

 the parts of women are sure to act them with all 

 the exaggeration and license which are natural to 

 such representations. No great stress must, there- 

 fore, be laid on the wild abuse of women which 

 can be culled in large abundance from Greek 

 writers. One early satirical poet divides women 

 into ten classes, of which only one is good. And 

 he proceeds with his invective very much as if 

 woman did not exist : 



" Listen, people," says Susarion, who may 

 be called the inventor of comedy. " Susarion says 

 this : Women are an evil, but nevertheless, O 

 countrymen, it is not possible to have a household 

 without evil, for to marry is an evil and not to 

 marry is an evil." ' 



A satiric poet gives it as his opinion that " a 

 man has only two very pleasant days with his 

 wife, one when he marries her, the other when 

 he buries her." A comic poet says pithily, 

 " Woman is an immortal necessary evil." Eurip- 

 ides says : 



" Terrible is the force of the waves of the sea, 

 terrible the rush of river and the blasts of hot fire, 

 terrible is poverty, and terrible are a thousand 

 other things ; but none is such a terrible evil as 

 woman. No painter could adequately represent 

 her ; no language can describe her ; but, if she is 

 the creation of any of the gods, let him know that 

 he is a vety great creator of evils and a foe to mor- 

 tals." 



1 These passages are all given from the large collec- 

 tions in Stobaeus. The genuineness of the fragment 

 of Susarion is justly doubted ; but the sentiment is no 

 doubt correctly ascribed to him. 



