The Woman at the Window: Observations on the ‘Stele from the Harbour’ of Thasos

Journal of Hellenic Studies

Volumn 118, Issue , 1998, Pages 22-40

  Graham, A J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85019405426     PISSN: 00754269     EISSN: 20414099     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/632229     Document Type: Article

References (193)

1. La stèle du port. Fouilles du port 1 (Etudes Thasiennes 14, Paris 1992). In what follows I refer to this work by the author's name alone. For the circumstances of discovery, see 9–10.
2. Duchêne 15.
3. As Duchêne 30.
4. This is important, because, as Gauthier has remarked (Bull. Épig. [1993] 395
5. REG 106 [1993] 525–6), it is not possible for a reader to see the letters in the damaged parts on the published photographs.
6. As, e.g., the photography employed on the Segesta treaty (IG i3 11) by M.H. Chambers and his colleagues; see M.H. Chambers, R. Gallucci, P. Spanos, ‘Athens' alliance with Egesta’, ZPE 73 (1990) 38–63.
7. The objections expressed by A.S. Henry, ‘Through a laser beam darkly: space-age technology and the Egesta decree (IG i3 11)’, ZPE 91(1992) 137–46
8. ‘Pour encourager les autres: Athens and Egesta encore’, CQ 45 (1995) 237–40 do not seem cogent to me. Chambers has no difficulty in replying to them
9. see ‘The archon's name in the Athens-Egesta alliance’, ZPE 98 (1993) 171–4.
10. Duchêne 109–31.
11. Duchêne 119–20, no. 17.
12. Above n. 5. Duchêne's interpretation is accepted by S.G. Cole, ‘Civic cult and civic identity’, in M.H. Hansen (ed.), Sources for the Ancient Greek City-State (Copenhagen 1995) 292–325 at 311, but she warns (n.106) that ‘all conclusions here should be taken as provisional’.
13. R.D. Barnett, Catalogue of the Nimrud Ivories (London 1957) 147–51 and pl. IV.
14. As noted by I. Bloch, Die Prostitution (Berlin 1912) 37.
15. See H. Herter, ‘Die Soziologie der antiken Prostitution im Lichte des heidnischen und christlichen Schrifttums’, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 3 (1960) 70–111, at 87. Herter's thorough and well documented study is the best treatment of ancient prostitution that I have found. In particular, his inclusion of material from the Christian Fathers, who were very interested in prostitution, greatly enriches his documentation. In what follows I refer to Herter's paper by the author's name alone.
16. In line 797 all editors accept J. Kaye's emendation, $. See B.B. Rogers' good note ad loc. in his edition, The Thesmophoriazusae of Aristophanes (London 1904).
17. The emendation is still printed in A.H. Sommerstein's recent edition of the play, Thesmophoriazusae (Warminster 1994). The trouble with this emendation is that it requires, not only the easy correction of a faulty division, but also the assumption that the original word order has been transposed. And it is certainly possible to defend the MS text
18. see C. Austin, ‘Textual problems in Ar. Thesm.’, Dodone 16 (1987) 61–92, at 83, who notes that the third person singular of $ is perfectly acceptable in a context of $ (796) and $ (798). In line 799, on the other hand, the manuscript text, $, must be emended, because it is unmetrical.
19. For the text normally printed, see the apparatus in V. Coulon's Budé edition (Aristophane 4 [Paris 1928]).
20. Herter, 77–9.
21. The matter is proved for Aristophanes' own times, without the need for other evidence, by Ecclesiazusae 717–24, quoted below n. 19.
22. There is editorial disagreement on the text here. I follow R.G. Ussher, Aristophanes Ecclesiazusae (Oxford 1973) and borrow the translation in his commentary.
23. For the detailed allusions to practices of prostitutes here, see Ussher ad locc; for the general interpretation, J. Henderson, The Maculate Muse2 (New York & Oxford 1991) 103.
