Chapter I: Preface: To First Edition (1)

The degree to which Friendship, in the early history of the world, has been recognised as an institution, and the dignity ascribed to it, are things hardly realized to-day. Yet a very slight examination of the subject shows the important part it has played. In making the following collection I have been much struck by the remarkable manner in which the customs of various races and times illustrate each other, and the way in which they point to a solid and enduring body of human sentiment on the subject. By arranging the extracts in a kind of rough chronological and evolutionary order from those dealing with primitive races onwards, the continuity of these customs comes out all the more clearly, as well as their slow modification in course of time. But it must be confessed that the present collection is only incomplete, and a small contribution, at best, towards a large subject.

In the matter of quotation and translation, my best thanks are due to various authors and holders of literary copyrights for their assistance and authority; and especially to the Master and Fellows of Balliol College for permission to quote from the late Professor Jowett’s translation of Plato’s dialogues; to Messrs. George Bell & Sons for leave to make use of the Bohn series; to Messrs. A. & C. Black for leave of quotation from the late J. Addington Symonds’ _Studies of the Greek Poets_; and to Messrs. Longmans, Green & Co., for sanction of extracts from the Rev. W. H. Hutchings’ translation of the _Confessions of St. Augustine_. In cases where no reference is given the translations are by the Editor.

E. C.

_March, 1902._

CONTENTS

_page_

Preface v.

I. Friendship-customs in the Pagan and Early World 1

II. The place of Friendship in Greek Life and Thought 39

III. Poetry of Friendship among the Greeks and Romans 65

IV. Friendship in Early Christian and Mediæval Times 95

V. The Renaissance and Modern Times 121

Additions [1906] 183

Index 225

I.

_Friendship-Customs in the Pagan & Early World_

_Friendship-Customs in the Pagan & Early World_

Friendship-Customs, of a very marked and definite character, have apparently prevailed among a great many primitive peoples; but the information that we have about them is seldom thoroughly satisfactory. Travellers have been content to note external ceremonies, like the exchange of names between comrades, or the mutual tasting of each other’s blood, but—either from want of perception or want of opportunity—have not been able to tell us anything about the inner meaning of these formalities, or the sentiments which may have inspired them. Still, we have material enough to indicate that comrade-attachment has been recognised as an important institution, and held in high esteem, among quite savage tribes; and some of the following quotations will show this. When we come to the higher culture of the Greek age the material fortunately is abundant—not only for the customs, but (in Greek philosophy and poetry) for the inner sentiments which inspired these customs. Consequently it will be found that the major part of this and the following two chapters deals with matter from Greek sources. The later chapters carry on the subject in loosely historical sequence through the Christian centuries down to modern times.

[Sidenote: _Primitive Ceremony_]

The Balonda are an African tribe inhabiting Londa land, among the Southern tributaries of the Congo River. They were visited by Livingstone, and the following account of their customs is derived from him:—

“The Balonda have a most remarkable custom of cementing
friendship. When two men agree to be special friends they go
through a singular ceremony. The men sit opposite each other
holding hands, and by the side of each is a vessel of beer.
Slight cuts are then made on the clasped hands, on the pit of the
stomach, on the right cheek, and on the forehead. The point of a
grass-blade is pressed against each of these cuts, so as to take
up a little of the blood, and each man washes the grass-blade
in his own beer vessel. The vessels are then exchanged and the
contents drunk, so that each imbibes the blood of the other.
The two are thenceforth considered as blood-relations, and are
bound to assist each other in every possible manner. While the
beer is being drunk, the friends of each of the men beat on the
ground with clubs, and bawl out certain sentences as ratification
of the treaty. It is thought correct for all the friends of
each party to the contract to drink a little of the beer. The
ceremony is called ‘Kasendi.’ After it has been completed, gifts
are exchanged, and both parties always give their most precious
possessions.” _Natural History of Man. Rev. J. G. Wood. Vol:
Africa_, p. 419.

[Sidenote: _Exchange of Names_]

Among the Manganjas and other tribes of the Zambesi region, Livingstone found the custom of changing names prevalent.

“Sininyane (a headman) had exchanged names with a Zulu at
Shupanga, and on being called the next morning made no answer;
to a second and third summons he paid no attention; but at
length one of his men replied, ‘He is not Sininyane now, he is
Moshoshoma;’ and to this name he answered promptly. The custom of
exchanging names with men of other tribes is not uncommon; and
the exchangers regard themselves as close comrades, owing special
duties to each other ever after. Should one by chance visit his
comrade’s town, he expects to receive food, lodging, and other
friendly offices from him.” _Narrative of an Expedition to the
Zambesi. By David and Charles Livingstone. Murray_, 1865, p. 148.

[Sidenote: _David and Jonathan_]

In the story of David and Jonathan, which follows, we have an example, from much the same stage of primitive tribal life, of a compact between two friends—one the son of the chief, the other a shepherd youth—only in this case, in the song of David (“I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan, thy love to me was wonderful”) we are fortunate in having the inner feeling preserved for us. It should be noted that Jonathan gives to David his “most precious possessions.”

“And when Saul saw David go forth against the Philistine
(Goliath), he said unto Abner, the captain of the host, ‘Abner,
whose son is this youth?’ And Abner said, ‘As thy soul liveth, O
King, I cannot tell.’ And the King said, ‘Inquire thou whose son
the stripling is.’ And as David returned from the slaughter of
the Philistine, Abner took him and brought him before Saul, with
the head of the Philistine in his hand. And Saul said to him,
‘Whose son art thou, young man?’ And David answered, ‘The son of
thy servant Jesse the Bethlehemite.’

