GALLANTRY OF THE ANCIENTS.

Longus, a Greek sophist, author of a book intituled Ποιμενικὰ, that is to say. Pastorals, which is a romance upon the amours of Daphnis and Chloe. Mr Huet, De l'Origine des Romans, pag. 65, 66. Edit. Latinæ. ³⁷ bishop of Avranches, who was a great judge in most things, has spoken well enough of this book; but he observes several faults in it, the greatest of which doubtless consists, in its licentiousness. This is still more remote from the politeness of our romances, than the conduct of Longus’s shepherdess, who loves too hastily, and grants her kisses too soon. You do not read above five or six pages, before you

find Daphnis ravished with the pleasure of a kiss from his shepherdess. A chasm, in the same page, does not hinder our understanding the circumstances of this kiss. A little after, we find him handling his shepherdess’s bosom, without any coyness on her side. This poor girl, seeing him stark naked melts with love: and is so little startled, that she boldly approached, and having kissed her shepherd, helped him on with his clothes. These things would be monstrous in the romances of our times. People would not forgive the Marquis d’Urfe, the little favours he makes Celadon obtain. The pleasure he procures him of seeing Astrea naked, is charged on him as an unpardonable crime. Here are the words of the accusation, in which Astrea speaks. “It is you,” says she, Parnasse Reformé, pag. 136. ³⁸ casting her eyes upon d’Urfe; “it is you that are the author of the injury I complain of; your rash pen has made blots in my story, which wound me in the tenderest part. I do not pretend to be more nice than others,” continues she; “I excuse amorous transports, when proceeding from a pure passion; a kiss genteelly snatched, never shocked my modesty, and I know there are little privacies, which love inspires, and reason does not condemn. But when I consider, that I am one of the three shépherdesses, which you present naked before Celadon, with what face can I behold an adventure so injurious to my honour? And ought I not to believe, that you have an ill opinion of my virtue, or else took me for a slave, which you meant to sell to this shepherd? I believe, without flattery to my beauty, that my face alone was sufficient to make a conquest: there was fire enough in my eyes to melt a stubborn heart, and I can without vanity say, that my nakedness was not essentially necessary to my victory.”

This is too common a fault in the Greek romances.

The women make the first advances, and the men are too reserved. Mr Huet acknowledges, that this conduct of the men is commendable, according to the rules of morality; but justly maintains, that it is absurd according to the law of romance. “Prior amat Hysmina,” says he, speaking of Eustathius's book, where the hero answers nothing to a declaration of love made by his heroine: “Prior amorem et fatetur et offert fine modestiâ, sine pudore, sine arte: atque his blanditiis neque monetur Hysminias, neque responded. Laudabile id quidem est, si ad leges moralis philosophise; ineptum si ad Romanensia præcepta exigatur.” See also. Theagenes rallied for giving Chariclea a box on the ear, because she would kiss him. We may say, that Madame de Scuderi is the first, who delivered romance from an economy, injurious to her sex, and to decorum in general. She feared she might be taxed for innovation, in giving her heroines a deal of modesty, and her heroes the softest passions; and therefore thought herself obliged to give the reasons of her conduct in the preface to her Ibrahim, which is the first of her romances; these are her words. “You will see here, reader, if I mistake not, the decorum of things and conditions exactly enough observed; for I have put nothing in my book, but what the ladies may read, without looking down and blushing. If you do not find my hero persecuted by women, distractedly in love with him, it is not that he is less amiable or unworthy of their love, but it is that I might not trespass against decency in the character of the ladies, and against probability in that of the gentlemen, who rarely act the cruel part, and cannot act it with a good grace. In fine, whether things ought to be thus, or whether I have judged of my hero by my own weakness; I was not willing to put his fidelity to that dangerous trial, and have contented myself not to make him a Hylas, without making him an Hippolytus.” Longus is thought to have introduced that silly idea of gallantry, which we meet with in some romances: the shepherdess fills out drink, drinks a little first, and afterwards presents the glass to the shepherd, in such a manner, that he must apply his lips precisely to the part, where she had applied her’s. Mr Huet’s translator explains this after the following manner: “Ab hoc (Longo). Eustathius sumsisse videtur hoc elegans urbanitatis genus, qua Hysminam pocula ministrantem induxit, et qua parte poculi labra delibans labris suis ipsa tetigerat, eadem Hysminiæ bibituro tangendà leniter offerentem.—Eustathius seems to have taken from this Longus that politeness, with which he introduces Hysmina serving the cup, and offering Hysminias, who is about to drink, that side of the cup, which she had just touched with her own lips.” Eustathius might have traced this fine gallantry higher; for we find it in Lucian. This scoffer introduces Juno, reproaching Jupiter with drinking Ganymede’s leavings, and applying his mouth precisely to that part, which Ganymede touched with his own.

In Ovid’s time, the ladies did not present the glass out of which they had drank, but the gallant endeavoured to take it from them, and applied his lips to the same place where they had applied theirs. It is a precept of Ovid.

Fac primus rapias illus tacta labellis
Pocula quaque bibet parte puella bibas.
Ovid, de Arte Amat. lib. i. ver. 575.

Be first to snatch the goblet from her lip,
And drink yourself, where you beheld her sip.

I believe this is still the fashion in some countries. Moliere introduces the practice of it in one of the scenes of his Etourdi.

St Jerome, describing the impertinencies of lovers, says nothing of this; but he comes pretty near it;

for he speaks of eatables, which were presented after they had been tasted; Hieronym. Epist. ii. ad Nepotian, pag. m. 213. ³⁹ “Creba munuscula, et fudariola, et fasciolas, et vestes ori applicitas, et oblatos ot degustates cibos, blandasque el dulces literulas sanctus amor non habet. Mel meum, lumen meum, meum desiderium, omnes delicias, et lepores, et risu dignas urbanitates, et cæteras ineptias amatorum in comœdiis erubscimus.—Divine love has nothing to do with frequent presents, handkerchiefs, garters, and garments kissed by the lover; with food offered, and first tasted; or with billet-doux. We are ashamed of my honey, my light, my desire, and all the delicacies, the repartees, and ridiculous politeness, and other fooleries of lovers in comedies.” He says in another place, Id. Epist. xlvii. ⁴⁰ “spectabis aliena oscula et Prægustatos civos,—You will see another’s kisses, and food first tasted.” Here is the precept of Ovid.

Et quodcunque cibi digitis libaverit ilia,
Tu pete: dumque petes, sit tibi tacta mantis.
Ovidius, ubi supra, ver. 577.

Whate’er she touches with her fingers, eat:
And brush her hand in reaching to the meat.
—Art. Longus.