24

Άμφις (Amphis)

Sarnia, where Demeas sends away the hetaira Chrysis (with whom she cohab-
its) on grounds of alleged unfaithfulness, 11. 369-398 (this scene is depicted
on a fourth-century AD mosaic from the “House of Menander” in Lesbos; see
Charitonides-Kahil-Ginouves 1970: 38-41, with pl. 4); esp. 1. 385: έτέρα γάρ
αγαπήσει τα παρ’ έμοί (another woman will love what I have to offer). See also
Nikeratos’ words in 11. 508-509: παλλακήν δ’ αν αύριον/πρώτος άνθρώπ[ω]
ν έπώλουν (I’d be the first one to sell off the concubine the next morning).
Of course, there was a plethora of terms used to describe the various
categories and statuses of hetairai: e. g. πόρνη (whore), παλλακή/παλλακίς
(concubine), εταίρα (hetaira/courtesan), μεγαλόμισθος εταίρα (high-priced he-
taira), etc.; cf. [D.] 59.122 (with Miner 2003). Yet, the use of the term εταίρα in
the present fragment is not meant to pinpoint any particular group of hetairai,
but rather indicate the essential differentiation between wives and all the rest
of (sexually available) women. For further analysis of (various aspects of) the
role of hetairai in Greek society (and Greek Comedy), see - from among the
abundance of relevant treatises and studies - Hauschild 1933; Keuls (1985) esp.
153-186; Konstan 1987; Nesselrath (1990) 318-324; Davidson 1993 and (1997)
73-77; Kurke 1997; Faraone & McClure 2006; Henry 1985 and 2006; Auhagen
2009; Glazebrook & Henry 2011.
The concept that hetairai can be more affectionate than wives recurs in
Philetaer. frr. 5 and 8. This preference towards hetairai (to the detriment of
wives) originates from a combination of two comic trends: (i) praising and
defending hetairai (limited to Middle and New Comedy); e. g. Antiph. fr. 210,
Ephipp. fr. 6, Eub. fr. 41, Theophil. fr. 12; and (ii) castigating wedded wives
(present throughout all comic eras); e. g. Ar. Pax 979-986, Id. Ph. 476-489,
Aristopho fr. 6, Eub. fr. 115, Men. frr. 119 and 236, etc. The latter trend consti-
tutes the comic version of a widely established misogynistic pattern within the
Greek literary tradition. A pronounced trend against women manifests itself
as early as Hesiod; e. g. Ph. 570-613, Op. 54-105. Semonides’ caustic poem on
women (fr. 7 West) is another major example of this attitude, cf. esp. 11. 96-97:
Ζεύς γάρ μέγιστον τοΰτ’ έποίησεν κακόν, /γυναίκας (Zeus created the ultimate
evil, women). See Gerber (1997) 72-78; Campbell (21982) 187-191; Cantarella
(1987) passim; Osborne (2001) 47-64. This pattern is also present in tragedy;
e. g. E. Hipp. 616-668 (see Barrett 1978 ad loc.). For the reverse position see E.
Med. 410-430; cf. Pomeroy (1975) 103-112.
But, contrary to Amphis’ present fragment, hetairai are normally greedy
and their affection is for hire; and this is exactly how they are stereotypically
portrayed elsewhere in Comedy (apart from the few cases of praise record-
ed above); e. g. Amphis fr. 23, Alex. fr. 103, Anaxil. fr. 22, Theophil. fr. 11,
Timocl. fr. 25, etc. This kind of reversal of normal perspectives is part of