24. See Ecclesiazusae 717–24: $ (Praxagora) ‘Then I wish to put down completely the whores one and all. Bl. To what end? Pr. That at least is obvious. In order that these women may have the young men in their prime. The slaves must not dress up and snatch away the sexual pleasure of the free women, but sleep with slave men only, etc.’.
25. I follow here the suggestions of Ussher, Ecclesiazusae, commentary to 718–20).
26. See Ussher xxx-xxxii, with earlier bibliography.
27. ‘Dramaturgical problems in the Ecclesiazusae’, Greek Poetry and Life. Essays Presented to Gilbert Murray on his Seventieth Birthday (Oxford 1936) 257–76, at 261–6.
28. Some of these passages are briefly considered by W. Fauth, Aphrodite Parakyptusa. Abhand. Mainz. Akad. der geistes- and sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 1966, no. 6 (Wiesbaden 1967) 331–437, at 359–60, who concludes that ‘“das Hinauslehnen aus dem Fenster” zu einer hetärenhaften Praxis erotischer Anlockung gehörte’.
29. The text (but not the translation) is that of D.A. Campbell, Greek Lyric 4 (Loeb, Cambridge, Mass. & London 1992) 754.
30. The early Greek poets: some interpretations, HSCP 87 (1983) 1–29, at 29 and ‘Praxilla fr. 8 Page (= PMG 754)’
31. Hermes 115 (1987) 373–7.
32. ‘Note a lirici corali’, Eikasmos 3 (1992) 19–41, at 36–41.
33. For this vase, British Museum no. 95.10–27.2, see the excellent treatment by E. Csapo and M.C. Miller, ‘The “kottabos toast” and an inscribed red-figured cup’, Hesperia 60 (1991) 367–82, who give comprehensive references to earlier bibliography and also provide a very useful list of ‘Singers of lyric verse in Attic red figure’ at 381–2. Their explanations of the inscriptions on the vase, and the relationships of the inscriptions to the figures, are entirely convincing, and remove any doubts about their significance and context. On the Attic script and dialect of the Praxilla excerpt, see 369, 376.
34. W. Aly's different opinion (RE 22. s.v. ‘Praxilla’ 1764–1765)
35. was perverse and is rightly rejected by D.L. Page, Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxford 1962) ad no. 754, and by Cavallini n. 85.
36. The matter is well argued by Renehan (n.26, HSCP p.29), who also offers an ingenious and attractive explanation of how the change to the plural occurred.
37. Campbell was wrong, however, in his Loeb to attribute the reading $ to Renehan, since it is already in E. Fraenkel (n.21 above) 263.
38. Another line from early Greek poetry should be corrected on the basis of a graffito on an Attic vase by Duris from the same period, no. 173 in Diana Buitron-Oliver, Douris (Mainz 1995), where a symposiast says $. This has been recognized long since as the beginning of Theognis 939–42, so the reading in the book texts, $, should be corrected to $.
39. See F. Hauser in A. Furtwängler and K. Reichhold, Griechische Vasenmalerei 2 (Munich 1901) 231
40. followed by G.M.A. Richter, Attic Red-figured Vases: A Survey (New Haven 1958) 15 and 167 n. 25. Yet this correction seems to have escaped the editors of Theognis
41. see, e.g., M.L. West, Iambi et Elegi Graeci2 1 (Oxford 1989) 220.
42. (n.25) above. Cf. Renehan (n.26) Hermes pp. 374–5.
43. Cavallini (n.27) 38–39.
44. Renehan (n.26) misunderstands and mistranslates the passages he adduced to justify the sense ‘to appear’ (Hermes pp. 374–5).
45. W. Aly (n.29) 1765.
46. J.W. Halporn, ‘A note on Praxilla fr. 754 PMG’, Hermes 111 (1983) 499–500.
47. Renehan (n.26) Hermes pp. 375–6
48. Cavallini (n.27) 37–38.
49. Athen. Deipn. 15.694a (= T 2 in Campbell, Greek Lyric 4)
50. Schol. Aristophanes, Wasps 1239 (quoted in F 749 of Campbell).
51. Die Textgeschichte der griechischen Lyriker. Abhand. d. königlichen Gesellschaft d. Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Phil. Hist. Klasse 4 (1900–1901) no. 3 (Berlin 1901) 9 n.4.
