The Good, the Bad, and the Grouch A Comparison of Characterization in Menander and Ancient Philosophers By Matthew W. McDonald
ἁλωτα γίνετ ἐπιμελείᾳ καὶ πόνῳ ἅπαντ All is attainable through care and work -Sostratos, Dyskolos 862-3 Thanks to my father and mother, Dr. William Owens, Dr. Ruth Palmer, Dean Webster, Cary Frith, and all the faculty and staff members of the Department of Classics and World Religions and of the Honors Tutorial College ii
Table of Contents: Forward: My History with the Texts iv Chapter 1: Introduction The Background of Menander 1 The Study of Characterization 7 Characterization in Philosophy 16 Chapter 2: Character through Solitude and Friendship: An Analysis of the Dyskolos The Dyskolos in History and Scholarship 30 The Characters of Knemon, Kallippides, Sostratos, and Gorgias 40 Chapter 3: Character through Father and Son: An Analysis of the Samia The Samia in History and Scholarship 61 The Characters of Moschion and Demeas 69 Chapter 4: Conclusion 100 Bibliography 106 iii
Forward: My History with the Texts I was first introduced to Menander in the tenth grade, when I played Sostratos in my school s production of the Dyskolos. It is difficult to explain why exactly I became so fond of that play, I think most of my classmates found it boring; it was by no means gut-bustingly hilarious, nor was the plot particularly interesting. Yet, the characters had a certain undeniable charm; the lover was endearingly naïve; the country-boy was unexpectedly profound; the slaves were deviously clever; and the titular grumpy old man embodied the sympathetic villain. The essence of the play was in these characters. It was also while in high school that I was introduced to Plato and Aristotle. While I might not have always agreed with their discussions of ethics and virtues, I was fascinated by their arguments and the idea that these subjective topics could be explored in a logical and precise manner. One thing that I particularly found interesting was the emphasis they had on behavior and emotions in relation to morality; character also was the essence of their topics. iv
Chapter 1: Introduction The Background of Menander Menander enjoyed a successful career. Not only did he produce a significant number of works during his thirty year career, having written over an estimated one hundred plays, but he received at least eight victories at dramatic festivals. 1 Menander was not only a prolific exponent of [New Comedy] but he was also, according to ancient authors its star. 2 In addition to being popular during his own time, his plays were adapted for Roman audiences by playwrights like Plautus and Terence. 3 While the mere fact that Menander was able to write places him among the elite minority, his plays were performed at public festivals before an audience of the broad Athenian populace, consisting of men from various social classes and possibly women and slaves. 4 Unlike his dramatic predecessors, however, Menander was not limited to Athenian audiences. His plays were not performed only once at a festival, but went on tour in Greek and Hellenistic city-states. 5 This new professionalism 1 Sebastiana Nervegna, Menander in Antiquity, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 12-3 2 Susan Lape, Reproducing Athens, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), 9 3 Ibid. 4 Eric Csapo, Performing Comedy in the Fifth through Early Third Centuries, in The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, ed. Michael Fontaine and Adele C. Scafuro, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 53 5 Michael J. Walton and Peter D. Arnott, Menander and the Making of Comedy, (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1996), 34 1
enlarged the scope of the theatre and brought it to wider audiences. 6 Menander was the star of Greek theater when everybody was watching. Early in the modern era, Menander was not particularly esteemed in comparison to other classical authors. It was Euripides who fought this death struggle of tragedy; the later art is known as the New Attic Comedy. In it the degenerate form of tragedy lived on as a monument of the most painful and violent death of tragedy proper, wrote Friedrich Nietzsche in The Birth of Tragedy. 7 When only fragments of Menander remained, scholars were quick to dismiss it as trivial literature. In comparison to the Old Comedy of Aristophanes, which was known for its quick-wit, inventive language, and controversial political commentary, scholars viewed New Comedy as a degraded genre. The jokes are subtler, the language is milder, and the topics cover mundane elements of domestic life, rather than contemporary events. 8 New Comedy may in certain respects be described as the Old tamed down, but in products of genius, tameness is not generally considered a merit, wrote A.W. Schlegel in Lectures on Dramatic Literature and Art. 9 Until the 1950 s, the works of Menander were known through fragments of lines, quotes from ancient sources, and Roman adaptations. However, after more substantial remnants of his plays were found, critical opinion changed. A more comprehensive assessment of these plays shows that they often involve the same story 6 Walton and Arnott, Menander and the Making of Comedy, 35 7 Quoted by Sander M. Goldberg, The Making of Menander s Comedy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980), v 8 Walton and Arnott, Menander and the Making of Comedy, 2-7 9 Quoted by Goldberg, The Making of Menander s Comedy, v 2