“And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto
Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David,
and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that
day, and would let him go no more home to his father’s house.
Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as
his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was
upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his
sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.” _1 Sam._ ch. xvii. 55.

[Sidenote: _Flower Friends_]

With regard to the exchange of names, a slightly different custom prevails among the Bengali coolies. Two youths, or two girls, will exchange two flowers (of the same kind) with each other, in token of perpetual alliance. After that, one speaks of the other as “my flower,” but never alludes to the other by _name_ again—only by some roundabout phrase.

[Sidenote: _Polynesia Tahiti_]

Herman Melville, who voyaged among the Pacific Islands in 1841-1845, gives some interesting and reliable accounts of Polynesian customs of that period. He says:—

“The really curious way in which all the Polynesians are in the
habit of making bosom friends at the shortest possible notice is
deserving of remark. Although, among a people like the Tahitians,
vitiated as they are by sophisticating influences, this custom
has in most cases degenerated into a mere mercenary relation,
it nevertheless had its origin in a fine, and in some instances
heroic, sentiment formerly entertained by their fathers.

“In the annals of the island (Tahiti) are examples of extravagant
friendships, unsurpassed by the story of Damon and Pythias, in
truth, much more wonderful; for notwithstanding the devotion—even
of life in some cases—to which they led, they were frequently
entertained at first sight for some stranger from another
island.” _Omoo_, _Herman Melville_, ch. 39, p. 154.

“Though little inclined to jealousy in (ordinary) love-matters,
the Tahitian will hear of no rivals in his friendship.” _Ibid_,
ch. 40.

[Sidenote: _Marquesas Islands_]

Melville spent some months on one of the Marquesas Islands, in a valley occupied by a tribe called Typees; one day there turned up a stranger belonging to a hostile tribe who occupied another part of the island:—

“The stranger could not have been more than twenty-five years of
age, and was a little above the ordinary height; had he been a
single hair’s breadth taller, the matchless symmetry of his form
would have been destroyed. His unclad limbs were beautifully
formed; whilst the elegant outline of his figure, together with
his beardless cheeks, might have entitled him to the distinction
of standing for the statue of the Polynesian Apollo; and indeed
the oval of his countenance and the regularity of every feature
reminded me of an antique bust. But the marble repose of art
was supplied by a warmth and liveliness of expression only to
be seen in the South Sea Islander under the most favourable
developments of nature.... When I expressed my surprise (at his
venturing among the Typees) he looked at me for a moment as
if enjoying my perplexity, and then with his strange vivacity
exclaimed—‘Ah! me taboo—me go Nukuheva—me go Tior—me go Typee—me
go everywhere—nobody harm me, me taboo.’

“This explanation would have been altogether unintelligible to
me, had it not recalled to my mind something I had previously
heard concerning a singular custom among these islanders.
Though the country is possessed by various tribes, whose mutual
hostilities almost wholly preclude any intercourse between
them; yet there are instances where a person having ratified
friendly relations with some individual belonging to the valley,
whose inmates are at war with his own, may under particular
restrictions venture with impunity into the country of his
friend, where under other circumstances he would have been
treated as an enemy. In this light are personal friendships
regarded among them, and the individual so protected is said to
be ‘taboo,’ and his person to a certain extent is held as sacred.
Thus the stranger informed me he had access to all the valleys in
the island.” _Typee_, _Herman Melville_, ch. xviii.

In almost all primitive nations, warfare has given rise to institutions of military comradeship—including, for instance, institutions of instruction for young warriors, of personal devotion to their leaders, or of personal attachment to each other. In Greece these customs were specially defined, as later quotations will show.

[Sidenote: _Tacitus on Military Comradeship_]

Tacitus, speaking of the arrangement among the Germans by which each military chief was surrounded by younger companions in arms, says:—

“There is great emulation among the companions, which shall
possess the highest place in the favour of their chief; and
among the chiefs, which shall excel in the number and valour
of his companions. It is their dignity, their strength, to be
always surrounded with a large body of select youth, an ornament
in peace, a bulwark in war... In the field of battle, it is
disgraceful for the chief to be surpassed in valour; it is
disgraceful for the companions not to equal their chief; but it
is reproach and infamy during a whole succeeding life to retreat
from the field surviving him. To aid, to protect him; to place
their own gallant actions to the account of his glory is their
first and most sacred engagement.” _Tacitus_, _Germania_, 13, 14,
_Bohn Series_.

[Sidenote: _The Khalifa at Khartoum_]

Among the Arab tribes very much the same thing may be found, every Sheikh having his bodyguard of young men, whom he instructs and educates, while they render to him their military and personal devotion. In the late expedition of the British to Khartoum (Nov., 1899), when Colonel Wingate and his troops mowed down the Khalifa and his followers with their Maxims, the death of the Khalifa was thus described by a correspondent of the daily papers:—

“In the centre of what was evidently the main attack on our right
we came across a very large number of bodies all huddled together
in a very small place; their horses lay dead behind them, the
Khalifa lay dead on his furma, or sheepskin, the typical end of
the Arab Sheikh who disdains surrender; on his right was the
Khalifa Aly Wad Hila, and on his left Ahmed Fedil, his great
fighting leader, whilst all around him lay his faithful emirs,
all content to meet their death when he had chosen to meet his.
His black Mulamirin, or bodyguard, all lay dead in a straight
line about 40 yards in front of their master’s body, with their
faces to the foe and faithful to the last. It was truly a
touching sight, and one could not help but feel that ... their
end was truly grand.... Amongst the dead were found two men tied
together by the arms, who had charged towards the guns and had
got nearer than any others. On enquiring of the prisoners Colonel
Wingate was told these two were great friends, and on seeing the
Egyptian guns come up had tied themselves by the arms with a
cord, swearing to reach the guns or die together.”

