¹ See Erffa, C. E. von, und verwandte Begriffe in ihrer Entwicklung von Homer bis Demokrit (Philol. Suppl. 30.2, Leipzig, 1937), pp. 180–1;Google ScholarHarder, R, ‘Herodot 1.8.3’, in Mylonas, G. E. and D., Raymond (edd.), Studies Presented to David M. Robinson (St. Louis, 1953), ii. 446–9Google Scholar(Marg, W. [ed.], Herodot [Munich, 1962], 370–4);Google ScholarRaubitschek, A. E, ‘Die schamlose Ehefrau’, RhM 100 (1957), 139–40. I exclude from this study the much discussed topics (a) of the sources and versions of the Gyges story and (b) of the relation between the Hdt. passage and tragedy.Google Scholar

² Cf. Harder (n. 1), p. 446.

³ On women's , see my Aidôs (Oxford, 1993), pp. 120–5, 185–8, 205, 305–40.

⁴ Cf. De Aud. 1, 37d.

⁵ See Konstan, D, ‘The Stories in Herodotus’ Histories: Book 1’, Helios 10 (1983), p. 12.Google Scholar

⁶ von Erffa (n. 1), p. 181; Harder (n. 1), pp. 447–8.

⁷ Harder (n. 1) is confused on this point; he adduces the use of as ‘respect’ as evidence for its ‘passive’ sense (pp. 447–8); but ‘respect’ is just as much a response of a subject to an object, and therefore ‘active’, as is shame, and none of the passages cited by Harder contains an instance of as ‘that which excites respect in others’ as opposed to ‘respect for/from others’.

⁸ See Cairns (n. 3), p. 57 n. 44. The use of the noun in this sense (as of the more common documents the fundamental inhibition over nakedness and genital exposure which presumably lies behind Plutarch'sinsistence that the good wife never abandons her .

⁹ So von Erffa (n. 1), pp. 46–7.

¹⁰ Richardson, Cf. N. J, The Homeric Hymn to Demeter (Oxford, 1974), ad loc.Google Scholar

¹¹ On see now B. MacLachlan, The Age of Grace (Princeton, 1993); on the reciprocity of see Cairns (n. 3), pp. 158–9, 184–5 and Index s.w. ‘guest-friendship’, ‘philia’.

¹² Cf. the parallel passage in Hes. Th. 91–2, where is the response to the speaker's kingly qualities rather than a quality of the speech. But in the Od. passage, too, it is clear that the speaker's calls forth the respect of the audience.

¹³ Cf. Cairns (n. 3), pp. 157–8.

¹⁴ On the notion of exposure as fundamental to see A. Beil, “ bei Homer”, Der altsprachliche Unterricht 5. 1 (1961), 51–64; Williams, B, Shame and Necessity (Berkeley, 1993), pp. 78, 82, 220–1; for Beil and Williams (literal) fear of physical exposure is the origin of all -feelings; I would not go so far, but grant that the notion of exposure is a fundamental aspect of the imagery/phenomenology of Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Cairns (n. 3), pp. 15, 98–9 n. 151, 158, 184, 217–18, 231, 292–3, 312, 352.

¹⁶ For veiling as an expression of see E. Hipp. 243–6, Her. 1159–62, IT 372–6, Or. 459–61 (Cairns [n. 3], pp. 292–3), Pho. 1485–92 (R. Seaford in T. H. Carpenter and C. A. Faraone [edd.] Masks of Dionysus [Princeton, 1993], pp. 119–20); cf. PI. Phdr. 237a, Aesch. 1.26.