of a young man who overcomes obstacles to get the girl he loves. 10 While this formulaic plot leaves little room for diversity in terms of plot and character, modern scholars have found value investigating how Menander either repeats specific dramatic conventions or how he varies them. Ian Ruffell makes a point at noting that Menander regularly adapts the stock characters of Middle Comedy into his own works, but individualizes them according to his own style. 11 Likewise, Netta Zagagi remarks that valuing artistic merit based on originality is a modern tendency and that this quality was never particularly valued by ancient audiences, on the contrary, variations on a given theme were far more likely to stimulate the imagination. 12 The reliance and repetition of tropes certainly was not lost on the ancient audience either. Plutarch preserves an ancient anecdote in which a friend asks Menander, The Dionysian Festival is near, have you written your comedy? To which Menander reportedly replied, By the gods, I have written the comedy; for the plot is in order; but I just need to fit the lines to it. (Plut. Mor. 347e). The use of stock characters, in particular, is recognized to be an important component of Menander s plays. 13 In essence a stock character is a dramatic stereotype; characters of the same age, class, and occupation, thus, find themselves in similar circumstances and behave in similar ways. The very presentation of stock characters suggests familiarity to the audience. It is well known from vase paintings 10 Lape, Reproducing Athens, 9-10 11 Ian Ruffell, Character types, in The Cambridge Companion to Greek Comedy, ed. Martin Revermann, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 153 12 Netta Zagagi, The Comedy of Menander, (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1995), 15 13 R.L. Hunter, The New Comedy of Greece & Rome, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 59 3
and the writings of Julius Pollux that actors wore masks while performing Greek comedy. Each mask was designed to be used with a specific type of character. So while each character looked unique within the context of the play, he would resemble all other characters of the same stock type. 14 Stock characters would also be discernable by the way they spoke; for instance, the cook calls himself the cuisinier and makes puns about chopping. 15 Stock characters are central in the discussion of repetition and variation of dramatic conventions, because the presence of a stock character anticipates certain dramatic expectations, which the playwright can either follow or alter. The scholarship about stock types in Menander enhances the discussion of the author s characterization in terms of dramatic theory, but keeps the conversation entirely within the context of his plays. Several scholars have expanded this discussion through reference to Aristotle s works on ethics and rhetoric. David Konstan has discussed how Glykera s pardon of Polemon fails to satisfy Aristotle s definition of forgiveness. As Konstan argues, Polemon s apology to Glykera does not address his moral flaw nor does he demonstrate a change in character. In turn, Glykera does not return to Polemon because of this apology. Rather, the reconciliation of the couple is due to the revelation that Glykera, who had been serving as a courtesan, is actually a citizen. Glykera the courtesan, was not under the legal and social restrictions that bound citizen women; Glykera, the citizen woman, has no 14 Csapo, Performing Comedy, 60 15 E.W. Handley, The Conventions of the Comic Stage and Their Exploitation by Menander, in Oxford Readings in Menander, Plautus, and Terence, ed. Erich Segal, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 30 4
choice but to accept Polemon. Given her new social status she would be rejected by society for having had extramarital affairs. Konstan argues that this resolution is unsatisfactory from an Aristotelian point of view and suggests Menander s indifference to repairing the relationship of the two characters in a manner pertinent to their disagreement. 16 Susan Lape similarly remarks that Polemon s apology to Glykera is not a proper apology in the Aristotelian sense. She adds, however, that, the quasi- Aristotelian characterization of his action serves the dramatic purpose of allowing him to escape the full, opprobrious connotations of his behavior. 17 She concludes that the presentation of Polemon s misdeed as a mistake covers for Glykera s lack of a formal pardon. 18 R.L. Hunter notes ethical situations in Menander that reflect Aristotle s ethical thinking. In the Perikeiromene, Menander presents the Aristotelian quandary of where responsibility lies in an action in the case of an action done in ignorance. Hunter notes that this question about voluntary and involuntary errors is a theme to which both Aristotle and Menander often turn. He further notes an additional connection between Aristotle and Menander through Terence s Adelphoe, a Roman adaptation of Menander: Here we find many themes in common between Aristotle and Menander: the respective roles of shame and fear in education, whether young men should be given their head or not, the rejection of unbending dogmatism and the advocacy of a 16 David Konstan, Between Courtesan and Wife, Phoenix 41, no. 4 (1987): 133 17 Lape, Reproducing Athens, 179 18 Lape, Reproducing Athens, 179-80 5
flexible and open approach to human relationships. 19 Hunter asserts that it is easy to see how the Aristotelian notion that a virtue is the adherence to the mean between two extremes come into effect in this play. He suggests that it might be helpful to analyze Menander s plays in Aristotelian terms. He concludes that Peripatetic ethics and New Comedy both developed around the same time and they both are concerned with how man functions in society. He urges that if one is reminiscent of the other it does not necessary mean that they are dependent upon each other, but rather this similarity confirms the reality of the social and moral patterns which both assume. 20 In this way, Hunter asserts that the shared themes and presentations of morality between Menander and Aristotle reflect the contemporary social view of ethics. 21 Modern scholars were not the first to draw a connection between Menander and philosophy. Plutarch, in his Comparison of Aristophanes and Menander, writes and just as painters, when their eyes are tired, turn to the colors of the flowers and grass, so to philosophers and men of learning Menander is a rest from their concentrated and intense studies (Plut. Mor. 854c). Konstan observes that Plutarch here seems to have in mind Aristotle s assertion that good taste as a characteristic of comedy, reflects the virtue of temperance. 22 When Aristotle is brought into the reading of Menander, there is a tendency to focus the discussion on ethics and 19 Hunter, The New Comedy, 151 20 Ibid. 21 Hunter, The New Comedy, 150-1 22 David Konstan, Crossing Conceptual Worlds: Greek Comedy and Philosophy, in The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, ed. Michael Fontaine and Adele C. Scafuro, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 292 6