[Sidenote: _Primitive Germans_]

Compare also the following quotation from Ammianus Marcellinus (xvi. 13), who says that when Chonodomarus, “King of the Alamanni,” was taken prisoner by the Romans,

“His companions, two hundred in number, and three friends
peculiarly attached to him, thinking it infamous to survive their
prince, or not to die for him, surrendered themselves to be put
in bonds.”

[Sidenote: _South African Tribes_]

The following passage from Livingstone shows the existence among the African tribes of his time of a system, which Wood rightly says “has a singular resemblance to the instruction of pages in the days of chivalry”:—

“Monina (one of the confederate chiefs of the Banyai) had a great
number of young men about him, from twelve to fifteen years of
age. These were all sons of free men, and bands of young lads
like them in the different districts leave their parents about
the age of puberty and live with such men as Monina for the sake
of instruction. When I asked the nature of the instruction I was
told ‘Bonyái,’ which I suppose may be understood as indicating
manhood, for it sounds as if we should say, ‘to teach an American
Americanism,’ or, ‘an Englishman to be English.’ While here they
are kept in subjection to rather stringent regulations.... They
remain unmarried until a fresh set of youths is ready to occupy
their place under the same instruction.” _Missionary Travels and
Researches in South Africa._ _By David Livingstone_, 1857, p. 618.

M. Foley (Bulln. Soc. d’Anthr. de Paris, 1879) speaks of fraternity in arms among the natives of New Caledonia as forming a close tie—closer even than consanguinity.

[Sidenote: _Greek Friendship and Mediæval Chivalry_]

With regard to Greece, J. Addington Symonds has some interesting remarks, which are well worthy of consideration; he says:—

“Nearly all the historians of Greece have failed to insist upon
the fact that fraternity in arms played for the Greek race the
same part as the idealisation of women for the knighthood of
feudal Europe. Greek mythology and history are full of tales
of friendship, which can only be paralleled by the story of
David and Jonathan in the Bible. The legends of Herakles and
Hylas, of Theseus and Pirithöus, of Apollo and Hyacinth, of
Orestes and Pylades, occur immediately to the mind. Among the
noblest patriots, tyrannicides, lawgivers, and self-devoted
heroes in the early times of Greece, we always find the names of
friends and comrades received with peculiar honour. Harmodius
and Aristogeiton, who slew the despot Hipparchus at Athens;
Diocles and Philolaus, who gave laws to Thebes; Chariton and
Melanippus, who resisted the sway of Phalaris in Sicily; Cratinus
and Aristodemus, who devoted their lives to propitiate offended
deities when a plague had fallen on Athens; these comrades,
staunch to each other in their love, and elevated by friendship
to the pitch of noblest enthusiasm, were among the favourite
saints of Greek legend and history. In a word, the chivalry
of Hellas found its motive force in friendship rather than in
the love of women; and the motive force of all chivalry is a
generous, soul-exalting, unselfish passion. The fruit which
friendship bore among the Greeks was courage in the face of
danger, indifference to life when honour was at stake, patriotic
ardour, the love of liberty, and lion-hearted rivalry in battle.
‘Tyrants,’ said Plato, ‘stand in awe of friends.’” _Studies of
the Greek Poets._ _By J. A. Symonds_, vol. 1, p. 97.

[Sidenote: _Fraternity in Arms in Sparta_]

The customs connected with this fraternity in arms, in Sparta and in Crete, are described with care and at considerable length in the following extract from Müller’s _History and Antiquities of the Doric Race_, book iv., ch. 4, par. 6:—

“At Sparta the party loving was called εἰσπνήλας, and his
affection was termed a _breathing in_, or _inspiring_ (εἰσπνεῖν);
which expresses the pure and mental connection between the two
persons, and corresponds with the name of the other, viz.: ἀίτας,
_i.e._, _listener_ or _bearer_. Now it appears to have been the
practice for every youth of good character to have his lover; and
on the other hand every well-educated man was bound by custom
to be the lover of some youth. Instances of this connection
are furnished by several of the royal family of Sparta; thus,
Agesilaus, while he still belonged to the herd (ἀγέλη) of
youths, was the hearer (ἀίτας) of Lysander, and himself had in
his turn also a hearer; his son Archidamus was the lover of the
son of Sphodrias, the noble Cleonymus; Cleomenes III. was when
a young man the hearer of Xenares, and later in life the lover
of the brave Panteus. The connection usually originated from the
proposal of the lover; yet it was necessary that the listener
should accept him with real affection, as a regard to the riches
of the proposer was considered very disgraceful; sometimes,
however, it happened that the proposal originated from the other
party. The connection appears to have been very intimate and
faithful; and was recognised by the State. If his relations were
absent, the youth might be represented in the public assembly by
his lover; in battle too they stood near one another, where their
fidelity and affection were often shown till death; while at home
the youth was constantly under the eyes of his lover, who was to
him as it were a model and pattern of life; which explains why,
for many faults, particularly want of ambition, the lover could
be punished instead of the listener.”