¹⁷ On the gesture of veiling, see Sittl, C, Die Gebärden der Griechen und Römer (Leipzig, 1890), pp. 84, 278–9;Google Scholar women (like boys) cover their heads in public; see Ar. Lys. 530–1; on drawing the veil before strange men, see Od. 1.333–4, 16.415–16, 18.209–10, 21.64–5, with North, H. F, Sophrosyne (Ithaca, 1966), p. 308 n. 143,Google ScholarNagler, M, Spontaneity and Tradition (Berkeley, 1974), pp. 44–67;Google Scholarfor the gesture in vase-painting, see (e.g.) Schefold, K, Gods and Heroes in Late Archaic Greek Art (Eng. trans. Cambridge, 1992) figs. 254, 262.Google ScholarThere is a general discussion of women'spublic veiling in Gait, C. M, ‘Veiled Ladies’, AJA 35 (1931), 373–93, but an up-to-date treatment is badly needed.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See Cunningham, M. L, ‘Aeschylus, Agamemmon 231–247’, BICS 31 (1984), 9–12;Google ScholarArmstrong, D and Ratchford, E. A, ‘Iphigeneia'sVeil: Aeschylus, Agamemnon 228–48’, BICS 32 (1985), 1–14;Google ScholarCarson, A, ‘Putting her in her Place: Woman, Dirt, and Desire’, in Halperin, D. M. and Winkler, J. J. (edd.), Before Sexuality (Princeton, 1990), pp. 160–4. For the veil as symbol of a woman'smarried status, cf. Il. 22.468–72 (with Nagler [n. 16], pp. 47–9), E. Hipp. 201–2, 243–6 (cf. n. 16 above). The Spartan wedding has no role for the veil, and nothing like the (P. Cartledge, CQ 31 [1981], p. 101), yet, according to Plut. (Apophth. Lac. 232c), married women did demonstrate their status by veiling, whereas unmarried girls did not veil in public (Cartledge, pp. 91–2).Google Scholar

¹⁹ In the Athenian the bride, still in her father'shouse (Anecd. Bekker, i. 200. 6–8 i. 390. 26–8 Anecd. Bachmann i. 83. 4–6), unveils herself before the men (cf. Suda, Harp., s.v., Anecd. Oxon. ii. 489. 16–18); on the sources for the see L. Deubner, , 148–15 (1900), 148–51; cf. J. H. Oakley, ‘The Anakalypteria’, AA 1982, 113–18; J. M. Redfield, ‘Notes on the Greek Wedding’, Arethusa 15(1982), pp. 192–3; Sutton, R. F, ‘On the Classical Athenian Wedding’, in id. (ed.), Daidalikon: Studies… Schoder (Wauconda, IL, 1989), pp. 357–9; Carson (n. 18), pp. 163–4;Google ScholarOakley, J. H and Sinos, R. H, The Wedding in Ancient Athens (Madison, Wis., 1993), pp. 25–6.Google Scholar

²⁰ There is some confusion about this (Oakley [n. 19], p. 114, and Sutton [n. 19], p. 358, regard the bride as unveiled during the procession to her new home), apparently resulting from different notions of what constitutes ‘veiling’ in her father'shouse the bride'shead is probably completely covered Luc. Conv. 8); in depictions of the procession to her husband'shouse, however, her head is still covered, though her face is visible (Deubner [n. 18], p. 149; J. Toutain, ‘Le Rite nuptiale de l'anakalypterion’, REA 42 [1940], pp. 347–8;R. Rehm, Marriage to Death [Princeton 1994], pp. 141–2,213n. 5; Oakley and Sinos [n. 19], p. 32; cf. Paus. 9.3.1–2). For the black-fig, procession (bride veiled in chariot) and the redfig, leading of the veiled bride see now Oakley and Sinos (n. 19), pp. 26–34 (with ill.).

²¹ The bride's final unveiling is prefigured in the but this is probably not the moment to which the term is properly applied; see Redfield (n. 19); Sutton (n. 19), pp. 358–9; Oakley and Sinos (n. 19), p. 25; against Toutain (n. 19), pp. 348–50; Rehm (n. 20), pp. 141–2. The famous metope from Selinus (O. Benndorf, Die Metopen von Selinunt [Berlin, 1873], pp. 54–6 and pi. 8) most likely depicts the final unveiling of Hera prior to the consummation of her to Zeus; cf. the relief vases depicting the groom'sunveiling/undressing of the bride in the bridal chamber reproduced and discussed by A. Brückner, Anakalypteria, Berliner Winckelmannsprogramm 64 (1904). These vases show that the bride retained her veil (and her ) until the very last minute; cf. the loutrophoros discussed by Sutton (n. 19), pp. 337–47 (the veiled bride being led into the bedchamber); also the scene in the bedchamber of the newly-wed Alexander and Roxanne in Luc. Herod./Aët. 5. The east frieze of the Parthenon depicts Hera unveiling herself to Zeus, possibly in the context of the (so I. S. Mark, ‘The Gods on the East Frieze of the Parthenon’, Hesperia 53 [1984], p. 303), but perhaps simply in a gesture which recalls their wedding night/symbolizes their married status.

