28

Άμφις (Amphis)

Headlam (1922) 31-32 (on Herod. 1.37), Pomeroy (1975) 79-84, Kenis (1985)
98-128. For a critique of the traditional view about women’s seclusion see
Cohen (1991) 133-170. Cf. “Interpretation” above for further bibliography on
women.
Apart from the literal translation “to stay indoors”, the expression έν-
δον μένει may also be interpreted as a notion opposite to άπιτέον, i. e. “to
be present as a spouse”/“not to leave, not to dissolve the marriage”. In this
case, we have a behavioural antithesis (stay Ψ leave, presence Ψ absence) that
complements the antithesis between the wife (who stays in the house and in
the marriage with her husband) and the hetaira (who leaves the house and
her lover).
4a τρόποις The term τρόπος (deriving from the verb τρέπω: to turn,
direct towards something) is commonly used in plural form (τρόποι) to desig-
nate a person’s ways, habits, character, temper, Ar. Pax 935 έσόμεθ’ άλλήλοισιν
αμνοί τούς τρόπους (we’ll be like lambs in the way we treat one another), Eup.
fr. 117 άνήρ πολίτης πουλύπους ές τούς τρόπους (a citizen acting like an
octopus), Aristopho fr. 5.1 οίός είμι τούς τρόπους (what kind of person I am
in my ways), Eub. fr. 38 σφόδρ’ έστί τούς τρόπους Βοιώτιος (his behaviour is
thoroughly Boeotian), etc. In the present fragment the term τρόποι refers to
the hetaira’s complaisant manners and accommodating conduct towards her
man; cf. next note.
4b τοΐς τρόποις ώνητέος An unexpected reversal of (gender and sta-
tus) roles: it is not the man who needs to buy the hetaira (with money, that
is), but the hetaira who - metaphorically - must buy (ώνητέος) her man, with
her subtle manners and obliging behaviour. The idea that it is the hetairai, and
not their lovers, who need to fight to get a partner begins to look less para-
doxical when we take into account the stereotypical conception of hetairai as
rapacious creatures, notorious for their impeccable hunting skills; cf. Amphis
fr. 23 “Interpretation”.
4-5 ώνητέος ... άπιτέον As mentioned in the “Interpretation” section,
this fragment, in arguing a paradox, is reminiscent of epideictic oratory and
particularly of Gorgias. The verbal adjectives ώνητέος and άπιτέον - although,
admittedly, not forming a true homoioteleuton - catch the reader’s/listener’s
attention, for they are emphatically positioned at the end of the verse and are
heavily reminiscent of Gorgias’ similar usage of verbal adjectives; cf. Gorg.
Hel. 6: εί ούν τη Τύχη καί τώ θεω την αιτίαν άναθετέον, την Ελένην τής
δυσκλείας άπολυτέον, and 19: ούχ ώς αμάρτημα μεμπτέον άλλ’
ώς ατύχημα νομιστέον. Apart from the present fragment, Amphis uses
homoioteleuton - combined with antithesis in content - in fr. 23 (11. 2 and 5)
and fr. 33 (11. 5 and 7); cf. comm, ad loc. There also exist a few other passages