[Sidenote: _Crete_]

“This ancient national custom prevailed with still greater force
in Crete; which island was hence by many persons considered as
the original seat of the connection in question. Here too it was
disgraceful for a well-educated youth to be without a lover;
and hence the party loved was termed κλεινὸς, the _praised_;
the lover being simply called φιλήτωρ. It appears that the
youth was always carried away by force, the intention of the
ravisher being previously communicated to the relations, who
however took no measures of precaution, and only made a feigned
resistance; except when the ravisher appeared, either in family
or talent, unworthy of the youth. The lover then led him away
to his apartment (ἀνδρεῖον), and afterwards, with any chance
companions, either to the mountains or to his estate. Here they
remained two months (the period prescribed by custom), which were
passed chiefly in hunting together. After this time had expired,
the lover dismissed the youth, and at his departure gave him,
according to custom, an ox, a military dress, and brazen cup,
with other things; and frequently these gifts were increased by
the friends of the ravisher. The youth then sacrificed the ox
to Jupiter, with which he gave a feast to his companions: and
now he stated how he had been pleased with his lover; and he
had complete liberty by law to punish any insult or disgraceful
treatment. It depended now on the choice of the youth whether the
connection should be broken off or not. If it was kept up, the
companion in arms (παραστάτης), as the youth was then called,
wore the military dress which had been given him, and fought in
battle next his lover, inspired with double valour by the gods of
war and love, according to the notions of the Cretans; and even
in man’s age he was distinguished by the first place and rank in
the course, and certain insignia worn about the body.

“Institutions, so systematic and regular as these, did not exist
in any Doric State except Crete and Sparta; but the feelings
on which they were founded seem to have been common to all the
Dorians. The loves of Philolaus, a Corinthian of the family of
the Bacchiadae, and the lawgiver of Thebes, and of Diocles the
Olympic conqueror, lasted until death; and even their graves
were turned towards one another in token of their affection;
and another person of the same name was honoured in Megara, as
a noble instance of self-devotion for the object of his love.”
_Ibid._

[Sidenote: _Diocles_]

For an account of Philolaus and Diocles, Aristotle (Pol. ii. 9) may be referred to. The second Diocles was an Athenian who died in battle for the youth he loved.

“His tomb was honoured with the ἐναγίσματα of heroes, and a
yearly contest for skill in kissing formed part of his memorial
celebration.” _J. A. Symonds’_ “_A Problem in Greek Ethics_,”
_privately printed_, 1883; _see also Theocritus_, Idyll xii.
infra.

[Sidenote: _Albanian Customs_]

Hahn, in his _Albanesische Studien_, says that the Dorian customs of comradeship still flourish in Albania “just as described by the ancients,” and are closely entwined with the whole life of the people—though he says nothing of any military signification. It appears to be a quite recognised institution for a young man to take to himself a youth or boy as his special comrade. He instructs, and when necessary reproves, the younger; protects him, and makes him presents of various kinds. The relation generally, though not always ends with the marriage of the elder. The following is reported by Hahn as in the actual words of his informant (an Albanian):—

“Love of this kind is occasioned by the sight of a beautiful
youth; who thus kindles in the lover a feeling of wonder and
causes his heart to open to the sweet sense which springs from
the contemplation of beauty. By degrees love steals in and takes
possession of the lover, and to such a degree that all his
thoughts and feelings are absorbed in it. When near the beloved
he loses himself in the sight of him; when absent he thinks of
him only.” These loves, he continued, “are with a few exceptions
as pure as sunshine, and the highest and noblest affections that
the human heart can entertain.” _Hahn_, vol. 1, p. 166.

Hahn also mentions that troops of youths, like the Cretan and Spartan _agelae_, are formed in Albania, of twenty-five or thirty members each. The comradeship usually begins during adolescence, each member paying a fixed sum into a common fund, and the interest being spent on two or three annual feasts, generally held out of doors.

[Sidenote: _The Theban Band_]

The Sacred Band of Thebes, or Theban Band, was a battalion composed entirely of friends and lovers; and forms a remarkable example of military comradeship. The references to it in later Greek literature are very numerous, and there seems no reason to doubt the general truth of the traditions concerning its formation and its complete annihilation by Philip of Macedon at the battle of Chaeronea (B.C. 338). Thebes was the last stronghold of Hellenic independence, and with the Theban Band Greek freedom perished. But the mere existence of this phalanx, and the fact of its renown, show to what an extent comradeship was recognised and prized as an _institution_ among these peoples. The following account is taken from Plutarch’s _Life of Pelopidas_, Clough’s translation:—

“Gorgidas, according to some, first formed the Sacred Band of 300
chosen men, to whom as being a guard for the citadel the State
allowed provision, and all things necessary for exercise; and
hence they were called the city band, as citadels of old were
usually called cities. Others say that it was composed of young
men attached to each other by personal affection, and a pleasant
saying of Pammenes is current, that Homer’s Nestor was not well
skilled in ordering an army, when he advised the Greeks to rank
tribe and tribe, and family and family, together, that so ‘tribe
might tribe, and kinsmen kinsmen aid,’ but that he should have
joined lovers and their beloved. For men of the same tribe or
family little value one another when dangers press; but a band
cemented together by friendship grounded upon love is never to
be broken, and invincible; since the lovers, ashamed to be base
in sight of their beloved, and the beloved before their lovers,
willingly rush into danger for the relief of one another. Nor can
that be wondered at since they have more regard for their absent
lovers than for others present; as in the instance of the man
who, when his enemy was going to kill him, earnestly requested
him to run him through the breast, that his lover might not blush
to see him wounded in the back. It is a tradition likewise that
Ioläus, who assisted Hercules in his labours and fought at his
side, was beloved of him; and Aristotle observes that even in his
time lovers plighted their faith at Ioläus’ tomb. It is likely,
therefore, that this band was called sacred on this account; as
Plato calls a lover a divine friend. It is stated that it was
never beaten till the battle at Chaeronea; and when Philip after
the fight took a view of the slain, and came to the place where
the three hundred that fought his phalanx lay dead together, he
wondered, and understanding that it was the band of lovers, he
shed tears and said, ‘Perish any man who suspects that these men
either did or suffered anything that was base.’