morality in the plays. In this regard, the comparison between characterization in Menander and Aristotle caters more to a discussion of philosophy than of theater. Thus previous discussion of Menander s characterization has either focused on characterization strictly within the tenure of dramatic conventions, or considered Menander in the context of the ethical philosophy of his day, but with a focus on the philosophy rather than the drama. I explore the area between these two discussions. My question then is how does characterization in Menander s plays compare to ideas about characterization in the works of ancient philosophers strictly as a literary device? The Study of Characterization Before I continue I want to elaborate on what I mean by characterization. The term itself is difficult to define because the purpose and function of character changes not only throughout different genres, but also over time. As such, modern dramaturgy often is more compelled to depict characters with a more rounded internal psychology than ancient drama, which is more concerned with exploring normative ethics. 23 Ian Ruffell asserts that such a stance draws heavily on Aristotelian ideas of êthos and reacts against psychoanalysis. 24 In this sense, it is useful to compare these two genres in terms of their characterization, because both approach character with similar objectives. 23 Ian Ruffell, Character types, 166 24 Ibid. 7
Ancient and modern scholars have distinguished two broad techniques of characterization: direct and indirect. 25 Koen De Temmerman distinguishes the two techniques: Whereas the former describe character explicitly through overt evaluation or the attribution of characteristics and epithets, the latter leave the characteristics themselves implicit and merely provide attributes from which they can (and should) be inferred. 26 De Temmerman, however, provides a caveat that direct characterization does not automatically exclude inference on the part of the reader, but rather social and cultural contexts must usually be considered. 27 Furthermore, it is necessary to acknowledge that there are various techniques within the category of indirect characterization itself. 28 The types of indirect characterization, because their general technique is based on implication, generally rely on cultural assumptions and associations. For example, one type of indirect characterization is established through comparison or paradigm. According to ancient writers comparison involves juxtaposition with objects and animals, while paradigm involves historical, mythical, or literary persons. Such a method of characterization was highly dependent upon the contemporary audience s ideas about the specific comparandum in use. 29 Another indirect technique is what De Temmerman calls metonymical characterization. According to ancient rhetorical theory metonymic characterization 25 Koen De Temmerman, Crafting Characters, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 29 26 Ibid. 27 De Temmerman, Crafting Characters, 30 28 Ibid. 29 De Temmerman, Crafting Characters, 34 8
relies upon six techniques: emotion, group membership, action, speech, appearance, and setting. Emotion, as a form of metonymical characterization, is distinct from êthos, permanent characteristics, and is classified as pathos, temporary feelings, which are more easily influenced than êthos. This distinction is important to note, because êthos is more an aspect of character than of characterization. Group association is subdivided into different categories: macro-social group (fatherland/city), micro-social group (birth/ social station/ parents/ wealth), and educated-intellectual peer group (upbringing/education). Like the metaphorical methods of characterization, these group associations depend upon contemporaneous biases and may imply moral evaluations. Actions as a means of characterization reflects the ethical theory that êthos is deductive from observable praxis. Speech also constructs character either through the representation of one character through the words of another or the speaker s depiction of himself. Physical appearance as an indication of character is related to the ancient study of physiognomy. Physical appearance has the potential to depict both the êthos and pathos of a character, depending on whether such an appearance suggests either a persistent or temporary personal quality. Lastly, setting can be important for characterization, although it is scarcely contemplated in ancient rhetorical theory, despite being considered one of the basic narrative components. Setting differs from the macro-social group associations in that a place is relevant to the latter as part of the character s essence, whence he comes, whereas the former considers a place in regards to the character s current location, where he is; place in terms of macro-social group association is stagnate for a character, but in terms of 9
setting place varies for a character relative to the current narrative situation. De Temmerman, however, additionally notes that setting has the ability to characterize through similarity, and as such functions as metaphorical characterization. Therefore, setting as a technique for characterization shares qualities of both metaphorical and metonymical characterization. 30 De Temmerman also acknowledges another more overt technique for characterization, name-giving and antonomasia. Name-giving practices characterization through the meaning of a character s name, while he defines antonomasia as the substitution of a proper name by a word or paraphrase. 31 Namegiving and antonomasia distinguish themselves as a characterization technique by being direct statements of character, which are made by a title, rather than explicit description of characteristics. 32 Menander practices all of these techniques in his creation of characters. In the Dyskolos and Samia there are examples, which demonstrate how Menander uses these methods of characterization. Name-giving is fairly common as a means of characterization in New Comedy, as specific names were frequently used for individual stock types. 33 These stock names typically denote that a character belongs to a certain social class and these designations are based on the roots of the name. 34 For instance, a Kallippides would 30 De Temmerman, Crafting Characters, 36-41 31 De Temmerman, Crafting Characters, 33 32 De Temmerman, Crafting Characters, 33-4 33 Ruffell, Character types, 148 34 Csapo, Performing Comedy, 60 10