²² See von Erffa (n. 1), p. 181; Harder (n. 1), p. 446; Raubitschek (n. 1), pp. 139–40. For Raubitschek (and for W. Aly, Volksmärchen, Sage und Novelle bei Herodot und seinen Zeitgenossen [Gottingen, 1921], p. 34), Theano'sadvice is the (ultimate) source of Gyges' gnome; rather, Diogenes’ paraphrase of Theano points to an original gnome similar in form to that attributed to Gyges, but which need not have originated with Hdt. Plato disputes this conventional wisdom when he suggests that naked female athletes may remain clothed in an (invisible) garment of (Resp. 457a).

²³ That such advice was necessary is demonstrated by the shyness of the brides depicted in Brückner (n. 21). With Theano'sadvice—that a frankly acknowledged, active female sexuality should be unleashed in the proper context of the marital relationship—compare the Islamic orthodoxy as described by Mernissi, F, Beyond the Veil (New York, 1975), pp. 6–14.Google Scholar

²⁴ The remark does, however, imply fear of the danger created by a woman'sabandonment of normal social restraints; Gyges’ anxiety is apparent in 9.1— Clearly, he suspects a trap, but fear of the potential for disaster created by his transgression into a private world where the power of female sexuality is unleashed would be well justified by the sequel, in which the wife demands disaster for Candaules as the price of safety for Gyges. On the presentation of feminine power in Hdt., Walcot, cf. P, ‘Herodotus on Rape’, Arethusa 11 (1978), 137–47;Google ScholarCartledge, P, The Greeks (Oxford, 1993), pp. 84–6;Google Scholar for a more positive account of Hdt.'sstrong women, see Dewald, C, ‘Women and Culture in Herodotus ' Histories’ in Foley, H. P. (ed.), Reflections of Women in Antiquity (New York, 1981), 91–125.Google Scholar

²⁵ Or ‘mind your own business’ interfering in other people'saffairs is at E. I A 327–31; cf. at involving others in one'sown troubles at Her. 1162, 1200, Or. 280–2, IA 981–2 (Cairns [n. 3], p. 288 n. 83). That women are no longer to be under the exclusive tutelage of a single male is one reason why Plato can permit their naked exercise in the Republic (n. 22 above).

²⁶ Dr S. Blundell points out to me that having intruded upon the king'sprivileges as a husband in the private context of the bedchamber, Gyges is then forced to assume Candaules’ political role as king; the message of the wife'sultimatum is that the rights which Candaules has shared can only belong to one man; and the transgression of which Gyges is afraid (n. 24 above) is one which confounds established hierarchies in the political as well as the private sphere

²⁷ Hdt. is careful to site his tale in the context of Lydian values and to relate these to the Greek (see 1. 10. 3); but in this case, at least, barbarian norms are just Greek norms writ large, and Gyges’ response is thoroughly Hellenic, articulated as it is in terms of reciprocity and . In as much as Candaules’ transgression depends on a basic similarity between Greek and Lydian attitudes towards female nudity, the tale varies the pattern in which the point of reference for the description of barbarian sexual norms is their (degree of) ‘otherness’ vis-à-vis the Greek, even as it affirms that polarity in its depiction of a powerful, anti-Hellenic woman and in Candaules’ unGreek confusion of public and private (see in general Rosellini, M and Saïd, S, ‘Usages de femmes et autres nomoi chez les “sauvages” d'Hérodote’, ASNP 8 [1978], 949–1005; cf. Walcot [n. 24], pp. 145–6; Konstan [n. 5], p. 5; Cartledge [n. 24], pp. 77–80).Google Scholar

²⁸ Dewald (n. 24), pp. 105–7, well emphasizes Candaules’ breach of reciprocal obligations between himself and his wife.

²⁹ On the tension created by the suppliant' sabandonment of honour, see Cairns (n. 3), pp. 115, 185, 209–10, 223.

³⁰ Cf. Konstan (n. 5), p. 12.