“It was not the disaster of Laius, as the poets imagine, that
first gave rise to this form of attachment among the Thebans,
but their lawgivers, designing to soften whilst they were young
their natural fickleness, brought for example the pipe into great
esteem, both in serious and sportive occasions, and gave great
encouragement to these friendships in the Palaestra, to temper
the manner and character of the youth. With a view to this, they
did well again to make Harmony, the daughter of Mars and Venus,
their tutelar deity; since where force and courage is joined
with gracefulness and winning behaviour, a harmony ensues that
combines all the elements of society in perfect consonance and
order.

“Gorgidas distributed this sacred Band all through the front
ranks of the infantry, and thus made their gallantry less
conspicuous; not being united in one body, but mingled with many
others of inferior resolution, they had no fair opportunity of
showing what they could do. But Pelopidas, having sufficiently
tried their bravery at Tegyrae, where they had fought alone,
and around his own person, never afterwards divided them, but
keeping them entire, and as one man, gave them the first duty in
the greatest battles. For as horses run brisker in a chariot than
single, not that their joint force divides the air with greater
ease, but because being matched one against another circulation
kindles and enflames their courage; thus, he thought, brave
men, provoking one another to noble actions, would prove most
serviceable and most resolute where all were united together.”

[Sidenote: _Athenæus_]

Stories of romantic friendship form a staple subject of Greek literature, and were everywhere accepted and prized. The following quotations from Athenæus and Plutarch contain allusions to the Theban Band, and other examples:—

“And the Lacedæmonians offer sacrifices to Love before they go to
battle, thinking that safety and victory depend on the friendship
of those who stand side by side in the battle array.... And the
regiment among the Thebans, which is called the _Sacred Band_,
is wholly composed of mutual lovers, indicating the majesty of
the God, as these men prefer a glorious death to a shameful and
discreditable life.” _Athenæus_, bk. xiii., ch. 12.

[Sidenote: _Ioläus_]

Ioläus, above-mentioned, is said to have been the charioteer of Hercules, and his faithful companion. As the comrade of Hercules he was worshipped beside him in Thebes, where the gymnasium was named after him. Plutarch alludes to this friendship again in his treatise on Love (_Eroticus_, par. 17):—

“And as to the loves of Hercules, it is difficult to record them
because of their number; but those who think that Ioläus was one
of them do to this day worship and honour him, and make their
loved ones swear fidelity at his tomb.”

[Sidenote: _Plutarch on Love_]

And in the same treatise:—

“Consider also how Love (Eros) excels in warlike feats, and is
by no means idle, as Euripides called him, nor a carpet knight,
nor ‘sleeping on soft maidens’ cheeks.’ For a man inspired by
Love needs not Ares to help him when he goes out as a warrior
against the enemy, but at the bidding of his own god is ‘ready’
for his friend ‘to go through fire and water and whirlwinds.’ And
in Sophocles’ play, when the sons of Niobe are being shot at and
dying, one of them calls out for no helper or assister but his
lover.

“And you know of course how it was that Cleomachus, the
Pharsalian, fell in battle.... When the war between the
Eretrians and Chalcidians was at its height, Cleomachus had come
to aid the latter with a Thessalian force; and the Chalcidian
infantry seemed strong enough, but they had great difficulty in
repelling the enemy’s cavalry. So they begged that high-souled
hero, Cleomachus, to charge the Eretrian cavalry first. And he
asked the youth he loved, who was by, if he would be a spectator
of the fight, and he saying he would, and affectionately kissing
him and putting his helmet on his head, Cleomachus, with a proud
joy, put himself at the head of the bravest of the Thessalians,
and charged the enemy’s cavalry with such impetuosity that he
threw them into disorder and routed them; and the Eretrian
infantry also fleeing in consequence, the Chalcidians won a
splendid victory. However, Cleomachus got killed, and they show
his tomb in the market place at Chalcis, over which a huge
pillar stands to this day.” _Eroticus_, par. 17, _trans. Bohn’s
Classics_.

And further on in the same:—

“And among you Thebans, Pemptides, is it not usual for the
lover to give his boylove a complete suit of armour when he is
enrolled among the men? And did not the erotic Pammenes change
the disposition of the heavy-armed infantry, censuring Homer as
knowing nothing about love, because he drew up the Achæans in
order of battle in tribes and clans, and did not put lover and
love together, that so ‘spear should be next to spear and helmet
to helmet’ (_Iliad_, xiii. 131), seeing that love is the only
invincible general. For men in battle will leave in the lurch
clansmen and friends, aye, and parents and sons, but what warrior
ever broke through or charged through lover and love, seeing
that when there is no necessity lovers frequently display their
bravery and contempt of life.”

[Sidenote: _Athenæus on the same_]

The following is from the _Deipnosophists_ of Athenæus (bk. xiii. ch. 78):—

“But Hieronymus the Peripatetic says that the loves of youths
used to be much encouraged, for this reason, that the vigour
of the young and their close agreement in comradeship have led
to the overthrow of many a tyranny. For in the presence of his
favorite a lover would rather endure anything than earn the name
of coward; a thing which was proved in practice by the Sacred
Band, established at Thebes under Epaminondas; as well as by the
death of the Pisistratidæ, which was brought about by Harmodius
and Aristogeiton.