be a rich man, because the ippides ending, which comes from the word ἵππος, meaning horse, implies that he belongs to the upper-class. The name Gorgias, from the word γεωργός, which means farmer, typically is ascribed to a rustic character. Likewise, often a young man will be named Moschion, coming from the word μοσχίον which means little calf, because of his youth and uncontrolled passions. 35 There are several ways that Menander uses direct characterization. One way is by explicit statement of character as the author, such as the case with the Dyskolos, where Menander tells the audience Knemon s character through the title. Direct characterization, however, can also be found within the context of the play either by characters proclaiming the characteristics of others, such as when Pan calls Knemon δύσκολος (7), or self-identification of character, such as when Knemon calls himself δύσκολος (747). Menander also provides examples of antonomasia, substitution of a proper name by a word or paraphrase, 36 like when Getas calls Knemon a gray-haired viper (ἔχις πολιὸς, 480). Metaphorical characterization is not too common in Menander, as might be expected considering New Comedy typically refrains from referencing specific people. 37 There are, however, still some instances in which Menander uses metaphorical characterization. Knemon compares the sacrificers at the shrine to man-eating beasts (ἀνδροφόνα θηρί, 481). There are also some instances in which 35 Ibid. 36 De Temmerman, Crafting Characters, 33 37 Walton and Arnott, Menander and the Making of Comedy, 3 11
Menander uses paradigm, like when Nikeratos compares Moschion to Thyestes, Oedipus, and Tereus (667-8J). Likewise, Menander practices the various methods of metonymical characterization. Emotion is regularly used by Menander as part of his characterization. For instance, Moschion is often shown to be afraid or Knemon is frequently portrayed as angry. Group association as a form of characterization comes in three forms: the macro-social group, the micro-social group, and the educated-intellectual group. The macro-social group, which relates to fatherland and city, can be seen in the title of the Samia and throughout the play when Chrysis is referred to as the Samian woman. The aspects from the micro-social group, which are noble birth, social station, parentage, and wealth, are frequently featured in both the Dyskolos and Samia. Some examples include Sostratos mentioning his father is Kallippides (773), Moschion mentioning his public offices and services (22-5J), Moschion being Demeas adopted son (518J), and Gorgias mentioning that he is poor (296). The educated-intellectual peer group, which consists of one s upbringing and education, is also mentioned by Moschion in the prologue (16J). According to ethical theory actions are an observable presentation of êthos. As it might be assumed, as a common element of drama, actions as a type of metonymical characterization occur often in Menander s plays, for instance when Knemon beats slaves (111 and 515) or when Moschion pretends to be a soldier (863J). 12
Speech also is a frequent type of characterization in Menander, as would be expected in drama. Relevant examples include when Knemon curses (108), when he says perhaps (713, 730, and 746), or when Demeas refers to himself in the second person (522J). Physical appearance as a form of characterization is a little harder to discern from a text, but it was definitely an important aspect of the dramatic presentation of Menander s plays. The use of masks was directly related to characterization and would have been a device for the audience to presume aspects of character. 38 The use of props would also contribute to characterization through appearance. The last type of characterization is setting. Menander practices both metonymical and metaphorical characterization by setting. For instance, the rural location of the Dyskolos plays a metonymical role in the characterization of Knemon (129-30), but also the description of the land as being difficult and barren (3-4) characterizes Knemon through metaphor. 39 As a genre New Comedy relied on stock types, and so they play an essentially relevant role in understanding characterization in Menander. 40 E.W. Handley distinguishes three types of conventions which contribute to the establishment of stock types: language (vocabulary, phrasing, meter), theatrical performance (masks, costumes, props), and representation of real life (details of characters lives, locations, time-settings). 41 These conventions are among the various types of dramatic 38 Ruffell, Character Types, 150 39 Lape, Reproducing Athens, 134 40 Hunter, The New Comedy, 59 41 Handley, The Conventions of the Comic Stage, 28-9 13
techniques that De Temmerman acknowledges are part of metonymical characterization: respectively, speech, appearance, and group association and setting. The use of stock types provides some of the implicit elements of character, which are part of indirect characterization. Yet, while Menander uses stock characters, he does not strictly adhere to all their dramatic expectations, but relies on variation. As Ian Ruffell states, It seems that Menander largely plays against expectations not so much to reverse expectations as to enrich characterization both of the typical characters themselves and those with whom they are interacting. 42 Menander does not only emphasize these social attributes in his presentation of characters, but focuses heavily on their emotions as well. In fact, much of the individuality of his characters comes from their unique emotional traits. 43 Furthermore, while the basic structure of Menander s plots might be formulaic, his dramatic variation often relies upon differing behaviors and reactions among stock types. In Menandrean comedy it is not so much what happens that matters, but how. 44 It is in his variations from dramatic conventions, that Menander exhibits the other techniques of metonymical characterization: emotion and action. My intention is to analyze how Menander characterizes six characters in the Dyskolos and Samia, four from the former play and two from the latter; that is, how he demonstrates the behaviors of his characters are affected by their social traits and emotions. I will then compare Menander s style of characterization to characterization 42 Ruffell, Character types, 153 43 A.W. Gomme and F.H. Sandbach, Menander: A Commentary, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973), 25 44 Handley, The Conventions of the Comic Stage, 41 14