52. See A.D. Trendall, Red Figured Vases of South Italy and Sicily (London 1989) 15–18.
53. See K. Schauenburg, ‘Frauen im Fenster’, Röm. Mitt. 79 (1972) 1–15 (hereinafter Schauenburg), at 10.
54. For the significance of veiling and women's sexuality, see D.L. Cairns, ‘Veiling, $ and a red-figure amphora by Phintias’, JHS 116 (1996) 152–8.
55. See Schauenburg 8–9.
56. Good examples of the more common form of the motif are shown on his plates 13.1 (= A.D. Trendall, The Red-figured Vases of Lucania, Campania and Sicily (Oxford 1967; hereinafter LCS) 586 no. 15, pl. 227.1–2) and 16.2 (= LCS 172 no.984).
57. For the head facing forward, see, e.g., Schauenburg, pl. 17.2
58. A.D. Trendall and A. Cambitoglou, The Red-figured vases of Apulia (Oxford 1978; hereinafter Apul.) 507 no. 116); cf. also the Attic sherd illustrated on his pl. 19.1.
59. As Schauenburg pl. 16.2.
60. As Schauenburg 14, who gives as examples his pl. 13.2 (= LCS 339 no.798, pl. 132.1–3), where the woman in the window can hardly have any connection with the two Nikai below, and 18.1
61. A.D. Trendall, Paestan Pottery: A Revision and Supplement [Pap. Brit. Sch. Rome 20, 1952] 1–53, at 7 no.78), where the woman in the window seems equally detached, in this case, from Dionysus, the actor and the female mask on an altar below.
62. A.D. Trendall, Phlyax vases2, BICS Suppl. 19 (1967) 36
63. illustrated in colour in Martin Robertson, Greek Painting (Geneva 1959) pl. opp. 160
64. Phlyax Vases2 no. 65
65. illustrated by Trendall, Paestan Pottery (Rome 1936) pl. IX c
66. Apul. 401 no. 31
67. Schauenburg 12 and pl. 24.2
68. Apul. 405 no. 47 and pl. 143.3 (reverse)
69. Schauenburg, ‘Zur Symbolik unteritalischen Rankenmotive’, Röm. Mitt. 64 (1957) 198–221 pl. 42.1 (face)
70. LCS 53 no. 268
71. Trendall, Frühitaliotische vasen (Leipzig 1938) pl. 7
72. idem, Vasi antichi dipinti del Vaticano (Citta del Vaticano 1953) pl. 1.d
73. LCS Third Supplement (BICS Suppl. 41, 1983) 282 no. 216b
74. Schauenburg 4, 14 and pl. 2
75. Apul. 607 no. 28 and pl. 233.4 (reverse)
76. Schauenburg, pl. 21.2 (face).
77. LCS 586 no. 15 and pl. 227.1–2
78. Schauenburg, pl. 13.1 (face)
79. Apul. 213 no. 161
80. Schauenburg, pl. 17.1 (face)
81. Apul. 507 no. 116
82. Schauenburg, pl. 17.2
83. cf. S. von Reden, Exchange in Ancient Greece (London 1995) pls. 2–8 and the discussion 195–202)
84. Trendall, PBSR 20 no. 157
85. much more fully described by E.M.W. Tillyard, The Hope Vases (Cambridge 1923) 145 no. 278
86. Schauenburg, pl. 18.2
87. LCS 167 no. 926
88. Trendall, Vasi antichi dipinti del Vaticano 14–15 with pl. III
89. Trendall, Phlyax Vases2 52 no. 80
90. well illustrated in L. Bernabo Brea and M. Cavalier, Meligunis-Lipara 2 (Palermo 1965) pls. 72 and 73.