“And at Agrigentum in Sicily the same was shown by the mutual
love of Chariton and Melanippus—of whom Melanippus was the
younger beloved, as Heraclides of Pontus tells in his Treatise
on Love. For these two having been accused of plotting against
Phalaris, and being put to torture in order to force them to
betray their accomplices, not only did not tell, but even
compelled Phalaris to such pity of their tortures that he
released them with many words of praise. Whereupon Apollo,
pleased at his conduct, granted to Phalaris a respite from
death; and declared the same to the men who inquired of the
Pythian priestess how they might best attack him. He also gave an
oracular saying concerning Chariton....

‘Blessed indeed was Chariton and Melanippus,
Pioneers of Godhead, and of mortals the one most[1] beloved.’”

Epaminondas, the great Theban general and statesman, so we are told by the same author, had for his young comrades Asopichus and Cephisodorus, “the latter of whom fell with him at Mantineia, and is buried near him.”

[Sidenote: _Parmenides and Zeno_]

These are mainly instances of what might be called “military comradeship,” but as may be supposed, friendship in the early world did not rest on this alone. With the growth of culture other interests came in; and among the Greeks especially association in the pursuit of art or politics or philosophy became a common ground. Parmenides, the philosopher, whose life was held peculiarly holy, loved his pupil Zeno (see Plato _Parm_, 127A):

“Parmenides and Zeno came to Athens, he said, at the great
Panathenæan festival; the former was, at the time of his visit,
about 65 years old, very white with age, but well-favoured. Zeno
was nearly 40 years of age, of a noble figure and fair aspect;
and in the days of his youth he was reported to have been beloved
of Parmenides.”

[Sidenote: _Phædo_]

Pheidias, the sculptor, loved Pantarkes, a youth of Elis, and carved his portrait at the foot of the Olympian Zeus (Pausanias v. II), and politicians and orators like Demosthenes and Æschines were proud to avow their attachments. It was in a house of ill-fame, according to Diogenes Laertius (ii. 105) that Socrates first met Phædo:—

“This unfortunate youth was a native of Elis. Taken prisoner in
war, he was sold in the public market to a slave dealer, who
then acquired the right by Attic law to engross his earnings
for his own pocket. A friend of Socrates, perhaps Cebes, bought
him from his master, and he became one of the chief members
of the Socratic circle. His name is given to the Platonic
dialogue on immortality, and he lived to found what is called
the Eleo-Socratic School. No reader of Plato forgets how the
sage on the eve of his death stroked the beautiful long hair of
Phædo, and prophesied that he would soon have to cut it short in
mourning for his teacher.” _J. A. Symonds_, _A Problem in Greek
Ethics_ p. 58.

The relation of friendship to the pursuit of philosophy is a favorite subject with Plato, and is illustrated by some later quotations (see _infra_ ch. 2).

[Sidenote: _The Story of Harmodius and Aristogeiton_]

I conclude the present section by the insertion of three stories taken from classical sources. Though of a legendary character, it is probable that they enshrine some memory or tradition of actual facts. The story of Harmodius and Aristogeiton at any rate is treated by Herodotus and Thucydides as a matter of serious history. The names of these two friends were ever on the lips of the Athenians as the founders of the city’s freedom, and to be born of their blood was esteemed among the highest of honours. But whether historical or not, these stories have much the same value for us, in so far as they indicate the ideals on which the Greek mind dwelt, and which it considered possible of realisation.

“Now the attempt of Aristogeiton and Harmodius arose out of a
love affair, which I will narrate at length; and the narrative
will show that the Athenians themselves give quite an inaccurate
account of their own tyrants, and of the incident in question,
and know no more than other Hellenes. Pisistratus died at an
advanced age in possession of the tyranny, and then, not as is
the common opinion Hipparchus, but Hippias (who was the eldest of
his sons) succeeded to his power.

“Harmodius was in the flower of his youth, and Aristogeiton, a
citizen of the middle class, became his lover. Hipparchus made an
attempt to gain the affections of Harmodius, but he would not
listen to him, and told Aristogeiton. The latter was naturally
tormented at the idea, and fearing that Hipparchus, who was
powerful, would resort to violence, at once formed such a plot
as a man in his station might for the overthrow of the tyranny.
Meanwhile Hipparchus made another attempt; he had no better
success, and thereupon he determined, not indeed to take any
violent step, but to insult Harmodius in some underhand manner,
so that his motive could not be suspected[2]....

“When Hipparchus found his advances repelled by Harmodius he
carried out his intention of insulting him. There was a young
sister of his whom Hipparchus and his friends first invited
to come and carry a sacred basket in a procession, and then
rejected her, declaring that she had never been invited by them
at all because she was unworthy. At this Harmodius was very
angry, and Aristogeiton for his sake more angry still. They and
the other conspirators had already laid their preparations, but
were waiting for the festival of the great Panathenæa, when the
citizens who took part in the procession assembled in arms; for
to wear arms on any other day would have aroused suspicion.
Harmodius and Aristogeiton were to begin the attack, and the rest
were immediately to join in, and engage with the guards. The
plot had been communicated to a few only, the better to avoid
detection; but they hoped that, however few struck the blow, the
crowd who would be armed, although not in the secret, would at
once rise and assist in the recovery of their own liberties.