as presented by ancient philosophers. The philosophers I will use for comparison are Plato, Aristotle, and Theophrastus. As a student, Menander studied at the Lyceum under Theophrastus, who was a student of Aristotle, who was a student of Plato. 45 Besides this historical connection, the works of these authors themselves lend to comparison. As noted, authors have associated Menander with the philosophy of Aristotle for over a thousand years. Theophrastus Characters provides a list of various stock types that seem dramatic in nature and presentation. Lastly, the dialogues of Plato are recognized for their dramatic qualities. 46 Menander is thus connected to these philosophers through biography and through an interest in human character. The method of my comparison will be through a systematic evaluation of character. I will identify key characteristics of the relevant characters from Menander s plays. These characteristics will include attributes relating to êthos, consistent emotional and behavioral temperaments, as well as accidental attributes, such as age and social class. I will demonstrate the various ways in which Menander portrays these characteristics, such as through actions, speech, or emotional displays. After demonstrating how Menander portrays these characteristics, I will observe whether these same characteristics are discussed by any of the three philosophers and compare how the philosophers presentation of character compares to Menander s. 45 T.B.L. Webster, Studies in Menander, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1960), 4 46 Richard Hunter, Plato and the Traditions of Ancient Literature, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 3 15
I want to emphasize that my thesis is strictly a comparison of characterization as it appears in the works of Menander and these philosophers and I am not asserting that Menander is using these philosophical texts as precedent for characterization. I intend to show that there are similarities in their styles of characterization, but also differences. In short, the goal of this thesis is to discuss characterization in Menander and to compare to ideas about characterization in the philosophers. Characterization in Philosophy Before I move onto characterization in Menander, it would be beneficial to develop an idea of characterization in the philosophers. The relevant discussions appear in Book VIII and the beginning of Book IX of Plato s Republic, Theophrastus Characters, and Books III and IV of Aristotle s Nicomachean Ethics and Book II of the Rhetoric. De Temmerman asserts that character typification is an important feature in ancient ethical philosophy and rhetoric as well as the ancient novel. He states that Aristotle, in his ethical works, offers the first systematic treatment of typified characters. 47 In the Nicomachean Ethics character is presented as being dependent upon a system of virtues and vices. In this sense, there is an obvious connection being made between character and morality, with certain types of character being presented as morally superior. Characterization in ethical philosophy is presented through 47 De Temmerman, Where Philosophy and Rhetoric Meet: Character Typification in the Greek Novel, in Philosophical Presences in the Ancient Novel, ed. J.R. Morgan and Meriel Jones, (Gronigen: Barkhuis; Gronigen University Library, 2007), 86 16
human emotions and behaviors, rather than socially based attributes. However, the ancient philosophers too noted the social dimension of character. In ancient rhetoric too, characterization was more a matter of conforming to (often morally significant) ready-made stock types than of psychological individuation. 48 De Temmerman supports the notion that stock types are directly related to characterization, but additionally notes that these stereotypes may be imbued with ethical or moral value. He comments that in Aristotle s Rhetoric characterization logically follows from an orator s need to address a certain character type. 49 Although the Rhetoric is not explicitly a work of ethical philosophy, characterization of this sort is still dependent upon morality. De Temmerman also notes the connection between morality and characterization based upon stock types in Theophrastus Characters. The Characters, while a work dealing with stock types, is greatly indebted to Aristotle s ethical works. 50 The exact purpose of Theophrastus work is debated among scholars. However, it is agreed that the Characters cannot have been intended as a full exploration of ethical philosophy, lacking, as it does, virtuous characters and any analysis of the connection between character and behavior. 51 The Characters seems to have been written as a rhetorical guide for students to identify and understand 48 De Temmerman, Where Philosophy and Rhetoric Meet, 87 49 Ibid. 50 De Temmerman, Where Philosophy and Rhetoric Meet, 86 51 Jeffrey Rusten, trans. and ed. Characters, by Theophrastus, in Theophrastus: Characters, Herodas: Mimes, Cercidas and the Choliambic Poets, ed. and trans. Jeffrey Rusten, et al. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), 19-20 17