91. Fauth (n.24) 351–2.
92. A. Caubet's brief discussion of the phenomenon, ‘Pygmalion et la statue d'ivoire’, Architecture et Poésie dans le monde grec. Hommages à Georges Roux (Paris 1989) 247–54, at 252–3, seems not to take account of Fauth's fundamental and detailed study.
93. Ovid, Met. 14.698–761 (note the name of the goddess, Veneris … Prospicientis, in lines 760–1), combined with Plut. Amatorius, Moralia 766 c-d (note $), may be taken to establish this.
94. A third source, Antoninus Liberalis, Metamorphoses 39, was dependent on Hermesianax, a writer of the third century BC, so the aetiological story common to the three accounts goes back at least to early Hellenistic times. These literary sources are fully and well discussed by Fauth 331–6.
95. W. Helck's objection in his review of Fauth (Gnomon 40 [1968] 217–18), that the actual Greek words ‘$ are not attested in our record, and so the existence of the deity is in doubt, seems captious, pedantic and unconvincing.
96. Athen. Deipn. 13.572 e-f, 573a.
97. Since Herter's documentation for windows in ancient prostitution (87 n. 325) is, for once, rather thin, and, apart from Aristophanes Eccles., confined to Latin sources, I add some references here: Lucian, Bis Accusants 31
98. Josephus et Asenelh, M. Philonenko (ed.) (Leiden 1968) 7.2
99. [Joannes Chrysostomus] In Genesim, Sermo 3 (Migne, Patrologia Graeca 56) 535 lines 44–5
100. Joannes Damascenus, Sacra Parallela (Migne, Patrologia Graeca 95) 1320 lines 23–5.
101. Asclepiades, AP 5.153
102. Libanius, Progymnasmata, Descriptiones, R. Foerster (ed.) (Leipzig 1915, vol.8) 30.1.1–2
103. [Joannes Chrysostomus] De turture (Migne, Patrologia Graeca 55) 601 lines 7–10.
104. Although he phrased it a little cryptically, it is clear that D.M. Lewis, in his review of Duchene, thought that the ban on women looking out of windows was concerned with prostitution; see CR 43 (1993) 402–3: ‘the worries about women looking out of windows will touch on wider considerations of public order’.
105. For this use of $ see LSJ s.v., 1.1, where Hdt.'s $’ $ (2.121 $) is cited.
106. Cf. Clement, Stromata 3 28.1 ($, ‘the prostitutes who stand in front of the brothel’)
107. Joannes Chrysostomus, de inani gloria (Jean Chrysostome, sur la vaine gloire etc., ed. A.-M. Malingrey [Paris 1972]) 30 lines 41–2 ($, ‘would stand … in front of the brothel’).
108. E.g. Polyb. 12.13.2 ($, ‘none of those from a brothel who make a living from their body’)
109. Clement, Paed. 3.21.2 $, ‘women stand in a brothel selling their own flesh for lust of pleasure’)
110. Clement, Paed. 3.11.74 ($, ‘where women spend the whole day adorned liked courtesans, as though they were sitting in a brothel’
111. text and translation from M. Schofield, The Stoic Idea of the City [Cambridge 1991] 115–16).
112. LSJ s.v. $, 2.
113. See the text and apparatus in the OCT, Vol. 2, ed. M.D. Macleod (1974).
114. See Macleod's preface, Vol. 2 p.x.
115. R. Kassel and C. Austin, PCG 3.2 p.39.
116. J.M. Edmonds' translation, ‘through window, upon roof (The Fragments of Attic Comedy 1 [Leiden 1957]) 577, is surely preferable to any ideas about $ meaning a hole in a roof; LSJ s.v; see also the commentary in Kassell and Austin, who mistakenly follow Edmonds in expecting $ rather than $.
117. Teubner text, I.C. Cunningham (ed.); see idem, Herodas Mimiambi (Oxford 1971) 214 and the list in Appendix 3, 209–10.