“The day of the festival arrived, and Hippias went out of the
city to the place called the Ceramicus, where he was occupied
with his guards in marshalling the procession. Harmodius and
Aristogeiton, who were ready with their daggers, stepped forward
to do the deed. But seeing one of the conspirators in familiar
conversation with Hippias, who was readily accessible to all,
they took alarm and imagined that they had been betrayed, and
were on the point or being seized. Whereupon they determined to
take their revenge first on the man who had outraged them and
was the cause of their desperate attempt. So they rushed, just
as they were, within the gates. They found Hipparchus near the
Leocorium, as it was called, and then and there falling upon him
with all the blind fury, one of an injured lover, the other of a
man smarting under an insult, they smote and slew him. The crowd
ran together, and so Aristogeiton for the present escaped the
guards; but he was afterwards taken, and not very gently handled
(_i.e._, _tortured_). Harmodius perished on the spot.” _Thuc_:
vi. 54-56, _trans. by B. Jowett_.

[Sidenote: _The Story of Orestes and Pylades_]

“Phocis preserves from early times the memory of the union
between Orestes and Pylades, who taking a god as witness of the
passion between them, sailed through life together as though in
one boat. Both together put to death Klytemnestra, as though
both were sons of Agamemnon; and Ægisthus was slain by both.
Pylades suffered more than his friend by the punishment which
pursued Orestes. He stood by him when condemned, nor did they
limit their tender friendship by the bounds of Greece, but sailed
to the furthest boundaries of the Scythians—the one sick, the
other ministering to him. When they had come into the Tauric
land straightway they were met by the matricidal fury; and while
the barbarians were standing round in a circle Orestes fell down
and lay on the ground, seized by his usual mania, while Pylades
‘wiped away the foam, tended his body, and covered him with his
well-woven cloak’—acting not only like a lover but like a father.

“When it was determined that one should remain to be put to
death, and the other should go to Mycenæ to convey a letter, each
wishes to remain for the sake of the other, thinking that if
he saves the life of his friend he saves his own life. Orestes
refused to take the letter, saying that Pylades was more worthy
to carry it, acting more like the lover than the beloved. ‘For,’
he said, ‘the slaying of this man would be a great grief to me,
as I am the cause of these misfortunes.’ And he added, ‘Give
the tablet to him, for (turning to Pylades) I will send thee to
Argos, in order that it may be well with thee; as for me, let
anyone kill me who desires it.’

“Such love is always like that; for when from boyhood a serious
love has grown up and it becomes adult at the age of reason, the
long-loved object returns reciprocal affection, and it is hard to
determine which is the lover of which, for—as from a mirror—the
affection of the lover is reflected from the beloved.” _Trans.
from Lucian’s Amores, by W. J. Baylis._

[Sidenote: _The Story of Damon and Pythias (or Phintias)_]

“Damon and Phintias, initiates in the Pythagorean mysteries,
contracted so faithful a friendship towards each other, that
when Dionysius of Syracuse intended to execute one of them, and
he had obtained permission from the tyrant to return home and
arrange his affairs before his death, the other did not hesitate
to give himself up as a pledge of his friend’s return[3]. He
whose neck had been in danger was now free; and he who might have
lived in safety was now in danger of death. So everybody, and
especially Dionysius, were wondering what would be the upshot
of this novel and dubious affair. At last, when the day fixed
was close at hand, and he had not returned, everyone condemned
the one who stood security, for his stupidity and rashness. But
he insisted that he had nothing to fear in the matter of his
friend’s constancy. And indeed at the same moment and the hour
fixed by Dionysius, he who had received leave, returned. The
tyrant, admiring the courage of both, remitted the sentence which
had so tried their loyalty, and asked them besides to receive
him in the bonds of their friendship, saying that he would make
his third place in their affection agreeable by his utmost
goodwill and effort. Such indeed are the powers of friendship:
to breed contempt of death, to overcome the sweet desire of
life, to humanise cruelty, to turn hate into love, to compensate
punishment by largess; to which powers almost as much veneration
is due as to the cult of the immortal gods. For if with these
rests the public safety, on those does private happiness depend;
and as the temples are the sacred domiciles of these, so of those
are the loyal hearts of men as it were the shrines consecrated
by some holy spirit.” _Valerius Maximus_, bk. iv. ch. 7. _De
Amicitiæ Vinculo_.

II.

_The Place of Friendship in Greek Life & Thought_

_The Place of Friendship in Greek Life & Thought_

The extent to which the idea of friendship (in a quite romantic sense) penetrated the Greek mind is a thing very difficult for us to realise; and some modern critics entirely miss this point. They laud the Greek culture to the skies, extolling the warlike bravery of the people, their enthusiastic political and social sentiment, their wonderful artistic sense, and so forth; and at the same time speak of the stress they laid on friendship as a little peculiarity of no particular importance—not seeing that the latter was the chief source of their bravery and independence, one of the main motives of their art, and so far an organic part of their whole polity that it is difficult to imagine the one without the other. The Greeks themselves never made this mistake; and their literature abounds with references to the romantic attachment as the great inspiration of political and individual life. Plato, himself, may almost be said to have founded his philosophy on this sentiment.

Nothing is more surprising to the modern than to find Plato speaking, page after page, of Love, as the safeguard of states and the tutoress of philosophy, and then to discover that what we call love, _i.e._, the love between man and woman, is not meant at all—scarcely comes within his consideration—but only the love between men—what we should call romantic friendship. His ideal of this latter love is ascetic; it is an absorbing passion, but it is held in strong control. The other love—the love of women—is for him a mere sensuality. In this, to some extent, lies the explanation of his philosophical position.