character. 52 Theophrastus seems interested in how his characters interact with society and how they affect their fellow citizens. In the Ethics, Aristotle considers happiness and what it means to be happy. Since humans are distinct from other animals in rationality, the highest Good would be an action most in accordance with virtue, being the goodness of rationality. There are a few important premises on which he bases his argument. First, the soul has two parts: the rational and the irrational. The irrational soul has vegetative and appetitive aspects to it. The vegetative aspect, which is concerned with nourishment and growth, is purely instinctual and has no role in virtue. The appetitive aspect of soul, however, rules one s impulses and desires. The rational part of the soul, then is responsible for maintaining these impulses. Next, Aristotle distinguishes between intellectual and moral virtues; the former are virtues which can be learnt through instruction, but the latter virtues can only be learned through practice. He defines moral virtue as a settled disposition (ἓξις προαιρετική, 1107a) observant to the mean of two extremes relative to us, which would be determinable by any prudent man (φρόνιμος, 1107a). As he defines it, a moral virtue is a type of character; it is a habit (ἤθος, 1103a) in regards to actions and feelings. While all moral virtues are character types, the reverse is not true. Aristotle s definition of moral virtue as a mean between two extremes, implies that for every virtuous character, there are two additional unvirtuous characters. Aristotle provides one last stipulation before discussing the different virtues, that in 52 D.J. Furley, The Purpose of Theophrastus Characters. Symbolae Osloenses 30, no. 1 (1953): 60 18
order for an action to be judged in regards to virtue, it must be done by choice; it must be done voluntarily and willingly. In Books III and IV of the Ethics, Aristotle systematically demonstrates his definition by presenting different virtues and the qualities to which they are the means, along with the excessive and deficient characters that accompany each virtue. It is interesting to note that he provides certain scenarios in which these virtues apply. For instance, courage is a virtue that is concerned with fear and confidence. The deficiency of courage is considered cowardice, while the excess is recklessness. Therefore, as a virtue, courage is in the middle between these two extremes. Often a man can be courageous in battle. Aristotle, however, recognizes that bravery in battle is not necessarily true courage, because there are penalties for cowardice, and so often these acts of bravery are not done voluntarily. Likewise, some acts, done out of passion, resemble courage, like animals charging hunters or adulterers proceeding boldly. Yet such actions are done out of appetite and not for the sake of courage as its own pursuit, and so they cannot be called courage. Furthermore, anyone who faces danger bravely, but is unaware of the severity of the danger, cannot be said to have courage, because his ignorance disqualifies his bravery from being voluntary (1106b-9b). Aristotle describes temperance as being related to pleasure and pain; overindulgence is the excess, while the deficiency is rather uncommon. Aristotle sees licentiousness in adults and the naughtiness of children to be the primary examples of the excess in relation to temperance, whereas the virtue itself is a result of a disciplined participation in pleasures. Overindulgence is a more voluntary vice than 19
cowardice, because it is not rooted in a basic instinct for survival, but rather, by its nature, is participating in something beyond necessity. As for the rare instances of a deficiency of pleasure, a person with such quality is unable to find pleasure in things which he ought, though Aristotle has no designated term for such a person (1117b-9b). Aristotle considers courage and temperance to be the two major virtues, but also denotes several lesser virtues. These include virtues such as liberality, honesty, friendliness, and gentleness. He describes these lesser virtues and their associated behaviors and corresponding vices. Of these lesser virtues, friendliness and gentleness and their corresponding vices will be relevant in comparison with Menander. Aristotle concludes his survey of virtue with an analysis of the ultimate virtue, justice. Justice is defined as taking the appropriate course of action; by its nature it is the mean between two extremes, which is what qualified all the other virtues. In this way, the practice of virtue is also the practice of justice (1129a-30a). In the Ethics every character type falls onto a spectrum of morality, in which some characters are inherently virtuous and others are inherently defective. Character is revealed through deliberate choice. The only actions that reveal character are the ones that are purposely made by the person. This analysis appears to ignore social aspects of character. However, a normative social status has been assumed the male citizen. In his definition of moral virtue, Aristotle qualifies the statement that it is a mean by saying relative to us (πρὸς ἡμᾶς, 1107a). These virtues and vices describe generic character types, rather than individuals. 53 53 Susan Sauvé Meyer, Aristotle on Moral Responsibility (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1993), 30 20
In the Ethics Aristotle s analysis of characterization focuses on the internal foundation of character, rather than the resulting behavior. 54 He takes a different approach in Book II of the Rhetoric. His analysis there distinguishes two separate categories: emotions and social attributes, which Aristotle calls ages and fortunes (τὰς ἡλικίας καὶ τὰς τύχας, 1388b). He describes each emotion first with a short definition. Then he offers examples of circumstances that cause a person to experience such an emotion, followed by examples of the types of people who instigate that emotional state. For instance, he defines anger as desire for revenge, accompanied by pain, for a real or apparent undeserved slight, which affects the man himself or his loved ones (1378a). He then says that a person can become angry if he is denied something which he wants or needs, like a thirsty man being denied water. Furthermore, when a person is in need, he is easily angered when a person makes light of his suffering. Additionally, men can become angry when the event which pains them happens contrary to their expectations. These are the conditions under which a person feels angry (1379a). Aristotle also provides examples of people with whom a person is angry. Such people include those who mock the person or his loved ones, those who speak poorly of something which the person loves, those who treat the person poorly if they are inferior, and those who do not realize that they are hurting the person (1379a-1380a). This is the method he uses for characterization in regards to emotions and repeats for calmness, friendship, enmity, fear, confidence, shame, favor, pity, 54 De Temmerman, Where Philosophy and Rhetoric Meet, 87 21