118. The translation is by A.D. Knox in W. Headlam, Herodas. The Mimes and Fragments (Cambridge 1922).
119. Cited by Henderson, The Maculate Muse2 85 and translated by him 39.
120. See Henderson 173 no. 317
121. and Ussher's comments on the phrase ‘$’ at Theophrastus, Char. 28.3
122. R.G. Ussher, The Characters of Theophrastus (London 1960) 241.
123. Bull. Épig. (1993)395.
124. See Herter 73–4.
125. The reading $ in line 26, however, was explicitly suggested on the basis of the word's presumed appearance in line 31; see Duchêne 27. It has no independent justification, and may be ignored here.
126. See Gauthier (n.67)
127. Duchêne 107–8.
128. See E. Schwyzer and A. Debrunner, Griechische Grammatik 2 (Munich 1959) 479–80.2, who call the last sense ‘Betreff.
129. The subject is well and comprehensively treated by D. Lewis, ‘Public property in the city’, in O. Murray and S. Price (eds.), The Greek City from Homer to Alexander (Oxford 1990) 245–63.
130. Lewis (n.73) 249–51. The sacred property of the gods was also in effect in the permanent possession of the state, but that was termed hiera
131. see Lewis (n.73) 259.
132. See Arist. Ath. Pol. 52.1 and 47.2
133. the beautiful poletai inscription of 367/6, SEG xii 100 (but see now M.K. Landon, ‘Poletai records’, The Athenian Agora 19 (Princeton 1991) 53–143, no. P5)
134. Lewis 247–8.
135. Translation of words in double inverted commas by G.T.W. Hooker, ‘The topography of the Frogs’, JHS 80 (1960) 112–17, at 115.
136. Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens (London 1971) 332–5 and fig. 379 on 291.
137. ‘The Lenaean theatre’, ZPE 46 (1986) 255–64, at 259–63.
138. ‘Neleion’, BSA 55 (1960) 60–6, at 65.
139. In ‘Pausanias at Athens II’, GRBS 4 (1963) 157–75, at 173
140. The Stones of Athens (Princeton 1978) 168, Wycherley accepted Travlos' new argument.
141. There is a long and learned note on the topography by D. Behrend, Attische Pachturkunden (Munich 1970) 35–36, n. 23, but he also seems to strive for greater precision than our evidence allows.
142. This seems preferable to Wycherley's view (n.80, BSA p. 62) that the problems of the sanctuary had been caused by the influx of refugees from the countryside
143. Thuc. 2.17.1. That would not have been a factor with the topography that he then preferred.
144. See J.E. Jones, L.H. Sackett and A.J. Graham, ‘The Dema House in Attica’, BSA 57 (1962) 75–114; see 100–1.
145. (n.80) BSA 61
146. followed in this by Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary, 232.
147. Cf Lewis (n.73) 250: ‘surely large enough to serve as a clear landmark, but there is absolutely no indication as to its use’.
148. A Commentary on the Hellenica of Xenophon (Oxford 1900) 299.
149. Much earlier B. Weiske wrote $ cui usui destinata fuerit, in coniectura positum est’ (Xenophontis … Scripta 4 [Leipzig 1801] ad loc).
150. This is the word that Herodotus uses at 7.197.2 to explain an unusual local term: $. The useful list of testimonia in S.G. Miller, The Prutaneion (Berkeley, Los Angeles & London 1978) 132–218
151. has been updated by M.H. Hansen and T. Fischer-Hansen, ‘Monumental political architecture in Archaic and Classical Greek poleis. Evidence and historical significance’, in D. Whitehead (ed.), From Political Architecture to Stephanus Byzantius (Historia Einzelschr. 87, Stuttgart 1994) 23–90.
152. I am happy to accept the general views about the date and nature of the Poroi expressed by S. Lauffer, ‘Das Bergbauprogramm in Xenophons Poroi’, Thorikos and the Laureion in Archaic and Classical Times, ed. H.F. Mussche, P. Spitaels, F. De Poerck-Goemaere, Miscellanea Graeca Fasc. 1 (Ghent 1975) 171–94, according to which Xenophon is offering his programme to Athens after her defeat in the Social War (357–355 BC), and its three main elements were peace, trade and the silver mines.