But it is evident that in this fact—in the fact that among the Greeks the love of women was considered for the most part sensual, while the _romance_ of love went to the account of friendship, we have the strength and the weakness of the Greek civilisation. Strength, because by the recognition everywhere of romantic comradeship, public and private life was filled by a kind of divine fire; weakness, because by the non-recognition of woman’s equal part in such comradeship, her saving, healing, and redeeming influence was lost, and the Greek culture doomed to be to that extent one-sided. It will, we may hope, be the great triumph of the modern love (when it becomes more of a true comradeship between man and woman than it yet is) to give both to society and to the individual the grandest inspirations, and perhaps in conjunction with the other attachment, to lift the modern nations to a higher level of political and artistic advancement than even the Greeks attained. I quote one or two modern writers on the subject, and then some passages from Plato and others indicating the philosophy of friendship as entertained among the Greeks.

[Sidenote: _Bishop Thirlwall on Greek Friendship_]

Bishop Thirlwall, that excellent thinker and scholar, in his _History of Greece_ (vol. 1, p. 176) says:—

“One of the noblest and most amiable sides of the Greek character
is the readiness with which it lent itself to construct intimate
and durable friendships; and this is a feature no less prominent
in the earliest than in the latest times. It was indeed
connected with the comparatively low estimation in which female
society was held; but the devotedness and constancy with which
these attachments were maintained was not the less admirable
and engaging. The heroic companions whom we find celebrated,
partly by Homer and partly in traditions, which if not of equal
antiquity were grounded on the same feeling, seem to have but one
heart and soul, with scarcely a wish or object apart, and only
to live, as they are always ready to die, for one another. It is
true that the relation between them is not always one of perfect
equality: but this is a circumstance which, while it often adds
a peculiar charm to the poetical description, detracts little
from the dignity of the idea which it presents. Such were the
friendships of Hercules and Ioläus, of Theseus and Pirithöus, of
Orestes and Pylades: and though these may owe the greater part
of their fame to the later epic or even dramatic poetry, the
moral groundwork undoubtedly subsisted in the period to which
the tradition referred. The argument of the Iliad mainly turns
on the affection of Achilles for Patroclus—whose love for the
greater hero is only tempered by reverence for his higher birth
and his unequalled prowess. But the mutual regard which united
Idomeneus and Meriones, Diomedes and Sthenelus—though, as the
persons themselves are less important, it is kept more in the
background—is manifestly viewed by the poet in the same light.
The idea of a Greek hero seems not to have been thought complete,
without such a brother in arms by his side.”

[Sidenote: _Compared to Chivalry_]

The following is from Ludwig Frey (_Der Eros und die Kunst_, p. 33):—

“Let it then be repeated: love for a youth was for the Greeks
something sacred, and can only be compared with our German homage
to women—say the chivalric love of mediæval times.”

[Sidenote: _Educational and Political Value_]

G. Lowes Dickinson, in his _Greek View of Life_, noting the absence of romance in the relations between men and women of that civilisation, says:

“Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to conclude, from these
conditions, that the element of romance was absent from Greek
life. The fact is simply that with them it took a different form,
that of passionate friendship between men. Such friendships, of
course, occur in all nations and at all times, but among the
Greeks they were, we might say, an institution. Their ideal was
the development and education of the younger by the older man,
and in this view they were recognised and approved by custom and
law as an important factor in the state.” _Greek View of Life_,
p. 167.

“So much indeed were the Greeks impressed with the manliness of
this passion, with its power to prompt to high thought and heroic
action, that some of the best of them set the love of man for man
far above that of man for woman. The one, they maintained, was
primarily of the spirit, the other primarily of the flesh; the
one bent upon shaping to the type of all manly excellence both
the body and the soul of the beloved, the other upon a passing
pleasure of the senses.” _Ibid_, p. 172.

[Sidenote: _Relation to Women_]

The following are some remarks of J. A. Symonds on the same subject:—

“Partly owing to the social habits of their cities, and partly
to the peculiar notions which they entertained regarding the
seclusion of free women in the home, all the higher elements of
spiritual and mental activity, and the conditions under which
a generous passion was conceivable, had become the exclusive
privileges of men. It was not that women occupied a semi-servile
station, as some students have imagined, or that within the
sphere of the household they were not the respected and trusted
helpmates of men. But circumstances rendered it impossible for
them to excite romantic and enthusiastic passion. The exaltation
of the emotions was reserved for the male sex.” _A Problem in
Greek Ethics_, p. 68.

[Sidenote: _J. A. Symonds on Socrates_]

And he continues:—

“Socrates therefore sought to direct and moralise a force already
existing. In the _Phædrus_ he describes the passion of love
between man and boy as a ‘_mania_,’ not different in quality
from that which inspires poets; and after painting that fervid
picture of the lover, he declares that the true object of a noble
life can only be attained by passionate friends, bound together
in the chains of close yet temperate comradeship, seeking always
to advance in knowledge, self-restraint, and intellectual
illumination. The doctrine of the _Symposium_ is not different,
except that Socrates here takes a higher flight. The same love
is treated as the method whereby the soul may begin her mystic
journey to the region of essential beauty, truth, and goodness.
It has frequently been remarked that Plato’s dialogues have to
be read as poems even more than as philosophical treatises; and
if this be true at all, it is particularly true of both the
_Phædrus_ and the _Symposium_. The lesson which both essays seem
intended to inculcate, is this: love, like poetry and prophecy,
is a divine gift, which diverts men from the common current of
their lives; but in the right use of this gift lies the secret of
all human excellence. The passion which grovels in the filth of
sensual grossness may be transformed into a glorious enthusiasm,
a winged splendour, capable of soaring to the contemplation of
eternal verities.”