Άθάμας (fr. 1)

23

fragment are evocative of rhetoric; see further below and comm. svv. είτ’ ού
(1. 1) and ώνητέος - άπιτέον (11. 4-5).
The fragment reflects a social norm: the legal status of a wedded wife
allows her to behave contemptuously towards her husband and still get away
with it, i. e. retain her man. A wife does not need to make any extra effort
to keep her husband and to constantly sustain his interest (sexual or other)
with her deportment, in order to secure her position, since the legal sanction
of the constitution of marriage does this for her. Interestingly, in real life the
wife had some significant leverage at her disposal: she was allowed to divorce
her husband, in which case (i. e. if she initiated the divorce process) he was
required to return to her the dowry he had received upon marriage. But if
the husband had spent the dowry, the only way to avoid bankruptcy was to
maintain the favour of his wife - even if she happened to be disdainful; cf. Plu.
13f: ο'ί γε μακρώ κρείττους εαυτών λαμβάνοντες ού των γυναικών άνδρες,
τών δε προικών δούλοι λανθάνουσι γιγνόμενοι (men who marry women very
much superior to themselves are not so truly husbands to their wives, as they are
unawares made slaves to their dowries'). But, of course, a husband was also al-
lowed to divorce his wife on grounds of negligence, etc. For further discussion
of the social, legal, and economic parameters that defined women’s position
in Athens (and beyond, throughout antiquity), see e. g. Thompson 1972; Dover
(1974) 95-98, 209-213; Pomeroy (1975) 57-148; Reinsberg 1989; Schaps 1979;
Gould 1980; Keuls (1985) 98-128; Winkler 1990; Cohen (1991) 70-170; Hunter
(1994) 9-42; Blundell 1995; Brule 2003.
On the other hand, a hetaira needs to secure!ensure/buy (ώνητέος 1. 4) with
her behaviour every minute of her stay with her man, since her relationship
is not legally sanctioned (though see Sealey 1984 for exceptions). As a result,
a hetaira could often prove more loving and caring than a wife; cf. Keuls
(1985) 267-273. Unlike a wedded wife, who can afford to be contemptuous
on account of her largely invariable status, a hetaira is perfectly conscient of
the fact that her status is not fixed (far from it), and that in order to prolong
this relationship and avoid being sent away (προς άλλον άπιτέον, 1. 5), she
must constantly be thoughtful and considerate, loving and affectionate, and
continually try her best to please her man. Hence, a man who cohabits with a
hetaira is to be considered more privileged than a husband; this (paradoxical)
conclusion is exactly the point that the speaker so vigorously introduces with
his initial tour de force (είτ’ ού, 1. 1). It is probable that the speaker refers to
a case where a man is in a permanent relation with a hetaira and possibly
(though not necessarily) cohabits with her, just as he would do with a wedded
wife. This pattern was not unusual in real life; Antiphanes fr. 210 also refers to
such a case of cohabitation of a man with a hetaira. Cf. the case of Menander’s