153. See A. Boeckh, Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener3 1 (Berlin 1886, reprinted Berlin 1967) 393–5. Along with other evidence, Boeckh used the passage Poroi 4.49 in his argument for the existence of this tax.
154. E.g. IG ii2 1588.6; for the text see now Athenian Agora 19, P38 line 28; SEG xii.100
155. Agora 19, P5, 54
156. SEG xxviii.129
157. Agora 19, P28, 25. In all these cases the furnaces serve as topographical markers.
158. See, e.g., H.F. Mussche and C. Conophagos, ‘Ore-washing establishments and furnaces at Megala Pevka and Demoliaki’, Thorikos 6 (1969; pub. Brussels 1973) 61–72.
159. Un commentaire historique des Poroi de Xenophon (Geneva & Paris 1976) 187.
160. Xenophontis … Scripta 6 (1804), note ad loc. (124).
161. ‘The Attic silver mines in the fourth entury BC’ BSA 48 (1953) 200–54
162. cf. Rhodes, Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia, 553
163. C.E. Conophagos, Le Laurium antique (Athens 1980) 111–12
164. R. Osborne, Demos: the Discovery of Classical Attika (Cambridge 1985) 115–16
165. M. Faraguna, Atene nell ‘età di Alessandro, Atti Accad. Line, classe scienze morale, storiche e philologiche, Memorie ser. 9 Vol. 2.2 (Rome 1992) 294–5.
166. See M.I. Finley, Land and Credit in Ancient Athens, 500–200 BC. The Horos-Inscriptions (New Brunswick, N.J. 1951; new edition by P. Millett, New Brunswick & Oxford 1985) nos. 88–92.
167. Staatshaushaltung3 1 405. On taxation in the mining district
168. see Faraguna 203 n. 1.
169. See Athenian Agora 19, no. P26, lines 474–5: $.
170. ‘The leases of the Laureion mines’, Hesperia 19 (1950) 189–312, at 203 n. 44.
171. Cf. Gauthier's commentary ad loc, 106–7.
172. The fact that ‘public house’ does not mean brothel in English provides material for jokes, e.g.: — ‘Vous n'avez pas dit qu'en Grande Bretagne dans tous les hôtels et toutes les maisons publiques … — — c'est bien différent’; F. de Grand'Combe, Tu viens en France (Paris 1951) 69.
173. See Herter 74–5.
174. Boeckh, Staatshaushaltung3 1 404–5.
175. Oeuvres complètes d'Hippocrate, Vol. 8 (Paris 1853) 611.
176. As Gauthier observed, Bull. Épig. (1993) 395.
177. For attempts to define this area more closely, see Duchêne 101–6
178. J.-Y. Marc, ‘L'agora de Thasos’, in L'espace grec (Paris 1996) 105–13.
179. The incompleteness of the text here makes the precise sense of $ uncertain; see Duchêne 45.
180. Duchêne 57 with n. 90.
181. LSJ s.v. $, B.4.
182. see J.-F. Bara, Vettius Valens d'Antioche, Anthologie Livre I (Leiden 1989) 81.
183. See Herter 87.
184. Ditt. OGIS 483
185. but see the republication by G. Klaffenbach, ‘Die Astynomeninschrift von Pergamon’, Abhand. Akad. Berlin, No. 6, 1954.
186. Duchêne 45–7, 55.
187. Duchêne 44–6, 55.
188. See Rhodes' commentary ad loc, 574. The abundant evidence that the female musicians also served as prostitutes is given by Herter 97 n. 509.
189. Theophrastus, Char. 20.10, is explicit.
190. Athenaeus, Deipn. 13.569 d-f.
191. J.E. Sandys, Aristotle's Constitution of Athens2 (London 1912) 196–7.
192. See Rhodes' commentary ad loc, 575.
193. Duchêne's interpretation was briefly discussed by Gauthier, Bull. Épig. (1993) 395 (p. 526).