indignation, envy, and jealousy. Although many of these emotions are similar to virtues and vices he describes in the Ethics, he is not presenting them as ethical philosophy, but rather is just presenting them as observations of their conditions and behaviors. Aristotle s analysis of the emotions of anger, friendship, fear, and shame will be relevant to the discussion of character in Menander. The next section of the Rhetoric is devoted to attributes dealing with age and fortune (1388b). Since these attributes are accidental qualities rather than consequential qualities, Aristotle does not focus on the conditions which cause these attributes, but rather focuses exclusively on the behaviors associated. Aristotle separates age into three distinct phases of life: youth, old age, and prime of life. He first describes young men and gives various examples of their personalities and behaviors. The young man has little control of his passions and appetites; his passions are easily triggered, but are not persistent. He is ambitious and eager and maintains unbroken optimism. He is an idealist and wants to do what he believes is noble, rather than what is realistic or in his best interest. In general, his mistakes are resultant of acting in excess (1389a-b). Meanwhile, the old man, in many regards, acts as the reverse of the young. He is rather pessimistic and lacks confidence and vigor. He often qualifies his speech with perhaps and maybe (ἴσως καὶ τάχα, 1389b). He is ill-tempered and grumpy and is weak in his emotions. He desires nothing more than that which is necessary and is extremely frugal with his money. He is overly found of himself and cares more for his own interests than nobility. His appetites are not easily evoked, but rather he is 22
moved by profit, which makes his character rather calculating. Lastly, he is prone to pity, on account of his feebleness and fragility (1389b-1390a). Aristotle does not give much detail about the man in his prime, but simply describes him as having qualities which are intermediate between the young and old men. He says that during this time a man possesses all the advantages of both youth and old age and deficiencies and excesses are replaced by moderation. He reasons that in his prime, man has the energy and optimism of youth, but the experience and expedience of old age (1390a-b). Aristotle divides fortune into three categories: birth, wealth, and power. He limits his discussion of fortune by only describing those with good fortune, so he ignores those born in families of no repute, with little wealth, and with little political influence. The man with good birth is characterized by being ambitious, desiring to add on to the reputation of his ancestors. He is also rather foolish and not necessarily noble, for he inherited his advantages, rather than earned them for himself (1390b). The wealthy man is often arrogant, on account of his wealth, for he considers wealth to be a great good, of which he has much. Additionally he indulges in luxury and is unaware of the fact that others lack his same advantages. He also believes himself worthy of power and authority, since he believes that wealth is what makes one fit to rule. Aristotle also notes that there is a difference in character between those who were born rich and those who came into wealth later in life, the latter being more prone to vices due to inexperience and lack of education (1391a). The last type man of fortune is the man with power. This man is more ambitious and virile than the rich 23
man and his endeavors are more serious and he does them with greater intensity. Likewise, if he commits a crime it will be one that is more severe (1391a-b). While the descriptions of the emotions are accompanied by a psychological evaluation of their origin, overall the discussion of character in the Rhetoric is directed by anecdotal illustrations. These illustrations, however, are akin to drama, because they imagine individuals acting on the basis of character. Theophrastus Characters provides another example of character presented through anecdote. The structure of the Characters is straightforward. Each chapter is about some specific personality and offers examples of the behaviors typical of a person with such a personality. Most of the chapters begin with a definition of the personality. However, as Jeff Rusten notes, these definitions come from other sources, such as Aristotle s Nicomachean Ethics and Eudemian Ethics, not from Theophrastus himself. 55 What he lacks in definitions and psychological explanations, he compensates for with vivid description of behavior. The result is that his characters in themselves are rather dramatic. Each description is composed of small scenes of action and conflict caused by the characters and it is not difficult to imagine them appearing within the context of a play. Of the Theophrastus thirty different characters, three are relevant to the characters in the Dyskolos and Samia: Αὐθαδεία ( grouchiness, character fifteen), Ἀπιστία ( mistrust, character eighteen), and Δειλία ( cowardice, character twenty-five). 55 Rusten, Characters, 53 24
Plato s analysis of character appears in Books VIII and IX of the Republic (543a-592b). There Plato uses characters as representations of different systems of governance, which in turn he relates to different types of souls. The discussion is schematized. There is a general sequence of events with a pattern to them. Plato begins with a type of constitution, reflected in a father and a son. Various influences and experiences specific to that particular constitution alter the son s personality. The son comes to represent a new system of government. For instance, the oligarch is miserly and illiberal. His son, denied his father s generosity, is neglected a proper education. The son comes into contact with the lower-classes of the city, whom Plato calls the drones. These drones urge the son to indulge in his desires and to spend his money carelessly. Thus the son develops the democratic soul, which has little control over his passions. This degradation of the soul begins with the aristocratic type followed by the timocratic, then the oligarchic, then the democratic until there is the son who represents tyranny, or total corruption. Of these constitutions, the oligarchic, democratic, and tyrannical have possible relevance for Menander. Of particular interest is Plato s emphasis on causation in the development of character. Each character undergoes three phases of character development: he inherits the traits of his father; he is influenced by society; he develops his own unique traits. There is an explicit schematization of the process, by which a character becomes such as he is. Plato extends his examination of the development of character, by exploring the psychological implications of the personality types. In Book IV, he had established that the soul consists of three parts: the logical, the emotional, and the 25
appetitive (436a-b). The appetitive part of the soul is broken down into two subcategories: necessary appetites and unnecessary appetites. In Plato s model, the logical part of the soul is the best, then the emotional, then the appetitive, with necessary appetites being better than unnecessary ones. Each variety of character is defined by which part of the soul the person values most. The relation between these characters and the different parts of the soul, which have different moral value, implies a hierarchy of character. In fact, it seems to be one of Plato s efforts to distinguish certain characters as being objectively superior to others, as are different constitutions. Certain elements of The Republic seem to lend themselves well to a theatrical interpretation. 56 The characters do not exist in a vacuum, but are presented within the context of their family and society. Furthermore, Plato provides a series of mini-plots in which his characters play roles. Although his characters represent anthropomorphized constitutions, Plato adds a dimension of realism that makes his characters seem believable by presenting them in the context of a story. For example, the man with the timocratic soul has some interest in the arts, but is not skilled in practicing them. He is severe towards slaves, but civil towards free men and reverent towards authority. He believes that military acumen should determine political power and considers physical and athletic prowess to be the more 56 Cf. Nikos G. Charalabopoulos, Platonic Drama and Its Ancient Reception (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 19, who argues that features of [Plato s] dialogues point to an underlying dialectics with dramatic poetry, exemplified by comment on and appropriation of dramatic techniques and conventions. 26
important than intellect. Also, as a child he would not care for materialism, but as he grows up he accumulates and hoards his wealth (549a-b). The formation of the oligarchic soul appears in a domestic vignette. The oligarchic man at first emulates the timocratic man, until he sees his father suffer some great misfortune and loss of his wealth, power, citizenship, or life. This catastrophic event reroutes the son s pursuit of power and honor to a strict pursuit of wealth. He no longer cares for any knowledge or art unless it can be used to help him profit. He becomes extremely frugal and neglects care for himself. Furthermore, due to his lack of education, the only restraint he has over his criminal desires comes from anxiety that someone would enact the same injustices upon him, but not from an understanding of morality. The result is that in the mind of the public he seems virtuous, but in actuality this appearance of decency is merely a façade. Lastly, his severe frugality will keeps him from spending money on public expenses or on acts of goodwill (554a-555a). Plato asserts that the transition from the oligarchic constitution to the democratic constitution would happen by way of a revolt among the lower-class, unhappy with the city being run by the wealthy citizens. The type of man whose soul corresponds with this system of government is most prominently distinct in his sense of liberty. Having been raised by the oligarchic father, and subsequently having been neglected in many of his wants and desires, the democratic man pursues all of his wishes, being urged by outside influences. However, he still retains some of the restraint inherited by his father, and so his most vile and unlawful impulses are kept in 27
check. These two parts of himself, unbridled desire and miserly restraint, wage a constant war within his soul and there is no consistency in his lifestyle. Day by day according to his whim, he fasts or gorges; gets drunk or keeps sober; zealously works or is lazy; studies philosophy or puts off learning altogether. Essentially he lives his life without any order and follows his inclinations, which sometimes might be good and other times bad (559d-561e). Plato s brand of characterization heavily emphasizes the influential factors, which is relevant to Menander s presentation of characters interacting with and impacting each other. Within the context of the mini-episodes describing the formation of the types of souls, two types of relationships are placed in the spotlight: young men and their fathers, young men and their peers. Plato seems to distinguish these relationships as especially formative of character. There is also some demographical and sociological information ascribed to certain characters. While the main characters he presents belong to the upper-class, he also describes under what conditions the working-class, paupers, and criminals arise. Plato investigates the origins of character more than the other philosophers. Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Plato investigate the nature of character in different ways. Overall the style of characterization in these works of philosophy represents a variety of different manners in which character is explored: emotions, social attributes, psychology, social interactions, etc., which allows for a full spectrum of character presentation. There is also an overall commonality among these philosophers in that all of the characters that they describe are citizen males. This is 28